Wikipedia : Articles for deletion/Log/2017 June 6

Lepricavark (talk) 23:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

The result was no consensus. This is a technical non-consensus close for all these articles on the basis of S.O.'s two comment and the comment from Pichpich. They can be renominated individually at any time. DGG ( talk ) 23:49, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For clarity's sake, I've looked at the deleted version and it pertained to a female DJ D from Australia rather than a male DJ D from Italy. So this isn't a recreation of the same article, but a different topic that merely happens to have the same name. That said, this article is parked entirely on
WP:NMUSIC if they were sourced properly, nothing here entitles him to an article in the absence of proper sourcing to support one. Bearcat (talk) 05:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: Bearcat's analysis is entirely persuasive. Ravenswing 01:58, 8 June 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 Timid Toreador

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

Whole article is copy paste from another wikia http://looneytunes.wikia.com/wiki/The_Timid_Toreador Beside IMDB is given as sole reference Sulaimandaud (talk) 20:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of same reason, all copied from http://looneytunes.wikia.com/:

I've added the proper attribution for

)

Sulaimandaud (talk) 20:44, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The Looney Toons wiki licenses] all of its works CC-BY-SA 3.0, which is a Wikipedia-compatible license (if attribution is maintained). A link to the article history there would satisfy the attribution requirement, so this doesn't necessarily need to be deleted solely on the copyvio grounds. That said, it's also not very helpful, being exclusively an unsourced plot summary with excessive detail for this project's purposes. Treating the topic on the merits, there are a few potential sources, but its debatable whether any of them constitute significant coverage; I'm neutral as to the outcome here, but a redirect to
Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies filmography (1940–49) would be preferable to deletion. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

The Village Smithy (1936 film). The copyright issues can all be resolved similarly. Pichpich (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

Update: I've fixed all 6 attribution problems. The question remains: do we keep these articles separate or merge them to a common target? But this is not an AfD question since deleting is not among the reasonable options so I suggest closing this AfD. Pichpich (talk) 21:05, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Or, at least, close on procedural grounds. When I first commented on this AFD, "The Timid Toreador" was the only article listed. Because the cause for deletion here is going to come down to notability rather than copyright issues, bundling is doing more harm than good; the works will need to be considered on their individual merits. "The Village Smithy", for example, has been recognized as an early use of parody in Tex Avery's works, which might distinguish it from titles like "Porky's Garden" that are primary addressed only in comprehensive animation surveys (but that may themselves satisfy inclusion requirements). There's just no way that these can be evaluated in an omnibus AFD. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Apparently this does meet GNG afterall - Made a typo in the name which explains the "No results containing all your search terms were found.", Withdrawn (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Silverburn Shopping Centre

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

Non notable shopping centre, Fails MALLS as well as GNG –Davey2010^Talk 19:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to pass
WP:GNG with several news stories since 2007: not always of particularly high quality or large size, but cumulatively they provide enough to meet GNG. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:09, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment As there don't seem to be criteria for notability at
WP:GNG, unless there is something deficient in these citations. Clarification regarding both of these aspects would be appreciated; otherwise I'm inclined to keep. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. The covy-vio concerns were false. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 07:10, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Castagnajo's calendar

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

The whole article is copy paste from http://wiki.crisclara.com/castagnajos-calendar-wiki/ which some other wiki. In addition more than half article is in foreign language, too confusing Sulaimandaud (talk) 19:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

(talk) 19:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:29, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article is okay to Keep, as it is translated from the compatibly licensed it:Calendario del castagnajo. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:28, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. the article does need substantial rewriting, but it is not copyvio and the use of extensive quotations is not be itself a reason for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 23:51, 12 June 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. So Why 09:46, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

International Rescue Committee of the Red Cross

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

dab with no valid entries - IRC does not

WP:DABMENTION Red Cross, ICRC doesn't have rescue in it's title. Both article have hatnotes now just in case, but I'd let anyone remove them. Widefox; talk 19:25, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect to International Committee of the Red Cross, leaving the useful hatnote. A google search turned up only two hits for this term here and here both of which actually ought to say ICRC rather than IRC. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:51, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Google of "International Rescue Committee of the Red Cross" (note quoted) gives two sources [1] [2] (all other 4/5 hits being WP circular). I'm guessing those two are typos, and as such we shouldn't have or use the term giving it legitimacy. As a new dab with negligible history/linking etc, I suggest deletion to prevent creation of ambiguity when there is none. Widefox; talk 14:20, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Shhhnotsoloud pls clarify "Delete" or "Redirect"? Widefox; talk 11:35, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My !vote was to delete the article, but because the term has erroneous uses, leave a redirect to International Committee of the Red Cross. I would be equally happy with a simple delete for the reasons you outline. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:53, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Widefox is convincing in arguing there's no sense in perpetuating an error like this. --Lockley (talk) 04:32, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep--withdrawn by nominator. (

(talk) 19:46, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

Started in error, withdrawn nomination--Seacactus 13 (talk) 19:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

2017 Tour of Qatar

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Dissidentplasterer (talk) 22:25, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable cancelled cycling race. This edition of the race was never held, so it isn't enough to warrant an article. Seacactus 13 (talk) 18:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 18:54, 6 June 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.

