Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 February 9

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. Kurykh (talk) 03:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Easy Company (506 PIR) veterans

List of Easy Company (506 PIR) veterans (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)

Considerations:

1. It is a list that will eventually have no members. In spite of its title, it Is a list of Easy Company survivors and gets shorter every year. The list apparently started as an effort to include everyone but its focus shifted after its creation; many member of the unit had no notoriety.
2. None of the soldiers who appear now or have ever appeared on the list meet the standards in
   WP:SOLDIER
   .
3. The existence of the list is primarily based on the airing of the cable series Band of Brothers (miniseries).

--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 20:53, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This deletion appears to have not been processed correctly and is unlikely to attract sufficient notice until fixed (which I haven't worked out how to do). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:31, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Yeah, I followed the instgructions and the nomination appears incorrectly in the log, although it appears correctly in the edit window. I'm hoping someone will come along who knows how to fix it.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 14:00, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Note You were missing the template from step 2 {{subst:afd2 | pg=PageName | cat=Category | text=Why the page should be deleted}} ~~~~ I have added for you, and it appears that is the only problem with this listing. Monty₈₄₅ 04:16, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 14:26, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 14:26, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 14:26, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete no reason why this unit should be singled out to list survivors none of which appear to be particularly notable in wikipedia terms. MilborneOne (talk) 17:29, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This list includes non-notable veterans about whom there are sources verifying they had served in this company. They would not be included in the list at 506th Infantry Regiment (United States) which are the notable Soldiers, only. I'm ok with that. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:42, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Too specific to be encyclopedic. However it is perhaps surprising that 5 people from one company should be WP-notable. The objection about living veterans is invalid: people do not cease to be veterans by ceasing to be living veterans. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:24, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Why does this list only contain living veterans, anyway? I like the format of the list, and given the large number of individuals at E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States)#Personnel with pages: why not spin off that list to its own article; why not let the list have be in the format of a sortable table; and if the list has its own article, would List of Easy Company (506 PIR) veterans be the appropriate name for the article? My !vote would be that there probably doesn't need to be a list of notable and non-notable veterans of a famous group of this size (living only or living and non-living). On the other hand, the encyclopedia probably would be improved by an article listing notable members of the company in the format of a sortable table with the sort of information in this list, and I am in favor of that (and would support merging/renaming this list to that). Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:44, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Is was discussed at Talk:E_Company,_506th_Infantry_Regiment_(United_States)#Names_of_all_soldiers--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 21:04, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I don't think I said anything about listing non-notable individuals. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:30, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Point well taken. The problem is that none of the members of Easy are/were

notable. The closest is Colonel Robert Sink because he later became a general officer.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 22:38, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I guess I misunderstood, is this a discussion of all the individuals at E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States)#Personnel, then? Smmurphy^(Talk) 23:42, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, this RfD is for the list. I have nominated an individual's page for deletion separately, however.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 01:49, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know about your nomination of Albert Mampre, I have !voted there. Here, I still don't quite understand this list and agree with you that a list of living vets doesn't really make sense, although I still think that a list of all notable vets might. Smmurphy^(Talk) 12:27, 14 February 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. Kurykh (talk) 03:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cry Macho

Cry Macho (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 film never went into production. Fails

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 20:49, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete Perhaps a brief mention as an "unrealized project" might be included in
  WP:NFILM. MarnetteD|Talk 20:56, 9 February 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. Kurykh (talk) 03:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reg Wyatt

Reg Wyatt (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)

Delete.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:40, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:40, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete lack or sources and material. How lowly is a councillor not? L3X1 My Complaint Desk 20:46, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. There just isn't enough about him for an entry. He seems to be notable in part because he is the father of a sitting representative and this information could be included on that page. Bangabandhu (talk) 23:29, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is

not inherited, so being the father of another person isn't a notability claim in and of itself — if he isn't notable enough for an article by himself, then having a possibly more notable son doesn't make him any more notable than he was before. Bearcat (talk) 00:05, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I wasn't saying he was notable because of his son. I was saying that it seems like any claim of notability would probably involve his family relations. Of course, that alone isn't enough to satisfy GNG, but it does suggest that he could be mentioned on his son's page.

