Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 June 7

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 6 June 8 June >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. SoWhy 19:18, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nasib Mukhtarov

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

Non-notable biography, see

WP:BLP. Single contributor, who is no longer active. Only references I could find through search are his social media pages, and ONE mention in an archeological blog. ZarosFlok (talk) 23:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 23:24, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 23:24, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 23:24, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with regret. Just no evidence of impact. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:21, 8 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Linguisttalk|contribs 06:45, 15 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. Redirects and moves are free at editorial discretion Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:22, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Colegio

Colegio (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)

Invalid disambig page. 'Colegio' is a common Spanish word meaning "college". All items in the list are various colleges. We don't put

talk) 23:02, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:23, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, all partial matches. Boleyn (talk) 08:29, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's actually detrimental to a search to have a partial list like this at a search term. Station1 (talk) 21:31, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I found Colégio, Rio de Janeiro as en entry known solely as "Colégio". -- Tavix (talk) 00:28, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Should that be moved to
      Colegio could be redirected there. Station1 (talk) 04:19, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:25, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Rumm

Saint Rumm (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)

Declined prod due to challenge by creator. Concern was "Non-notable poorly documented person. Promotional article. No credible claim of significance." Endorsed with "Rather blatant advertising." SpinningSpark 22:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:33, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:33, 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 delete. The article falls under

WP:CSD#G11 as it is unambiguously promotional and would need a fundamental rewrite to become encyclopedic. Mz7 (talk) 18:38, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Sizwe Faith Sithole

Sizwe Faith Sithole (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)

No independent references. Makes extravagant claims in a

to be blown up and started over if kept, but doesn't need keeping. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:28, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:42, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:23, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LJ Looper

LJ Looper (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

WP:MUSICBIO for lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. - MrX 20:42, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:47, 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 delete. no substantial content--just a definition, and possibly not even a real one DGG ( talk ) 19:48, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Planufacturing

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

Non-notable neologism. Fails

WP:GNG. - MrX 20:17, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

This article is currently only a sentence long and my first thought was that it should go in Wiktionary rather than Wikipedia. Having just looked in Wiktionary, the word is not there, which does make me think that this word could possibly be a non-existent portmanteau neologism. Vorbee (talk) 21:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom, not notable enough for a move to Wiktionary.
    talk) 21:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 14:42, 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 result was delete. Ok, based on the arguments raised by Anomie and agreed with & undisputed afterwards it seems like this page is not actually necessary even when you don't consider any of the other delete arguments. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:29, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshot/fodder

Screenshot/fodder (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)
  • information Administrator note I declined the speedy deletion as this AfD is active, potential harm to readers or editors that may occur during this discussion are minimal at most. — xaosflux Talk 01:51, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This page is not an article at all, but an apparent technical workaround to address an issue with VisualEditor, discussed on the talk page. I don't pretend to understand the technical issue, but this does seem to be an inappropriate use of mainspace, which is strictly reserved for encyclopedic content. I think we'd need to see a very good reason that this page needs to exist, in order to supersede that principle. —swpbT 20:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Or rather, questions:

  1. Don't we have test wikis?
  2. Could not a more standard and encyclopedic article be used as test bench using permlinks to predictable revisions?
  3. Could WP: space not be used for this?
  4. If this is still considered unavoidable despite the above ideas, until when?
Thanks, —PaleoNeonate - 12:56, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Don't we have test wikis?" yes, and these are also used for such tests. But nothing compares to en.wp. It's the most complex wiki in the world that cannot be easily reproduced accurately. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:12, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are two questions here:
  1. Is this the only possible technical solution to the problem?
  2. If so, is the technical problem significant enough to justify abandoning standard practice?
Most of the comments defending this page, including yours above, only address the first question (and not even convincingly, if User:Anomie, below, is correct). —swpbT 13:36, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:58, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:58, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the first sentence of
WP:VANDALISM again. No amount of incompetency can result in vandalism without a deliberate aim to disturb the encyclopedia. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:37, 10 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. SoWhy 19:17, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ghana International

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

Non-notable badminton event. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:05, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. See WP:NSEASONS: A national championship season at the top collegiate level is generally notable. This is above the national level as well as above the top collegiate level, so as conclusion this event must be notable as well as every season of it. Florentyna (talk) 21:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is not an individual season, so WP:NSEASONS does not apply. Furthermore, there is a lack of GNG so its not notable. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:04, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:11, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:11, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:11, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This tournament sanctioned by the Badminton World Federation as level 4 grade same with Uganda International. The point earned by the competitors will be calculate for competed at the major event such as African Badminton Championships, BWF World Championships, and also 2018 Commonwealth Games. Stvbastian (talk) 02:53, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Internationally sanctioned professional tournament. Whether individual seasons are notable is another issue, but the competition as a whole is clearly notable. Smartyllama (talk) 15:13, 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 delete.  Sandstein  05:06, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ordicate

Ordicate (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)

Seemingly a neologism - a search turned up only links back to or scrapes of this article. Fails

WP:NOTNEO. Narky Blert (talk) 19:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:55, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:56, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, and we do
    not publish original research. Bearian (talk) 23:27, 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 keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

National Raisin Reserve

National Raisin Reserve (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)

Poorly sourced, and seemingly skewed coverage in violation of WP:NPOV. Not finding enough coverage beyond what's there to meet

talk) 18:23, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 18:25, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:55, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and copy edit. Passes GNG. See source examples below. Another secondary option is to merge to Raisin. North America1000 21:03, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  • Keep clearly passes GNG (and is a cool topic). I would not merge to raisin, should be brief mention there at most (US specific price control, not related to the sctual product) Icewhiz (talk) 21:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Struck part of my !vote above regarding merging. Better as a standalone article, imo. North America1000 21:44, 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.

WP:SOFTDELETE given no input other than by nominator Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:20, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Avaza

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

Non-notable software, based almost entirely on interviews on advertising platforms and entrepeneur "communities". Google search revealed no additional independent in-depth coverage (there are a lot of false positives from other "Avaza" topics). Note: I have removed one misrepresented user-review site (see history). GermanJoe (talk) 10:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 10:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review:

  • ref #1 (Startup Daily): Interview-based, no author information. Every single bit of information is based on the founder's say-so. No evidence of independent journalistic coverage.
    • ref #2 (PRWeb, now removed): Not independent coverage, but atleast they are transparent about it.
  • ref #2 (Enterprise Times): The best of all available sources. Partially based on company information, but it includes some additional critical analysis and uses relatively cautious measured language. Sums itself up neatly with "This could be a company to watch." (
    WP:TOOSOON
    ).
  • ref #3 (G2 Crowd): User review-based "research" site, conveniently combined with a purchase advice chat.
  • ref #4 (nine.com.au): PR announcement based on company info (see the site owner's mission statement), no author info.
  • ref #5 (Anthill Magazine): 5 shared tips by the company founder, not independent coverage. No author information, but the author added almost no content on their own anyway.

With only 1 OK-ish source and 4-5 fluff pieces, there is not enough independent in-depth coverage by reliable sources to establish notability. GermanJoe (talk) 10:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 17:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:00, 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 delete.

Linguisttalk|contribs 07:37, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Estevão Toledo

Estevão Toledo (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)

Article about a non-notable furniture designer. Unambiguous self-promotion. Tagged for notability and sourcing concerns for months now. Slashme (talk) 15:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:20, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:21, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 17:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete. The article seems self-promotional, like an advertisement for a non-notable designer. A news, newspaper and book search did not turn up enough to establish notability. Netherzone (talk) 14:32, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 17:11, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of documents relating to the News International phone hacking scandal

List of documents relating to the News International phone hacking scandal (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)

This appears to be an outstanding example of

an indiscriminate collection of information. I certainly see why Lotje chose to split it out from News media phone hacking scandal reference lists, but I can't see why it (or, for that matter, the parent agglomeration) needs to be kept. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The New York Times and The Guardian refs are everywhere, a clear example of
what is RS.--Biografer (talk) 21:00, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:58, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - important supporting article, merge would probably be unwieldy. Artw (talk) 00:23, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nominator has apparently confused discriminate and indiscriminate. Jclemens (talk) 03:46, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - chronological dating lists are very helpful. Lotje (talk) 14:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep This article is very helpful.--連綿 (talk) 06:26, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Yes this format is a little unusual, but is notable and verifiable. It was a reasonable idea to calve this from the larger article, which is quite large. --Lockley (talk) 00:18, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails LISTN, no indication that this list of documents as such has received coverage and is notable. The scandal is what's notable, and if this content is relevant it should be covered in that article.  Sandstein  05:00, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – A valid
    WP:SIZERULE, articles over 100 kB "almost certainly should be divided". The main article is over double the recommended size for spinouts to occur. North America1000 06:22, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep, ordinarily I'd think this cruft, but it's a useful spinout from News International phone hacking scandal, which is an enormous article that would warrant inclusion of this if it weren't so long already. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:28, 15 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chronic cellular dehydration

Chronic cellular dehydration (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)

Topic doesn't seem to get substantial coverage in any sources. Google search only gets sources mirroring the WP article. Can't find sources discussing the term's use by alt. med practitioners (though it would be great if some others could look as well). Only scientific discussion is here and papers that cite it, but it's not enough to build an article off of. I'm unclear if topic meets

WP:GNG. Comments would be much appreciated. Ajpolino (talk) 16:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Ajpolino (talk) 16:51, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been mentioned at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. —PaleoNeonate - 06:37, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been mentioned at User talk:CyborgTosser (reason: Article creator). —PaleoNeonate - 06:37, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not the place to build authority for this term and what it represents. A Google Scholar search makes pretty clear that the academic literature has not adopted this term nor concept as a researchable notion. - Richard Cavell (talk) 17:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – This article is essentially being used to flog quack medical treatments. For notability, at least one independent secondary source is needed. The only proper citation that I could locate is
    PMID 16028569 that cites the first source, but only briefly in the context of dehydration in different compartments and concludes that the proportion stays the same undercutting the importance cellular dehydration. Boghog (talk) 19:06, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • delete per nominators rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:13, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nominators rationale JeanOhm (talk) 01:09, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Nothing plausible that Dehydration doesn't provide. Could even be considered a POV fork of dehydration. —PaleoNeonate - 06:50, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in its current form. The concept does exist as an unrecognized pseudo-illness along the lines of
    Iridescent 08:18, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete. The three book references provided are self-help pseudoscience. Only one of them even mentions "chronic cellular dehydration". The fourth reference is generic recipe for rehydration. I could not find any suitable references that describe this topic. Ritz's paper is the closest, but that is a primary source. The phrase is so rare that it does not even qualify as a neologism. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:20, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Seems like a content fork of dehydration. The first paragraph of the article could be used here as reason for why the article should be deleted.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:55, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete good lord this was created in 2004. seems well intentioned to debunk the concept but this is so fringe that not even our regular sources per PARITY like Gorski discuss this. Jytdog (talk) 07:01, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - we do not publish
    a soapbox for advocates of ideas. Bearian (talk) 23:32, 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 speedy delete.