Thames Valley

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Outside of defining the Thames Valley, this article is mainly a list of locations that are ostensibly within the Thames Valley. Notability due to the economy of the area is commonly attributed to the

M4 Corridor instead (as demonstrated by the article on the subject). The subject of the Thames Valley is well-enough served by the disambiguation page. Dissidentplasterer (talk) 18:25, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The use of the term "Thames Valley" long pre-dates the M4, although clearly the area overlaps with the M4 corridor, which is a much more recent term and covers an area extending much further westwards (as far as Swansea, perhaps). There are multiple published sources naming the Thames Valley - examples here. Although clearly the valley can easily be defined technically in geographical terms, the term is often used more loosely. But, the fact that there is no one single definition does not mean that there should not be an article about it - many ill-defined areas (such as the West Country) also have articles. The article itself is quite poor and needs to be properly referenced - but that is a reason to improve it, not delete it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I think there's a good argument for that article not existing either - it's mainly just a list of things with "West Country" in the name, and "West Country" is essentially synonymous with the South West of England. The argument that the article could be improved, however, is predicated on the idea that there is something distinctly notable to say about it. --Dissidentplasterer (talk) 19:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While the "South West" and the "West Country" are basically synonyms, the article

South West of England is about the defined local government region. That strictly defined region is not synonymous with the fuzzy concept. The West Country could mean anything from just Devon and Cornwall to even including Herefordshire, but thoe alternative definitions have no place in an article about the region. Northern England is similarly poorly defined, but its article is currently at FAC. The lack of a single solid definition doesn't prevent a good article being written.--Nilf anion (talk) 21:47, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

Keep. There about 176 pages which link to Thames Valley, and in itself that suggests it is a notable concept. They would have to be changed if the article was deleted. JonH (talk) 20:28, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:30, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Thames Valley certainly exists as a distinct area within England, and is quite distinct from the M4 corridor (South Wales, Bristol and Bath are part of the M4 corridor but not within the Thames Valley). Aside from the valley of the actual river, the business district and the National Character Area are significant and those last two links could be used to substantially flesh out the article. The police area and the water authority area could also be discussed, and I'm sure there's other uses too.--Nilf anion (talk) 21:47, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this I can work with. Closing --Dissidentplasterer (talk) 22:25, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep.

(non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 07:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

List of airline flights that required gliding

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

This list fails

WP:NOTABILITY. No evidence of notability is provided in the article. This article has been around since 2011 yet Category:Lists of aviation accidents and incidents does not include any similar lists for hydraulic failures, pilot heart attacks, bits falling off, etc. etc. This article is an anomaly that should be deleted. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:25, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

I don't see the difference. Neither

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This list seems to fall afoul of
WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It seems to be the only list of its kind and not part of any series or pattern of similar lists, so seems to serve no organizing purpose on Wikipedia. - Ahunt (talk) 17:29, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: Notification of the existence of this AfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 17:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's an
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument and could be fixed by creating a series or pattern of similar lists. You have to start somewhere, and there is no deadline. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 20:32, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

~~Keep~~ Speedy Keep. The nomination is using the flawed
WP:N, here is a reference to establish notability for gliding planes. 96.41.32.39 (talk) 17:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
More accurately, I am saying that
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not available as a counterargument. There is a difference. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST is a valid argument. 96.41.32.39 (talk) 19:50, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