On a related point, it seems like you're judging notability too unidimensionally. Is subject a politician of a city with X population? Where X is less than Y, then delete. I think its much more complex than that. A local politician of any area who does important things and has the supporting refs deserves inclusion. You might look at it more as a scorecard, where status as a local politician alone is not enough to satisfy the threshold. But a local pol who has done lots of stuff, got lots of attention (good or bad) - this should get additional points and satisfy the threshold for inclusion. Of course, that's not the case here. Bangabandhu (talk) 01:21, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're misinterpreting what I'm saying. Of course it's true that a local politician who has done lots of stuff, and got lots of media attention for it, clears the

WP:GNG

bar — the "population of the city" test comes into play only in the sense of determining whether or not the person gets a presumption of notability for an article that isn't substantive or properly sourced yet. In the global cities (e.g. Toronto, New York City, London), we know that the necessary depth and volume of sourcing is virtually guaranteed to be available in nearly all cases — so we allow the article to be kept even if it's in an inadequate state of sourcing right now, because the articles are virtually guaranteed to be improvable. (It may still become deletable in the future if the sourcing fails to materialize — e.g. a person could theoretically win election as a city councillor, but then resign or die so soon afterward that we can never actually source anything else about them besides the fact of winning the election itself — but in that rarefied class of cities, we allow the article to exist up front and the GNG to build up as the article gets worked on.)

Outside of that range of cities, however, it's much more of a toss-up as to whether the necessary depth and volume of sourcing will exist or not — so those councillors can still get Wikipedia articles if the necessary depth and volume of sourcing can be shown, but are not guaranteed inclusion on the basis of just one or two sources. Note, for example, that I have not nominated several other people who also have not held any office higher than Winnipeg's city council, but whose articles are citing a lot more sources than the ones I have listed. That is, for example, why I haven't nominated Russ Wyatt's article alongside his dad's: Reg's article cites just two sources while Russ's cites 63 — which means Russ has been shown to clear GNG in a way that Reg hasn't.

In a nutshell, the size of the city doesn't matter if a city councillor passes GNG on the basis of solid and substantive sourcing — where it comes into play is the question of whether or not we give the benefit of the doubt to an article that isn't substantive or solidly sourced yet. Bearcat (talk) 17:18, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. From what I'd seen on other pages of legislators proposed for deletion, it seemed like the process was different. I wouldn't expect that winning office alone would be enough for notability and I support that criteria. But it seems that there is added scrutiny to many of the pages of these people. There shouldn't be a presumption of notability, but there also shouldn't be a presumption of non-notability, even if all the coverage is local. As many editors don't take the time to review sources before they reach a decision in the AFD discussion, there is a real bias towards deleting and an assumption of non-notability. Its easier to apply the "oh, its a small town politician - delete" rather than taking the time to look for sources. Again, its much better to err on the side of keeping something up so that additional sources can be found rather than deleting. Bangabandhu (talk) 01:55, 13 February 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. Kurykh (talk) 03:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vishal Chipkar (entrepreneur)

Vishal Chipkar (entrepreneur) (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)

• Delete Not notable, PROMO. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 20:49, 9 February 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. Kurykh (talk) 03:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bernie Wolfe (politician)

Bernie Wolfe (politician) (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)

Delete.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:34, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:34, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Weak Delete. I concur that this article probably doesn't meet current requirements. The problem, of course, is not that Mr. Wolfe has become less notable, but that our notability standards are a moving target. Not that that's an argument to keep this article - we do need more sourcing - but just something that grinds my gears. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete city councilors at this level are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:POLOUTCOMES. Bearian (talk) 22:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep I think this is a stellar example of "consensus" being hastily applied. I am dubious of all the unsourced awards and would like to see them removed, or at a minimum given references, but I can't fathom how this subject could ever be considered not notable. As UltraExactZZ suggests, this idea of notability is a moving target and editors who insist on deletion ought to realize how the pendulum could (and should) swing to a wider interpretation. Sadly, at that point, many of these entries will be gone. Bangabandhu (talk) 04:06, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:NPOL notability "is achieved in one of two ways: either the coverage nationalizes into sources far beyond the geographic range in which such coverage is merely expected, and/or the local coverage volumizes to the point where a much more substantial article can be written." In this case, it does not appear there is either the volume of substantive coverage, nor does there appear an expansion of geographic scope of coverage. --Enos733 (talk) 20:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Fails
  WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:51, 16 February 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. Kurykh (talk) 03:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Swandel

Justin Swandel (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)