Linguisttalk|contribs 07:36, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Damon S. Davis

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

Non-notable businessman. Article's current sources reflect this non-notability by Wikipedia's standards. They are nearly all

semper crescis, aut decrescis 16:34, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  17:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  17:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as spam. The article opens with "...multi-national media executive, author, direct response marketing entrepreneur, and a Television interview talk-show host" and goes downhill from there. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:10, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) *Delete as per analysis by nom. I wish more people would vote on these to prevent relisting. Even the relisting editors could throw in a delete or Other opinion and save the relist. Legacypac (talk) 06:53, 15 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. As usual, this outcome does not mean the article can't be recreated if and when the subject meets the notability guideline(s). SoWhy 19:16, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Francesco Tomasello

Francesco Tomasello (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)

I'm not finding anything to indicate notability or passage of

WP:NFOOTY (never played in a top-tier team). References on the page are just generic transfer notices, and only give information about where he was and where he's going. Primefac (talk) 15:14, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
— Preceding unsigned comment added by FootballPro (talk • contribs) 16:08, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an online content-free, collaborative encyclopedia, this entry has a disclaimer that respects all the basic information needed for an encyclopedic entry with details and official references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FootballPro (talk • contribs) 16:32, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia was born as an encyclopedia, written voice has all the requirements that meet and meet the requirements for a Wiki entry. What do you mean by important team? Real Madrid or Barcelona?! It's important to play for professional teams for many years. Transfers dettails and not just words must be detailed here.

  • Some articles article whit this player on internet
  • Delete. Subject fails
    WP:BIO guideline. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:47, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Nice!!! i remember having seen playing this player in professional categories on CFR Cluj, I'm glad I found it in this encyclopedia with my search  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.36.97.8 (talk) 13:36, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - Surely the league appearances for CFR Cluj are enough to pass NFOOTY? Spiderone 13:33, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Spiderone, normally you'd be right, but I genuinely cannot find any indication that Tomasello actually played for CFR Cluj. If the article is to be believed, he made 23 appearances and scored 20 goals, but I have been through every stats and history page I can find (in English and Romanian) and he's not mentioned in a single location for 2013 or 2014. I don't know if the refs given for him being signed are unreliable, or the deal fell apart, or he simply never made it off the bench, but either way it looks like he spent no appreciable time at CFR Cluj. Primefac (talk) 14:08, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    He never played for Cluj's first team. According to tuttocalciatori.net, the apps/goals are genuine, but in a league annotated as "SG", which stands for settore giovanile. That isn't necessarily youth team, can also be used for reserves with an age limit, like in England the reserve league is currently an under-23 league with over-age players permitted. There was a page recently deleted from the Italian Wikipedia which is still available in a Google cache: that lists his Cluj appearances as for the reserve team. Either way, it's not Cluj's first team: see e.g. Soccerway (select season via dropdown menu), romaniansoccer.ro. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:36, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as per responses to my question above Spiderone 15:18, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Accept The cancellation has no valid motivation, because the championship where he played was professional contract, say good Spiderone, the reserve championship is same in England, though to see in SG. The Wiki entry meets all the requirements and basics required for the encyclopedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by FootballPro (talk • contribs) 15:30, 10 June 2017 (UTC)struck as second vote CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:41, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

fully professional league. Mr Tomasello has not done this. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
So Perfect he played for first team and professional league in Hungary and Malta — Preceding unsigned comment added by FootballPro (talk • contribs) 16:24, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please look at the list of fully professional leagues
HERE, at WP:FPL. Mr Tomasello's clubs played in the Hungarian second division and the Maltese second division. Only the Hungarian top division (Nemzeti Bajnokság I) is listed as fully professional; the second division, Nemzeti Bajnokság II, is not. No Maltese leagues are fully professional: the top-division Maltese Premier League is listed explicitly as not fully professional. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:48, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
FootballPro Please note you only get one !vote. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:41, 10 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chand Mia

Chand Mia (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 cited sources are a memorial newspaper piece, a list of 155 award recipients, and one sentence in an "On this day in the war" chronicle, a sentence that relates how he led a team in an attack on a Pakistani camp that killed "three associates of the Pakistan[is]". Searches of the usual Google types, De Gruyter, EBSCO, HighBeam, JSTOR, Project Muse, ProQuest, and eight national newspapers, including by Bengali-script name, found no other reliable sources.

The

WP:SOLDIER. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 15:09, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:01, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear as the article is now written to be notable. --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:12, 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 keep. It's unclear whether the subject really requested deletion but even if they did, consensus is that he is notable enough to warrant an article. Any problems with the content of the article can be fixed by editing. SoWhy 08:03, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael L. Radelet

Michael L. Radelet (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)

Michael L. Radelet has requested that his Wikipedia page be taken down — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lumo76163 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
Lepricavark (talk) 17:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
Lepricavark (talk) 17:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
Lepricavark (talk) 17:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 20:03, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He doesn't meet NPROF.
    talk) 22:35, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Please explain why. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:31, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"For the purposes of satisfying Criterion 1, the academic discipline of the person in question needs to be sufficiently broadly construed. Major disciplines, such as physics, mathematics, history, political science, or their significant subdisciplines (e.g., particle physics, algebraic geometry, medieval history, fluid mechanics, Drosophila genetics are valid examples). Overly narrow and highly specialized categories should be avoided. Arguing that someone is an expert in an extremely narrow area of study is, in and of itself, not necessarily sufficient to satisfy Criterion 1, except for the actual leaders in those subjects." Based on that, I don't believe he meets NPROF#1, and I see no claim he meets any of the other standards.
talk) 20:19, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 12:18, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Heavily-cited researcher and based on that easily clears the bar of
    WP:PROF. I'm not sure how much we should weigh the subject's preference. I tend to agree with Piotrus that this is more a situation where the article should be fixed than one calling for deletion. I'll leave the decision to the closing admin, my personal opinion being that this subject is clearly notable (note to Primefac: academics are usually notable for their work and that is what is being covered), but I don't think it would break the encyclopedia if he's not covered. --Randykitty (talk) 12:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Yeah, that's why I'm only a weak delete - he's clearly a well-respected individual in his field, but I'm just not finding any significant coverage. I begrudgingly accept that PROF exists, but I haven't yet seen it demonstrated in the article. Either of these will change my opinion. Primefac (talk) 13:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete On balance, not notable enough for wikipedia. Doesn't pass criteria on
    WP:NMUSIC. Darx9url (talk) 14:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Pasted and saved comment into wrong window, sorry. Please ignore. Darx9url (talk) 14:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Piotrus. Doing a quick Google Books search shows that his work led to a sea change in how the subject of wrongful executions was studied in academia, which would meet PROF in my view. [9], [10], [11], [12], [13] ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:13, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • To clarify,
      WP:OTRS, since the claim that a request has been made is from a student enrolled in a Wikipedia-related course at Prof. Radelet's university. I also believe that the subject is above the level where a delete request can be actioned without consensus at AFD. If closed as keep, the subject should be contacted and asked what they find objectionable about the article.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:17, 16 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 soft delete.

WP:REFUND applies. SoWhy 19:04, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Meister Cook

Meister Cook (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)

PROD contested by IP. Non-notable business where the claim to fame seems to be that it has appeared in Inc's list of growing businesses. This doesn't confer the depth of coverage needed by

WP:GNG. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 18:08, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:57, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:57, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:57, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 12:17, 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. SoWhy 19:09, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Music Crowns

Music Crowns (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)

A

WP:GNG. 24.9.98.30 (talk
) 1:35, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yashovardhan (talk) 09:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 12:09, 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. Consensus is that this incident does not have a lasting impact sufficient to overcome

WP:NOTNEWS concerns Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:20, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

American Airlines Flight 31

AfDs for this article:
American Airlines Flight 31 (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

WP:NOTNEWS. List of American Airlines accidents and incidents
already lists this incident, which should suffice.

Also note that the previous AfD is unrelated to this incident.

SkyWarrior 03:18, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
SkyWarrior 03:19, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
SkyWarrior 03:21, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
If you wish to comment on this entry, please be respectful and don't bite at other users.204.113.195.150 (talk) 17:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And lets all
assume good faith also.GtstrickyTalk or C 18:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
What effect did it have on the stock? And what other fallout? GtstrickyTalk or C 14:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The incident dropped some stocks from the airline, because the flight disturbance made some people upset of the behavior of what the passenger did, and if the incident might occur in the future. Other fallout is that the Homeland security is going to monitor flights seriously and with caution.GoMan195531 (talk) 17:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it dropped stock, but that would happen with any incident, no matter how minor it is. That's not a reason to keep an article, and chances are good stock will recover. As for the fallout, Homeland Security is already monitoring flights with caution, as they should be, well before this incident occured. They may heighten security for a little bit, but that's typical for an incident like this. All in all, this appears to just be a run-of-the-mill occurrence that happens occasionally, no different from other incidents that people have forgot has happened. Seriously, a mention on
SkyWarrior 18:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
SkyWarrior 18:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 02:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss whether to redirect this to List of American Airlines accidents and incidents#2010s in case of deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 12:07, 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. SoWhy 10:06, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 South Australia Cessna Conquest crash

2017 South Australia Cessna Conquest crash (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)

Tragic but not notable small plane crash. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:17, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:22, 31 May 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? 11:22, 31 May 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? 11:22, 31 May 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? 11:22, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-commercial training flight not really noteworthy for a stand alone article. Light twins do crash regularly hardly any of them worthy of a mention and nothing here stands out. MilborneOne (talk) 11:43, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete completely routine accident, nothing special - EugεnS¡m¡on 13:30, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • KEEP - You have been VERY keen to DELETE this entry, SO QUICKLY, that has a significant mount of interest for Australian readers of WP. What is your hidden reasoning? Do you have a hidden link with Cessna? DISCLOSURE, please! - Peter Ellis - Talk 13:50, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have not actually explained why there was a 'delete'. Why not question this on the page? I also do not see any explanation on the Talk page. BIGLY un-helpful! - Peter Ellis - Talk 13:54, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - once an article has been nominated it usual practice to discuss it here rather than the article talk page. Currently only four people have the article on a watchlist so any discussion here gets a wider audience to comment on the merits of the proposal. Please dont comment on the motives of others and assume good faith, the proposer has been around aircraft accident articles a long time and is able to make such judgements based on experience here on wikipedia, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 14:12, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I second milbornes support of the nominator. The author would be well served by reading the essay at
WP:AIRCRASH to help in deciding if it is worthwhile writing a particular accident article!--Petebutt (talk) 05:03, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Rossair is not an airline, and even if it was, that is not sufficient to make the crash notable; nor are the three deaths. YSSYguy (talk) 01:20, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually isn't Rossair a
here
) 06:56, 4 June, 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - It isn't a commercial flight, but it did generate a lot of news coverage, and it is the deadliest crash in the state for some time. If it is not kept, I would strongly recommend a redirect to another article as it is a plausible search term in my opinion -- Whats new?(talk) 01:07, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There have been an average of one fatal air crash in South Australia each year for the last ten years. The last time an air crash in SA killed three people was in 2011, when the ABC television news helicopter crashed and killed Paul Lockyer. That crash generated far more coverage than this and - "other stuff exists" (or in this case "other stuff does not exist") arguments notwithstanding - WP does not have an article about that event. It is covered in the article about Lockyer; the subject of this discussion is covered in the article about the company, I think that is an appropriate level of documentation. YSSYguy (talk) 01:20, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Most general aviation accidents are found to involve a significant amount of inexperience, poor airmanship and poor judgement. The three occupants in this crash were two Chief Pilots being observed by a third who was a Flying Operations Inspector representing the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. No shortage of experience here, so this accident is highly unusual. There will inevitably be a strong focus on the airworthiness of the aircraft, possibly resulting in an Airworthiness Directive. Alternatively, there is likely to be a significant change in the procedures for conduct of check and training flights, and flights involving oversight by a supernumerary checking pilot. Dolphin (t) 02:27, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - these days everything generates news coverage; the coverage of this event has already died down. I can easily think of three other crashes non-general-aviation crashes in Australia in similar circumstances (crew training flights): a Tamair Metro (with the crash mentioned in the Fairchild Swearingen Metroliner article), an Air North Brasilia (mentioned in the Airnorth article) and a Royal Australian Air Force Boeing 707 {mentioned in the RAAF Base East Sale article). All three crashes involved airliner-type aircraft, all three crashes generated coverage and all three crashes resulted in changes to 'the way things are done'. As WP is not in the business of crystal-ball-gazing, it is not valid to argue that the article should be kept because the crash might become notable in the future. The crash is mentioned in the Rossair article and if it does become notable in the future the article can easily be recreated. YSSYguy (talk) 01:20, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The fact that a pilot should particularly know how to fly (which is said for this crash) is not news. Wykx (talk) 07:48, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nominator and
    WP:NOTNEWS states: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." This might be ideal material for our sister, WikiNews, but I can see no reason for its retention as a stand-alone article here. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:57, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted to continue consensus. No bias on final decision
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Nightfury 12:02, 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

(non-admin closure) KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 18:55, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

The Imperial Physician

The Imperial Physician (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)

A short story with no indication of notability. Current article consists of a short plot summary and two quotes from a single essay source. Searches turned up thousands of hits for the expression, but I couldn't find anything on this particular short story. Onel5969 TT me 11:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:06, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:06, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The footnotes clearly cite multiple independent sources on literary criticism of this classical short story. Deryck C. 13:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep Nominator has no idea what he's talking about and did not perform his due diligence (perhaps realising that there would be way more foreign-language coverage) in nominating this article for deletion. Sad indeed! Kingoflettuce (talk) 13:58, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as stated above. Also an example of
    WP:BIAS. ‑‑YodinT 14:06, 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 soft delete.

WP:REFUND applies. SoWhy 19:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Laboratory Robotics Interest Group

Laboratory Robotics Interest Group (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)

I found no significant coverage per

WP:ORG. SL93 (talk) 02:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
talk|c|em) 08:11, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 11:44, 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 no consensus. This discussion has received ample input, and no consensus for a particular action has transpired herein. North America1000 00:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trump orb

Trump orb (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 page was created too soon for a significant coverage to appear.

WP:CRYSTALBALL. Ceosad (talk) 15:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Lol, the
WP:CRYSTALBALL argument is quite appropriate here. ^^ --SlvrKy (talk) 16:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note The above user has ten edits on their account. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:47, 2 June 2017 (UTC) [reply]
  • Keep. Glowing orb. Herostratus (talk) 16:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom; this is another "whatever Trump did today must have a Wikipedia page" article.
    talk) 17:20, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per nom. No need to create an article for this. If it stays in the news we can create a new article. Sjö (talk) 18:12, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. "It is not clear if this meme will become a notable one" isn't true -- it is already highly notable. There are extensive -- and I mean lengthy and detailed -- pieces about this phenomena in the Guardian, the Washington Post, the New York Times, the two other New York papers, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Newsweek, and other highly notable reliable sources, with more coming in every hour.
You know, I've seen some articles rejected recently on the grounds "OK article, good arguments for keeping, and most participants wanting to keep, but sadly must delete, as does not meet
WP:GNG
but smashes it to pieces and bathes in its blood while screaming a victory song. (So to speak.) I would guess that this article has more proof of notability than easily half of our five million articles.
There are five articles (including this one) in Category:Internet memes introduced in 2017 and we more than a third through 2017. So at a guess let's say we end up with 20 or so articles in that category (which seems a reasonable number of articles for a category like that). This one will be one of the twenty, and rightly so, just based on coverage so far (assuming there isn't a meme explosion on the latter part of the year).
Yes I get that it is recent. Sometimes things happen fast. That is why nominator's statement "The page was created too soon for a significant coverage to appear" isn't accurate. Significant coverage appeared very quickly. The argument that I think you want to make is "Well, but who knows if this has staying power? Maybe it is ephemeral" Sure maybe, but it your crystal-ball gazing to say "This highly notable event will be unnotable in 20 years". You don't know that. Notability, once established in the historical record, is hard to erase. Yevdokim Zyablovskiy (1763–1846), once notable, is now utterly forgotten. So? Keeping a record of stuff that has been forgotten is part of our remit.
Update, here is the Hindustani Times out of New Delhi coming on line. The Boston Globe and CNN have also picked this up -- again, extensive full-length articles, not passing mentions.
Nomination is completely out of order, to be honest.
WP:GNG Notability is established beyond any doubt. Only argument for deletion is "may become unnotable in the future" and I suggest a nomination be made when and if that does happen rather then nominating on the guess that it might happen. Herostratus (talk) 18:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
If you've read
WP:TOOSOON simply says "If sources do not exist, it is generally too soon for an article on that topic to be considered". That's not the issue here. There are plenty of sources. The essay actually says the opposite of what you seem think it does... Herostratus (talk) 21:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
As far as I'm concerned, any coverage within 24 hours is effectively a primary source; it's too soon for a secondary source to exist on the topic. Perhaps
talk) 21:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
OK. Well, IMO the primary sources for a meme are the meme-carriers itself (tweets, mostly). Articles about this in Time magazine and the Atlantic and the New York Times and... well, a lot of people. RT (Russia Today) has lit up, along with the Irish Times and there's already lot of Indian coverage, and of course Australia. Lots of areas like non-Anglophone Europe, and Africa and East Asia, we're still waiting to see. Anyway, these are secondary sources. I mean, OK, it's been 24 hours, so are they good now? We're already seeing further-downstream references in the new section "Spread to political discourse".
Yes, OK, I read Wikipedia:There is no deadline. Yes, that's more like it. It's good advice. It's an essay with reasonable point of view which I can see paying attention to. My judgement in this case is that's it a service to reader to bring this article on line fairly quickly, since people do turn to us to get a quick overview of notable things. It's a judgement call. I notice that that essay also has a section "View two: Don't rush to delete articles"... I would say that this article is notable right now. Down the road, it may have to be edited quite a bit, depending on how things shake out in the longer term. Another 2017 meme article, Nevertheless, she persisted, is continuing to evolve. So we'll see.
Compare to 2017 meme San Escobar. That also was created with a couple days of the event. It seems a worthwhile article. That event was in January. So I don't know. But President Trump is far more notable in the Anglosphere than the Polish Foreign Minister. But maybe that article should also not exist... I would not be surprised to see someone, six months from now, writing something referencing the glowing orb in a major paper. In that case we should have this article so people can look it up. It's possible that this will drop off the edge of the table, that is true. We'll know more before the AfD is out. Possibly waiting on the AfD should have been done. And yeah 10-20 years from now, it might be very obscure. Might be. But we already have a lot of articles on extremely obscure topics that are far less well documented than this -- random hills, chemical compounds, extinct beetles, 18th century sailors, and so on -- and this is considered OK. Herostratus (talk) 23:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely support keeping
talk) 23:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Right. I agree that Nevertheless, she persisted clearly has legs that put it in a higher category; I'm not trying to tie this article to that one. To some degree its a matter of taste, I suppose. I mostly write serious articles about serious subjects, but I've done a few meme articles and I don't mind us documenting memes. Even if it doesn't have legs it's already notable. I have no problem if Category:Internet memes introduced in 2017 grows to a dozen or more, in which case this maybe ought to be one. We're a large encyclopedia and serve a wide audience. This article is much better documented than... I just hit the "random" link ten times, and this article is far more extensively documented than any of them, and longer than nine of them... and possibly more notable than any of them. An actor, a person who was "the keeper of several lifeboat stations", several extremely obscure bugs... a Polish village with a population of 255... Yemeni political party, that is more notable. We sure have a lot of obscure stuff here. Doesn't bother me. Herostratus (talk) 01:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Not only is the article is extensively cited, it speaks to the optics which can befall an international presidential journey, and it is a spectacular meme in its own right. kencf0618 (talk) 00:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - It is just news. Govindaharihari (talk) 05:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A perfect example of
    WP:NOTNEWS.LM2000 (talk) 11:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Again, reading pages pointed to rather than than just relying on their titles is recommended. We just went over this with
WP:NOTNEWS
says: "editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events", although "not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion", and then it drills down with four bullet points. #'s 1 (no original reporting) and 3 (we're not a Who's Who) and 4 (we're not a diary) pretty clearly don't apply, leaving #2 as the only possibly germande guidance. It says

Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information.... Wikipedia is also not written in news style.

I mean, it's fairly general... "most' newsworthy events do not qualify... including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate", so it's not a blanket proscription against recent events. And then the example, the only example, it gives of the kind of stuff we don't want is "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities", which has nothing to do with this article... It does say "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events", which, fair point. Enduring notability is difficult to know, nor is guidance given over whether "enduring" means 1 year, or 10, or 100...
WP:NOTPAPER
which says there's "no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover"
Jimmy Carter rabbit incident is averaging 334 pageviews over the last nine months, and that was almost 40 years ago. For some reason there was a spike to 4,250 views on March 6th -- probably in response to a mention somewhere. Is this article going to average 334 page views with an occasional spike 40 years from now? I don't know. Maybe. Probably. The rabbit incident was pretty obscure. 40 years ago is someone going to write "this reminds me of the Trump orb thing", sending readers looking for info here. Which they won't get if we delete it.
It comes down to opinion and one's idea of what we are trying to do here, really Your opinion is that we should provide readers less information than we do, at least in this case. OK. Fair enough. Honestly, though, I wish when good articles like this are deleted we could at least replace them with a banner, something honest like this:
I don't see the upside to deleting it in the first place, though. I would like to see one person explain to me "It would be a service to our readers and enchancer their experience here if, when looking for information on this topic they find nothing, because _________". What goes in the blank? Herostratus (talk) 14:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Because it is an editorial decision of an encyclopedia. Having
WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Ceosad (talk) 23:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
The existence of one article doesn't impinge on accessing others. The existence of this article doesn't make it harder to get to
WP:NOTTEXTBOOK or whatever, because the Wikipedia is a big project and big encyclopedia with many readers with a very wide range of interests and needs. We're a team here. Herostratus (talk) 03:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Last I checked no one was required to read the article if they don't want to. Herostratus (talk) 03:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On review, and it's hard to believe I am saying this, weak keep, as the article appears to be strong enough to stand on its own merits. Would not object to a merge to
Global Centre for Combating Extremist Ideology if that ever gets an article. Artw (talk) 06:22, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Uh huh. With all due respect, who cares what you're tired of? I don't go after your articles such as Macedonian Mule Corps on the grounds that it is about a profoundly obscure gaggle of illiterate flea-bitten mule skinners from a backwater of the Empire carrying soup cans for a doomed army on a forgotten front in a stupid war, do I ? This is not even considering Düsseldorf Cow War ("Casualties: 2 Civilians + Herd of Cows") and so forth.
I don't go after those articles because it's a big project with a lot of editors interested in a lot of different things, and a lot of readers with a lot of different interests and information needs. FWIW this article is averaging 3,500 page views a day even though it's not indexed, while Düsseldorf Cow War is averaging 2. We are supposed to be a team, and how about you work on articles that interest you, and I'll work on articles that interest me, and together we will build the world's greatest encyclopedia. Herostratus (talk) 14:17, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Herostratus: Did you even read the articles before leaving this comment? "The Corps were dissolved in March 1919, by that time 12288 men had served in the unit or approximately 20% of the Cypriot male population between the ages of 18 and 39". As for the Cow War it was a major political event, however it seems that the internal politics of the Holy Roman Empire are simply beyond your comprehension. What did you expect? Of course people have a craving for dumb memes instead of military history. I refuse to follow your sophisms and help turn this place into some sort of Huxleyan meme dump spiced up with clickbait. Content that interests you does not belong here, there other websites where your expertise would be more than welcome.--Catlemur (talk) 15:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't read the articles, no; I scanned them. I didn't read them because I'm confident that they are useful articles, just as this one is. Call me crazy, but I even believe that articles such as
Pachytegos (one barely-referenced sentence about some extinct and forgotten lifeform) have a place here. Why not? What you don't seem to understand is that the existence of one article does not not impinge on another. We are not limited to 40 bound volumes where one article pushes out another. Even if articles like this draw readers whom you personally would cross the street to avoid, so what? It's no harm to the project. The attitude "I think my articles are great -- history, yay! -- but I'm going to try to delete your articles -- current events (or moth taxonomy, athletes, villages with 42 inhabitants, individual buildings, chemical compounds, whatever), boo!" -- just leads to the war of all against all. There's no upside that I see, and "You kids get off my lawn" is not an actual argument. Herostratus (talk) 15:22, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
I disagree with your interpretation of
WP:NOT. Lets end it at that.--Catlemur (talk) 15:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
I guess, but on the other hand Category:Internet memes has 712 articles plus 13 subcategories with hundreds more -- so, along with being a gazeteer of populated places, a compendium of obscure historical events, a list of moth species, a database of comic book characters, an atlas of landforms, a collection of chemical compounds, a biographical dictionary, and very much else, maybe it is a documentary compilation of 21st century cultural nonsense. Oh well. It's a large publication, that's for sure! Anyway, if you're against this -- not sure why you want to pick on this subject and not get to work clearing out the articles on ultra-obscure lichen species, but whatever -- I don't know if picking out this article, with 39 refs to in-depth coverage in many of the more famous publications in international news journalism, would be the place to start. Herostratus (talk) 15:39, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This article just looks ridiculous. I would not be opposed to mentioning the meme in a section within an article related to the event at which the photograph was taken. Adlerschloß (talk) 14:44, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps
WP:PRESERVE. Ceosad (talk) 15:42, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Well the article does not "look ridiculous". It's large enough (22,000 bytes), properly divided into sections, has a couple photos, has 42 refs properly formatted of which easily 3/4 of are to substantial coverage in reliable sources. It's written in acceptable prose, describes facts properly, and each fact is tied to a reliable-source ref. There's no apparent bias, no BLP violations, easily meets
WP:GNG... what more do you want? It looks like something that could at least be considered to begin to approach Wikipedia:Good article criteria
.
I think what you probably mean to say is the subject of the article is one that you, personally, do not care to read about, which is a different thing. My go-to in these
WP:IDONTLIKEIT
arguments in this discussion is to say "I don't read your articles but I also don't try to to delete them". You don't write many articles -- you do other things around here, extremely needful and useful things I am sure, and thank you for service -- but looking at your last one, I could critique it pretty seriously, but I won't.
So maybe a good compromise here could be, I won't make you read
Trump orb, and you won't make me read Beth Kelly, and we'll let them stay in place for those readers who do want to read them. Sounds like good plan for building a large and comprehensive encyclopedia, to me. Herostratus (talk) 16:44, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
I am sorry Herostratus, but many of your arguments seem to imply that notability is mostly based on the fact that certain other articles or topics are covered in the Wikipedia. See
WP:OSE for arguments to avoid in the AfD. Certain guidelines also exist on the fact that notability is not inherited from elsewhere (Donald Trump or other memes). Ceosad (talk) 18:21, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:GNG is a guideline, not an essay; it's not a policy but it is an important and much-used touchstone. On another mission, I just looked closely at 100 random articles. One of them had as many refs as this one, a couple had half as many. Maybe five were "better ref'd" depending on whether you define "better" as broader, deeper, more reliable, more scientific, or what. Probably not even five. I would be surprised if this article wasn't in or near our top 5% of articles that most robustly meet and exceed the GNG. So there is that. Herostratus (talk) 22:23, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Delete or merge to
WP:TOOSOON, etc.) Kakurokuna (talk) 15:43, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 05:08, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, someone's
WP:CRYSTALBALL seems to be working..... Mangoe (talk) 11:49, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Sure, but then it works both ways. It's famous now. Isn't it crystal-balling to say "but it won't be in a couple years"? Maybe, maybe not -- Jimmy Carter rabbit incident is is averaging 339 pageviews a day (!). So you never know. Herostratus (talk) 13:28, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, this got me interested, and here's some more (all are pageviews per day over the last 90 days):
For contrast the cow war is getting 2 pageviews a day. None of our rules or practices mention pageviews, but it's reasonable to look at those numbers and figure that the existence of the articles is a service to the public, and that that might matter.
FWIW This article is at 1,872, but falling fast, but of course that's artificially high. It's falling fast, but it's not indexed (has a __NOINDEX__ tag) I guess because it's at AfD. This prevents it from showing high in Google results, and so artificially (and probably massively) deflates the views -- no one can find it, which is too bad, because its highest usefulness ever is probably now, and I kind of wish people could have a waited a bit to nominate it, for that reason. Oh well.
Another thing about this article is that, unlike ever before, the current president generates something like this about every two weeks (see Covfefe comment below). It's quite a different situation. Let's see, every two weeks for four years -- that's 100 articles. Eight years, 200 articles. But lots of categories have 100-200 articles or more. But on the other hand, we have separate articles on all the moon landings, but if they were occurring every two weeks, would we still? Well actually we probably would if they were big news and got lots of coverage. It's just a fact that the current president generates "rabbit incident" type news at an extremely elevated rate, and this gets massive coverage.
If there was a major train wreck (or whatever) in the US every two weeks, probably significant coverage would drop off -- paragraph on page five, "Another train wreck". It's not happening here. We might think it's silly for this stuff to keep getting major coverage, but our job is to document what is notable, not what we think or wish should be notable. Herostratus (talk) 14:34, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"If there was a major train wreck (or whatever) in the US every two weeks, probably significant coverage would drop off." This is exactly why there is every reason to suspect that this is yet another Trump meme or "scandal" that everybody forgets about in a couple of months, like all the rest. I really don't think that the
WP:CRYSTALBALLy comparisons and predictions being made in this AfD are even particularly relevant here, given how... unique this phenomenon is. The man's a ratings magnet too, so we're sure to get more pageviews than Carter's rabbit, but I've never heard of page views being a criteria for notability or inclusion before. Kakurokuna (talk) 18:58, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL discourages rumours, but that's it. Ceosad (talk) 14:02, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Notability concern is right there in
general notability guideline, particularly the "Presumed" criterion. Content that seemed notable at the time might in retrospect violate what Wikipedia is not and other guidelines.

– Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:35, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Furthermore, another quote from WP:10YEARS which I think is relevant is After "recentist" articles have calmed down and the number of edits per day has dropped to a minimum, why not initiate comprehensive rewrites? Many articles can be condensed to keep only the most important information, the wider notable effects of an event, and links to related issues. ... Any detailed subarticle relating to the event may also be either merged back into the main article or deleted (this includes any article about a subject
only notable for that one event
).
CRYSTALLBALL is about article content, not talk pages. How many talk page comments have you seen that are sourced? Use a little common sense. Whiff of greatness (talk) 12:05, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:TALK#FACTS, The talk page is the ideal place for issues relating to verification, such as asking for help finding sources, discussing conflicts or inconsistencies among sources, and examining the reliability of references. Asking for a verifiable reference supporting a statement is often better than arguing against it. (emphasis added)  Seagull123  Φ  15:36, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
In contrast, your claim that my comment runs afoul of WP:CRYSTALL or some other guideline is not unverified. It is false. Have you no life? Whiff of greatness (talk) 04:37, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@
be civil. I don't understand your point (could you please clarify it?) - I asked you for sources for your claim that "Any future story recounting the history of U.S.-Saudi relations is likely to mention the orb", and you have not provided any. You then proceeded to attack me more than my argument (Have you no life?). So, I ask again, do you have any sources?  Seagull123  Φ  12:04, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions.  Seagull123  Φ  12:39, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions.  Seagull123  Φ  12:42, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep per
WP:MAGICORB — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B41A:A100:DD84:3986:64DE:BAC0 (talk) 15:29, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
@
not a vote?  Seagull123  Φ  16:01, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since a sizeable number of people argued that this subject's notability would quickly fade, I think another week will allow editors to assess whether this was really the case. I'm aware that relisting a discussion with so many comments is unusual and I was contemplating how to close it but for this reason I think it will be for the benefit of the discussion. Also, since later !votes include a sizeable number of editors advocating merging instead of deleting or keeping, it makes sense to allow previous !voters to reassess their comments based on this potential third option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 11:34, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I added "[citation needed]" because in fact Category:Internet memes has over 1,000 entries, so the presumption is that, along with being a geographical gazeteer, biographical dictionary, list of fungus species, and much else, it appears that we also document 21st century human culture, including memes. Perhaps what you mean to say "I wish we were not a depository of memes" which is very different. See the difference? I well understand the sentiment "the type of person who would be interested in this article is the type of person I would cross the street to avoid", but for better or worse it's a big project and we have all manner of readers, so... Herostratus (talk) 21:49, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:29, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Soniya shetty

Soniya shetty (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)

Winner of Indian pageants that are not notable. Fails

WP:NMODEL Legacypac (talk) 11:05, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:14, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:14, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:14, 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 no consensus.

Linguisttalk|contribs 11:37, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Team Essex Volleyball Club

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

Non-notable semi-professional sports team. Since volleyball in England is not organized at the same level of professionalism as, say, football or cricket, only the national team would be inherently notable. For other teams, evidence of actual significant coverage is needed, and Team Essex fails that criterion. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 01:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Notability is not derived from the players on the team, or from the notability of the league in which the team plays, but rather is demonstrated by the presence of significant coverage in independent media, which is lacking. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:06, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:07, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are lots of examples of the what I suppose would deem significant coverage of Team Essex Volleyball Club in the media. Essex TV is an online television platform, which boasts both its online TV and an online magazine in the Essex region of England.https://www.essex-tv.co.uk/team-essex-volleyball-club-makes-history/, The Edge is a free online consumer based magazine based in Chelmsford, the city of the team's location,http://issuu.com/topdrawmedia.com/docs/edgemay2017?e=1369656/47971685, Volleyball England does its own season review which cites Team Essex's spot in Super 8s next season.https://www.volleyballengland.org/news/article/5534/the-thursday-review. Live coverage is also a regular event, with all our games being streamed by Essex Television. This link is for example the link to our shield final, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqg-4AVO2kg&t=4600s, streamed by Volleyball England, the Confederation European Volley member. I believe this page should be kept as while it may be argued that players and the league in which a team does not hold enough significance to deem it worthy of a volleyball article, these players of notoriety are Olympic athletes. Volleyball might not be recognised widely by some but IMHO I believe that teams in the top division of a country's sporting league should be deemed worthy enough of a Wikipedia article. Thanks. chestersearleChatMe! 18:36, 24 May 2017 (BST)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:07, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:02, 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 no consensus. Two of the three reasons for nominating the article for deletion can be fixed by editing and thus are not

WP:UGLY. As such, despite the numerical majority of delete !votes, there is no consensus to delete. SoWhy 18:38, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Pista House

Pista House (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)

Notability issues, orphan, and ad like content. All since March-April 2012. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:51, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non notable business, no depth of coverage. Ajf773 (talk) 08:19, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 01:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 01:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow time for analysis of sources presented later in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:02, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- if I understand the sources correctly, the restaurant supplies its signature dish to 200 locations, not that they have 200 locations themselves. Otherwise, the article is too promotional to consider worth keeping. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:18, 10 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:25, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rossmund Desert Golf Course

Rossmund Desert Golf Course (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 WP:GNG. Nothing in gnews and gbooks merely confirms it exists in 1 line mentions LibStar (talk) 10:42, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:16, 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 no consensus. This discussion has received ample input, and no consensus for a particular action has emerged. North America1000 12:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ovolo Hotels

Ovolo Hotels (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)

Purely

semper crescis, aut decrescis 13:58, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:32, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:32, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Several sources were added to the article and some expansion occurred on 19 May 2017‎, which occurred after the nomination for deletion and delete !votes above. Relisting to allow time for source and article analysis.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:47, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree, this seems solely made for promotional purposes. There's an article on wikipedia about the owner this page links to, Girish Jhunjhnuwala, which seems like it was also created to further the promotion. Seems like it should get a deletion nomination as well. Scriblerian1 (talk) 00:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think this article should stand as a relevant entry towards WikiProject Hong Kong. The company is a notable business in the territory as referenced but I agree the content should be made more neutral akin to other hotel articles on the site like Ace Hotel or Aloft Hotels.Gamserman (talk) 02:18, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nom. Not only is it not notable, the article also appears to be promotional.
    22408talk to me 03:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep. This GNews search shows that the hotel chain has been receiving persistent coverage in various travel news and business news sources which brings it past the threshold for inclusion. Deryck C. 11:55, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 05:04, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Although I agree "Sydney's 1888" doesn't constitute deep coverage of Ovolo, "Ovolo Sydney" (which you described as advertorially oriented) is not an advertorial, just positive coverage (from a
noteworthy independent source, no less) which is a legitimate demonstration of significance.—A L T E R C A R I  ✍ 22:45, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 08:51, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:37, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WCarPS

WCarPS (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)

pure advertisement. CSD tags removed ,so it had to come here. DGG ( talk ) 08:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:19, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:19, 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 keep. Only delete !vote is a

WP:ATA, mainly mentioning problems that can be fixed by editing. SoWhy 18:26, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Donnalyn Bartolome

Donnalyn Bartolome (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)

Another BLP with no established notability as per

sphere 08:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
talk|c|em) 08:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 08:37, 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 no consensus. Keep !voters correctly point out that filming to start is not required for the film to be notable but there is no consensus whether it actually is at this point. SoWhy 18:19, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Ascension (film)

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

Non

notable future film. Contrary to claimed in the last afd principal photography had not commenced then and still has not now. Last update at imdb said "Securing filming locations". Film lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Just a few reproductions of routine casting announcements, reproduction of PR is not independent. A search found nothing better. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - The movie seems to have a number of notable cast members and a decent-sized budget. There are many Wikipedia articles on movies of this size. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 06:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per
    WP:NFF. Last bit of development news was in 2015. No indication at this point that filming will actually start. It can be recreated if filming does start and if there is sufficient coverage from reliable sources about it. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:47, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Seems like they spent time on another film. I do not find it to satisfy WP:NFF, though, since there is no indication that filming has started and since no secondary source has reported on this news. If they really do make the film and get covered by secondary sources, then an article can be had for the ages. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:01, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it unwise to ignore instructions of
    WP:ATD through coverage we can always temporarily redirect a "worrisome" topic to writer/director or major actors whose involvement gets press related to the project. Schmidt, Michael Q. 18:12, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yashovardhan (talk) 09:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 07:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing to indicate this movie is actually being made, last news was years ago. Page can be re-created if the movie happens Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:46, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, a "word" was given just last February, not "years ago". And even if never made as a film, a topic's notability is determined through coverage, not existence. How about a redirect or a draftify? Schmidt, Michael Q. 18:12, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
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. Renames can be actioned elsewhere Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:18, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

9b-Phosphaphenalene

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

Lack of notability. OrganoMetallurgy (talk) 19:06, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails
    WP:GNG as I couldn't find any sources that indicate notability. --Imminent77 (talk) 19:46, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Keep On the contrary, I would argue this is an example of an interesting and unusual chemical structure, which is just the kind of thing an encyclopedia should have in it. A chemical compound doesn't have to do anything or be useful for a particular application to be notable, chemists often make compounds because they have unusual structural features. When I made this page I was looking into aromatic ring systems containing unusual heteroatoms, and I thought this was a nice example of an aromatic phosphorus heterocycle that was slightly more complex than plain Phosphole or Phosphorine. Still, I will concede there is not much here, and if the consensus is that the page doesn't have enough notability to stand on its own, it could always be merged to a subsection on the Phosphorine page. Meodipt (talk) 19:56, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't look like Imminent77 looked very hard to find sources, I found two within 5 minutes that relate to phosphaphenalenes, apparently they are useful for optoelectronic applications as the aromatic bonded phosphorus changes how it accepts electrons depending what light shines on it, so you can get temperature-dependent luminescence, electrochroism (changes colour when electricity is applied), etc. Lots of very relevant applications. See for instance, "Hindenberg P, Romero-Nieto C. Phosphaphenalenes: An Evolution of the Phosphorus Heterocycles." Synlett 27.16 (2016): 2293-2300." and "Romero‐Nieto C, et al. Paving the Way to Novel Phosphorus‐Based Architectures: A Noncatalyzed Protocol to Access Six‐Membered Heterocycles." Angewandte Chemie International Edition 54.52 (2015): 15872-15875." Looks like the compounds with the phosphorus at the edge of the ring system are more notable than the ones with the phosphorus at the center of the fused rings as here, so this page should probably be turned into an overview of phosphaphenalenes in general, rather than this compound in particular. However phosphaphenalenes in general are certainly notable! Meodipt (talk) 20:10, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I was looking for sourcing specifically for 9b-Phosphaphenalene derivative that this article is about and was not able to find any. Neither of the papers that you have listed mention 9b-Phosphaphenalene in them, while I do not disagree with you that an article about phosphaphenalenes in general could be warranted, I stand by my assessment that 9b-Phosphaphenalene itself does not pass
WP:GNG and is not notable. If a page for phosphaphenalenes existed then I could agree that this page could be redirected to it, however as it stands I believe that deletion is the best option. --Imminent77 (talk) 20:26, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
So help make this page into an article about phosphaphenalenes in general then, this example was just the one I happened to come across in 2011. If I had realised at the time that other isomers were more notable I would have made a page about those instead. If the page gets deleted it is very unlikely anyone will make a new page about phosphaphenalenes any time soon, whereas if the page is left then it is easy to improve.
WP:PRESERVE! Meodipt (talk) 20:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 19:57, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
  • The particular chemical compound in the title of this article, 9b-phosphaphenalene, is not in any way notable as outlined in the
    general notability guideline. There is only one scientific paper (the Structural Chemistry paper cited in the article) that specifically mentions this compound. This paper is only a month old, and 9b-Phosphaphenalene is not the subject of the article. Also, the paper describes only computational work related to this hypothetical compound: 9b-phosphaphenalene has never actually existed as far as I can tell. However, there is plenty of literature and scientific research regarding phosphaphenalenes as a class of chemical compounds (some of which have actually been made and have potential applications) as described in the article. So I think if the article can be generalized, it would be well worth keeping; but if it remains focused on 9b-phosphaphenalene, it should be deleted. ChemNerd (talk) 20:42, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Ok. Agreed 9b-Phosphaphenalene is not notable then, everyone happy to move the page to Phosphaphenalene then and make it about the notable isomer(s) instead? Meodipt (talk) 21:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a good idea. OrganoMetallurgy (talk) 16:24, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have struck out my delete vote and can support a move to phosphaphenalene and redirect 9b-phosphaphenalene to phosphaphenalene. --Imminent77 (talk) 18:24, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 07:46, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename article to Phosphaphenalene, with a redirect from 9b-Phosphaphenalene. i.e. the oppositie of what it appears currently. I note the article has improved considerably since it was first nominated for deletion. Nick Moyes (talk) 08:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or rename to Phosphaphenalene. My very best wishes (talk) 00:56, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Cook Hotel

Captain Cook Hotel (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 WP:CORP. there is coverage for the same named hotel in Sydney, Auckland, Alaska, and Bendigo, but nothing to warrant this one. LibStar (talk) 06:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:46, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:05, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:05, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:05, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is a
    evidence of notability. Bearian (talk) 23:41, 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 Speedy delete.

Linguisttalk|contribs 06:44, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Govinda Raj Bhattarai

Govinda Raj Bhattarai (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 article claims Bhattarai is well-regarded for his accomplishments but a search on him brings up absolutely nothing worthwhile as far as sources are concerned. Clearly fails

WP:CREATIVE. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:43, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:24, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:24, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:46, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:40, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:40, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Appears to be self promo advert spam. Sagecandor (talk) 18:08, 11 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:20, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Gayle

Andrew Gayle (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)

Article describes student about to pursue PhD. Seems wholly not-notable except for his sole research paper which won a "JMR Paper of the Year" award from Cambridge Core/Cambridge University Press, but I'm not sure how prestigious that is. Other sources included are trivial (general articles that mention him in passing or not at all, or about his parents) and I couldn't find anything on Google News. Doesn't meet

WP:ACADEMIC (depends on award quality?) Blue Edits (talk) 06:39, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:35, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:20, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Budworth family

Budworth family (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)

Apart from an 'account' written by a Budworth in the 1800s, there appears to be no books, writings or authoritative studies of this family line. The Wikipedia article appears to be a piece of

WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 06:02, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:03, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:13, 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 Keep-ish but rename. Alright, there is clearly no support for deletion and the sources mentioned here for the topic are only weakly contested. A number of editors are advocating a merger but I don't see a consensus for that, also because of the conflicting proposed targets. Finally, it seems like the preponderant opinions want to keep the article but under a different name, for which I will start a move request Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:37, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Squirrel-sponsored cyberterrorism

Squirrel-sponsored cyberterrorism (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)

Is this a notable topic? Appears to be a

Animal attacks is a disaster, Template:Animal bites and stings is a collection of disasters, and DYK sometimes lets inane or incorrect stuff through. Is there some kind of worthy article about the dangers of squirrels behind what appears to be a bunch of WP:POINTS?Plantdrew (talk) 04:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC) Plantdrew (talk) 04:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Best Regards,
Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 11:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article has good sources and the topic was very interesting. User:Barbara (WVS) assumed good faith in writing the article. Thank you-RFD (talk) 12:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename (and rewrite, in part). Damage done to electric and electronic infrastructure by squirrel action is a real topic, and should be covered by the project in some capacity. That said, despite some sources taking a tongue-in-cheek approach to calling squirrels terrorists, the naming convention used here (and the overall tone) really just isn't compatible with
    animal attacks is demonstrably incorrect (those are attacks on persons, not property), and a merger to squirrel is substantially undue weight. The sources that make comparisons to the effect of actual terrorism have a place there (in a section, but not in a standalone article), although, again, keeping the tone appropriate will be important; this project does very much indeed expect a "non-humorous article about a humorous topic". Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I might agree with you except there is precious little information in the sources regarding the threats to infrastructure. The sources are about squirrels. Not much of a comparison exists between squirrels and other forms of threats of infrastructure. Probably, the whole point of all the sources is that the damage that squirrels cause has been more significant than actual terrorist attacks on power grids. Unfortunately, the last sentence does not appear in the sources since so many of them parody the incidents rather than discuss the issue with a serious tone. The sources set the tone and call the squirrels pelzigen Selbstmordattentäter abgeschaltet worden. I don't have a point of view and the sources are not forming a battle against squirrels (surprisingly). This is not an article with a point of view. If it is, what is the point of view except to reflect what the sources have stated? Shall they be scolded and told to take the topic seriously? and describe other threats to infrastructure? I don't know anything about threats to infrastructures - but ask me about squirrels and I can write a whole series of articles...
Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 14:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upon reflection, perhaps
    tone. This is neither titled nor written in "a formal tone" and a "businesslike manner". Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:24, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]

*UPDATE* - Just to mess up renaming the article even more, content and a reference to the squirrel's ability to infiltrate nuclear missile sites now has been added to the article. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 19:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of this discussion that isn't an inherent problem. It certainly is encyclopedic to host information about a species that causes major infrastructure damage. Property damage caused by squirrels, perhaps? It still also seems feasible to incorporate this as a section into the main Squirrel article. Skrydstrup (talk) 19:46, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Skrydstrup: No, the Squirrel article is already too big to be incorporated in. I will suggest quite the opposite; Link this article to squirrel as {{Main}}.--Biografer (talk) 20:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Too large? Squirrel is a start-class article with only four paragraphs under the Behavior section. The article is list-heavy and it arguably has an oversized gallery, but lists and galleries aren't a barrier to expanding text sections with sourced information. Skrydstrup (talk) 05:41, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment squirrels are not sentient and do not use talk or use computers, therefore they cannot engage in cyber-terrorism. This article under this title should be speedy-deleted as a hoax. Discussion of squirrels causing power events should be on a page with a different title.
    talk) 22:00, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I sense that no one has actually read the sources because in them, there is no mention of squirrels causing power events (the opposite is true), there is no mention of damage to wood-shingle roofs, vehicle wiring, and cabling or other property damage (except for chewed wires), and only power disruption and tunneling into nuclear sites are has been discussed by the sources. There is a solid, neutral point of view-no one is out to get the squirrels or make them look bad (they sacrifice their lives as they do their deeds). How about:
Squirrels as terrorists (parody)
Terrorist squirrels (parody)
Accusations of terrorism aimed at squirrels
Gnawing into the grid
Oh the lights just went out-I hope its just the squirrels again
Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 22:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Completely lacks notability. Marvellous. Hoax Spider-Man 07:06, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite so true. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 10:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article clearly needs a serious name Nick-D (talk) 10:59, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 14:44, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 14:44, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:55, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Changing iVote to Delete unless renamed or redirected. This
    WP:TROUT article creator.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:10, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I humbly accept being trouted. It is, truly, an honor. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 04:30, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tvoz, there are excellent reasons for keeping an encyclopedia sober. I agree that this would make a pretty great headline for an article. But, you know, there are countries where the press, even the government-backed press makes accusations of this sort. I'm talking about Egyptian TV jounalists who accuse the
    Globe and Mail into reporting on the threat from Vermont-based cyberterrorist squirrels, and citing Wikipedia.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:21, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
@E.M.Gregory: And since when did Wikipedia became a news source in competition against Globe and Mail? Or am I missing something?--Biografer (talk) 02:02, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It is probably not articles like this that fuel the ire of government-backed press, it might be articles like this, this and possibly this (though probably ok with Japan and the third graders). Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 04:30, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I nominated one of those for PROD.
talk) 04:47, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Rename and fix accordingly — It seems that damage by squirells may be notable enough for clickbait titles to abound. I don't think we should fall into that though (we don't care if our title is sensationalist enough to attract as many clicks as possible)... —PaleoNeonate - 03:39, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Due to the great editing by other editors, the article is in great shape and I am OKAY with the title Squirrel infrastructure damage which I think is an even more humourous title. Shall I just move it? Or do I wait until an administrator closes the discussion. Best Regards,
Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 20:26, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Improvements are welcome during AfD, but moves can make the process more complicated. The close is likely to be a keep, merge or rename consensus one, at which point it can be moved more easily (see the end of
WP:AFDEQ for more details). Thanks, —PaleoNeonate - 21:52, 11 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

Squirrel-sponsored cyberterrorism. SoWhy 18:16, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Squirrel induced power outages in Pennsylvania

Squirrel induced power outages in Pennsylvania (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)

Is this a notable topic? Appears to be a

Squirrel attacks and then creating this page. Plantdrew (talk) 04:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC) Plantdrew (talk) 04:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

The
Animal attacks
article is about the topic of attacks on human beings. The scope of the article does not include animals attacking inanimate objects like wires, electrical grids, doggy chew toys, catnip toys or my shoes.
Best Regards,
Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 12:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:14, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:14, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with
    Squirrel-sponsored cyberterrorism; definitely a similar subject matter, and very short article; uncertain what title it should be merged under. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The article was created yesterday and is still undergoing expansion. It will end up being larger.
Best Regards,
Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 12:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While there's certainly cause to discuss squirrel damage to infrastructure, there's absolutely no reason to attempt to list specific incidents, especially by state. There's nothing special about the squirrels or the power lines in Pennsylvania. And, indeed, the article doesn't try to convince us otherwise; it's almost exclusively a big list of links to news reports of squirrel damage. That doesn't cut it for notability, either. Call this a "trivial intersection" or just silly, but this isn't suitable for inclusion. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is
    talk) 22:05, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The speculation is sourced. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 20:59, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I created the article
    Animal attacks and often return to it to edit and add more content. I noted that the attacks of squirrels were missing from Animal attacks, and did my Google search to find that not only do squirrels attack humans, they do it frequently, they do it frequently in Pennsylvania, and they damage power grids while being characterized as terrorists. Watching my editing history only demonstrates that I tend to add content to a number of similar topics at the same time. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 11:28, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 14:43, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 14:43, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 14:43, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, but did your squirrels make it into the newspaper? Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 20:59, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Making it into the newspaper" is precisely why we have
WP:NOTNEWS. One doesn't even have to read the articles, but only run the mouse pointer over the reference numbers to see that this is routine coverage, mostly in small-town papers, of events that are forgotten after a week or two. Mangoe (talk) 11:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Touché, Montreal. I probably should have used my other account, Bfpage for the squirrel-article-creation frenzy, but Pitt is used to my shenanigans by now. I consider having three articles up for AfD something as a badge. I disagree about what we are here for. I write for my grandchildren. That is what we are here for. The future. You think something is wrong with the squirrels, check out my other masterpiece Empathy in chickens. That got deleted once and then was re-hatched after I successfully provided even more astounding references. I'll change it to a list article, if you would like. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 20:59, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Really, this is going a bit far. Are we going to have one for every state? for every animal? How is this notable? Please don't let the squirrel in your bonnet lead you up the garden path that much, Barbara :p --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:09, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes actually, there could be a page for every state. The best sources are about squirrels though the UK has more problems with birds and power outages. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 20:59, 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 merge to

Animal attacks. SoWhy 18:14, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Squirrel attacks

Squirrel attacks (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)

Is this a notable topic? Appears to be a

Animal attacks and its subpages (which are disastrous). Plantdrew (talk) 04:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC) Plantdrew (talk) 04:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge As the man said. Not worth an article. Now a gopher, there's a fiend... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:28, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
“
Pocket gophers are pugnacious and fight man or dog as quickly as they would an animal of their own size. To the gopher, everything that moves is an enemy and is attacked with vicious wheezing and savage bites. The toe of a boot or a stick is seized, and the heavy incisors make deep cuts into wood or quickly through leather…The gopher’s vision is extremely limited, and it seems not to see an object until very close, when its instinct of self-preservation suggests a prompt attack."[1] Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 11:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Hence the little known preference for sabatons among adventurous hoosiers :p --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:32, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, perhaps the sabaton article needs a gallery to include these rodents. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 20:32, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Clearly a joke, and content is unencyclopedic trivia. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I created the article in good faith. I had never heard of
    WP:GNG
    in mind. My intent is to adhere, in good faith, to these guidelines.
    • This article a topic that has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
    • The secondary sources
      WP:NEWSORG
    • It contains no original research
    • The independent sources excludes works produced by the article's subject (
      squirrels
      ) or someone affiliated with them.
    • WP is not (
      WP:NOT
      ) a repository of everything and this article is not a dictionary entry, definition, a usage, slang, and/or idiom guide, personal essay, discussion forum, advocacy forum, personal attack on squirrels, scandal-mongering, self promotion, marketing, advertising, internet directory, blog, personal web page, memorial or dating service.
    • The topic is not new and can be found in sources from previous years and even decades.
    • The article was just created yesterday and has not had time to be fully expanded with reliable sources.
    • The category Animal attacks contains other similar articles, some which aren't as adequately sourced as this one. That is to say, articles on attacks by different animals are quite common. Even more common are the articles that are categorized by the deaths of people by animal attacks.
    • Though arguably a humorous topic, the humor comes from the sources, not the editor (me). I am sure that creating a non-humorous article about a humorous topic can be done, but it doesn't need to be done in that way.
Best Regards,
Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 11:08, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt it's a good faith effort. But do you think there is sufficient material to build it into a more substantial article? Otherwise it really would be better off as a section in the main article. There's rarely any benefit (neither to the reader nor to us) in scattering small sub-topics among separate articles.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:23, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. It should really begin to shape up by the weekend. My other articles, along the same lines, have always been improved to the point of satisfaction to those who have originally suggested their deletions. It is rare that an article that I create gets deleted. In almost every instance, the nomination is done the same day that I've begun working on the article, even with the {{underconstruction}} in place. You won't be disappointed.
I am sorry to inform you that I am unable to locate enough secondary sources to create an article:
Animal attacks
article, as consolation.
Best Regards,
Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 11:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:POINTy joke. Wish it has been funny enough to justify wasting other editors time.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:34, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Can we have a little AGF here? There's no indication this is meant to be POINTy. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:02, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to
    Animal attacks We can't have separate pages for attacks from all animals unless they are exceptionally different from the lot. --Skr15081997 (talk) 14:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
We actually DO have dozens of articles on animal attacks (by species, breed or genus). See the Category: Animal attacks. I did not write all of them or even most of them. There are enough moose attacks for a separate article but I haven't gotten to that yet. Best Regards,
Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 20:35, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back to
    animal attacks. I'm loathe to dump more content back into that mess of a parent article, but there's very little to suggest this should stand on its own. Isolated squirrel bite incidents get attention because they are unexpected, not because they are a significant cause of injury. Indeed, both ICD-9 and ICD-10 single out rat bites (for which we lack an article) and dog bites (which we have) as being of special significant. Squirrels are just another part of ICD-10's "other mammals". And for good reason. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:57, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete. Not enough material for a separate page. My very best wishes (talk) 02:39, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Squirrel bites have their own ICD code, remarkably.[2][3] Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 20:40, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 14:45, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 14:45, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 14:45, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

References

  1. ^ Bailey, Vernon. Revision of the Pocket Gophers of the Genus Thomomys. (January 1, 1915). University of Michigan Library (January 1, 1915), page 13.
  2. ^ "2015/16 ICD-10-CM Diagnosis Code W53.29 : Other contact with squirrel". Retrieved 2015-10-16.
  3. ^ "When squirrels attack! There's a medical code for that".
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. But it seems there's also consensus to merge these all into one article.  Sandstein  10:57, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha 1 (Robert Silverberg anthology)

Alpha 1 (Robert Silverberg anthology) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable series of anthologies. The editor is notable and it seems like most of the authors are, but I can't seem to scare up any notable stories. The collection of stories is not notable by inference, so these titles don't meet

WP:NBOOKS. Mikeblas (talk
) 21:24, 23 October 2016 (UTC) Also nominating these articles for the same rationale:[reply]

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
Alpha 4 (anthology) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
Alpha 5 (Robert Silverberg anthology) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Alpha 6 (Robert Silverberg anthology) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Alpha 7 (Robert Silverberg anthology) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
Alpha 9 (Robert Silverberg anthology) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

-- Mikeblas (talk) 21:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • And while I am at it another user suggested that use the longer and more descriptive article name. They renamed the article moved it to the longer name which I really liked.--DominicCapuano (talk) 15:41, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure what "notable" means but the term sounds a little subjective. The authors are all long time contributors to science fiction. Because a story has not been made and subsequently remade into a movie where they blow everything up or kill everybody does not mean there is no value to the stories.--DominicCapuano (talk) 15:35, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that an editor removed the AFD notice from, and then renamed Alpha 4 (Robert Silverberg anthology). -- Mikeblas (talk) 00:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:11, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Robert Silverberg; the anthology does not appear to be independently notable and no sources have been presented at this AfD. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:02, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. ISFDB shows reviews in notable genre magazines for most volumes in the series. There are quite a few notable stories in the volumes, not all properly linked, as well as award-winning and -nominated stories that don't yet have articles. The real issue here is whether to merge these entries into a single series article or maintain individual articles, and that's not an AFD issue. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 01:00, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 16:53, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- change to keep per arguments present, but if kept, then merge all sub-articles into one article on the anthology.K.e.coffman (talk) 07:36, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  05:02, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Berlin terrorist plot

2017 Berlin terrorist plot (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)

Another prime example of why Wikipedia is

WP:NOTNEWS. A day after this article was created, sources have reported that no evidence of a terror plot have been found. [27][28] Basically, this is an article about a non-existent plot. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:19, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per
    2016 Ludwigshafen bombing plot, 2016 Sweden terrorism plot. So the dude who wants to delete the article should have some arguments, why this bomb plot is less notable than the rest.--Rævhuld (talk) 12:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Rævhuld I am almost absolutely certain you ignored my rationale completely. Please read the sources I provided. They report that the suspect was released and the texts were misunderstood. There is no plot.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Since 'Police officials claimed that "[e]vidence of the planning of a concrete act has not yet been identified during the police investigation"', can I paraphrase: evidence of anything actually happpening to warrant an article in Wikipedia has not yet been identified by me. —
    semper crescis, aut decrescis 12:24, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Redirect to
    Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present)#Terrorist plots. Sources clearly state that security authorities had multiple reasons to suspect intention to commit a suicide attack. And these are WP:RS like DW adnd Die Zeit.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:17, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • E.M.Gregory the only "reason" reported for his arrest was a mistranslated message to his mother. Also, please explain this to me, why would we redirect an incident confirmed to not be a terrorist plot to a list of terrorist plots? For an arrest where the authorizies even admitted they had no concrete evidence, it seems we would be implying there is some truth to this debunked claim.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • DW: "Authorities were put on the trail of the suspect by information from other German states, Schröter revealed." E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:57, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Information" is such a broad, ambiguous statement; whose to say it was not the message, literally the only "evidence" available from sources? E.M.Gregory are you going to respond to the remainder of my statement? About why a debunked claim needs to be redirected to a list of terrorist plots? This 17 year-old did absolutely nothing terrorist-related yet you want this incident redirected to a list of verified plots and threats.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:33, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I read and cited DW, can you point me to the source that supports your assertion?E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certainly E.M.Gregory. I would be happy to link my sources again (see my deletion rationale at the top for the first time).
  • BBC: "'No concrete evidence was found that he was planning a crime that endangered the state,' Reuters quoted prosecutors as saying".
"There was also no evidence that he was linked to any foreign militant organisation, the news agency said".
  • The Locale: "Public prosecutors said on Wednesday that they did not find enough evidence to substantiate suspicions that the teen had been plotting the alleged attack in Berlin. He was therefore released" TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:58, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Basically, an unaffiliated person did nothing to no-one. These sort of police investigations happen all the time and are not encyclopedia, because they are not notable. This matter should perhaps never have been made public, other than the police claiming how vigilant they are. WWGB (talk) 00:42, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per no actual plot. Might actually be reason for
    talk) 04:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I wouldn't quite say the article has no content, so much as the subject does, but I can see where you're going with that. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:50, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@
talk) 20:27, 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 result was keep. Consensus is clearly to keep. (non-admin closure) Jdcomix (talk) 17:56, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reality Winner

Reality Winner (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

WP:BLP1E. All content should go in other others about the event.Casprings (talk) 01:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:57, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:57, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Widespread reporting on this subject for a basis of notability on par with Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning. bd2412 T 02:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)d[reply]
  • Delete -
    WP:NOTNEWS are the overwhelmingly authoritative community rules on this. Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning did much more to become lastingly notable than Winner, and have had and this notability continue due to their world image of being whistleblowers (Snowden even frequently does interviews about his views on different privacy issues till this day). I must therefore agree with the opener of this discussion. 77.66.12.7 (talk) 02:19, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • 76.66.12.7 is applying the wrong standard. Yes, Assange, Snowden and Manning, have received more coverage than Winner. That is hardly surprising, since their whistleblowing has been covered, for years. The appropriate standard to apply is whether coverage of winner remains focussed solely, or largely, on her leak. When extensive reporting focusses, in detail, on her life, her academic career, her military career, her hobbies, her pets, her social media activity, her family, and her apparent loneliness, then she is clearly not an example of BLP1E.

      No offense, but I suspect 77.66.12.7 is falling into a common trap. I suspect he or she holds the personal opinion that Winner shouldn't be notable. But notability is based on the opinions of reliable sources, not on the personal opinions of wikipedia contributors. Geo Swan (talk) 05:39, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

      • @Geo Swan: One question: was she notable before this event happened? 77.66.12.7 (talk) 06:56, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Um, what? Were Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning notable before leaking? Was Daisy Ridley notable before starring in Star Wars: The Force Awakens? Is it in any way surprising that most BLPs needed a notable event in order to become notable? What you're basically saying is "was she notable before becoming notable?" κατάσταση 07:30, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is really simple 77.66.12.7. Winner became notable when reliable sources chose to write about her, her hobbies, her family, her academic career, her USAF service. Geo Swan (talk) 07:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Major new sites including nytimes, washingtonpost, independent, bbc, guardian, cnn have carried news on this, it doesn't fall under
    WP:NOTNEWS per-se cause it has developed into something bigger including her being charged by the NSA..This will develop further.--Stemoc 02:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep. When I ask myself if in five or ten years when I am talking to someone unfamiliar with the early months of the Trump presidency, will I be want to be able to explain who this person is, my answer is that yes I probably will. KConWiki (talk) 02:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: There is potential for this individual to gain the notoriety of Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden. Reality Winner has been everywhere recently and aside from the valid argument of NOTNEWS, we have to consider that this subject could be poignant to the course of the Trump presidency. If this is a drop in the ocean, then yes, I will then support deleting this.
    talk•cont 03:05, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
She falls weakly on the side of notability at this point. As of writing this, it's a fringe case.
talk•cont 06:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
@Geo Swan:
If I do something publicly, I have to expect publicity. But if I do something privately and anonymously, like Winner did, I don't have to expect publicity. Ask yourself this: If the reporter at The Intercept had been smart enough to cover the tracking markers, would we know about Winner? Most certainly not.. We only know about her role in this leak because of sloppiness she couldn't control and most likely didn't expect.
Your example shows the problem with your argument. Phil Spector is not notable because of a murder, he was notable before. On the other hand, to take a truly random example I just picked out of the search box,
Michael Adebowale are not articles but redirects to Murder of Lee Rigby
despite the huge amount of coverage. Why? Because neither is notable outside this single event.
We can use the murder-example for that next point as well: Murder of ... articles oftentimes include biographical information of the murderers (see example above) without it being off-topic. Why would it be different in case of another (alleged) crime?
At this time, the article is a
WP:BIO1E explicitly warns against creating. As to whether the leak is "highly significant", one should remember that in this day and age many things receive a lot of coverage but it's not really clear whether the leak will be remembered in a few months or even weeks. The guideline mentions assassins of major political leaders as an example (so the "highly significant" event would be the assassination); I don't think Winner is in the same category, is she? Regards SoWhy 10:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
  • WP:DELETE deletion is not based on the current state of the article. Deletion is based on the notability of the topic. We keep weak articles when the topic, itself, is notable. I am not going to ask you to explain why you characterize the article as a pseudo-biography, since it is completely irrelevant. This is irrelevant here. And it would have been irrelevant in any other AFD you used this argument, in the past, when the individual was notable based on coverage in reliable sources, not used in the article. Please don't use this bad argument in future.

    I just re-read PSEUDO, and found it is not even a guideline, just an essay. Lol. I have an essay, as well, that takes the opposite position. Essays can never trump genuine policies Geo Swan (talk) 13:12, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

    ]

That is where we disagree. I don't see how making fun of her name equals coverage of her independent of the leak. Colbert yesterday said her arrest proves that "Trump is at war with Reality". Is that a sign that she is notable independently from the leak? I think not.
Again, saying it is "irrelevant" does not make it irrelevant. She wouldn't be known unless for the actions of a third-party. Which is different from people acting in ways they know will generate publicity.
As for
WP:BIO1E
, which changes its "value". Imho, it fits perfectly, since all coverage of her is in connection with the event.
But let's keep it at a strictly policy-level, shall we?
WP:LOWPROFILE
(which again is an essay that is linked to from a policy) and the event if not significant (which here means no persistent coverage in RS).
I think we can agree that #1 is the case here?
As for #2, the linked essay defines a low-profile individual as a person, usually notable for only one event, who has not sought or desired the attention. This is where we disagree (see above) but I think based on that supplement's definition it's safe to argue that her media attention was that for a low-profile individual.
Criterion #3 is the one we need a
WP:CRYSTALBALL
for since the significance of the event can only be judged in hindsight. I would argue to err on the side of caution here and assume that this leak will likely be forgotten in a few weeks (incidentally, today there is basically no more such coverage, with all media outlets focusing on Comey's testimony. Since #3 requires the event to be significant and her role in it to be substantial, her central role does not change that.
PS: There is no need to remind me of what does or does not constitute valid reasons for deletion. I'm well aware. As always, reasonable people can disagree in such matters and this is the case here. We both read the applicable policies and guidelines and came to different conclusions. Time will tell whose was correct Regards SoWhy 13:51, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • O.J. Simpson was the focus of extensive coverage, when he was charged with, and stood trial for, murdering his ex-wife and her boyfriend. He seemed to fade from sight, after he was acquitted. Isn't the logical extension of your argument here, that we then should have deleted the article about him?

    You do realize that one of the most important uses of an encyclopedia is to allow the interested reader to look up topics that have faded from the popular press? Geo Swan (talk) 13:25, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

    ]

Yes. As for #1, it is probably a difference of opinion based on how one understands "in the context of". I understand it to mean "because of", i.e. is she only being covered because of the event? That is the case.
As for #2, I'm not saying we should not cover her, I am saying we should cover her role in the event in an article about the event.
And as for #3, I think you misunderstand. I'm not saying she has not received a lot of coverage, I'm saying the leak will probably not be considered significant in a few weeks / months time. #3 requires both though.
Trust me, I'm certainly no friend of Trump and I am still not sure how so many people can support him. Yet, saying we should cover the leak, not the leaker, is not "spin doctoring" nor is it "forgetting". In fact, an article about the leak is far more "damaging" in this context than an article about the leaker. And again, the article being about the leak and covering Winner's role in it there is perfectly acceptable based on the aforementioned policies and guidelines and does not make the content any less useful. It just directs the focus to the real subject, the leak.
Basically, when it comes to BLPs such as this, the question is this: Would the event be notable without knowing about Winner? Certainly. Would Winner be notable without the event? Certainly not (unlike OJ Simpson who was a notable athlete and actor before the murders). So it makes sense to have an article about the event that is notable whether the leaker is known or not but not about the leaker who is only notable because of it. And again - I cannot stress this enough - I am not arguing to remove the information, just to restructure it. Regards SoWhy 13:42, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met: ... If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented."
And in this case the event _is_ significant and the role of the person substantial and well documented. So the very reasons given for opening this deletion discussion speak in favour of keeping the article. --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 12:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per other arguments above in favor of keeping the article. Also, for crime perpetrators,
    WP:PERPETRATOR. FireflySixtySeven (talk) 13:10, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep per BD2412 and FireflySixtySeven. --BDD (talk) 13:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, her case is widely reported in mainstream news. --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 14:29, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She's notable, and her eventual trial will likely generate even more news coverage. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes GNG, BLP1E doesn't apply to central figures of events, and we cannot crystal ball if she'll return to being low profile. Consensus can change later / recentism so no prejudice for BLP1E applying later. Fine here for now. Widefox; talk 14:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable -- Firefishy (talk) 16:46, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, She is notable and will most likely become even more so in the coming months.Whoisjohngalt (talk) 17:17, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Because I came here expecting to find the page. Cutelyaware (talk) 18:51, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Winner is at least as notable as John Kiriakou and others who have been prosecuted for leaking, who typically get their own pages.Amyzex (talk) 19:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Passes
    WP:PERP. The notability of this case is on par with historical cases such as Robert Lee Johnson and Christopher John Boyce as well as more contemporary cases such as Snowden. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 19:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep per Geo Swan. That's put very well. Gatemansgc (talk) 20:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Subject does not meet points 2 or 3 of BLP1E to qualify for deletion. Specifically point 3 says; If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. The "individual's role" in the event is central, she was the event. No Reality Winner, no event. For that matter, there are numerous sources now covering this, there are only going to be more later. This will be well documented if it already isn't. I also agree with Geo Swan's point above about her not being "just a whistleblower". Mr rnddude (talk) 22:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Clearly notable. Robvanvee 07:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—She's not incidental to the event, and I would argue that her notability derives from two separate events. There have been numerous leaks of data from the NSA and about the Russia-Trump probe, few of which yet confer notability on a leaker. In Winner's case, however, there has been a prosecutorial decision to charge Winner under the Espionage Act. Given their historical rarity (just 13, ever) and prolonged media attention to this rarity, I would argue that every person who is prosecuted for espionage for leaking to the press is notable.--Carwil (talk) 19:13, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The event is clearly notable, and it makes more sense to write an article on her rather than something like 2017 NSA leak or whatever. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 21:02, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am glad to see that many of you want to keep this, in accordance with Wikipedia rules. I don't contribute because your rules are too rigid in many ways, and if you delete this article you are proving that Wikipedia is based on false values. Many of your pages about large organizations and book authors were put up as advertisements, hiding behind your anonymity. If Wikipedia cannot accept pages related to heroic people and controversial issues, you have outlived your usefulness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuel Lann (talk • contribs) 22:40, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously. I agree that it is very different from the case of Chelsea Manning. Chelsea harmed many good people and the interests of US. In contrast, Reality revealed an important report about Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections that supposed to be made public at the first place, but for strange reasons was covered up. If that disclosure harms anyone's interests, that were interests of "bad guys", whoever they are. And she is going to be prosecuted? That is what makes this case highly notable, with the subject looking pretty much like good heroes of this movie persecuted by the bad agency. My very best wishes (talk) 18:56, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She has admitted to FBI agents that she disclosed information knowing "the contents of the reporting could be used to the injury of the United States and to the advantage of a foreign nation". Also, she is notable as the first person charged under the Espionage Act for revealing information classified as Top Secret during the Trump administration. (My very best wishes, it doesn't matter whether she is different or similar to Chelsea Manning. I don't know if she good or bad. I'd rather that we not get into that here, or perhaps at all, given WP:NPOV.)--FeralOink (talk) 03:45, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep. Seriously, why is this discussion still open? FallingGravity 05:03, 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 merge to Taraxacum officinale. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 17:06, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taraxalisin

Taraxalisin (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)

Not really a notable topic.

talk) 13:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This may help put the subject into perspective. As conveyed by its name, Taraxalisin relates to the properties of Taraxacum officinale. IMO a legitimate phytochemical topic. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 08:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Taraxacum officinale. This seems to be about 2 sentences worth in the "Herbal medicine" section. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Google Scholar search linked above by 84.73.134.206 demonstrates that this is indeed a notable topic because of the amount of research published on this enzyme. It can be mentioned at Taraxacum officinale, but I think there is sufficient material available in reliable sources from which to expand this stub into a stand-alone article. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:50, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:17, 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 keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:23, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keyboard Maestro

Keyboard Maestro (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

WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:03, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:05, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I've never really understood the desire to delete information from Wikipedia unless it is inaccurate, but anyway, here are sources I (as its author) quickly found for Keyboard Maestro that are "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject":

Those were the ones that I found quickly, there are many more references and tutorials, lots on YouTube for example, even ignoring the very active Keyboard Maestro forum (which may or may not be considered independent). All have significant coverage, and all are clearly independent. What is considered "reliable sources" I wont try to speak to.

Hopefully this helps making an informed decision. Sorry if the formatting is not appropriate, feel free to reformat it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterNLewis (talk • contribs) 03:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@
WP:RS? Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:33, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
I doubt if he knows about our intricate web of policies and standards, but yes, he's plainly asserting that these are good and reliable sources, including some by acknowledged experts in the field, and all independent of the article's topic. I think he has identified more than enough sources of high enough quality to demonstrate notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:49, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:23, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kantu (software)

Kantu (software) (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)

Contested PROD. Fails

WP:GNG and no sources exist. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:02, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Linguisttalk|contribs 11:33, 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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2017_June_7&oldid=1142618226"