Changing my !vote to Speedy keep since nominator is acknowledging using an invalid argument. 96.41.32.39 (talk) 20:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. My argument is very simple. I tried to set it in context a little, but I now realise that was politically unwise so I have struck that context. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So all that's left of your argument is notability. I have now added a second reference to the article in order to establish notability for this list. So go ahead and also strike out the part of your nomination saying that "No evidence of notability is provided in the article" because that is certainly no longer true. 96.41.32.39 (talk) 14:18, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, one online essay at Flight Deck Friend is not sufficient to establish notability. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the link to the article. 96.41.32.39 (talk) 17:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, defining characteristic of at least some accidents like the Gimli Glider and the one when they had to fly upside down. Restrict to notable accidents please. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 19:00, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there are already many categories in Category:Accidents and incidents involving airliners but no Category:airline flights that required gliding or similar. The list provides sortable date, model, description, fatalities and personnel, though.Marc Lacoste (talk) 20:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mild keep – Category:Airliner accidents and incidents caused by engine failure already exists, and its description explicitly mentions gliding as an inclusion criterion, so the list we're discussing does serve some purpose, although it requires some work: a) Strip all non-notable occurrences (such as 'flight engineer goes for a pee, all engines flame out, he comes back and all is good again'); b) Change the name to List of airliner accidents and incidents that involved gliding. EDIT: a corresponding category could be created as well. --Deeday-UK (talk) 20:59, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I personally find the topic fascinating. Thus, in my view, the article contributes to the encyclopedia; does not detract from it. I had a look at wp:Stand-alone lists and didn't see anything that explicitly argues against or for this list in principle. Wikipedia is rife with stuff that really does need deletion; this article on the other hand is useful, though it will benefit from improved writing and references where needed. DonFB (talk) 05:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC) ... Add: title might be better as: "List of airline flights forced to glide." DonFB (talk) 06:05, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Comment as the original article creator: The initial source of this was a list of similar flights that was taken from
chat} 17:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep 1) The vast majority of incidents are themselves bluelinked, indicating that it is a list of notable incidents and thus deletion demands a higher bar than if it were indeed of trivial events. 2) This is NOT a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization. "List of airline flights that had a red-headed pilot" would be, but gliding is an essential characteristic of fixed-wing aircraft, and so the list is a perfectly valid collection of incidents. Jclemens (talk) 03:54, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Misconstrued argument for deletion:
WP:STANDALONE instead. In particular, the list/collection does not have to have independent notability on its own. Instead, it has to have clearly cut inclusion/exclusion criteria, have a finite number of potential elements, and ideally most of its elements should have independent notability (i.e., articles on Wikipedia). This list satisfies this, and so can stay. 10:19, 8 June 2017 (UTC) -- added by user:Kashmiri

No, the misconstruction is yours.
neutral point of view, and what Wikipedia is not, as well as the notability guidelines.". — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

No, the misconstruction is yours. Per WP:WikiProject Aviation/Notability, "List-class articles are exempt from notability requirements. Entries listed inherit notability from their own articles.". 96.41.32.39 (talk) 16:54, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where an inconsistency exists between project guidelines and Wikipedia-wide guidelines, the Wikipedia guidelines take precedence. But thank you for pointing that out. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:04, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No contradiction. The notability of the list is taken from the articles. The flights are notable for gliding, making the list of flights that glided notable. 96.41.32.39 (talk) 20:25, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that highlights my point in bringing this to AfD. There is no evidence that the flights are, as you claim, notable for gliding and not for other reasons. I am not saying that claim is necessarily untrue, only that no evidence has been provided. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 06:17, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is so convoluted, I cannot follow it. The flights on the list are notable for having some sort of an incident (that's why there are either Wikipedia article for them, or they should have Wikipedia articles). All the incidents on the list involved gliding -- which in most cases saved some lives (many many lives), as opposed to falling out of the sky and crashing. Therefore, the list of flights that have glided gets its notability from the flights that are notable for having glided. 96.41.32.39 (talk) 07:39, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@

First law of holes? — kashmiri ^TALK 10:16, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

Keep. This is a useful article. JMcC (talk) 10:42, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's highly unusual for airline flights to ever glide (thankfully), and incidents where this has occurred are well covered in reliable sources. Nick-D (talk) 06:53, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep It is very notable when ever a flight that is not ment to glide glides it is also highly informational!Jkd4855 (talk) 01:25, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete really a made up concept just to create an indiscriminate list, most of the entries dont actually involve gliding but engineless plummets. Aircraft that were glided like Gimli Glider are actually categorise as engine issues but we dont list accidents by all possible variations of skill required to survive. MilborneOne (talk) 17:49, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not a particular flight has glided and therefore not be listed should be taken on the article's talk page. It would not be a reason to delete the list. I do not agree with you that most entries are "engineless plummets". 96.41.32.39 (talk) 22:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 02:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

The result was keep. Apart from one or two lone comments advocating deletion, it's clear that consensus is to keep this article in one form or another. There is no consensus whether to keep as a stand-alone article or redirect/merge it to a list of such attacks but that's not something that has to be decided at AfD but can always be proposed on the talk page. Regards So Why 09:42, 14 June 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.