Delete.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:29, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:29, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete - Fails to meet
  WP:NPOL, is only known locally and does not appear to have received significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:57, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Actually, he does meet NPOL. What makes you think that he doesn't? Point 2 of NPOL - Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. He's got many cites from a quick google search, including national coverage. Bangabandhu (talk) 01:53, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not substantive national coverage of Swandel; it's a blurb published by the CBC's local news bureau in Winnipeg as routine local coverage of local politics, and doesn't even contain a mention of Swandel's name at all. Bearcat (talk) 14:42, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I got this confused with another entry nominated. I'll leave it in here so the thread makes sense and copy the reference to that page. But to your point, I think in this instance he's surely more notable than the average Winnipeg legislator as he was not only a councilor but also a Deputy Mayor. If he were only a councilor, with no references, I'd agree with the deletion. But here he's a deputy mayor and councilor with abundant references. And we still think he's not notable because Winnipeg is not global enough? Bangabandhu (talk) 18:01, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete none of the coverage rises above what would be routine for a local politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How did you arrive at that conclusion? Are you basing your assessment of "coverage" on the cites that appear in the article, or have you done an exhaustive search? Bangabandhu (talk) 15:31, 12 February 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. Kurykh (talk) 03:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lim Yee Xien

Lim Yee Xien (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)

Fails

• Delete non-notable sports person. Fails
  WP:GNG. Adamtt9 (talk) 20:41, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 20:51, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 20:51, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Speedy Delete Fails
  WP:GNG. Stub. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 20:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Neither failing

  WP:IMPATIENT. — Sam Sailor 23:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Sam Sailor I must be misunderstanding the whole thing, because isn't A7 applicable here? L3X1 My Complaint Desk 02:05, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:CA7M. — Sam Sailor 02:20, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  WP:A7M#CI, and even if only on minor or amateur level. I need to read the rest of that series, it appears to do a great job of filling in the confusing parts of CSD. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 02:32, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Delete. The best I could find about her was that she placed 24th in
  policy. — Sam Sailor 23:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete I found one interview with her but I think it's some kind of school paper and thus isn't enough to establish notability. Has not placed high enough in any sporting event to satisfy
  csdnew 10:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - non-notable
  WP:NSPORT.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:57, 16 February 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. Kurykh (talk) 01:13, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Garth Steek

Garth Steek (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)

Delete.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:21, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:21, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete city council members at this level are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:09, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As a local city councilor, fails to meet
  WP:GNG. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:22, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep- What leads editors to conclude that "subject has not received significant coverage"? Based on the most cursory of searches, I came across this recent article suggesting that the subject remains active and relevant. I think that an exhaustive search would yield a lot more results. If you delete all this work will need to be recreated if that search is conducted.

I would add that classifying tiers of cities seems imprecise at best and more likely unfair and predjudicial. Bangabandhu (talk) 23:36, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A city councillor has to receive more than purely local coverage to qualify for a Wikipedia article, so that article doesn't assist anything. The reason we make exceptions for the top tier of international global cities is that they do routinely receive much broader national and/or international coverage than city councillors in small cities do — I'm Canadian, and I can personally name more municipal councillors in New York City than I can in even the suburbs of my own city, because city councillors in NYC get nationalized coverage where city councillors in Pickering ON or Vaughan ON generally don't. And local coverage of local politics always exists, so we would always have to permit articles about every municipal councillor in every village of 50 people if local coverage alone were enough. So to make a city councillor in Winnipeg notable enough for a Wikipedia article, you would need to show coverage in the Vancouver Sun or the Toronto Star or The New York Times, not just in the Winnipeg Free Press or the local Metro. Bearcat (talk) 00:14, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the point that you're making, though I think "every village of 50 people" is a bit of an exaggeration. My concern with these relatively indiscriminate nominations for deletion is that few editors are taking the time to really see if that broader coverage exists. Because its been nominated for deletion, the assumption is that additional coverage doesn't exist if it's not cited in the article, which leads to the conclusion that deletion is appropriate. In this instance, and I suspect many others, the subject has received national coverage and it is important that the entry remain. Why delete knowledge in this page and the work that went into it? Much better to err on the side of caution. Bangabandhu (talk) 01:36, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That link doesn't represent substantive national coverage that strengthens his

WP:GNG claim at all. It's not a substantive article about him published by the CBC's national news division — it's a glancing namecheck of his existence in a blurb whose primary subject is Glen Murray, and which was published by the CBC's local news bureau in Winnipeg. Bearcat (talk) 16:02, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I think this shows adequate sourcing beyond the basic citations of an officeholder in Winnipeg. At the risk of violating protocol by mixing threads, you commented elsewhere that "so those councillors can still get Wikipedia articles if the necessary depth and volume of sourcing can be shown, but are not guaranteed inclusion on the basis of just one or two sources." We're well beyond one or two sources for this entry. If he were in a different, larger city - say, Calgary? - then he wouldn't need any of these sources - but because he's in Winnipeg and has a bunch of other sources, many of which are quite interesting, he's a target for deletion. That seems mistaken. Bangabandhu (talk) 03:45, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're still misinterpreting what I'm saying. In a global city (and only in a global city), you can start the article on the basis of one or two sources which confirm that he exists, but the article does still have to get improved from there before it's actually on safe ground as a thing we're going to keep forever. Even in Toronto, there have been municipal councillors who got deleted because better sourcing never actually materialized. What it gets is "the benefit of the doubt", because in a global city it's perfectly reasonable to expect that the depth and volume of reliable sourcing needed to pass GNG does exist even if it hasn't been properly shown yet, but it does not get a permanent exemption from ever having to be sourced better than just one or two sources — it just gets a "grace period" during which it does still need to be improved, and can still be deleted if it doesn't. But in a non-global city, the necessary depth and volume of sourcing might still exist but is far less guaranteed to exist — so in that class of cities, the existence of the needed quality of sourcing has to be shown up front by the article as written.

But neither type of city councillor gets a permanent keep on the basis of one or two sources, with no improvement ever required — a global city councillor gets a temporary benefit of the doubt if the article isn't well-sourced yet, but does not get a permanent exemption from ever having to be sourced as well as a non-global city councillor does. Both types of city councillors do have to clear GNG for an article to be kept permanently — the only difference is that a non-global city councillor has to be shown to clear GNG right up front, while a global city councillor gets a temporary grace period of "okay, you have X number of days or weeks to get this article over GNG", but even the global city councillor's article can still be deleted if that improvement doesn't happen. If the necessary depth and volume of sourcing fails to materialize for some reason, then the global city councillor does still fail NPOL #3 and does still get deleted.

And no, a 100-word blurb about Glen Murray reshuffling his executive committee positions is not "adequate sourcing beyond the basic citations of an officeholder in Winnipeg" — it's

WP:ROUTINE local coverage of a routine local political announcement, which in no way demonstrates that Steek is somehow more notable than the norm for a city councillor. It is a basic citation for the fact that he exists, not a "beyond the basic" citation for his existence warranting Wikipedia's attention. Bearcat (talk) 14:54, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

That's helpful. It might make sense to make it explicit by exactly when those sources need to materialize to avoid deletion. I think the model used by the

Deaths in 2017

could be something to go from as they have a standard 30 day requirement for entries. I think you (or editors with consensus) should state this grace period. Its troubling looking back and seeing that these are second nominations. There was not much reason to delete them when they were AFD'd before or support for deletion. I wonder if this is more of a herd mentality at play (and an quick interpretation of NPOL) rather than actually looking at the articles on their merits. As far as I can tell, the guidelines haven't changed, but editor's interpretation has.

Also I think more benefit of the doubt is warranted. You're saying that you've given them X days, but maybe at that point you should tag it for discussion. Have all of these pages have the "needs additional citations" tag applied before they were nominated for deletion? That seems fair if the initial goal is to help them achieve adquate references before they're nominated for deletion.Bangabandhu (talk) 18:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two things. 1) Consensus can and does change. In the case of "global cities," there was a presumption that the city councilmembers could be presumed notable (and the presumption of notability is that mere confirmation that the subject serves in a particular office is sufficient sourcing for an article is sufficient). That consensus is under going change. 2)

WP:BLP states that "editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page." Thus, for the creation of biographies, there is a presumption of privacy. Additionally, for information on people "who are not well known," editors should "include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources." --Enos733 (talk) 21:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I understand that consensus can and does change, but I wonder how many editors outside of those who frequent AFD discussions are familiar with the shift. I certainly wasn't. I bet there are many others like me who have edited pages about local politicians and would be surprised. So I wonder how broad any emerging consensus really is. The other thing is that it seems like editors are interpreting consensus "under going change" as new, widely held consensus. There ought to be a lively, detailed discussion for each one of these entries. Instead, it seems like editors are citing "new consensus" and basing their decisions to delete based on that, without, at times, even reading the article. This is especially troubling for living subjects who are still active in government and likely to have more notability over time. If they're on the cusp of notability we ought to give them the benefit of the doubt because more coverage will come - as suggested in another thread, there should be a grace period that is consistently followed. Pages improve incrementally, so if you pull the plug on something while its still improving, you're losing all that work which, if recreated based on new articles, is likely going to take a while to reach is pre-deletion state.