2017 Notre Dame attack

Keep: Where will we draw the line as to what is too minor and what is not? Just keep it. There are plenty of articles about less significant things. We shouldn't arbitrarily choose which events are significant. Everyone could be covered in a different article. And what relevance does a newspaper hold?El cid, el campeador (talk) 17:12, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article about a minor incident that could easily be summarized in another article. - Mr X 17:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
List of terrorist incidents in June 2017. Not every attack in the world needs its own article. If not for the "terrorist" label this kind of story could be found in a local newspaper. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:12, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

This is why we have

WP:NOTNEWS. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

"These "other stuff exists" arguments can be valid or invalid." Not News could be applied to any article on an event, I miss your point. Do a certain number of people have to die for it to be notnews?El cid, el campeador (talk) 17:16, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There has to be significant coverage which is lacking here. The content can easily be summarized in the redirect I proposed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:19, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per knowledgekid. Only minor coverage even in France- the English attacks are receiving heavier coverage! —
^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 17:16, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep It's
WP:EVENTS. Or who and when do we decide an attack is big enough to be included? There are far less relevant incidents who has gotten an article, like 2017 Portland train attack.--Rævhuld (talk) 17:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Okay can you point to where this article would apply? Lacking in depth sources is a red flag when it comes to notability for a stand alone article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:28, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that while article creator (497 edits to date) is a
WP:DISRUPT the project by forcing editors - especially new editors - to run the AfD gauntlet. I strongly suggest that Mr X withdraw this. If his opinion is unchanged a few months, he can nominate it then.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

A redirect isn't deletion. (

WP:TOOSOON) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

I decline. There is no time constraint on deleting articles. Editors should use their judgement based on common practice, content policies, nature of the subject,

WP:10YT, and other factors. This article is about a person who hit another person with a hammer. Meanwhile, we don't have independent articles for the daily massacres in Syria and Iraq; street executions in the Philippines; or for the five people who were brutally murdered in Orlando, Florida yesterday. We need to instill some perspective into our content decisions and not simply try to promote an project-wide viewpoint that the world is besieged by Islamist terrorism.- Mr X 18:00, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(
June 2017 Kabul attack. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 18:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

That attack killed 20 people, here you have a lone man swinging a hammer at a cop. Two police officers were killed today as well in a shootout with gunmen who probably belonged to Islamic State in Egypt's northern Sinai, where is the article about this? [4] - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per
WP:RAPID, let's wait and see how this develops before wasting time on an AfD. Edwardx (talk) 17:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

The correct thing to do would be to spin out things into articles when they get to be too big. Nobody is saying this isn't notable just that it shouldn't have its own article yet. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:04, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Yeah, redirect. Sadly routine and minor incident, with no deaths or major injuries (apart from the guy who did it). ansh 666 17:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]
- Striking, because National Centre for Counter Terrorism could provide the long-term impact angle that most such articles don't have. Not going with keep though, more of a wait and see. ansh666 18:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Ansh666: The National Centre for Counter Terrorism was ordered a month ago per the source Drmies found. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:32, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Untrue. Drmies did not "find" the source, he just read the link. Misread it, actually. The Centre was under discussion, but it was not "ordered" a month ago. See my comment below.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:21, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, it was publicly announced as a result of this attack, so my revised comment stands. ansh 666 03:07, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Let's see how this develops first before deleting articles, it's receiving worldwide attention.
talk) 18:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

An interesting philosophy would be 'let's see how this develops first before writing articles' :) —

^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 18:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

Note this similar AfD on the similar Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Paris machete attack; (an attack on the Louvre; closed as Keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder, months later that attack still has not stood out. It should be merged into

nothing came out of that event that made it stand out from other terrorist events. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

*Redirect per those advocating same. If and when this generates enough material to warrant a separate article, no problem to recreate it, but at the moment it's (and I'm not sure this is a phrase I want to use) a "run of the mill" attack. ~~BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]

You nominated it. Then 12 editors weighed in, all twelve iVoting to keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Attack was significant enough as it occured at a major location. The
Notre Dame Cathedral bombing attempt has also an article while that was a failed attempt and resulted in no injuries.JBergsma1 (talk) 18:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