As to your point about standards for bios, I agree with you about the importance of high quality sourcing. I only use reputable secondary sources and expect the same from other editors. But that's a dimension for these discussions that hasn't come into play, perhaps because many editors aren't even reading the sources and only looking at whether the subject and their title fits with consensus. Bangabandhu (talk) 14:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's no "emerging" new consensus that the standards for determining the notability or non-notability of local politicians is changing at all — the consensus that most local politicians don't qualify for an automatic presumption of notability has existed for about a decade, and really hasn't moved all that much beyond a bit of debate about whether a few particular cities happen to fall on the "presumed notable" or the "not presumed notable until shown to pass GNG" side of the line. The only thing that's changed recently is our depth of commitment to actually getting stuff cleaned up or deleted that isn't complying with the longstanding consensus, not the consensus itself. Bearcat (talk) 18:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that clarification, I was using another editors words when I wrote emerging consensus. I think this is an important discussion and support the aim of cleaning up wikipedia, but I think the AFD debate is often counterproductive. It ought to focus more on how articles can be improved to meet standards (is that included in what you mean by "cleaned up"?) and only deleted if there is certainty that can't be achieved.

Also just to highlight an earlier point because I think my comments about consensus overshadowed something more important. It seems like the decision tree should be "Is there a presumption of notability? > Is there enough other content on page for notability? > Is there enough content elsewhere that is not on the page that can be added? > Is there other content that is likely to be added or become available very soon?" If the answer to all those questions is no, then deletion makes sense. Instead, the decision tree for many editors is more like "Is there a presumption of notability?" if the answer is no, it's my impression is that the other questions that should follow are biased towards no, if they're even asked at all. The upshot is that there's a jump towards deletion instead of the more tedious, but important task of searching for cites and improving content. Bangabandhu (talk) 20:10, 16 February 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 tagged for G8 speedy deletion per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denver Film Critics Society (non-admin closure) Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Denver Film Critics Society Awards

2013 Denver Film Critics Society Awards (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)

Per the deletion of parent article,

• Delete as per nom. Liam McM 20:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, as the main awards themselves are not notable. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 08:29, 10 February 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. Kurykh (talk) 15:03, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Savoie

Guy Savoie (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)

Delete.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete members of city councils at this level are not default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:POLOUTCOMES. Bearian (talk) 22:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as the text in the article is not supported by the citations and there are no references easily available. Bangabandhu (talk) 23:41, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:00, 16 February 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:21, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abbas Atto

Abbas Atto (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)

Possible fail of

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 20:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 20:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 20:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete per nom. No evidence of notability. Inter&anthro (talk) 01:08, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:25, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails
  GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:52, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails
  WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:57, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 23:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails
  WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 09:42, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - non-notable
  WP:NFOOTBALL.No evidence.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:03, 16 February 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. Kurykh (talk) 15:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Will Hitch (wrestler)

Will Hitch (wrestler) (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)

Per

• Delete - total fail of
  WP:GNG.  MPJ-DK  01:19, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - slightly promotional in tone and poor references add to the fact it fails
  WP:GNG. DrStrauss talk 12:37, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - Fails
  WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:09, 16 February 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. Kurykh (talk) 15:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

J. E. Arulraj

J. E. Arulraj (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)

Could find no significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources to show subject meets

• Verify again. You can verify again the full article. It is not copied from any source. All these information are gathered through an opportunity i have received for meeting him. Although i have included many possible references. Kindly ensure that you are finding some more faults with my article so that you can propose more strongly for speedy deletion. Continue your fault finding job. Edson Frainlar (talk) 19:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(I have moved the above comment here from the talkpage, where it was mistakenly placed; it's obviously intended as a "Keep" argument. Bishonen | talk 22:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC).)[reply]

• Delete per nom and apparent promo. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 23:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No evidence of notability. Another article by promotional author. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, fails
  WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 12:32, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete The sources provide only passing ention of the subject; no
  ^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 14:18, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - as per nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:15, 16 February 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. Kurykh (talk) 15:05, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maronda Homes

Maronda Homes (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)

Clearly a business listing in which it violates our policies alone because we're not a business webhost, next is the fact these sources are only mere announcements, mentions and all similar, none of it substantiates the genuine notability we need; as always, our policies state themselves articles must be judged by as independently notable, and not bestowed from others. Mere announcements, regardless of publication, isn't what convinces our main policies. SwisterTwister talk 19:14, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and SALT - Purely promotional. Nothing notable about subject.
  WP:NOT
  applies. Created by SPA account who continues to recreate article after it has been deleted.