That was a major bomb plot.... this was a lone guy swinging a hammer. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:48, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above and
WP:NOTNEWS. Also as per Ansh666 points out these types of routines are becoming more and more routine. Inter&anthro (talk) 19:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, not a standout with all the recent attacks, but notable enough to merit an article in my opinion. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 19:20, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to
List of terrorist incidents in June 2017, as per Knowledgekid. Not encyclopaedic incident. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:43, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note also the similarity to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 shooting of Paris police officers which closed as withdrawn/keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:43, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to
WP:NOTNEWS. No deaths or significant injuries, so there is no reason to keep this as standalone encyclopedic content. Ceosad (talk) 20:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep an attack at one of the worlds biggest tourist attractions is a notable event. Murchison-Eye (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The French President now plans to extend the 'State of Emergency' and implement additional security measures due to this event Murchison-Eye (talk) 01:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is going to eventually lapse unless it extended again by some other means. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Once again, the keep rationales for this event are terribly unconvincing and misunderstand the point of NOTNEWS. Wikipedia does not wait a few months for events to be notable; they either are or they are not.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep - Possibly this will become a redirect, but that doesn't need to happen in AfD.
talk) 22:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note that within hours there are stories reported from Paris (ie NOT wire service stories) in the
New York Times and Los Angeles Times, reported stories. also, that was Nancy Soderberg tweeting from inside the cathedral.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Why should that be surprising? Drmies (talk) 22:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reported stories are not assigned/written for "routine" attacks in foreign cities. Such stories are testament to the notability of this attack.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They are testament to the newsworthiness of this attack; tomorrow we'll have wrapped fish in it. Surely you know this. Drmies (talk) 22:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or find some redirection target. Not every headline or set of headlines is an article. BTW, that template with search avenues on top of this AfD should indicate what the problem is with such articles. We don't have a thing called "2017 Notre Dame attack"--we're like CNN making up names for events. There is of course no coverage of this event anywhere else but in the news, nor will there be for a long time, if ever. So the suggestion to search JSTOR or Google Books is ludicrous, and even if there were hits there you are not likely to get them under this exact name. I hope I'm not the only one seeing this as a problem. Drmies (talk) 22:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to
Lepricavark (talk) 23:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to
List of terrorist incidents in June 2017 - as well explained above. Neutrality^talk 23:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Exceptionally weak keep. I promised I'd review my opinion if and when the facts changed, and it appears that the consequences (and possibly the circumstances) of this particular incident are sufficiently distinctive as to merit a keep...just. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:30, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BigHaz if you have time, I recommend you read Drmies source further below. The task force was not created as a result of this attack; in fact, it was announced a month ago. I'm not sure if that affects your opinion but I thought it is worth mentioning.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It does ever so slightly, but probably not enough to change my faintest-of-keeps as the sort of "bottom line". Thanks for the heads-up, though. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:41, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You guys have awfully good
WP:CRYSTALBALLS. Me, I'd not only like to hear how the French cabinet responds when they meet tomorrow, I'd like to wait the full 7 days, maybe longer to see the degree to which the press responds with SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

This attack alone isn't notable, the attacks as a whole and the collective response are though. I would suggest someone summarize France's response to terrorism in the country in another article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

E.M.Gregory, there are so many more articles to write on topics that are proven to be notable. Why are you trying to do the job of the news sites? We're not bad at it, and it's sexy to get it up quickly with pictures and maps and flags for responses (I sure hope we have some response...)--but it's not our job. Drmies (talk) 02:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But the article has well already been written, meaning we've done a good enough job of making it notable. Do you have any idea how many articles there are? Millions. If you're telling me even a majority of them are more notable than this, I'd be surprisedEl cid, el campeador (talk) 02:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

El cid, I've been around long enough to have a pretty decent idea of how many articles we have, but thank you for the pointer. Now, "we've done a good enough job of making it notable"--a possibly Freudian slip. Blowing it up, with maps and flags and fancy names, makes it notable: you are suggesting we are making news, and given our high scores on Google searches that could be true--all the more reasons to be reticent rather than eager in writing up things that just happened. Yes, a majority of our articles are more notable than this topic (do not confuse an article with a topic). Drmies (talk) 12:19, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Besides which, an AfD isn't an instant process. In the event that the French cabinet does something significant as a response to this (or in the event that something else significant happens as a result of this), I for one am happy to revise my opinion and I'm sure I wouldn't be the only one to do so. As at this precise moment, though, a redirect is an eminently sensible approach to take. I'm also not sure Wikipedia's role is to "make something notable", so much as it is to write about things which have already become so. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I misspoke in that, but it doesn't matter. The point is that it's already written and longer than most articles, and has several sources. What point is there in deleting it? Other than perhaps making some people feel important El cid, el campeador (talk) 02:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PRESERVE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:19, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Again, the question isn't "Is the article written?", much less "Is it bigger than article X?". The question is whether each and every terrorist attack is encyclopedic before they trigger any notable events beyond "Someone attacked people with a hammer at Notre Dame Cathedral". If the French President comes out and bans hammers from sale (to take a silly potential outcome), then there's patently an encyclopedic value in having this article. If life carries on much as it did beforehand, then there doesn't appear to be. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:56, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No; "the question" is whether reliable sources treat this specific attack as notable, by the standards laid out at
WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:17, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

The attack is notable as is the ongoing terrorist attacks in France. Its a continuing stream that can easily be summarized. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:34, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
WP:NOTNEWS.Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:52, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that attacker's injuries are "minor," so there will be a trial; ongoing coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - attack has recieved world wide attention. The attacker was a noted journalist. Article is in good shape and with good sources. --BabbaQ (talk) 09:31, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A 'noted' journalist? Or, actually, a 'journalist'? —