• 03:57, 8 February 2017 Acroterion (talk | contribs) deleted page Maronda Homes(Multiple reasons: speedy deletion criteria A7, G11)
• 13:59, 8 February 2017 Jimfbleak (talk | contribs) deleted page Maronda homes (Multiple reasons: speedy deletion criteria G12, A7, G11)
• 16:35, 8 February 2017 Jimfbleak (talk | contribs) deleted page Maronda homes (Multiple reasons: speedy deletion criteria A7, G11)
• 18:59, 8 February 2017‎ Article is recreated again.

Sources in article do nothing to establish notability only that the business exists. CBS527^Talk 01:22, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - purely advertising. Flat Out (talk) 02:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not Delete -I understand your concern with it being too PR focused however I have to say I really tried to keep it as unbiased and neutral as possible which i am being. I created the page because during our home buying process in the pittsburgh area we researched many builders and couldn't seem to find to much info on maronda homes, that is not the reason we didn't use them. But the other builder we went with has a wikipedia page so i figured why should maronda and s&a homes.

Creating the page was one of my ways to expose more info to potential people looking for more info on the company. I also plan to create a page for S&A homes but before i do that i would like to make sure i have a full understanding of what Wikipedia is looking for. Should i locate more creditable sources? The local papers are pretty big publications and i would with out a doubt consider them creditable. Their no NYtimes but they are legit brick & mortar establishments in pittsburgh for 100+ years. I don't think i am going to find too much in terms of bignames like NYtimes because their not in NY. Let me know what more you need and i will try my best.

here is something ^[1] but will this be considered to PR related, I guess it's just hard when your talking about a business to stray away from that.

Could this fit the non-PR related ^[2][3]

Just trying to understand because I think i could take a look at any page and say "Too PR focus" or "Purely Advertising"

From Coca-Cola "Coca-Cola (often referred to simply as Coke) is an American carbonated soft drink[1] produced by The Coca-Cola Company in Atlanta, Georgia, United States." Purely advertising, no?

From Dell "Dell sold personal computers (PCs), servers, data storage devices, network switches, software, computer peripherals, HDTVs, cameras, printers, MP3 players, and electronics built by other manufacturers. The company was well known for its innovations in supply chain management and electronic commerce, particularly its direct-sales model and its "build-to-order" or "configure to order" approach to manufacturing—delivering individual PCs configured to customer specifications.[6][7] Dell was a pure hardware vendor for much of its existence, but with the acquisition in 2009 of Perot Systems, Dell entered the market for IT services. The company has since made additional acquisitions in storage and networking systems, with the aim of expanding their portfolio from offering computers only to delivering complete solutions for enterprise customers."

Purely advertising, no?

Other comparable companies to Maronda Homes in which i don't see any different than Maronda Homes or S&A homes. Help me understand.

• Please note for all recreations, content was drastically altered to accommodate infringements on deletion. It's not like I just spammed to create them

I see many sections that this page fits the criteria for. The controversial thing about it is everyone has their own opinion i think from an Admin perspective you need to put yourself in a neutral role, i feel that your looking at my page as I am trying to just get a wiki page for promotion. I am trying to get this page up for information on the company for other people if information gets up that is bad good, if good information gets up, its just information. I feel like i am being singled out especially when there are many other companies with the same parameters clearly listed on wikipedia. Thoughts?

Is this a notable article? Just really trying to dig in to find some stuff? If not why? ^[1]Otelcon (talk) 11:52, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• More articles, Creditable?

Maronda files Chapter 11? ^[2]

Creditable enough to have a wikipedia page Pittsburgh_Post-Gazette writen by Tim Grant: [email protected] or 412-263-1591.