^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 09:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:32, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he's certainly noted now.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:04, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly not a great believer in the pen being mightier than the sword, eh...? —
^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 10:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Worth pointing out that yes, the perpetrator is a noted journalist. For instance, he won second place in the European Commission's 2009 "EU Journalist Award", established under the EC's PROGRESS programme. XavierItzm (talk) 15:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not a "routine" or "minor" incident. It has received worldwide attention. There will be no consensus to delete this. However, I would not object to a redirect if there is consensus that we are better waiting to see if an article should be spun out later.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:28, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the world knows that France has been under continued terrorist attacks, it is part of a larger picture. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Partly because new information continues to emerge. But also because the useful details are inevitably lost when an article is merged into capsule summary on a list. And also because the Cabinet has reacted by using this latest attack as the occasion on which to announce the creation of a new
2017 Louvre machete attack, and from a what-were-the-odds windfall for American politician Nancy Soderberg: Clinton advisor, American national security expert and diplomat who is widely spoken of as a probable candidate to unseat sitting Republican congressman Ron DeSantis, a former Navy officer. Soderberg was in the locked-down cathedral, tweeting with great éclat. My point here is that not only the proposed redirect, but a redirect to any of the lists or articles from which this article is linked would represent a loss of functionality for the project. By keeping the page, we enable detailed information to be found and discovered by our readers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

What useful information? Do we need extra details about how person x recited the Lord's prayer while being locked inside the church? The article can be summed up be saying "An Algerian student named Farid Ikken, injured an officer with a hammer then was shot in response by police. Ikken was an award winning journalist who lived in France who claimed to be a "soldier of the caliphate". As a response to the incident a new task force called the National Centre for Counter Terrorism was created, and the state of emergency extended for an additional few months." Add in a few extra details to that and you have the entire article summarized in a paragraph. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:57, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would not personally have chosen to delete well-sourced information from an article while arguing that the article should be deleted because it lacks information; it gives more the feel of marking cards in a friendly hand of poker than working collegiality to build an encyclopedia..E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you respond to my comment by sharing why you chose that particular list as a merge target? To me the difficult of choosing which list to merge this or any specific terrorist attack to is a fundamental argument against merging. It makes specific incidents so much harder to find that if we keep the article and link it from all of the relevant lists/articles.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:00, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With new details pouring out of the European press, not only about the creation of the National Centre for Counter Terrorism, but about the unusually well-educated perp, I make no doubt that the article will continue to be expanded with useful and interesting information.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Would possibly be inclined to agree with nominator when this first broke, but details that have now come out, especially regarding the unusual perpetrator makes it noteworthy in my opinion. Also 900 people locked in for hours followed by the French President launching a new counter-terrorism task force are lasting effects. User2534 (talk) 06:23, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that jihadist is recovering in hospital and has been charged with attempted murder, so there will and be a trial and ensuing coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:08, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is too much international coverage, there should be a WP:OBVIOUSTERRORISTATTACK to ban the standard drill dozens of editors immediately trying to whitewash every terrorist attack, and every terrorist style crime where the motive is "unclear" as per WP:NOTNEWS or not WP:NOTABLE even when it is front page news for a month. If these seemingly random attacks are coordinated, then we can expect coordinated active measures in media to downplay or spread disinformation or otherwise censor coverage of such events. In the case of the D.C. sniper attacks and Ali Muhammad Brown luring and killing of two gay men in Seattle and a student motorist in New Jersey, even seeming random and not notable crimes which are unexplained should be treated as suspected terrorist attacks as long as they receive verifiable local coverage. Wikipedia can be a useful resource for researchers seeking to connect seemingly unconnected events even when authorities cannot. As it is, Wikipedia is woefully useless compared to Heavy and Everipedia which have no such high barrier to covering any event with substantial news coverage or even minimal coverage in blogs with a conservative or tabloid agenda which are often the only reliable media for attacks which are not covered by "reliable" sources. There are hundreds of unexplained crimes and accidents where the motive or criminal aspects are unproven or a credible possibility. Hammer and ax attacks like this deserve attention when they are done at landmarks that are strategic to terrorists and when they leave evidence to authorities that they are inspired by terrorist movements like ISIS. There should be no difference in coverage just because one is proven to be inspired or directed by terrorists, or may have been staged to look like road rage, breakup rage, rage over workplace firing, intoxication or mental illness, when the only difference is motive. Bachcell (talk) 12:20, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete' No international coverage. --Panam2014 (talk) 12:50, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

False premise. International coverage is already on the page.E.M.Gregory (talk)
- @E.M.Gregory: True premise. When one has articles from the foreign press for 2 days is not international coverage. sorry. --Panam2014 (talk) 16:44, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that yesterday 's
New York Times had a large photo of this indicent at the top of the front page, and that the story in the Times and in a number of other American papers, both national and regional papers, was reported from Paris, i.e., not an echo of a wire service story. The story also led the the news on NPR & CNN.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:52, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

There is nothing on the medium term. --Panam2014 (talk) 17:12, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Is the Wikipedia running out of server space? No. This event has been widely covered by
WP:RS worldwide and content continues to be added. There is no sound rationale for deletion, and if this were deleted for reasons of being considered "minor" (in the eyes of the deleter), then about 1/2 of the Wikipedia, with articles with less sources and less edits, would have to be deleted too, for consistency. As the latter is unlikely to happen, the deletion of this page and not of the others would show clear bias/censorship by the deleters. XavierItzm (talk) 14:16, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to
List of terrorist incidents in June 2017, per Knowledgekid and others. - Sigersson (talk) 14:50, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep: Not less minor than many articles on sporting events. 900 tourists stuck for two hours in Notre Dame --Olevy (talk) 09:12, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep the same reasons as the others. Not to mention that many an article already has linked to this article on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rævhuld (talk • contribs) 12:22, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Rævhuld, you have already voted further up the page, which must have escaped your memory. Could you strike this second !vote, please. – Sigersson (talk) 07:15, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This attack has received significant coverage in news sources across several nations (Germany, Sweden, Great Britain, United States and of course France). Meets
WP:GNG. --Skr15081997 (talk) 14:13, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: today is 9 June. Seems like the event is over. Drmies (talk) 20:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, had its time in the news and now it is past. The attacker here seems to be more notable than the attack itself though so a merger into a new article might be a better solution. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:05, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is over. But so are several other terrorist incidents over the years. And we have articles about those. That is a null and void comment.--BabbaQ (talk) 07:01, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTALBALL -- which seems like a very accessible item for editors lately at these types of AfDs.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:40, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Even as you were asserting that coverage is "over," a columnist for an American big city daily, the
Sun-Sentinel, was complaining vociferously that the press has spent too much time covering this story, "During the day, CNN led the story with big, important-looking "Breaking News" graphics. That night, the incident in Paris led the evening news all over the country. Newspapers worldwide were all over the story."[5]. He is outraged that "a possible terrorist with a hammer thousands of miles away gets more public attention than a mass murder in Orlando."E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:17, 11 June 2017 (UTC) Coverage on such an intense and massive scale would probably establish notability even if coverage now ended.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

But I said above, details continue to be published and, since he is said to be recovering, press coverage will continue as he goes to trial. Not to mention the impact of this event on French security services already noted in article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:17, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
An impact cleverly fabricated/suggested in the article, which doesn't note that the "new counter-terrorism task force" was ordered a month ago; that it was announced the day after this one mad person's attack is coincidence. E.M. Gregory, can you please use phrases like "intense and massive scale" a bit more judiciously? It sounds like the claims made in presidential tweets. Drmies (talk) 14:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage of this attack in the U.S. was on an "intense and massive scale" on Tuesday and Wednesday last. Truly, led the news at the top of the hour, front page photos. Regional newspapers and broadcast media running interviews with locals who were in or near the Cathedral. I won't speculate as to why. But the coverage for about 36 hours was massive and intensive.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did not fabricate, please rescind your slander. What I wrote was that Macron "announced the creation of a new intelligence task force..." This is accurate. Anyone following events, or reading the links will understand the a reform was contemplated and that Macron either moved it forward or made the final decision to announce what a plan that had been proposed but not decided upon in the wake of this event. That is, it was unclear whether the Notre Dame attack caused Macron to finalize his decision or to move an already firm decision forward. Because this was unclear, I worded it very carefully. But do Note that a plan is only a plan until it is formally announced.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:03, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory from what I read on the source above it appears this has had little impact. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:30, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Straw man. My argument, and that of other editors, is simply that the attack is notable not because my personal opinion, but because politicians and the international press have deemed it notable. We follow sources, and the sources exist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:03, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- With regard to Drmies note of 9 June, here is a BBC article dated 11 June^[1] and here is an article from the Sun also dated 11 June^[2]. Looks like Drmies is absolutely correct: the "event" is over, but international coverage continues well past his comment! XavierItzm (talk) 10:07, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

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

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

The result was keep. Per discovery of new sources and article improvements.

(non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 07:14, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

William Feather

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

Prod'd then restored at DRV. Subject fails

WP:AUTHOR Legacypac (talk) 17:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

talk) 19:26, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

talk) 19:26, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

talk) 19:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

talk) 19:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Maybe it is important for the people related to history. I will try to add stuff and do some research. Wikipedia is a good source for History-sensitive articles Prof.Marlin (talk) 11:46, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I love history. Get it past the requirements of

WP:AUTHOR and it's fine. Legacypac (talk) 15:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