Again not trying to be confrontational, just trying to understand what peoples personal opinions are of creditable vs not creditable. You talk to anyone around Pittsburgh and a 80 mi radius and they would say the Post Gazette is a highly creditable source.Otelcon (talk) 13:17, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added above to Article page with 3 sourcesOtelcon (talk) 13:24, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Otelcon, Please don't feel this is personal, because it is not. 100's of articles are deleted every week for similar problems. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines and that is what is being discussed here. Wikipedia is not a directory for business listings. An article on a business that doesn't establish notability may appear that the only purpose of the article is to promote the business. The subjects audience is considered. Maronda Homes is a small, local builder. Per policy, sources based solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability. It seems that the only sources available for this builder fall in this category. The differences between this business and Coca-Cola, Dell, NVR and Pulte is that they are large, national, publicly traded corporations with plenty of national/international coverage. As far Heartland Homes and M/I Homes, these articles are marginal and more than likely will have their own discussion soon. In searching for sources to add to improve the article I could only find PR listings, individual property transfers, local newspaper articles or trivial mentions. If someone can find some significant coverage in independent, reliable sources outside of this business' market area or product area it may help but as it stands this article doesn't seem to meet the requirements for inclusion. CBS527^Talk 17:31, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Heartland Homes up for so long which uses all the same references i have and their NYtimes article doesn't even mention heartland homes. M/I Homes

article is a complete joke I suggest you check it out and you will see where i am coming from. I can find more examples outside of home builders. Just let me know i will supply it.

All sources do fit into the definition outline here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#News_organizations

It is your opinion on if you want to classify them as not reliable but they do meet the criteria in the policies outlined above. Would you agree or disagree? Again I just want to stress this is completely friendly conversation so please don't take it like I am getting defensive. In fact its friday and if you all lived by me i would say lets go have a beer Oyster_bar and bitch about creditable sources lol :)Otelcon (talk) 19:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem doesn't have to do with the reliability of the sources, it has to do with all of the references are from local sources and in some instances, such as the cincinnati.com article above, the depth of coverage. For instance, the bizjournals.com is a good reference as it has some in depth coverage about Maronda Homes. On the other hand the cincinnati.com article has a simply mention of Maronda Homes as one of six builders in a new 36 home subdivision. Please read

WP:ORG for more information. I tried to find some sources outside of their market area to add to the article but I haven't been able to find any. And, I'll take you up on that beer! CBS527^Talk 23:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

comment

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:52, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment -

golden rule.Flat Out (talk) 21:33, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Otelcon you are not understanding the difference between sources that are allowed, and sources that establish notability. The sources you provide are allowed, but as announcements only, they dont establish notability of the company. Flat Out (talk) 00:06, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nom. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 23:34, 10 February 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:23, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ram Iyer

Ram Iyer (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)

Doesn't appear to meet the guidelines in

Many National Geographic Bee competitors have used these publications to advance to the top levels of the competition LuckyWiki26 17:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the very positive reviews from top National Geographic Bee contestants in the back of Mr. Iyer's books. Tathagat Bhatia (Captain of the Third-place-winning team at the National Geographic World Championship 2013), Sanjeev (Ricky) Uppaluri (2013 3rd-place Winner), Vansh Jain (2011 2nd-place Winner), Arjun Kandaswamy (2009 2nd-place Winner), National-level Top-ten finalists including Anthony Cheng, Zaroug Jaleel, Milan Sandhu, and Nikhil Desai have all praised Mr. Iyer's books, crediting these publications with their Geo Bee success. LuckyWiki26 18:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 20:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 20:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 20:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. I'm just not finding anything that would support
  Talk) 06:24, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete GNG and AUTHOR fail. Confidence on the part of the article author is a nice feature, but so would the author getting to know the Notability policies of Wikipedia.L3X1 My Complaint Desk 17:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: In the article, I have added some sources and additional information that is relevant to this discussion. CaspianX (talk) 19:00, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The reviews on Amazon and Goodreads are
  user-generated content, and don't help to confer notability. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 20:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete, as I agree with nom and EricEnfermero that this specific "Ram Iyer" does not satisfy
  WP:NAUTHOR (a Google search shows at least one other Ram Iyer, a professor at TTU, whose claim to notability would be much stronger than the subject of this Article). @L3X1: there is probably no need to Userfy, as a duplicate exists at User:LuckyWiki26/sandbox/Ram Iyer.--talk2Chun^{(talk) (contributions)} 20:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Talk2chun Ok. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 20:31, 16 February 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.