~~Delete~~ -- no indications of passing GNG nor AUTHOR. I'm unable to locate sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:45, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not particularly notable minor publisher, does not meet GNG.PohranicniStraze (talk) 05:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable guy back in the day, beware presentism! Sourcing it now.[6] E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:51, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone have access to the Plain Dealer archive? I was able to access only a snippet of the Plain Deal obit. It would be good to see the coverage of the battle with the union that drove him form Cleveland. He ran a large printing company; one of the things the company did was to print magazines. To promote it, he had his own, the William Feather Magazine running stories of interest to businessmen. Perhaps as a spin off to this, he was syndicated in some form so that little bits of wisdom from his pen appeared in newspapers in cities nationwide. And some of his bits of wisdom appear in recent book that collect notable bits of wisdom (just scroll through a few pages of a gBooks search on his name. Also, since he owned the printing plant, he published his own books, but they must have drawn attention since in 1927 one got reviewed in the New York Times and Detroit Free Press, [probably in other papers too. He also wrote for some of the serious national magazines of the day, and was quoted in the early thirties by journalists trying to figure out what was happening to the economy, His ideas on the topic were taken seriously. And he did survive the depression with a big company intact. Hope other editors with access to other archives will add some sources. E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with the presentism caveat. Old school figures do not always have a prominent digital footprint, making the process of finding sources especially challenging. This should be taken into account. References could be improved, but the article has value and should not be thrown out. ToddLara729 (talk) 16:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jupitus Smart 17:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per E.M.Gregory's efforts. Some Googling reveals that Case Western's Encyclopedia of Cleveland History states that Feather's writings earned him a "national reputation" [7]; that H. L. Mencken used some of Feather's work to illustrate a point in The American Language [8]; and that gBooks produces a citation of Feather as the source of a hoary adage in The Concise Columbia Dictionary of Quotations [9]. One might be able to minimize each of these, if analyzed separately and with a skeptical eye, but taken as a group they suggest he was a significant writer worthy of encyclopedic attention. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:27, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per recent article improvements; the notability is a bit iffy still, but the inclusion in Encyclopedia of Cleveland history is sort of indicative of notability. An acceptable stub at this point. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:28, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, this article has been
prodded twice! here and here, naughty, naughty Coolabahapple (talk) 03:39, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment this is one of those tougher cases that requires digging hard to find sources. It looks like it might pass GNG now. Legacypac (talk) 03:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets
The Forum, a little more and we could have a separate article on this book (i wonder if it contains some of his quotable quotes that seem to pop up from "One of the funny things about the stock market is that every time one person buys, another sells and both think they are astute." to "All the books extolling the simple life are written by men.", not to mention those at wikiquote ("but coola you just did":))), also Erika Andersen referred to Feather ("It seems to me that most people hold one of two opposing definitions of business: they either agree with Feather (and me) that business ...") in this article. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:34, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per article improvements. Artw (talk) 09:41, 7 June 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. So Why 09:39, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Riverside Cessna 310 crash

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

Tragic but not notable general aviation crash. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:28, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regretfully, a Delete, as per my comments left in my New Page Review on the user's talk page. (I hope other editors will note that Kurosubi appears to be a brand new editor. If so, he/she may well be disappointed if the concensus here for this particular article is for 'deletion', but they are surely to be praised for producing such a well-constructed article and I, for one, hope they will continue to make other contributions in the future, and not be put off by our discussions here.) Nick Moyes (talk) 17:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – accidents to private flights involving non-notable people are considered to be below the threshold of inclusion, since such occurrences, tragic as they might be, are
not necessarily for Wikipedia. --Deeday-UK (talk) 20:28, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete' though I endorse Nick Moyes comments on the author, this article fails
WP:NOTNEWS. sIMPLY PUT wIKIPEDIA IS NOT A NEWSPAPER OR REPOSITORY OF DAILY LIFE SNIPPETS.--Petebutt (talk) 21:25, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete nothing notable. Wykx (talk) 21:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete light aircraft accidents are rarely notable and I cant see anything here that passes the threshold for a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 17:52, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to

(non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 07:16, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

The Titifers

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

Does not pass

WP:GNG. There are a few hits on other wikis (not Wikipedia, but wikis on Wikia), but there is only one short mention of them elsewhere. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 16:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

Speedy delete Unreferenced article about non notable subject, fails
WP:GNG.Theroadislong (talk) 18:04, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy delete - I agree with
WP:GNG.--Rogerx2 (talk) 18:20, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:34, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to In the Night Garden... where these characters are already covered. No speedy deletion criteria apply. Jclemens (talk) 00:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to In the Night Garden... seems appropriate to me. The characters are already covered there so someone may look up this term and a redirect would be helpful for that purpose. Aoba47 (talk) 14:30, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 14:48, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

Redirect – A valid search term, as per
WP:ATD-R. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 14 June 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 Already Deleted.

(non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 07:18, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

Presto Tablet

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

Delete Corporate spam. Product is the only product made by
-- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Tablet computer. So Why 09:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Table ordering tablet

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

Merge as agreed below. Delete I am unconvinced that "Table ordering tablet" is a notable topic (or even a "thing"). *None* of the reference headlines use that term and most use a different term: "Tabletop tablets".
-- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:57, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

@

HighKing: Wouldn't a rename to Tabletop tablets be more appropriate then? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

-- HighKing⁺⁺ 19:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply