Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 May 7

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 6 May	8 May >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:19, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Ahmad Nasr

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

subject fails

WP:GNG. Being a contributor to a notable newspaper or blog isn't enough to establish notability.—Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 23:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 23:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sudan-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 23:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

(talk) 23:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep As the writer of the article, I disagree with your conclusion. If "being a contributor to a notable newspaper or blog isn't enough to establish notability," what is? He is the author of Sudan's most well-known sociopolitical English-language blog, not just some run-of-the-mill blogger. He is also an author of book that has been covered by multiple reliable secondary sources. Both of these notable facts are covered by secondary sources throughout the internet. What more would you like to see? Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 01:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a quick search turns up in-depth articles about him in Foreign Policy magazine, Wall Street Journal, and the Economist. Seems to me that he meets notability criteria as author and activist. Glendoremus (talk) 04:50, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Several high end refs, passes GNG. South Nashua (talk) 00:03, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above, strikes me as GNG Chetsford (talk) 06:55, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick M. Seymour

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

He's an up and coming voice actor, but hasn't carried any Wikipedia-notable series to meet

WP:ENT Hardly any secondary source references describing his work. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:20, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:37, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While he may not be doing the traditional work of other actors Angus has edited, he has certainly made a mark on the internet and social media, he has linked back a lot of his credits for sourcing on announcements and the sort. I feel his wikipedia is not up for deletion and reverted back to his original state, if you need confirmation, message him and requests sources on everything provided. Nosliwpilf (talk • edit) 19:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per

Stampy Cat or PewDiePie. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:14, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Also, he shouldn't be editing his own article as that is a conflict of interest.

WP:RESUME. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:18, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete - I'm seeing no reliable sources at this point. Esw01407 (talk) 17:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable sources are present. If some feel he is an upcoming voice actor then this is a case of
WP:TOOSOON. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:48, 11 May 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. I'm going to go ahead and invoke

WP:SNOW: there's no way this article would survive the AfD. We can reconsider if something happens in the future to lead to this company getting significant news coverage, but for now, the company does not meet our notability criteria. —C.Fred (talk) 01:47, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

PayPal World

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

Redirected by RileyBugz to PayPal, and reverted by the creator. At first seems like a good redirect, but the company isn't actually linked to PayPal, despite what the infobox claims by linking it to Confinity. The problem is that PayPal doesn't exist in Pakistan, and from what I can tell PayPal doesn't have any service named this. Did a source check and I couldn't find any press that would meet ORG or GNG. Deletion looks to be the best option at this time. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:10, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Speedy delete under
G11. Sentences like "PayPal World is the first and one of the largest Internet payment companies.. PayPal World extends its services to all over the world|" aren't exactly neutral. This is not to mention the subject's lack of notability. This supports a deletion if G11 is not applicable. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 22:17, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:40, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:40, 8 May 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

(non-admin closure) f e minist 02:43, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Multiprocessor

)

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

This is a content fork of

Cache memory, which largely duplicated content already on CPU cache and related pages. These were done in good faith, but the end result was disruptive. Wingedsubmariner (talk) 22:08, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Wingedsubmariner (talk) 22:19, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. The redirect to Multiprocessing should be restored.

Rename or Merge, but give a fully considered Afd before simply redirecting.
Multiprocessor
is now a discussion of some particular architectures. This much is wrong: too detailed for our top-level article on the topic. However that's also a more substantial piece of seemingly valid work than a simple RfD "redirect as synonym" question should be removing.

I can see scope for expansion of Multiprocessing; even at this introductory level, that's a short article. Should this content be merged there? Maybe. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @

Multiprocessor that isn't present on Multiprocessing, however those topics are covered on other, higher quality articles. Symmetric multiprocessing and Non-uniform memory access cover most (maybe all?) of the additional material. Thanks for your interest! Wingedsubmariner (talk) 18:45, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Much of the problem is with the thinness of multiprocessing. There's a need for an overview article that covers and links to symmetric multiprocessing et al., without needing the reader to go as far as symmetric multiprocessing itself. Multiprocessing is nowhere near doing this.

I see this as a very bad move, for just that reason. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:02, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Multiprocessing. Better make it as a redirect rather than delete to facilitate merging of content. My very best wishes (talk) 04:24, 11 May 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 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Wilde

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

No evidence of any notability. A local sportswriter who seems to have attracted little notice. The reference for several of the claims to notability was a dead link but restoring it from the archive reveals it as an autobiography piece with no substance. Fails

WP:GNG. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:08, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete - Subject is only mentioned in passing in reliable sources, thus lacking notability. Meatsgains (talk) 01:12, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant independent coverage to show
WP:GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 19:25, 14 May 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. Administrator BigHaz deleted the page at 23:33, May 7, 2017 (UTC) per

WP:CSD#A7. Mz7 (talk) 23:57, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Luc Comeau

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

Does not meet

the General Notability Guideline - absolutely no mention in independent, reliable sources can be found. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:02, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Speedy delete. The only claim that the article makes about the subject is that they were a "state qualifier" in a high school debate competition. This does not strike me as a
WP:CSD#A7. Mz7 (talk) 22:11, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:24, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Jarman

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

not notable Rathfelder (talk) 21:50, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:00, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks notability and independent coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 01:15, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - I found a few sources, but not enough to convince me that the subject meets
WP:GNG. http://www.sgnscoops.com/woodsmen-quartet-welcome-tony-jarman/ https://southerngospeljournal.com/archives/10087 http://singingnews.com/news/11591844/ A mention at http://www.sgnscoops.com/quite-a-legacy-a-look-at-legacy-five/. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:44, 8 May 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. Plenty of discussion, consensus unlikely to be reached.

(non-admin closure) f e minist 02:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

List of marathon fatalities

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

We got the first marathon runner who died running, the other two have valid reason for this list but the rest are amateurs who will never pass GNG here - other than this, we will end up with an unencyclopedic and indiscriminate list of amateur runners dying that serves no purpose here Donnie Park (talk) 21:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:27, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nominator. This page will soon become an unencylopedic list of non-notable runners who died while running. Meatsgains (talk) 21:37, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename List of fatalities due to running or List of running fatalities (Pheidippides didn't participate in a formal marathon). No valid reason has been given for deletion. Unnotable entries simply call for cleanup. Category:Lists of people by cause of death has lots of other lists of sports-related deaths (e.g. List of skiing deaths, List of deaths by motorcycle crash). I don't see why running should be singled out for exclusion. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reason to compile lists of non-notable people who died in particular circumstances. Incidentally, the criteria is somewhat nebulous in that the lede refers to runners who died during a marathon, however, two of the NYCM runners - similar to the story of Pheidippides - died after the race. One can scour news sources and find deaths after other race distances, too. I would hate to see lists of kids who died during football workouts or basketball games, etc. -
Location (talk) 04:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep and tighten criteria if necessary to avoid excess length. – The article is consistent with the
WP:LISTPEOPLE guideline and with dozens of parallel sports in Category:Lists of people by cause of death and Lists of sportspeople who died during their careers. It's OK if people want to tighten the first sentence to a list of notable (blue-linked) individuals who died as a result of running a marathon. But you'll see that not a single non-notable has been added since the day the article was created 14 months ago, so the fears expressed in some of the comments above are wildly overblown. —Patrug (talk) 05:12, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep but cleanup. It's a notable topic band consistent with various similar articles, but could use some work. Still,
AFD is not cleanup. So that's not a reason for deletion. And I should point out that many similar articles include non-notable individuals if their deaths received substantial coverage, but they weren't notable before then. So this article may be fine as is. In any event, that's a content dispute, not a deletion issue. Smartyllama (talk) 13:18, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Notable subject if only it consists of notable pro runners who died running not some non-notable amateurs. Donnie Park (talk) 19:36, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable phenomenon. Listed people need not be individually notable. Hyperbolick (talk) 13:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, otherwise we'll end up with an indiscriminate list of news reports about every non-notable people who died during non notable marathons, notability of persons or events are not inhereted. Ajf773 (talk) 19:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We could simply rename the article

List of cyclists with a cycling related death) and cleanup to suit. Ajf773 (talk) 19:53, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

As I noted above, hypothetical fears that "we'll end up with an indiscriminate list" are wildly overblown. Not a single non-notable has been added since the day the article was created 14 months ago, and ordinary editing is quite sufficient to keep such articles consistent with the

WP:LISTPEOPLE

guideline. We don't delete an article because someday it might be inconsistent with a Wikipedia guideline and someday an editor might not fix it.

On the day that the article was created, there was ONE notable individual put into the list (i.e.

Location (talk) 06:27, 12 May 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. Nomination has been withdrawn. (

Lepricavark (talk) 18:00, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Vivien Saunders

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

No evidence of any notability. Despite some ambitious claims, searches yield nothing to support the claims. A search for the Curtis Cup team 1968 yields this] which suggests Vivien Saunders was NOT in the team. This may all be a fiction to raise a profile to sell books. Nothing here gets close to

WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:00, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:18, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:18, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:18, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:18, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See this http://www.womengolfersmuseum.com/Famousgolfers/S.htm from the Women Golfers' Museum website. Nigej (talk) 21:26, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep I have added two references for wining the
WP:ANYBIO. --Rogerx2 (talk) 21:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - the reference quoted includes a statement given by Vivien Saunders. The article is unclear whether the reporter attests to her reputation or whether this was something she said. Such a success would surely have easily-found robust sources, but I have been unable to find them Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:58, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Velella did you check the two references I had already added at the time of your comment? one of them was a book citing the winner of the British open sorted by years. I found many more references citing it but I thought two should be enough! --Rogerx2 (talk) 14:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will improve the article. --Rogerx2 (talk) 21:36, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the BBC believes she founded the Women's PGA and won the Women's Open. If it's just a ruse to sell books, she's pulled a very fast one on the BBC. (And every news organization that comes up when you click on the "news" link above.) The article needs clean up, but not deletion.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:40, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also added source showing she was one of the first winners of the Women's British Open.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 03:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clear Keep - Satisfies
LPGA Tour. One of the leading British lady golfers of her era. Just because there's little about Women's golf on the internet is no reason to exclude her. Nigej (talk) 07:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Withdrawn - I remain unconvinced by the Bundy reference - it looks like a vanity publication - but the Ricoh link recovered from the archive looks to be sufficient Velella ^{Velella Talk} 07:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Poor article. Typical home-spun version which needs a lot of tidying up. Nigej (talk) 07:33, 8 May 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 per consensus --

^"talk" 10:53, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

BJPs Verbal Attacks on Mamata Banerjee

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

Inappropriate list of every negative comment the opposition party in a legislature has made in 2017 about the chief minister and her government -- and mostly they're trivial talking points like "make your stand clear", "we will defeat you in the next election" and "civil servants have lost their edge". This is par for the course in politics -- it's the opposition's job to criticize the government and keep them on their toes -- so there's no need to maintain a permanent list of such

WP:TRIVIA, because things like these or worse are said in every legislature on earth every day. (I'll admit that calling her a hijra is a step beyond the norm — but not at all to the point that it would singlehandedly justify an indiscriminate list of everything anybody ever said about her.) Bearcat (talk) 20:40, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:20, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, certainly. I do not see any sources covering this as a topic in a systematic manner; which just means this is some editor collecting negative comments from the news, and is thus completely inappropriate. I'd say this is a violation of SYNTH, NPOV, INDISCRIMINATE, NOTNEWS, and probably a few other things as well...Vanamonde (talk) 04:50, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.
WP:NPOV. Ajf773 (talk) 19:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. Also, the author be given welcome message with dos and donts for wikipedia. ChunnuBhai (talk) 06:03, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trying to think what part of
WP:NOT this falls under. Probably several. OR for starters, since there in all likelihood isn't a single reliable source detailing every verbal attack on a politician. Lacks neutrality against a prominent living person. Suffers from recentism, with a handful of incidents in the past month even though she has been in state government since 2011 (and the group in national government since 2014). In all, not a subject someone would search for in an encyclopedia. Mamata Banerjee#Controversies would be the closest thing to a criticism section I'd expect for this BLP. Fuebaey (talk) 14:18, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: per
WP:OR. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:23, 14 May 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. per G5. On closer inspection the user who created this was blocked before creation e.g. Special:Contributions/Strizivojna SmartSE (talk) 20:13, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Scott (musician)

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

I'm unconvinced that

WP:NMUSIC is met. I've searched for is album titles and his name but not been able to turn up any sources providing in-depth coverage. Of the independent sources in the article, they are exclusively local newspapers or trade magazines which are unlikely to have a reputation for fact checking. Per the evidence I added to this SPI we can be certain that this was written by an undisclosed paid editor as well. SmartSE (talk) 19:41, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:00, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:00, 7 May 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. Hut 8.5 20:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alisa Titko

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

WP:GNG, she would need a much wider range of coverage, in a much wider range of contexts than just a blip of public reaction to one inflammatory comment. Bearcat (talk) 18:38, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep. Columnist in the biggest-selling newspaper in Russia. Hence, her columns are read by hundreds of thousands of Russians. I created a stub and I don't speak Russian, so I can't look for more sources about her education, career highlights, etc. But Wikipedia is a collaborative ongoing process, and I'd like to see Russian-speaking Wikipedians expanding the article. There can't not be sources in Russian.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:42, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A person does not get an automatic inclusion freebie just because somebody makes an unsourced claim about how many people read the content that she writes for a media outlet — a person gets a Wikipedia article by being the subject of enough content, written by people other than herself, to clear

WP:BLP1E, not a person who has yet attained anything that would make her permanently notable. Sure, Russian language sources could possibly save the day here, but an article does not get an inclusion freebie just because improved sourcing and a stronger claim of notability might become possible — no matter how much improvement might still be needed, even the first version of the article still has to contain stronger evidence of notability right off the top than this has. And we also don't keep articles just because somebody assumes that better sources might exist somewhere — we keep articles only if and when somebody shows firm evidence that better sources do exist somewhere. Bearcat (talk) 18:53, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

This is a pointless discussion. We have to see if Russian-speaking Wikipedians are able to expand the article before this gets deleted.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:07, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, we have to see if Russian-speaking Wikipedians are able to write a solid article before this is allowed to exist in the first place. It's "find the sources needed to properly support an article first and then the article follows", not "write the article first and then see if the sources needed to properly support it might turn up someday". Bearcat (talk) 19:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Upon creating this stub, I added three sources saying she is a columnist in the biggest-selling newspaper in Russia. I think that makes her notable. You don't. We'll see if others find more sources. But you need to assume good faith.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Being a columnist for a major newspaper is not an automatic inclusion freebie in and of itself, in the absence of enough

WP:BLP1E, because all three exist solely in the context of a single blip of coverage of a single controversial statement — you have not shown sources which support enduring or permanent notability for a journalist. For that, you need to show sources which cover her deeply and broadly in a variety of contexts extending beyond a single one-event blip. And those sources need to be present in the article right off the top, to boot — the fact that it might become possible to add such sources someday is not in and of itself grounds for an article to be kept, because anybody could claim the same thing about anything. So no, the grounds for a keep are not "we will see if others find more sources" — finding enough sources to properly support an article comes first and then the eligibility for an article follows, not vice versa. Bearcat (talk) 19:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

The three references talk about her and are written by other people. You want more. We'll see if we can get more. I am not interested in going around in circles about this. I have nothing to add.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:55, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The three references make her a

WP:BLP1E pretty much every time I've commented at all. Bearcat (talk) 19:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I've explained my perspective and you've explained yours. The fact that she writes for Russia's biggest newspaper does not change, whether she went viral or not, especially as this is a stub. You want more, I know, and I have nothing more to add. So no need to reply! Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:07, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:01, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:02, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:02, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if a lengthy feature article or even a book discussing Titko appears in the future. It is just possible that or or more such sources already exists in Russian, although I rather doubt it. In the absence of such a source's being identified, retaining this article would be putting the cart before the horse. I would note that there may be other articles in which inclusion of the well-sourced content found in this article would be perfectly appropriate. Rivertorch^FIRE _WATER 20:35, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources. We've established, it seems, that she is notable in Manchester, England. Maybe that should be enough? I tried to find her in Russian wikipedia, however, without success. Maybe someone with better linguistic insights into possible alternative spellings could take a look and see if I'm missing something obvious to a Russian speaker. She does appear in Russian wiki as Алиса Титко as the author of various sources. But no one appears to have given her the dubious honour of her own entry there. Maybe that should be the place to start? Regards Charles01 (talk) 10:08, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, sorry. She does not appear to meet
WP:GNG as near as I can tell. I couldn't find any in-depth coverage of her, a mini-bio or an interview or that sort of thing. She doesn't have an article in the Russian Wikipedia. She is the author of a few articles that are used as sources there, only a few. She probably is known as a byline to many people, as she writes many articles
on a variety of subjects (tending toward human interest) for Komsomolskaya Pravda which of course an extremely high-visibility venue. It's not enough. We don't seem to have enough about her.

And then beyond that it's a bit of

WP:BLP issue. If we had a two-sentence article about how she won an award or got a promotion, that'd be different. But this is arguably negative. Sure she's probably laughing and glad for the publicity, but it's not the sort of thing that a journalist would necessarily want as the one thing that is known about them. So a second reason to delete. Herostratus (talk) 16:53, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete - fails basic levels of
wp:bio Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 03:01, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Request could a Russian speaker please give us her name in Cyrillic, so that we can google for russian sources?
Stuartyeates (talk) 22:08, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

I'm not much of a Russian speaker, but (1) I did study it at school and (2) I already wrote (above), "She does appear in Russian wiki as Алиса Титко ....". If you will have time to google for Russian sources please do it. As you probably know, google treats each of us differently, depending on what we looked at before and / or on what they think we might be persuaded to buy. So you might very well get further than I did with googling in Russian. Success. Charles01 (talk) 06:37, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I should have been more clear. In Russian wikipedia she is identified as the author on several source notes. She does not (unless someone just started one) get her own entry. Charles01 (talk) 06:39, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --
WP:BIO1E at this point & no ru.wiki article. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:33, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was redirect to

talk stalk 06:24, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Robert Steinhäuser

Robert Steinhäuser (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 is a 1BLP with content (and in fact all the references) referring to the event itself. The redirect is constantly being reverted but again the subject is only notable because of the event. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:47, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
WP:ONEEVENT. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:01, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
Location (talk) 16:50, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to Erfurt school massacre. No biographical content separate from the one event, just a highly detailed description of the subject as perpetrator. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge content to
WP:BIO1E.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:52, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to
WP:BIO1E and all that. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:19, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to
WP:ONEEVENT. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:24, 14 May 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 main article, redirect others to
(non-admin closure) f e minist 04:25, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Celebrity Cricket League

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Celebrity Cricket League

Articles for deletion/Celebrity Cricket League (2nd nomination)

Articles for deletion/Celebrity Cricket League (3rd nomination)

Articles for deletion/Celebrity Cricket League (4th nomination)

Celebrity Cricket League (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 don't know we should keep this article. If yes then there are many in line. These kind of leagues are not notable as no notable cricketer is playing in the league. Added that it can be notable with coverage in many notable sites, but its season can't establish same notability so this discussion is more for seasons. Greenbörg (talk) 17:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

2012 Celebrity Cricket League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)

2013 Celebrity Cricket League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)

2014 Celebrity Cricket League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)

2015 Celebrity Cricket League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)

2016 Celebrity Cricket League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)

Greenbörg (talk) 17:39, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep
List A cricket seasons, and this is neither. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep tournament article. Tournament clearly passes
WP:GNG. The season articles should have been nominated separately. Hack (talk) 02:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep main article, which demonstrably meets
WP:GNG. As Hack suggests, the season articles should really be listed separately, as they require more discussion that isn't relevant to the main tournament article. Harrias ^talk 08:09, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep tournament article and delete season articles per the above. Jack | ^{talk page} 13:23, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep tournament article per above. The individual season articles should be redirected rather than deleted per
WP:NSEASONS. Smartyllama (talk) 14:38, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per NSEASONS, meets GNG. Needs cleanup, though. South Nashua (talk) 02:08, 15 May 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 per consensus --
^"talk" 10:56, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

List of languages used in public transportation announcements

List of languages used in public transportation announcements (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. This list, should it be completed, amounts to
WP:LISTCRUFT and a collection of unenyclopedic trivia. At best, the articles on the individual transit systems could include a sentence stating the languages its information is displayed in. – Train2104 (t • c) 17:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete.
WP:NOTTRAVEL. Ajf773 (talk) 08:07, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 19:44, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.
Wikipedia is not a guidebook, nor a directory. Cnilep (talk) 00:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. No indication that such a list is encyclopedic. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:35, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well you would think that statutory languages used in public transportation would be notable.--Prisencolin (talk) 17:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Such information can be mentioned in articles on the individual transit systems. Agree it's WP:listcruft. MB 18:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: LISTCRUFT. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:26, 14 May 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 per consensus --
^"talk" 11:00, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Turkish News Network

Turkish News Network (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)

Fictional news network in video games, not notable but technically not a hoax. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:08, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not sure how to post comments properly here but I agree, it's not a hoax and is similar to other more notable fictional brands. SiberixIX 17:17, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:28, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 17:29, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 17:29, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable fictional newschannel. The only references are
WP:PRIMARY consisting of a YouTube video, a twitter account, and an online forum. Justeditingtoday (talk) 17:40, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

--Mentioned issues have either been addressed or do not apply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siberix (talk • contribs) 22:05, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How so, Siberix? CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 23:08, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

-- the YouTube video is related, the twitter account is official and there is no online forum

Please read
WP:OR. I didn't say the video wasn't related. There certainly is an online forum. It is this reference which is an online group with a message wall. Justeditingtoday (talk) 00:37, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

--that's not a forum — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siberix (talk • contribs) 04:48, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever it is, its not a third party reliable source written by a professional journalist or writer, which is
WP:VG/S for some common examples) the article is going to be deleted. And even if you find sources, you're probably also going to have to come up with a reason for why we need an extremely short stub of an article on a fictional news network from a video game. If you haven't noticed, that's not the type of thing that typically has its own separate article. It sounds more like something that would be a couple sentences in the Roblox article at best. Sergecross73 msg me 15:49, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

-- the roblox article is too general for such an article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siberix (talk • contribs) 21:19, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well then you're looking at "delete" as your only option then, unless some better sources are found. There's no chance it'll be kept with the current sources - they're not even borderline acceptable currently. Sergecross73 msg me 23:04, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable, in-universe, fictional content for the Roblox video games. Absolutely no need for a stand-alone article. Sergecross73 msg me 18:54, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by throwing this article into the sun.
WP:RS before they consider creating another article. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:08, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete blatantly promotional in nature, and not at all notable.
talk) 01:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. This is another
WP:SNOW-case: it clearly lacks reliable sourcing and isn't notable in the slightest. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per above commentary.
Aoba47 (talk) 19:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Subject just isn't notable nor is it covered in any independent reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 00:43, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article lacks reliable third party sources to establish notability. TheDeviantPro (talk) 07:38, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:27, 14 May 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) 22:22, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Plastic Nancy

Plastic Nancy (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 reliable sources providing in-depth coverage, and fails to meet criteria at
WP:BAND. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:36, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:13, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:13, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:13, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fairly obviously not notable based on their current accomplishments.
talk) 06:01, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - lack of coverage found to suggest this band meets
WP:BAND at this time. Gongshow   talk 03:10, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was redirect to
List of footballers who died while playing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:19, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Alex Marques

Alex Marques (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)

Player never played in a professional league so doesn't pass
WP:GNG Harambe Walks (talk) 16:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:14, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:14, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:15, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
List of footballers who died while playing; not independently notable. Giant Snowman 18:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect - as suggested above. The subject is not independently notable. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:58, 8 May 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 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CostPerform

CostPerform (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)

Has no reliable sources to pass
talk) 14:35, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: Non-notable software per
WP:N. SL93 (talk) 02:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: no claim to notability per
WP:GNG. All of the references cited are product marketing, and that's all I can find about it online. Uncle Roy (talk) 04:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete:
WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 09:00, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete: I have removed the proposed deletion notice because of the following reasons: 1. has multiple reliable sources. Not only the study performed by EY but also other online sources 2. Comparable Wikipedia pages about business software such as BluePrism, Anaplan, Jedox etc. contain similar information and similar sources. 3. The multiple independent sources show proof of notability of the software since they show that the software is being used in multiple countries, multiple industries, a large number of companies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericvandervorst (talk • contribs) 18:47, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing notable. Most sources not independent. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 03:29, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - EY study mentions CostPerform exactly once as software used in an example. All other sources either establish that it exists or are from the company itself.Tobyc75 (talk) 15:47, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: for reasons given in rejected AfC submission. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:42, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with above reasoning. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:40, 14 May 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. (
talk stalk 14:50, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

2016 Asian Dragon Boat Championships

2016 Asian Dragon Boat Championships (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 sports event. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:49, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:10, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:10, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:10, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep it's clearly a tournament on an international scale. Until we have a
^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 16:07, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 05:41, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 14:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A cursory examination of press coverage shows more than enough evidence for notability.
talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:04, 8 May 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. (
talk stalk 14:52, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Llana of Gathol

Llana of Gathol (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)

Yes, the author is notable (but see
WP:INHERITED) and yes, the book exists (but see Wikipedia:Existence ≠ Notability); what I was not able to find was evidence of its having been the non-trivial subject of discussion in multiple independent reliable published sources. The article as it stands has none, and a Google search turned up only repeated instances of the book, not meaningful discussion of it. It looks like an editor may have decided that every book Burrows wrote warranted a Wikipedia article, which is a misunderstanding of how notability works. KDS4444 (talk) 07:49, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 17:54, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 05:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 14:31, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The
talk) 06:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep found the following on Google Scholar: Abstract (does anyone have full-text access to this?), [4], [5] (again, no full text). Otherwise, a merge to
WP:ATD-M, since it's a clearly real story collection set in a notable fictional universe. Jclemens (talk) 02:50, 12 May 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) 22:18, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

21 Total Speed (solitaire)

21 Total Speed (solitaire) (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 solitaire version. Cannot locate multiple reliable independent in-depth sources for
WP:PROMO for Tesseract Mobile. (Previously deleted as PROD, so bringing to AfD.) —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:03, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:03, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:06, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 14:18, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think it's an advertisement, but it's so poorly written as an article I'm not sure.
talk) 06:13, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - no coverage found to suggest this game meets
WP:GNG. Gongshow   talk 18:08, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was redirect to
talk stalk 06:22, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Newton Leys Primary School

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

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

Non-notable primary school. Usual practice has been to assume primary schools are non-notable unless there is something very special to the contrary. There is not. Emeraude (talk) 13:50, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 13:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 13:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 13:57, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:20, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to
Milton Keynes Council, per Lugnuts. Nothing notable here. Alansohn (talk) 11:52, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to
documented precedent. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:35, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect: to
Milton Keynes Council. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:28, 14 May 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) 22:22, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mitendra Singh

Mitendra Singh (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 significant coverage in
talk|c|em) 13:26, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk|c|em) 13:26, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk|c|em) 13:26, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 16:00, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nomination. He won a beauty contest that I can't find anything about in
WP:RS, and he is active in a political party, but hasn't actually run for any office yet, so there's no political career to speak of, let alone assess for notability. Uncle Roy (talk) 16:32, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Winning a non-notable beauty contest is not a free pass over our notability standards for beauty pageant contestants, and the article makes no claim about his political involvement that would constitute an
WP:NPOL pass at all. Bearcat (talk) 20:15, 9 May 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 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Helen McGee

Jan Helen McGee (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 "psychic" who claims to have solved "several" murders with absolutely no coverage in RS, with a handful of interviews on local news stations about a book in which she claims to have used her abilities to talk to the mothers of 12 famous (dead) men, such as Albert Einstein. The book has received no coverage in RS. I've searched some local archives as well as the full Newspapers.com archive and am coming up empty for physical sources. There are a lot of Jan Helen McGee/Jan McGee/Helen McGee's but none of them appear to be this person. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 14:08, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 14:15, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 14:15, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Fails
WP:ANYBIO. [Passing on this golden opportunity to do an AfD !vote in the style of cold reading]. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:36, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Rhododendrites Just Do It CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:47, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Chrissymad: Nah. Don't want to get into potential BLP issues. I mean, if we were talking about someone who was long dead rather than a living person, then it might be more acceptable to just write whatever unfalsifiable fluff we want to, but that's not the case here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:13, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails
WP:GNG. The refs are all non-RS (one is a promo page for her book). She may have been on the TV series but it was "so popular" thast there are no episodes listed at the IMDb page linked in the article.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 15:01, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: No evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:22, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:39, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails
WP:GNG. Montanabw^(talk) 10:39, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - doesn't meet
WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:36, 14 May 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) 22:19, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AzharHussain

AzharHussain (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 reluctant to nominate the article for deletion given the claims in the article and the fact that he apparently appeared in or hosted several TV and radio shows, both in Pakistan and outside Pakistan. However, searching for coverage in reliable sources resulted mostly in false positives for an athlete named Azhar Hussain, or passing mentions for this Azhar Hussain and his organizations. It's possible that coverage in Urdu or Arabic exists out there, but as it stands, I can't find much significant coverage specifically about him.
csdnew 11:24, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
csd new 11:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
csd new 11:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
csd new 11:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
csd new 11:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
csd new 11:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - this falls under speedy because there is no reference in article. Fails
WP:GNG. This is clearly an autobio created by subject himself User:Dj azhar hussain. The subject previously tried to hijack Azhar Hussain. --Saqib (talk) 12:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Delete per my nomination and previous speedy deletion. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 14:03, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 8 May 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 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Farhadian's conjecture

Farhadian's conjecture (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)

Does not appear to be a notable mathematical concept; the article is a possible COI article as the article creator appears to be the person who coined the concept. It appears it may have been mentioned in one journal (according to a reference in the article), but a search for sources resulted in just three Google hits, all of which appear to also be by Farhadian. Previous CSD A11 was removed by an IP address, so I'm taking this to AFD in order for the article to get a wider hearing.
csdnew 10:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
csd new 11:00, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nomination. Self promotion of non-notable conjecture, with no significant coverage online from
WP:Synthesis
at best.

Once I tagged it for COI, article creator's edits cease, and an obvious sock IP resumes, including removal of the A11 speedy tag placed by the nominator and repeated removal of the AFD template and maintenance template. Uncle Roy (talk) 12:27, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
csdnew 12:32, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Honestly, I understand nothing about this subject but the total lack of coverage in any academic sources (or anywhere else for that matter) leads me to believe, just as the nominator, that this is probably OR and obvious COI, especially when combined with the incessant AfD tag removal. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:40, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.
WP:TOOSOON, in a non-reliable source, and larded with false sources that are published prior to the statement of the conjecture and just give general properties of prime numbers. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: per Narutolovehinata5 and Uncle Roy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Guy Macon (talk • contribs)

Delete - fails V given the paucity of secondary sources. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:20, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt: Self promotion of non-notable conjecture, Author's behavior indicates a high chance of recreation. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:31, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:35, 14 May 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 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deep One (disambiguation)

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Deep One (disambiguation)

Articles for deletion/Deep One (disambiguation) (2nd nomination)

Deep One (disambiguation) (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)

Unnecessary disambiguation. The entry for XCOM fails
WP:G6 deletion of an orphan dab page with one entry. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:35, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 16:01, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete 2-item disambiguations are unneeded per
WP:2DABS, a hatnote would suffice even if the monster were mentioned in the XCOM article. Further, the XCOM reference may well be simply an instantiation of the Lovecraftian monster in popular culture, which would likely mean it should be discussed and linked from the prose on the primarytopic, rather than actually having its own article. Jclemens (talk) 16:22, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
When this is deleted, can the closing admin also nuke
Deep One (alien), which is just another redirect to the XCOM article that doesn't mention that in-game instantiation at all. Jclemens (talk) 16:29, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
That's probably a better argument for
WP:RFD to handle... -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:31, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Could have been speedied, as
WP:2DABS. Boleyn (talk) 08:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. It's crazy that an inconclusive AfD from 11 years ago is keeping this from being prodded/speedied, this probably should have been taken care of then. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per Shhhnotsoloud and Tavix. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:44, 14 May 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 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Job van Uitert

Job van Uitert (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)

WP:NMOTORSPORT. Non-professional racing driver who competed only in the low level single-seaters championships. Corvus tristis (talk) 09:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:02, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:02, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. One of many articles created by the same user that fail WP:NMOTORSPORT, as detailed by the many, many prod and AfD templates on their userpage. Note that the same user has been blocked for continuing to create this very sort of article. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable racing driver like the editor's other articles. SL93 (talk) 02:33, 8 May 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) 22:22, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar Piastri

Oscar Piastri (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)

WP:NMOTORSPORT. Non-professional racing driver who competed only in the low level single-seaters championship. Corvus tristis (talk) 09:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:04, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:04, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. One of many articles created by the same user that fail WP:NMOTORSPORT, as detailed by the many, many prod and AfD templates on their userpage. Note that the same user has been blocked for continuing to create this very sort of article. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unremarkable racing driver who fails NMOTORSPORT and, just as obviously, GNG.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:37, 8 May 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. MBisanz ^talk 12:31, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Al-Jizani

Mohammed Al-Jizani (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 removed with no refs added. Not notable. Fails
WP:NFOOTBALL scope_creep (talk) 09:02, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:05, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:05, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can provide many references for this, but the most concern is notability. He is a defender and above all he is playing in the third class football league in his country. — Free E. (talk) 14:31, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Actually, he doesn't fail
WP:FPL. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Bit slim is it not Struway2 Played once. scope_creep (talk) 16:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's played twice, actually. For two different teams. My mistake, I didn't check the dropdown menu for any other appearances. But "once" is enough to pass WP:NFOOTBALL. If he doesn't pass WP:GNG, which I'm not competent enough to judge, because I don't read Arabic, then fine. Nominate him for that reason. But it's not a good idea to nominate a subject as failing an SNG if they don't. And you'll also notice that I Commented rather than advocating Keep on a single appearance and no evidence of GNG. Though I might advocate Keep now it's twice for two different teams. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:49, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - one appearance more than six years ago (to technically meet
COMMONSENSE is needed here, and plenty of AFD precedent exists to say that barely passing NFOOTBALL is not enough when you fail GNG, see Oscar Otazu, Vyacheslav Seletskiy, Aleksandr Salimov, Andrei Semenchuk, Artyom Dubovsky, Cosmos Munegabe, Marios Antoniades, Scott Sinclair, Fredrik Hesselberg-Meyer, Matheus Eccard, Roland Szabó (2nd nomination), Metodija Stepanovski, Linas Klimavičius, Takumi Ogawa, Nicky Fish and Andrei Nițu, amongst others. Fenix down (talk) 16:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as above, fails
WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 18:29, 8 May 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. (
talk stalk 06:20, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Mohammed Al-Bokhaitan

Mohammed Al-Bokhaitan (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 removed with not refs added. Not notable. Fails
WP:NFOOTBALL scope_creep (talk) 09:01, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:07, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The most concern is notability. He is a GK and above all he is playing in the third class football league in his country. — Free E. (talk) 14:33, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Actually, he doesn't fail
Al-Fateh SC. Fourteen appearances for two different teams in a fully professional league is plenty enough to pass NFOOTBALL. Needs improving, not deleting: too many articles about notable subjects get deleted because there are too few speakers/readers of their language on the English Wikipedia to cope with the workload. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:38, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - Having played in the fully pro Saudi top flight, he meets
WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes
fully professional league or in a match in the competition proper (i.e. not qualifying rounds) of a cup competition which involved two teams both from FPLs. Fenix down (talk) 16:40, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - meets
WP:NFOOTBALL. Beeds improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 18:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - subject of article passes
WP:NFOOTY, article needs improving not deleting. Inter&anthro (talk) 21:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep: passes
WP:NFOOTY. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:46, 14 May 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. (
talk stalk 06:19, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Daniel Dubois (boxer)

Daniel Dubois (boxer) (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 boxer - does not come close to meeting
WP:NBOX. This was a contested PROD with the proviso that GNG is easily met. I don't think it is. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:17, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Where did you look for coverage to determine whether WP:GNG is satisfied and what did you find? --Michig (talk) 08:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A few minutes of Googling rather than a knee-jerk reaction to a prod being removed could have found the following coverage: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. --Michig (talk) 08:35, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: All sources identified above are notable, and it is clear that this is a notable boxing player. Would PRehse consider withdrawing this nomination, as I can't see any reason to continue with this AfD? TheMagikCow (T) (C) 11:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How is this a notable boxer with only 2 professional fights and no fights (either professional or amateur) that would go any way to meet
WP:NBOX. The coverage only goes to show his promoter is actively doing their job.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:02, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

The
WP:GNG is satisfied. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 19:31, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong Keep: The sources identified were notable. I find it strange that this article was even nominated for deletion! - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per sources provided by Michig (good job!). --Guy Macon (talk) 17:28, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources listed above by Michig.
Lepricavark (talk) 18:03, 8 May 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 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Luv

Marie Luv (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)

Utterly fails gng and the awards are either scene awards or do not pass the significant and well known test of pornbio.
Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:12, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:39, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:39, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:41, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable porn actress, Hasn't won any notable/significant awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 01:10, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Simply not notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:46, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Montanabw^(talk) 10:38, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom's accurate analysis. No qualifying awards, no reliably sourced biographical content beyond the mere fact of being a porn performer. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 21:36, 14 May 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. No consensus regarding the subject's notability has occurred in this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Winston Sterzel

Winston Sterzel (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 article should be deleted because it fails WP:GNG and there is a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. The only current source is IMDb and various blogs which are unreliable. The claim that he is the "original Youtuber in China" appears to be unsubstantiated by any reliable sources.
Simonliyiyu (talk) 06:11, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:42, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:42, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep - Winston Sterzel has received independent coverage based on his YouTube video log about a Westerner's perspective of China. For example:
My Chinese Life: Winston Sterzel--The Original China Vlogger - A profile of Winston Sterzel on China.com, dubbing him "The Original China Vlogger", also an item in City Weekender Watch: China's Original Vlogger is a Shenzhener, and television coverage on CRI: My Chinese Life: Winston Sterzel--The Original China Vlogger

Falling in love with SZ in three days -- The Shenzhen government website reposts a local news item about Winston Sterzel as he documents Shenzhen's growth and steady evolution.

Watch Two Crazy Vloggers Drive 5,000km Across Southern China on Handmade Motorcycles -- The Beijinger reports on Sterzel and Tye's Kickstarter campaign for a video series travelling through Southern China by motorbike. Also press coverage in Shenzhen Daily Expat filming S. China trip documentary. This resulted in a video that is available, amongst others, on Amazon Conquering Southern China, and led to inclusion in IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes. And now a fully funded Kickstarter campaign for "Conquering Northern China" Conquering Northern China -- Adventure/Travel Series. Isofarro (talk) 06:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Take 5: YouTube Vlogger Winston Sterzel -- A profile / 10-questions interview of Winston Sterzel for That's Shenzhen, an online magazine part of the Hong Kong's Focus Media Group. Isofarro (talk) 07:35, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spectrum Sino Radio Schedule -- Radio segment with Winston Sterzel titled "My chinese life Winston Sterzel". Spectrum Sino is a freeview DAB Radio station part of the GB Times Media company. Isofarro (talk) 07:42, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as per above. Ayoopdog (talk) 15:10, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - Having seen both sides of the argument, I did a Google search for this individual. The vlogger is not well-known outside of the specific niche he is operating in (plenty of vloggers with even more than 1,000,000 subscribers are not afforded their own Wiki page - although subscriber count itself is not a determinant of whether a person merits a page, it can be a factor in terms of gauging general renown). Nevertheless, not being well known is itself NOT necessarily grounds for removal (see WP:NPF). However, according to the same WP:NPF, the article should only include information relevant to the notability of the person. In this case, he appears notable due to the claim of his being the "original China vlogger", which would potentially merit the existence of this article. In my opinion, the merits of this claim are highly suspect, because there is plenty of evidence suggesting against the fact that he was the first vlogger in China. The articles cited by Isofarro from various travel blogs read more like press releases and do not appear to substantiate the claim that Sterzel is actually the "original China vlogger". Inkedotly (talk) 17:59, 9 May 2017 (UTC) — Inkedotly (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. User has been blocked for abuse of multiple accounts. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 12:31, 12 May 2017 (UTC) [reply]
"various travel blogs"? Please point out which of the above citations I provided are travel blogs. I can see only one, the That's Shenzhen one, that could be classified as a travel blog. The rest look like News, Lifestyle magazines, Government, and a Radio station, and owned/operated by Media groups. Isofarro (talk) 07:35, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Difficult to establish the claim to significance that he is the first China vlogger from reliable sources. Only reliable source is a passing mention about a video he made in a Forbes article, no mention that he is the first vlogger in China. 160.39.203.234 (talk) 21:19, 9 May 2017 (UTC) — 160.39.203.234 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - No reliable source for the claim of original vlogger in China, which is really the only thing that would make him notable. Otherwise, he seems have an extremely small web presence, completely unremarkable subscriber count, and seems to only be "well-known" to a very small group of expats (who seem like mostly people he personally knows). The articles cited by Isofarro are mostly comprised of articles linking to each other (for example, the china.com link is just a repost/redirect to the cri.cn one), community blogs (cityweekend.com.cn), or things directly attributable to Winston himself (the kickstarter). I see no evidence that he's been covered by any significant publication. Digbybare (talk) 01:16, 10 May 2017 (UTC) — Digbybare (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Weak Keep - he is a well known personality and it's unfair, he should be allowed to stay if he is successful in his niche. 160.39.216.110 (talk) 03:16, 10 May 2017 (UTC)— 160.39.216.110 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent
reliable sources
.

McGeary, Kevin (2015-06-05). "PRD People: Medical Trainer and Online Celebrity Winston Sterzel". The Nanfang. Archived from the original on 2017-05-10. Retrieved 2017-05-10.
The article notes:

Winston Sterzel, 33, a British-South African medical training manager who has been in Shenzhen for eight years, has been praised by plenty of Chinese netizens for the astuteness of his online videos which give an introduction to the “real China.” His motorcycle tours have taken him to dozens of cities and small towns, but the portal through which he understands the Middle Kingdom is Shenzhen, a city he fell in love with during a business trip and came to despite having no contacts here.
Sterzel has a large following on YouTube, Facebook, and Youku and has been featured in Shenzhen-based media eleven times. He has kindly taken the time to talk to The Nanfang about road trips, cold beer, internet celebrity and Chinese nationalism.
...
After moving to Shenzhen eight years ago, he immersed himself in the local Chinese community while learning the language. …
He works for a medical training company, training doctors in international hospital rules, etiquette, medical terminology and other things related to internships in Australia and Germany. Another one of his main activities is taking motorcycle trips around China. Either through business trips or lone adventures he has biked his way to Dalian, Inner Mongolia, Shanghai and many other far flung places. His videos about riding to Guilin gained 10,000 hits per episode, almost 80,000 in total.
According to this December 2016 article from Hong Kong Free Press, "The Nanfang – an English-language digital news and commentary website for southern China – is closing after almost seven years, citing commercial challenges."

Gidge, Sky (2016-12-20). "Take 5: YouTube Vlogger Winston Sterzel". that's Shenzen. Archived from the original on 2017-05-10. Retrieved 2017-05-10.
The article notes:

After 10 years of vlogging about Shenzhen, Winston Sterzel recently stepped into the wilds of making his YouTube videos a full-time job. Often appearing in a suit and drinking a beer, his video repertoire of city guides and interviews on taboo topics have earned more than 15 million views, making him the unofficial face of Shenzhen in the Anglosphere.
that's Shenzen is a sister publication of that's PRD
, which are all published by Urbanatomy Media.

Ye, Shangqing (2015-10-19). "Foreigner's Shenzhen videos have 8 million views". Shenzhen Daily. Archived from the original on 2017-05-10. Retrieved 2017-05-10.
The article notes:

WINSTON STERZEL is the face of Shenzhen on YouTube. Searching “Shenzhen” in YouTube brings up his videos, which have been viewed more than 8 million times.
Calling himself “the original China vlogger” Sterzel has posted 584 videos to YouTube since 2006.
The South African, who was born to British parents, uses a digital camera to film videos with a focus on life in Shenzhen. The videos range from him speaking into the camera while walking down the street to polished guides to parts of Shenzhen.
...
Sterzel’s videos include advice on renting an apartment, finding a job and even interviews about intercultural relationships.

Wang, Yuanyuan (2012-06-08). "British-South African telling people 'how China is'". Shenzhen Daily. Archived from the original on 2017-05-10. Retrieved 2017-05-10.
The article notes:

WINSTON STERZEL, a British-South African, has always been a warm-hearted person who likes to help others. After living in Shenzhen for about six years, the 31-year-old is finding a new way to give that help — online videos that show newcomers what Sterzel calls the real China.
Without any advanced equipment or complicated plots, Sterzel, a medical training manager and self-employed businessman, uses his mobile phone and years of rich experience in China to help foreigners visit or learn about the country.
So far, he has made 12 episodes for his popular video series, “China: How It Is.” The series detailing Chinese lifestyles, customs and culture has generated about 900,000 views on YouTube, with more than 1,800 subscribers.

Zhang, Qian (2015-11-04). "Expat filming S. China trip documentary". Shenzhen Daily. Archived from the original on 2017-05-10. Retrieved 2017-05-10.
The article notes:

CAMPING in a cold, wet abandoned shack is what Winston Sterzel did on the seventh day of his South China motorcycle tour. Sterzel and four others are filming a documentary about their 16-day trip that they hope will be out around Christmas time.
...
The South African is uploading “behind the scenes” footage from the trip to YouTube and Youku, with the YouTube videos already racking up more than 10,000 views.
...
Sterzel is effectively Shenzhen’s face on YouTube, with his 584 mostly Shenzhen-centric videos having been viewed about 8 million times since he began posting in 2006. Searching “Shenzhen” on YouTube brings up his picture, linking to videos where he talks about living in Shenzhen, finding jobs and intercultural relationships.

Gidge, Sky (2016-01-14). "Expat's video featured". Shenzhen Daily. Archived from the original on 2017-05-10. Retrieved 2017-05-10.
The article notes:

THE adventures of a motorcycle riding, Shenzhen-based expatriate are getting noticed in Chinese media.
Winston Sterzel’s video was featured yesterday on one of China’s most popular video-sharing websites, sohu.com. The preview for “Conquering Southern China” appeared at the top of Sohu’s documentary page.
...
Traveling 5,000 kilometers by motorcycle, Sterzel and some friends documented their trips through southern China.

"Falling in love with SZ in three days". Shenzhen Daily. 2008-01-07. Archived from the original on 2017-05-10. Retrieved 2017-05-10 – via Shenzhen Municipal E-government Resources Center.
The article notes:

WINSTON STERZEL, a Briton who grew up in South Africa, was convinced that Shenzhen was the place to be after a three-day business trip in 2005, following which he moved here.
It turned out to be a wise decision as his company Access Oriental is booming. He is mainly in charge of sourcing, technical proofing and quality control of the company.
...
Sterzel has a Chinese girlfriend here, and plans to stay in China for a long time. He hasn't been back to South Africa to visit his family; instead his family came to visit him in Shenzhen. "It is my place," he said.

Mullin, Kyle (2016-08-19). "Watch Two Crazy Vloggers Drive 5,000km Across Southern China on Handmade Motorcycles". The Beijinger. Retrieved 2017-05-10.
The article notes:

Winston Sterzel, and Matthew Tye have done what most of us only dream of doing – traversing 5,000km across southern China on ramshackle, handmade motorcycles, stopping to sample the most unique local dishes, filming every moment of their adventure. The pair of Shenzhen based Youtube vloggers – who go by SerpentZA and Laowhy86, respectively – recently worked with Beijing based editors Ricardo Afonso and Mark Masterton, turning their footage into a series called "Conquering Southern China," which is now streaming on Vimeo on demand.

魏博 (2015-06-25). "12集纪录片《南非人在中国》在北京发布(组图)". 中国网新闻中心 (in Chinese). China Internet Information Center. Archived from the original on 2017-05-10. Retrieved 2017-05-10.
The article notes:

纪录片主人公来自不同行业，他们中有酒店创始人、DJ、留学生、南非酒吧老板、高尔夫球场高管、拍摄中国的视频博主、中国功夫迷、国际学校老师、推广皮影戏的艺术家、建筑师、领事夫人等等。他们的故事既有特殊性又有代表性。例如，居住在上海的格兰特•霍斯菲尔德（Grant Horsfield）把生态旅游的概念引入浙江莫干山，他建造的“裸心谷”度假村给当地提供了一个绿色旅游的范例，并带动了当地经济；在深圳的温斯顿•斯得泽尔（Winston Sterzel），由于看到西方媒体对中国的报道与事实出入很大，决定利用闲暇时间拍摄真实的中国并介绍给世界；同是居住在深圳的马克•欧克莱尔(Mark O’Connell)，把自己在南非管理高尔夫球场的丰富经验带到中国
This verifies that Winston Sterzel's name translated into Chinese is 温斯顿•斯得泽尔.

"南非男拍视频记录深圳". Sing Tao Daily (in Chinese). 2015-12-14. Archived from the original on 2017-05-10. Retrieved 2017-05-10.
The article notes:

英裔南非籍男子Winston Sterzel住在深圳已将近十年，他从2007年开始制作关于中国见闻的视频并上传到视频网站，因为住在深圳，其视频的内容大多与深圳有关。Winston录视频的初衷是方便家人和朋友了解他在深圳的生活，没想到逐渐受到网民关注。最初，对深圳的好奇心驱使Winston四处游走，走得最远的一次，从东门走到了蛇口，20多公里路程，走过大厦楼底，穿过城中村，他一点也不觉得累。一个偶然的机会，Winston来到下沙村。跟其他地方相比，这座位于福田区西南部的城中村虽然破旧了些，却设施齐全。Winston看中这里的排屋租金便宜，又能接触到各种不同的人，就住了下来。
From Google Translate:
British South African man Winston Sterzel lived in Shenzhen for nearly a decade, he started in 2007 on the Chinese knowledge of the video and uploaded to the video site, because living in Shenzhen, most of its video content and Shenzhen. Winston recorded the original intention of the video is to facilitate family and friends to understand his life in Shenzhen, did not expect to gradually be concerned about the Internet users. Initially, the curiosity of Shenzhen drive Winston to walk around, go farthest once, from the East Gate went to Shekou, more than 20 kilometers away, walked through the building floor, through the city village, he did not feel tired. By chance, Winston came to Xiasha Village. Compared with other places, this is located in the southwest of Futian District, although the dilapidated village, but the facilities are complete. Winston fancy the townhouse rent cheap, but also access to a variety of different people, to live down.

"外籍深漂：城中村是深圳最有意思的地方" (in Chinese). Phoenix Television. 2015-12-14. Archived from the original on 2017-05-10. Retrieved 2017-05-10.
The article notes:

“Hey guys,welcome to another video（大家好，欢迎收看新一期视频）!”
几年来，视频制作者“SerpentZA”的粉丝习惯了他在每个视频开头这样问候。视频背景或许是繁华街头，或许是城中村的啤酒摊子，他自说自拍，用英文对着镜头讲身边的趣事，细碎而平和，像在与一位老友聊自己的近况。这位英裔南非籍的视频制作者原名Winston Sterzel，居住在中国深圳将近10年。
从2007年开始，每隔一段时间，Winston都会制作出一个关于中国见闻的视频，上传到视频网站YouTube，因为他住在深圳，视频的内容也大多与深圳有关。到现在，他的YouTube个人频道已经拥有了600多个视频和10万多万订阅者，最受欢迎的“China,how it is（别样）”系列视频已累计拥有约750万次的点击量。
From Google Translate:
"Hey guys, welcome to another video (Hello everybody, welcome to watch the new video)!"
Over the past few years, the video producer "SerpentZA" fans accustomed to his greeting at the beginning of each video. Video background may be the bustling streets, perhaps the village of beer stalls, he said that self-timer, with the English side of the lens to talk about the interesting side, crushing and peace, as in an old friend to talk about their current situation. The British-South African video producer was originally named Winston Sterzel, living in Shenzhen, China for nearly 10 years.
From 2007 onwards, every time, Winston will produce a video on the Chinese knowledge, upload to the video site YouTube, because he lives in Shenzhen, the video content is mostly related to Shenzhen. Up to now, his YouTube personal channel already has more than 600 videos and more than 100,000 subscribers, and the most popular "China, how it is" series of videos has accumulated about 7.5 million hits The

"SerpentZA: Blogger ng Shenzhen" (in Filipino). China Radio International. 2015-05-14. Archived from the original on 2017-05-10. Retrieved 2017-05-10.
The article notes:

Si Winston Sterzel ay isang "laowai" mula sa Timog Aprika. Siya ngayon ay nakatira sa lunsod ng Shenzhen, probinsyang Guangdong, sa may timog na bahagi ng Tsina.
...
Noong 2005, isang business trip ang nagdala kay Winston sa Shenzhen. Mula noon, nahulog ang kanyang loob sa Tsina.
Nang makabalik sa Timog Aprika, ibinenta niya ang lahat ng kanyang ari-arian, at iniwan ang kanyang tahanan sa Johannesburg upang mamuhay sa Shenzhen.
Sa kanyang pananatili sa Tsina, maraming natututunan si Winston, gaya ng maling pagkaunawa ng kanluran sa Tsina. Gusto ni Winston na baguhin ang mga stereotype at kamaliang ito.
From Google Translate:
Winston Sterzel is a "laowai" from South Africa. He now lives in the city of Shenzhen, Guangdong province, in the southern part of China.
...
In 2005, a business trip brought with Winston in Shenzhen. Since then, he fell in China.
After returning to South Africa, he sold all his property, and left his home in Johannesburg to live in Shenzhen.
During his stay in China, learn more about Winston, like misunderstanding of western China. Winston wants to change the stereotypes and errors.

There is sufficient coverage in
reliable sources to allow Winston Sterzel to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 05:13, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep 150+k subscribers might not be much nowadays, but consider that he is one of very few successful China Vloggers and in the niche he is probably one of, if not the biggest Vlogger. Other reasons were pointed out above. --
talk) 13:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Sources are not reliable. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:33, 10 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. All the articles linked so far are for smaller publications/blogs written by freelance, volunteer, and anonymous contributors. He doesn't seem to have received any coverage from reputable sources. His only claim to notability ("first China vlogger") is also highly suspect. 67.180.22.236 (talk) 00:15, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- does not meet
WP:ENT
; promotional article. Associated with another nn YouTuber, whose articles is also at AfD:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Tye (2nd nomination).

Sources presented above are not sufficient to establish encyclopedic relevance of this subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:25, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about sources:
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources.
Shenzhen Daily is an English-language newspaper based in Shenzhen. It covers the subject in multiple lengthy articles.
The newspaper Sing Tao Daily (Canada) published an 857-word article about the subject. That a Canadian publication covered a British-South African man based in China strongly establishes that the man is notable. This is international coverage about Winston Sterzel.
The Hong Kong TV broadcaster Phoenix Television published a 1426-word article about him.
The Chinese state-owned radio broadcaster China Radio International published a 175-word article in Filipino about the subject.
It is clear based on the above sources that Winston Sterzel passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 04:56, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment about promotion:
The article was created by Sonofjoat (talk · contribs), whose user page says, "This user is a student editor in Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Capilano University/ENGL 300 - Digital Writing Studio (Spring 2017)." The article was reviewed by L3X1 (talk · contribs), and content expert for the class Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk · contribs) provided feedback about how to improve the article.
The article creator is a student who wrote this article for a class. I see no intent to promote the subject
Cunard (talk) 04:56, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can list 100s other vloggers who cover niche topics, are much more well-viewed/known, and still don't get their own bio or whose bios are deleted. Why does Sterzel get special treatment?? As much as subscriber count does not count, I don't think there's a single example of somebody with a bio who has less than 1,000,000. Sterzel has only 100K. You have to take that into consideration. It's not fair. 2001:470:1F06:C57:0:0:0:2 (talk) 04:16, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The 4 or 5 comments are really ducky looking and I thinking of filing of filing an SPI just to ensure everything is above board. IF they are actually legit (I doubt it) they should be ignored and the editors asked to gain more editing exp before !voting at a controversial AfD like this. Look at the page views! 193/day until the 9th, then 2000 views! I doubt all these people are here because the article is so popular dozens of guests who traffic it daily would feel obliged to get an account (or not, IP) and !Vote. Sorry for my lack of Good Faith, but socking in AfD is common, forgive my jaundiced eye. All those redlinks at the article? i think they are legitly different editors, and agree with NeilN's PP, but think it should be increased to indef or a very long time. And I voted Keep for the same reason I accepted it: Notable. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 13:18, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. Mjbmr (talk) 16:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because of what? d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 17:10, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Because of inadequate sourcing. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:30, 11 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Weak keep considering the nature of the available sourcing for material on blogs, I think it's acceptable. The use of viewer figures and the like proves nothing one way or another. People keep using that to try to show notability , and we usually reject that use, and it goes in the other direction also. DGG ( talk ) 23:38, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Sourced, barely passes notability Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:26, 15 May 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 to delete. Merging and/or renaming can be a subsequent discussion, there does not appear to be consensus on these points here, but three relists is enough.
I'll point out (this is not part of the close) that Back Channel (Port of Long Beach) would be unnecessary disambiguation. A title such as Back Channel, Port of Long Beach may be more advisable. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:23, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Back Channel

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

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

Prod removed citing,
WP:GEOLAND, however as per #4 in that guideline (which is the pertinent citation), reads, "If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography." The commonality of this feature's name makes researching it difficult, but I cannot find the type of info necessary to meet the requirements of GEOLAND. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:19, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:41, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 18:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep I removed the prod, also added citation of the this geographical feature's location. More can be gathered easily enough through sources regarding the Port of Long Beach or other nearby geographical features. Easily meets notability requirements under GEOLAND. South Nashua (talk) 18:57, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:51, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Thanks South Nashua. I am now on board! - Ret.Prof (talk) 11:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The MapCarta link seems to be a circular reference to Wikipedia. There is no mention of this feature in the Port of Long Beach article. I don't see how it really meets GEOLAND; can someone point to more information beyond statistics and coordinates? If there is so little information to support an encyclopaedic article maybe it should simply have a passing mention in the Port of Long Beach article? I am struggling to find any information of value. Poltair (talk) 21:04, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:51, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Port of Long Beach Here is the GNIS entry: [17]. It does seem to be a short canal connecting the Middle Harbor with the Inner Harbor. Looking at google maps: [18], you can see probably a dozen different channels, harbors, slips, basins, etc. that make up the Port of Long Beach. I see no value in having an article on each of these. MB 03:56, 10 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 04:04, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Added subsequently: If Kept, the article may be renamed to
WP:GEOLAND. Lourdes 09:53, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. There are sources enough to establish notability under Geoland. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 12:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see how this is notable; the name is almost purely descriptive in nature, and the Back Channel at the port of Long Beach is not more important than any other one.
talk) 06:22, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Hello
WP:GEOLAND, "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc." The sources I've provided above are beyond statistics and coordinates. If you believe the other channels are also as notable, then someone should make articles on those. Why do you then believe the Back Channel is not notable? Would you say it doesn't qualify under GEOLAND? Your reply would be helpful in understanding your position. Thanks. Lourdes 17:15, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Back Channel is a generic term, regardless of how it is used for this body of water. It can refer to back channels on the Mississippi River [25], for example. I don't think it meets GEOLAND; it says "Named natural features are often notable". Often is not always. As a compromise, I would reluctantly support renaming the article to something like "Back Channel (Port of Long Beach)", but still feel deletion is more appropriate.
talk) 18:27, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Power~enwiki, I think you have a fair point there. The renaming is something I hadn't thought of, and adds a new perspective which I agree with. I've added this detail to my !vote above (that if kept, the article should be renamed to what you have mentioned). Thanks. Lourdes 00:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus seems clear that this person hasn't passed the bar of
WP:GNG. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:15, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Gregory Creswell

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

Gregory Creswell (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 local politician who has never held elected office. Despite the length of the article and the numerical quantity of citations, there is almost no independent coverage of Creswell himself, as opposed to local political issues with which he is tangentially involved, at best. The
GNG requires significant, reliable coverage of the topic, and this coverage doesn't exist. Creswell is a perennial candidate at the local and state levels in Michigan who has never received a significant amount of the popular vote. His claimed role in the 2006 Michigan Civil Rights Initiative appears to be that of a local organizer, nothing more. There's a cluster of single-purpose accounts, mostly associated with Michigan Libertarian articles, who keep removing the notability tag and adding every mention of Creswell they can to the article, but there's just nothing to build on. I've been engaged with this article for over a month (see Talk:Gregory_Creswell#Notability) and no in-depth coverage of Creswell has been brought forward. I suppose Libertarian Party of Michigan would be a valid merge target, but there's almost nothing to merge. Mackensen (talk) 19:41, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete While there is long spread out coverage of Creswell, it is either too little on him, or too incidental. Some things do not even add up. Like did he move out to Macomb County or parts of Oakland County to run against Sander Levin in 2014 and then move back to Detroit so he can run for the seat vacated by Banks. If Creswell wins the election for Banks vacated seat, he will be notable. That seems unlikely since he has never garned more than 3% of the vote in any election, but it could happen in theory. Until them, Creswell will not be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:24, 29 April 2017(UTC)

There is no evidence cited that he moved. Residency in the Congressional district is not a qualification for US House candidates: https://www.michigan.gov/documents/sos/Filing_Req_for_US_Rep_428517_7.pdf --Truthtests (talk) 16:34, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficient outside sources to keep; but probably edited down to a much shorter stub just that he's noting he's a perennial candidate & political activist in MI; given sufficient sourcing for those points. 70.92.230.94 (talk) 01:47, 30 April 2017 (UTC)— 70.92.230.94 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Which sources in particular, and why? What's the claim to notability? Mackensen (talk) 19:39, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Popularity is not the sole measure of notability. If it were then the editors here arguing for deletion would quash any new idea or person proposing that idea, regardless of its eventually demonstrated merit... such as heliocentrism and Copernicus. Also context is key: Creswell IS notable in Michigan Libertarian Party politics, ergo Michigan politics, ergo libertarian politics. He has distinction for being "the first candidate in Michigan history to run in a Libertarian primary election." Why do we want Wikipedia to fall in lockstep to the dictates of mainstream acceptable 'knowledge?' like Google and Facebook filtering out and suppressing ideas and people they don't like? Leave Creswell be. He's plenty significant to a significant subset of humanity: those who want their knowledge real, wide, and deep. Bwisok (talk) 02:07, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Voters deserve a chance to know about the candidates. They also trust wikipedia for impartial coverage of the candidates and issues. Deletion would serve no purpose other than to fuel charges that Libertarians are all racists and extremists. 02:37, 30 April 2017 (UTC) "Csharer (talk) 03:38, 30 April 2017 (UTC)"— CSharer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Wikipedia is neither a
righting great wrongs. Mackensen (talk) 19:39, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

"Deletion would serve no purpose other than to fuel charges that Libertarians are all racists and extremists" is the most absurd and pathetic keep rationale I can recall seeing on this project ever.

Keep I hardly know where to begin. This discussion is tainted from the start by opening with false comments such as, “There's a cluster of single-purpose accounts, mostly associated with Michigan Libertarian articles, who keep removing the notability tag and adding every mention of Creswell they can to the article…” This surprised me since I have been paying close attention to the article for the past month, and the aforementioned notability tag has been up there every time I looked. I carefully browsed through the edit history and failed to see a single removal of the tag other than yesterday and on March 26. Are you counting my reversion of apparently erroneous edits by Bwisok as one of those removals? The edit history will show that I immediately replaced the tag myself out of respect for the process.

Since the overwhelming majority of edits are by myself and
NPOV
concern.

My first two paragraphs are not relevant to the notability of the subject, but having this as the opening to an
ADHOM

The relevant matter is the notability of Gregory Creswell. For starters,
NOTTEMPORARY
. Once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. Getting to old sources is a challenge, but they exist and many have been cited in the article.

There is independent coverage of Creswell himself. The overwhelming number of sources that include him include the causes he involves himself with, that doesn’t make him less notable; people are notable because of the activities they involve themselves with. He has been sought after for comments for that reason. There are articles from reliable sources including the
Detroit News and the Detroit Free Press
. Broadcast media interviews are cited too.

In regards to, “His claimed role in the 2006 Michigan Civil Rights Initiative appears to be that of a local organizer, nothing more.” Perhaps I missed one, but the sources I see supporting his significant involvement in MCRI don’t have Creswell making this “claim.” The journalists are making the claim about Creswell. The standard of his success is not in the area of winning the offices for which he ran. In 2006 his run for Governor was a means of facilitating the passage of MCRI, and that effort was overwhelmingly successful. For instance, his radio commercials were used to promote it. His contribution to MCRI was substantial, and the outcome is part of the enduring historical record in Michigan law. This was the original reason this article was deemed notable by those working on it several years ago.

Now he is the first libertarian in Michigan to run in a primary. Apparently the only one in the state. Being the first at something is notable, however easily the opportunity avails itself.--Libertyguy (talk) 06:04, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
...clearly more experienced editors found Gregory Creswell to be a notable subject. This is not true and you've provided no evidence for this extraordinary claim. It would be more accurate to say that no one gave the article much attention after you created it in 2007. Even if this were true, it's not relevant now. The project as a whole assesses notability.

...the sources I see supporting his significant involvement in MCRI don’t have Creswell making this “claim.” You're continually evading the issue here. Our article claims his role is important and that he's notable in part because of it. I countered that no reliable source supported this claim. No one rebutted this. You still haven't rebutted it.
Notability is not inherited
.

Being the first at something is notable... Sometimes this is true, but it's not true as a blanket statement. Are there sources treating this as a big deal? Is this act finally giving Creswell reliable, in-depth, third-party coverage?

After all this time, if Creswell's notability were so obvious you'd think someone would have established it. They haven't because it can't be done. He's at the fringe of Michigan politics and no one's really taken notice of him. I'm not passing judgement; I'm stating what I see to be an uncontested fact. Collecting every trivial mention doesn't get him over the bar
WP:POLITICIAN. Mackensen (talk) 12:30, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
In a nutshell what I see happening here is equivalent to the scene in the movie The Matrix, where the agents (~Official Story enforcers) send out sentinels to clean up any rogue elements (~fringe ideas) that have hacked into and/or threaten execution of the main program. GNG, mostly, is Wikispeak for legitimizing the exclusion of information that threatens the ruling oligarchy's Holy Sanctum(s) of Official Knowledge (largely systematic disinformation), Wikipedia being a substantial pillar. Google and Facebook and Amazon are other stalwarts of this effective censorship project, especially now with their deciding for users what information they are going to consider valuable enough--applying their own customized, self-imposed 'GNG' rules--to let users see.

So, Mackensen et al, let me ask you this: Down the road a few months or years, is your Wikipedia Big Brother going to have you evict, say, Ron Paul, or the Libertarian Party, or truthers such as Dr. Kevin Barrett, Dr. David Griffin, me, all the alternative movements that stand against your exclusionary monolithic citadel of sanctified fake pop reality... by using the current notability-popularity standard? "Never got more than 5% of the vote. Fringe. Outahere." Of course, that's kind of the point, isn't it? Creswell and the Libertarians DID get 5% here and there. "We mustn't let the people know. In fact, let's raise the threshold to 10% ASAP!"

If Wikipedia stands any chance of achieving intellectual independence, hence surviving, articles like Creswell's must stay. Perhaps you can suggest copyediting improvements, but it clearly meets the GNG.Bwisok (talk) 19:19, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is all well and good, but what you're writing is antithetical to what Wikipedia is as a project. Wikipedia is neither a
righting great wrongs. If you think Wikipedia should in fact be those things then you should get those policies changed, but policies they remain. If you think Creswell meets the GNG then you should explain why. Mackensen (talk) 19:37, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Mackensen rebuts “... not true and you've provided no evidence for this extraordinary claim… It would be more accurate to say that no one gave the article much attention after you created it in 2007.” The evidence is in the edit history and you have provided no evidence for the negative you assert. Not relevant now? The change is in the direction of being more notable, not less as I indicate in addressing the partisan milestone of being the first Libertarian to run in a special election.

Mackensen rebuts “…You still haven't rebutted it.” I believed the supporting sources now in the article are evidence enough, but you are correct that I didn’t rebut it here, so now I will pull some sources from the article citing his roll:

This TV Show has him on as Ward Connerly's Michigan counterpart....

"The program begins at 3:38 . A promotional video plays first. The segment devoted to Gregory Creswell starts at 20:03 Strickland Love, Darchelle (April 1, 2004). "Politics Aside (With Ward Connerly & Gregory Creswell". Detroit Cable Communications Commission. Detroit, Michigan. Retrieved April 17, 2017."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xofTkaPuoM

and here he is described as Detroit organizer (which you concede) but that isn't the whole story. The note in the article explains how to access it.

"Brand-Williams, Oralandar (January 13, 2004). "Affirmative action backers, foes clash". The Detroit News. Michigan. Retrieved 2017-04-01."

http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?s_site=detnews&f_site=detnews&f_sitename=Detroit+News%2C+The+%28MI%29&p_theme=gannett&p_product=DTNB&p_action=search&p_field_base-0=&p_text_base-0=Affirmative+action+backers%2C+foes+clash&Search=Search&p_perpage=10&p_maxdocs=200&p_queryname=700&s_search_type=keyword&p_sort=_rank_%3AD&p_field_date-0=YMD_date&p_params_date-0=date%3AB%2CE&p_text_date-0=2004

He exploited his nomination as a candidate for Michigan's highest office in its third largest party to push the issue that the four other candidates tried to avoid. This was evidenced by the fact that his campaign budget was largely devoted to radio commercials that promoted the MCRI:

Michiganlp.org, Webmaster (October 2006). "Previous Elections-2006 Radio Commercials (Gregory Creswell and Scotty Boman)". Libertarian Part of Michigan. Retrieved 2015-08-17. and Michiganlp.org, Webmaster (September 2006). "Previous Elections-2006 Radio Commercials (Creswell for Governor, fear not!)". Libertarian Part of Michigan. Retrieved 2015-08-17.

http://www.michiganlp.org/Radio%20Ads/October,%202006%20-%20Greg%20Creswell%20for%20Governor.mp3

https://cfrsearch.nictusa.com/documents/278412/details?type=scanned&page=36

Radio Commercial In Use". Archived from the original on December 7, 2006. Retrieved 2007-07-26.. lpwm.org (website).

https://web.archive.org/web/20061207024340/http://gregcreswell.lpwm.org/copy_of_Audio/copy_of_radio_ad.mp3/view

--Libertyguy (talk) 03:38, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@
routine mentions. Here, for example, is the Detroit News on the election: Libertarian Gregory Creswell of Detroit is also seeking the 1st District state House seat. Creswell ran for governor in 2006 and sought unsuccessfully three different congressional seats in 2012, 2014 and 2016.^[1] That's it. No discussion of the Libertarian primary; no indication that it's important. Mackensen (talk) 11:09, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

References

Detroit News
.

Keep [Part 2] Okay, sorry I got off track with the broadside against Wikipedia as a corrupt integrated system of disinformation in my reply to Mackensen there. Let's stay within the actual Wikipedia system as it exists, and examine the Creswell article vis a vis the GNG rules, as they are spelled out, one by one in summary form:
Significant Coverage? Yes. Self-evident: References section.

Reliable Sources? Yes. Self-evident: References section (albeit some mainstream).

Secondary Sources? Yes. Self-evident: References section (albeit many mainstream).

Independent of Subject? Yes. Self-evident: References section.

Encyclopedia-Worthy? Yes. Highly discriminate, organized, pertinent information.

Every one of the notability criteria is met, and obviously. All one has to do is read the article. With the possible exception of the last criterion, "Encyclopedia Worthy," which is somewhat subjective.

We definitely have an ideologically and even popularly important political figure in Mr. Creswell for all the reasons stipulated.

Put yourself in the shoes of an old hard copy encyclopedia editor. In that medium, Creswell definitely goes in, his achievements are significant (to liberty and to politics in general--Michigan and libertarian) for the time and place in which he exists. Though admittedly in a print publication space is premium, so he would get maybe a couple of paragraphs... let's say 500 words.

An electronic medium has no such space constraints beyond common sense. If the writer wants to add substantial historical and biographical information, what's the problem. The point is that the Creswell article is self-evidently notable according to Wiki's own GNG. Popularity is not notability and vice versa. Creswell STAYS. Bwisok (talk) 20:28, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me, but this is
the article's length. Most of the sources in the references section aren't independent of either Creswell or the Libertarian Party, or they're simple factual assertions sourced to the Secretary of State. Most of the article is taken up with Creswell's views, which don't go toward establishing his notability. If it's truly self-evident then you should be explain why he's notable, and to enumerate what significant, in-depth coverage he has received in reliable sources. I haven't done this because in my view (a) he's not notable and (b) that coverage does not exist. It's on you, or other editors arguing for keep, to explain why he passes the GNG. You say he has achievements--what are they, and who says so? Saying it's "self-evident" doesn't cut it. Mackensen (talk) 20:48, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Bwisok do not leave TWO bolded "keep" responses. It is too easily read as a double vote, even when you append a "[Part 2]" to it. Please change the second "Keep" to something like "Follow up comment". Alsee (talk) 06:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Oh dear! I feared it would come to this. There is independent coverage of Creswell himself. Just consider a couple episodes from these TV programs as examples.

On WGVU he was the only guest on an episode of Newsmakers. He was the newsmaker. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If5WSIcFeGM
On WCMU he was the soul guest on this episode of “Meet the Candidates.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aurFZkBZj18
On this episode of Politics Aside he was on as Michigan spokesperson for MCRI. He is not regarded as being “tangentially involved” as the lead to this discussion reads. Unfortunately, the YouTube user stuck a stump speech in front but the program that starts 3 minutes and 38 seconds into the vid is independent of the subject. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xofTkaPuoM
I looked at the edit history too. There just isn’t anyone taking down the notability tag since one time in March--- other than right before it was nominated for deletion.--Redandready (talk) 20:24, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We've discussed this on the talk page. Two appearances on public broadcasting don't amount to much (not knocking WCMU, it's a great station). What news is Creswell making? How do these programs make him notable? Mackensen (talk) 21:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)q[reply]

Still Keep Well sure we've discussed this on the talk page and you only asked me a question. You said, “What is this, a clip from Public-access television?” I answered with some detail, but you said nothing back. Now you’re saying 2 appearances on public TV don’t amount to much. So now are you stepping back from what you said with the original paragraph at the top? “there is almost no independent coverage of Creswell himself.” I shared these as examples of independent coverage. Why wouldn’t these be independent? Are you calling Creswell a partial owner of the stations because they are public? You’re now asking me to other questions about the programs, but I presented them as examples in response to a tag that said, “Please help to establish notability by citing reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond its mere trivial mention.” You say you don’t want to knock WGVU-TV, so are saying it is a reliable source. Do you think WCMU-TV isn’t? The whole program on each of these was about Gregory Creswell. He was the only guest. Why isn’t this significant coverage of him beyond its mere trivial mention?

What news is he making? The interview speaks for itself and the host believed he was notable enough to have on the program. Being a candidate for the highest office in Michigan and the issues he raised at the time, including his Civil Rights Initiative activity was notable in the view of the program hosts. For Wikipedia the coverage beyond significant coverage, beyond its mere trivial mention, is notable.

These were given as examples - not a comprehensive inventory. He wasn’t the only guest on “Politics Aside”, but being there as spokesperson for the Civil Rights Initiative was significant and beyond trivial mention. The questions asked of him were deep. Speaking of a comprehensive inventory, you made an impressive objective looking table on the talk page, seemingly to save South Nashua (talk · contribs) the trouble of looking. There you have a N under “independent” as if WGVU has some conflict of interest with him. You left “In-depth” blank. Is being interviewed for the whole program not In-Depth enough for your Y? This table gives the impression of something objective, but the Y and Ns are each individual morsels of your opinion. The table doesn’t include WCMU-TV, so I placed it into the reflist so you can put it in your table. You don’t think Politics Aside is about Creswell. Are you looking for stories about his private life? I appreciate your hard working trying to delete something that took much more work to create, but the folks in this AfD shouldn't take charts and graphs as gospel--Redandready (talk) 15:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If anything, all AfDs this complicated should have graphs like those. Even if one does not agree with everything inside of it, the graph definitely helped Mackensen show what he's talking about and prove his case, I see no need to prove it for him. South Nashua (talk) 00:58, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I didn't mean you needed to prove anything to him, I was only trying to show how taking the table as gospel would be lead astray.--Redandready (talk) 15:16, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~KeepWeak Keep~~' ~~Enough to pass GNG as a notable figure if not as a notable politician given all the external independent coverage. South Nashua (talk) 18:18, 2 May 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]

@South Nashua: Forgive me for badgering, but could you please expand on that a little? The article doesn't discuss Creswell aside from his political activities, and the external sourcing, while superficially quite broad, is very limited in coverage and scope. Mackensen (talk) 00:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC) (Changed to Weak Keep) South Nashua (talk) 18:38, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Makensen: You're right, my mistake. I was thinking of criteria #1 on NPOL. He definitely meets #3. 50+ external sources, many of which are from independent publications. I've seen articles kept with far less. South Nashua (talk) 01:13, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@
raw source count less important than what's in the sources themselves. Many aren't about Creswell at all, or are trivial mentions, or just brief statements of fact from the Secretary of State's website. A fair number aren't independent of Creswell and/or the Libertarian Party of Michigan. I think it would help the closing administrator to know which sources, in your view, help Creswell meet NPOL #3, and why. Mackensen (talk) 01:34, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

@Mackensen: Normally I'd agree, but the sheer volume of sources in this situation I think engenders an exception. It's an unusually high number for such an otherwise marginal figure. For me, that's the tipping point. South Nashua (talk) 01:38, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@
Gregory Creswell#Racial preferences. It's all about his views, because that's all there is. He wasn't an important figure in the MCRI or someone would have written about it. Our article describes him as a "spokesperson, volunteer coordinator, and an organizer". Nothing wrong with that, but it's not notable, no matter how many citations you add to it. This pattern is repeated elsewhere in the article. This is why the rule calls out "significant coverage"; to avoid situations like this. Mackensen (talk) 02:04, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

@Mackensen: Happy to have you try to change my mind. You raise some excellent points and I've changed my viewpoint to Weak Keep in response. To be honest, I just skimmed over them and not all of them seemed "good" for a lack of a better word, as you correctly mentioned above here. If there are a million "bad" ones, it's the same as if there are zero; as you rightly pointed out, more doesn't mean better. However, it seems like there are a few decent ones and the fact that secondary sources actually care about his opinion means something. If I spouted off opinions about whatever, I doubt newspapers would mention it. Is there a way to break down just how many of these truly are trivial mentions and how many are legitimate? It looks like you've already started. Maybe like a grid or something. South Nashua (talk) 18:38, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@South Nashua: I've done the first ten as an example of this kind of work; it's on this discussion's talk page: Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Gregory Creswell. Here's a good example of what I'm talking about. A sentence in the article reads Creswell expanded his efforts in 2006 as an outspoken petitioner and candidate. The support for this is a letter Creswell wrote to the Detroit Free Press, and an article about Prop 2 being struck down by a federal court in 2011. Happily, that article is republished online at [26]. It describes Creswell as a Detroit man who collected signatures for the MCRI. He's one of several people quoted in the article. This is weak sourcing, and you'd think if Creswell were important to the MCRI he'd be quoted toward the front of the article with the other principals. Tackling the other fifty would no doubt turn up more of this. If you think it would be helpful I'm willing to tackle it. Mackensen (talk) 20:47, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mackensen: I think that graph is exactly what I was looking for. If you could do the others, I think you could probably convince me. I don't want to guarantee, but it would help illustrate to me what you're saying. At the very least, it would help aid the discussion here. South Nashua (talk) 00:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@South Nashua: I've finished it and updated the talk page.Mackensen (talk) 01:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is an excellent representation of your concerns. At this point, I think a Weak Delete is appropriate. For me, the waters are muddy right now. This might be able to be improved, there's definitely a lot there, but it needs some work. South Nashua (talk) 03:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There have been examples of significant coverage provided of significant coverage, and more can be found in this article. Mackensen has said that "None of them, so far as I can tell and no one has corrected me, contain in-depth coverage of Creswell's involvement in the campaign." But people have made such corrections. I understand that this editor disagrees with those corrections and responses, but they exist. Examples of involvement are given. Being an organizer, and spokesperson for MCRI is involvement. This editor concedes this, but then gives the opinion that these are not notable, after initially saying they don't exist. There is more here. Using a Gubernatorial campaign as a vehicle for pushing a ballot proposal with commercials is also "involvement." Mackensen is treating disagreement with a point the same as non-existence. Another example is the in depth coverage on some TV programs. The criticism then becomes the fact they were on public, rather than commercial TV. This doesn't change the fact that this coverage exists.

I point this out, not as an Ad hominem argument, but to make sure other editors arriving at this discussion don't take these denials at face value, but look back into the discussion and comb through the article to see that these sources exist. I urge anyone arriving into this discussion, as South Nashua has, to do this.

One more point. There are a number of sources that don't mention Creswell, but they pertain to subject in the article and provide reliable support for the context of facts surrounding particular activities of his. There are a number of other sources that are not in depth but show involvement in the MCRI. The fact that he is quoted or mentioned that often by reliable secondary sources on the issue is additional support of his involvement over a period of years. I'm not saying those sources alone establish notability, but in combination with more in depth sources they strengthen this assertion.--Libertyguy (talk) 06:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:POLITICIAN
):

Significant coverage: This would be books, articles, or television programs about Creswell. Not ones that he appeared, or was simply interviewed on, or in which he's mentioned in passing. These are sources which are about him. Sources which would explain the notable thing which he's done.

Reliable: The sources used in the article mostly meet this standard, with the exception of Ballot Access News which appears self-published. The use of MCC Chronicle is fine inasmuch as it's evidence for Creswell's own views.

Sources: As with "Reliable."

Independent of the subject: This would exclude anything written by Creswell, and anything published by the Libertarian Party of Michigan. It can be used as evidence of his own views, but not for claims about notability. If the LP put out a statement calling Creswell a transformative politician or some such, we wouldn't accept that claim unless independent sources (the Free Press or the Detroit News, for example) made it as well.

Presumed: Not all that relevant to this discussion, as even ticking all these points still only creates a presumption, though that cuts against the argument made by you and others that the totality of the sources should count for something.

Significant coverage is an important standard, and you seem to concede that it's a problem: The fact that he is quoted or mentioned that often by reliable secondary sources on the issue is additional support of his involvement over a period of years. I'm not saying those sources alone establish notability, but in combination with more in depth sources they strengthen this assertion. That points to a merge with Michigan Civil Rights Initiative. This should be an easy question to answer, but looking above I don't see it: why is Creswell notable, and what in-depth coverage has he received which supports that claim of notability? Best, Mackensen (talk) 10:19, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would add that Ending Racial Preferences: The Michigan Story, which is a 440-page book written by someone associated with Toward A Fair Michigan (TAFM) and was deeply involved with the MCRI, makes no mention of Creswell. Edit: For interested newcomers, there's a thorough summary of the articles sources at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Gregory Creswell. Mackensen (talk) 22:41, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Do not understand all the fuss about this article. If I am correct, Creswell is a politician who has never held government office or been elected to a government position, and does not have national coverage. Seems a straight forward delete. Rogermx (talk) 18:41, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:06, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:06, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Election to office isn't a necessary or sufficient requirement for notability in Wikipedia. There can be (
WP:BIO#Additional criteria) --Truthtests (talk) 16:55, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Never elected or appointed to office, no national recognition of any kind for any actions, good or bad. Rogermx (talk) 01:38, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong~~ Keep (Do the strong vs. week prefixes matter?) What difference a week makes. I removed the notability maintenance template because the article met the burden. There were more reliable secondary sources after the template was placed there than before. Some were mainly about Mr. Creswell.

The timing of this nomination is poor. The article was created in 2007 and is just being nominated at the start of an election cycle where the man the article describes is participating in the first primary for his party. Timing could be perceived as favoring an outcome.

He meets (
WP:BIO#Additional criteria
)

The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times. He was granted the Spokesperson of Liberty award.

The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. MCRI contributions and Libertarian Party premier primary run asserted in introduction.--Truthtests (talk) 16:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This has been hashed out above. "Spokesperson of Liberty" is neither a well-known nor significant award. The importance of his contributions to the MCRI are directly challenged above and on the talk page, as is the importance of standing in an uncontested third-party primary for a state house election. No sources would support the claim that his contributions are "widely-recognized" outside of the Libertarian Party of Michigan. No uninvolved editor is impressed by these claims. Mackensen (talk) 18:16, 5 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 04:00, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE. Tip for others checking this AFD: There are 60-odd links in the reflist, but you can save yourself half the work by skipping URLs to government sites and Libertarian sites. Gross case of junk-source
right-wrongs, and rants that deletion is censorship. I do not believe they offer an impartial evaluation of the sourcing. I do not believe they are representative of the general community consensus. I humbly suggest that they be weighed accordingly. Alsee (talk) 09:57, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

The existence of sources that do not contain significant coverage, does not negate the existence of those that do. Sources can serve a purpose in an article beyond proving notability. Government sources have factual value. A person's political party is a reliable source of what that person's party claims. None of the sources I itemize down page of here are government or Libertarian Party.--Libertyguy (talk) 05:36, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Classic example of a never-elected minor party local politician - not notable at all. Emeraude (talk) 14:07, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are two problems with your reason. "never-elected" This is a straw man. A person doesn't need to be elected to be notable. For instance
GNG
only requires significant coverage by reliable sources. The criteria is met, and I have supported this assertion in a bulleted list down page from here.

The second reason, "minor party" has nothing to do with the notability criteria, and its partisan. As far as I know there isn't a de jure partisan litmus test, though it is starting to look like there is a de facto one; editors have their political bias and some wish to see it reflected in the content by deleting articles about people based on their party affiliation. If wikipedia is to become a partisan publication designed to serve the interests of only two parties a whole can of worms would be opened starting with an end to any tax-exempt status.--Libertyguy (talk) 05:36, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Preserve My previous post adequately addresses the issue of notablity; it was not an argument by assertion, rather an argument by self-evidence. Like pointing to the color green, an ostensible definition. I merely pointed to the self-evident fact of Creswell's notability by reference of independent media sources of stature. Those seeking to delete this fine article--rather than perhaps shortening, i.e actually suggesting edits (as all the editors I know see their jobs)--seem to be on a mission to expunge independent voices.

How is that in keeping with the mission of Wikipedia to be a people's compendium of knowledge? Wikipedia is not meant to be exclusionist. Wikipedia is NOT supposed to be a pack of corporate-paid trolls purging ideas or movements or political figures that don't fit into its hierarchy of selectively cultivated official stories. Nobody I know trusts, any longer, Wikipedia to tell the truth about any significant political entity or event.

Eliminating fine work like Creswell's article only further serves to discredit Wikipedia as any sort of independent standard or compendium of human knowledge. Hence I appeal to the declining numbers of Independents who still hope for Wikipedia's resurrection as a valued source of knowledge to join the battle and Keep Creswell. User:Bwisok (talk) 17:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note to the closing administrator: this is Bwisok's third bolded comment; two "keeps" and a "preserve", which is presumably also a keep. @Bwisok: is a pack of corporate-paid trolls meant as rhetoric or are you accusing someone of something? Mackensen (talk) 19:15, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@
revoke your ability to edit at all. Alsee (talk) 07:24, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

~~Keep~~ Keep again. I assume “relisted” means we must start fresh since all new comments must be below the line created by Winged Blades^Godric. May we respond to comments that were originally made above the line? What is the correct way of doing this?

There are two main lines of argument here. I will focus on
GNG
here. The mantra is that there is no significant coverage. There is and I will itemize some examples here. These are each cited in the article. Links to sources are in the footnotes. In some cases one needs to create an account to view archived articles, but they can be viewed with no expenditure.

An honest person must agree that significant coverage exists. An honest debate must start with recognizing this obvious fact. We can and have argued subtleties, but denying a fact doesn't make it disappear.

Creswell is the primary topic in these Reliable Secondary Sources

Comments at from (1:55) Martino, Fred (September 27, 2006). "WGVU Newsmakers: Greg Creswell". WGVU Newsmakers. Grand Rapids, Michigan. Retrieved April 17, 2017.

WGVU is a reliable secondary source. The entire program is an interview with him.

Seymour, Ruth (October 17, 1982). "Now it's their time to chip in". Detroit Free Press. Retrieved 2017-04-23.

The Detroit Free Press is a reliable Secondary Source. This is only about Creswell and his wife.

Nicholas, Davis (October 2006). "WCMU Meet the Candidates: Greg Creswell". WCMU-TV. Mt. Pleasant, Michigan. Retrieved May 4, 2017.

WCMU-TV is a reliable secondary source. The entire program is an interview with him.

According to
GNG
"Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." The portion in bold has been over-looked by some AfD participants.

Significant coverage where Creswell is not the main topic of the source material.

Brand-Williams, Oralandar (January 13, 2004). "Affirmative action backers, foes clash". The Detroit News. Michigan. Retrieved 2017-04-01.

Clearly not Trivial mention. The Detroit News is a reliable secondary source. This isn't exclusively about Creswell, but describes an incident in which his actions are the focus of the story.

The program begins at 3:38 . A promotional video plays first. The segment devoted to Gregory Creswell starts at 20:03 Strickland Love, Darchelle (April 1, 2004). "Politics Aside (With Ward Connerly & Gregory Creswell". Detroit Cable Communications Commission. Detroit, Michigan. Retrieved April 17, 2017.

Clearly not Trivial mention. Detroit Cable Communications Commission and (With Darchelle Strickland Love) is a reliable secondary source. This isn't exclusively about Creswell, but the interview is in depth with Creswell representing MCRI in Michigan.

Bulleted Brand-Williams, Oralandar (January 11, 2004). "Race ballot campaign will start Monday". The Detroit News. Michigan. Retrieved 2017-04-01.

Clearly not Trivial mention. The Detroit News is a reliable secondary source. This is about the launch of a ballot initiative that he is involved in starting. He is one of two people quoted on it and he is quoted more extensively then the other organizer, Leon Drolet.

Lansing State Journal, "Petition on race policy to begin:Group seeks to end affirmative action in state". Archived from the original on April 26, 2004. Retrieved 2007-07-28. By O. Brand-Williams, Published January 11, 2004

The Lansing State Journal is a reliable secondary source. Here Creswell is one of two persons quoted to represent MCRI's side of the story.

Langton, Charlie (October 18, 2006). "Michigan Gubernatorial Debate 2006". Community Media Network (CMN). Michigan. Retrieved April 27, 2017.

CMN is a reliable, but not well-known source. The moderators are well-known and represent well-known media outlets: Hosted Charlie Langton of Fox 2 News and WWJ radio. Panelists are Bill Gallagher (WJBK Fox News 2 Detroit), Paul Kubicek (Oakland University), Noah Ovshinsky (WDET 101.9 FM) This is the only Telivised Gubernatorial Debate in 2006 to which all candidates were invited, and in which the majority participated.

Davis, Mathew (August 21, 1996). "Reactions mixed on impact of latest stadium plans". Detroit Free Press. p. 8. Retrieved 2017-04-23.

Detroit Free Press is a reliable secondary source. Crewswell isn't the primary topic, but he is mentioned and quoted extensively and a quote from him is displayed in bold on the sidebar of the article.

Other more borderline sources may have distracted participants in this AfD from the blatent significant coverage indicated. The use of less significant sources does not deminish the significance of others cited. Reasonable people can argue about the significance of these. I list them here because they are still reliable, and have some significance (my opinion). A million zeros doesn't add up to anything, but a million halves add up to 500 thousand. In my humble opinion these are half way there.

Mention borderline. Not Trivial, but not real extensive.

Jennifer, Chambers (July 2, 2011). "Court rules race ban on college admissions illegal". The Detroit News. Michigan. Retrieved 2017-04-01.

The Detroit News is a reliable secondary source. He is one of a few MCRI people quoted.

Hofman, Kathy Barks (October 14, 2006). "Granholm stretches lead over DeVos". Lansing State Journal. p. 1. Retrieved 2017-04-23.

The Lansing State Journal is a reliable secondary source, and this is was on the Front Page. Not trivial. That Creswell was one of only three candidates that showed in the poles. Admittedly not extensive and tyhe major party candidates were still the main topic.

Brand-Williams, Oralandar; Trowbridge, Gordon (September 22, 2000). "Cop shootings hurt public trust". "The Detroit News". Retrieved 2017-04-01.

The Detroit News is a reliable secondary source. He is quoted, but not the primary topic. Borderline.

Byrne, Mark (June 2, 2006). "'American Idol' boasts many voices; U.S. politics should, too". The Times Herald. p. 5. Retrieved 2017-04-23.

The Times Herald is a reliable secondary source. The author of this Op/Ed advocates for including Creswell in debates, but Creswell isn't the only mention.

Prentis, William (October 30, 2006). "TV station's candidate debate misleading, left out 3 parties". The Times Herald. p. 5. Retrieved 2007-04-23.

The Times Herald is a reliable secondary source. The author of this Op/Ed advocates for including minor party candidates in debates, but Creswell is the only one named.

Thorne, Daric (August 2006). "March of Progress: Conservative Spectrum" (PDF). MCC Chronicle (Vol. 1 issue 4). Archived from the original (PDF) on September 28, 2007.

The MCC Chronicle is a reliable secondary source. There is an article is only about Creswell and Devos, but the publication is not well known, so borderline.

Schultz, Marisa (November 3, 2011). "Cain's plan: tax reform, vision and charisma". The Detroit News. Retrieved 2017-04-14.

The Detroit News is a reliable secondary source. He is quoted, but not the primary topic. Borderline.

Creswell, Gregory. "MICHIGAN CIVIL RIGHTS INITIATIVE: Will state proposal hurt women?". Detroit Free Press. Michigan. The full text of the letter was posted on the "michigancivilrights.org website" The letter and other comments are preserved on the "votesmart.org website"

This is all him and the Detroit Free Press is reliable secondary source, but it is in the form of a letter from him, so borderline.

"Say nice things about Detroit". The Detoit News. October 11, 2012. Retrieved 2017-04-14.

The Detroit News is a reliable secondary source. He is quoted, but not the primary topic. Borderline.

Creswell, Gregory (July 19, 2006). "Taxing his patience". The Metro Times.

The Metro Times is a reliable secondary source. This is all Creswell, but in the form of a letter.

I will have other points to make, but its time to move past the notion that significant coverage is absent. It exists. That is settled.--Libertyguy (talk) 20:03, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

!vote. Alsee (talk) 07:38, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Alsee No deception intended. Is this modification OK? --Libertyguy (talk) 03:49, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A few brief comments. Relisting simply means that the discussion stays open another week or so. The discussion does not "reset" in any way. Regarding does not need to be the main topic of the source material, I don't think that's being overlooked. The issue is the absence of significant coverage of Creswell and his accomplishments. Nothing in your summary of the sources, which doesn't differ all that much from mine, does anything to address that issue. You also haven't commented on the absence of Creswell in Carol M. Allen's book. This absence appears to severely undercut claims about Creswell's importance to the MCRI, as does the passing mention in the Detroit News from 2011. I must disagree with your summary of that article. You say "He is one of a few MCRI people quoted." The article actually describes him as a "[Detroit man] who gathered signatures for the Proposal 2 ballot initiative." The MCRI people quoted are Gratz and Connerly. If I've got a friend who rang doorbells for Hillary Clinton last year, I suppose I could describe them as a member of the Clinton campaign, but that would be grossly misleading. Mackensen (talk) 00:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First you say that the coverage I mention is not being overlooked. Then you claim, "The issue is the absence of significant coverage of Creswell and his accomplishments." I just gave examples of that which you claim is absent. Denial doesn't make them disappear. then you bring up a book. This is a straw man. Significant coverage doesn't mean universal coverage. Coverage doesn't need to be in every publication or even most. Just some.--Libertyguy (talk) 05:36, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is starting to look silly. A million news articles won't change the fact that Creswell is a candidate for public office, but has never held an elected office in the government. Does Creswell have any public role with the Libertarian Party of Michigan?
talk) 01:49, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
It is true that "A million news articles won't change the fact that Creswell is a candidate for public office, but has never held an elected office in the government." This is a straw man. A person doesn't need to be elected to be notable. For instance
GNG only requires significant coverage by reliable sources. The criteria is met, and I have supported this assertion in a bulleted list up page from here. Yes he has held a few offices within the Libertarian party and the Party political offices table at the bottom of the article indicates this. He is currently "LEC At Large Director" according to the party's website: http://michiganlp.org/officers-and-staff--Libertyguy (talk) 05:36, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Minor-party candidate for a variety of local positions. He has never gained more than 3% of the vote. References are mostly typical local election coverage. Does not meet basic notability standards.Glendoremus (talk) 05:12, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your candor. You have made it clear that this drive to delete is at least partially motivated by partisan bias. NPOV should apply to an AfD but clearly it doesn't. "minor party" has nothing to do with the notability criteria, and it's partisan. As far as I know there isn't a de jure partisan litmus test, though I can see that there is a de facto one; editors have their political bias and some wish to see it reflected in the content by deleting articles about people based on their party affiliation. If Wikipedia is to become a partisan publication designed to serve the interests of only two parties a whole can of worms would be opened starting with any legal claim to tax-exempt status. GNG doesn't require a minimum percent of the vote.--Libertyguy (talk) 05:45, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Libertyguy: Please don't be ridiculous. We are under no obligation to provide free coverage to non-notable minor politicians. You are the only editor here pushing a POV. AusLondonder (talk) 06:05, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't claim Wikipedia is obligated to "provide free coverage to non-notable minor politicians." The term "non-notable" begs the question. I responded to the implied assertion that the subject's party affiliation was a reason to deem him non-notable and a reason to delete the article. You stated, "Minor-party candidate for a variety of local positions." Also, you judged the article without reading it. US Congress and Governor are not "local positions."--Libertyguy (talk) 23:20, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite a huge bombardment by COI libertarian editors and a plethora of junk sources designed to overwhelm, this individual is simply not notable. The bad-faith attacks by conflicted editors serves only to justify ignoring their !votes. Creswell completely fails
WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 06:05, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Please read the top message. Note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. There are bad arguments made, but why does this person completely fail
WP:GNG?--Truthtests (talk) 23:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

@Johnpacklambert: You have over a hundred of AfD edits since you made one on this project page. Are you being diligent in reaching a judgement? Did you read my factual correction?--Truthtests (talk) 23:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have seen some disturbing developments. An editor has slammed another editor and Wikipedia. Editors on both the “Keep” and “Delete” sides have made accusations. Some have used “minor-party” affiliation as part of an argument, and accused those asserting “Keep” to be conflicted. Editors have opinions outside Wikipedia, but an AfD is not a war zone.
WP:NOTWARZONE

Merge if Keep fails. I have not changed my position on keeping the article, but in the event consensus for keeping the article is not reached, merging it as a redirect to
Michigan gubernatorial election, 2006. I suggest the Libertarian Party of Michigan instead since Creswell has a more current relevance (at least among Libertarians), as their first primary candidate.--Truthtests (talk) 00:22, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

I went ahead created a section on the primary. I feel like that was a nice idea irrespective of the way this AfD turns out.--Redandready (talk) 15:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Really interesting article! Looks like hes done a lot and people wrote about him. Remember hearing about him when I was little.--64.88.89.40 (talk) 16:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no consensus here. Most of the editors have treated this like a ballot and have not responded. This is the first comment in two days. I recommend that the discussion be closed with the status of the article remaining unchanged.--Libertyguy (talk) 16:50, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted discussions typically stay open for an additional seven days; we're still in that window. This discussion already has more--and fuller--comments than most. There's a wealth of material for the closing administrator to work with; hopefully he or she will read over it very carefully. For my part, I think it's fair to say that there's consensus among uninvolved editors. Mackensen (talk) 17:14, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing editor, Revisiting this remarkable AfD, I want to say that User:Mackensen is correct, editors who I know to work regularly at AfD, including John Pack Lambert, Emeraude, and AusLondonder, have weighed in with brief, policy-based arguments for deletion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing editor, Three bad examples. None making policy based arguments: John Pack Lambert jumps from one AfD to the next making snap judgements based on false assumptions. His comment in this one is based on the false assumption that a person must live in a Congressional district to run for that seat. Truthtests corrected him, but he never replied. Emeraude uses the subject’s party affiliation and non-election to office as notability criteria. Neither is part of Wikipedia’s notability policy. I pointed this out, and have yet to receive a response. After criticizing the bad manners of some pro-Keep editors, AusLondonder asserts "simply not notable." Argument by assertion is not policy based.--Libertyguy (talk) 04:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for them, but I think it's likely that they're persuaded by the original nomination, and by subsequent comments in the discussion. John Pack Lambert's primary assertion isn't based on residency, but on this: While there is long spread out coverage of Creswell, it is either too little on him, or too incidental. That argument rests squarely on the GNG. Election to office is a typical criteria for evaluating politicians, because it's a comparatively easy hurdle. It's enumerated in
WP:GNG. Anyone arguing "not notable" is persuaded by the extensive discussion of the sources. They're not required to regurgitate all those arguments Their comments will certainly be given more weight than the keeps that were simply outright advocacy. Mackensen (talk) 10:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete As non-notable. He has repeatedly been an unsuccessful candidate for office on the ticket of a minor/fringe political party. Despite copious coverage for his many candidacies and support for things like failed ballot initiatives, all coverage can be characterized ads local, routine coverage of his unsuccessful political activities.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My man Creswel is a part of our history. I can't think of any other black men running for Governor in our state. And its referenced real good!--64.88.4.75 (talk) 16:11, 15 May 2017 (UTC)— 64.88.4.75 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment I feel this coverage is significant and should be included with the examples other editors have shown. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61KEFX-4gqM&feature=youtu.be A nice interview with Mr. Creswell and his running mate.--Redandready (talk) 16:06, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redandready, the link you provided is Creswell himself speaking on WHFR. WHFR is very low power student run college radio. It's not a particularly significant or reliable source. To the extent WHFR says anything about Creswell, the intro highlights that Creswell isn't getting any coverage in Reliable Sources. The fact that Creswell has to scrounge this low to campaign, and that this is about the best of the sourcing we have for the article, illustrates just how insignificant he was in the political race. It illustrates how he hasn't left any lasting mark on the historical record. It illustrates how he fails our Notability guidelines. The problem is that some people want more Wikipedia coverage to help advance the Libertarian party and Libertarian candidates, but that's backwards. These candidates will get more coverage in Wikipedia either when they win, or when they lose with enough independant Reliable Source attention to establish Notability. Alsee (talk) 03:56, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As well said by Rogermx, this is a never elected politician, it's a cut and dry delete. Sure he may be colourful, sure he may be part of an anonymous editor's history. But, this doesn't make him notable enough for a global encyclopedia. Ifnord (talk) 19:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Ifnord. People have to remember that Wikipedia is not designed to be the respository of all human knowledge. An interesting and worthwhile story does not automatically translate into a notable story. Wikipedia decided on criteria for notability and I think we should stick to them Rogermx (talk) 01:30, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability guidelines don't require that a person be elected, and being elected does not mean that person is notable.--Libertyguy (talk) 04:00, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: My goodness, what an unfortunate situation this AfD is. I spent quite a bit of time sorting through the many references proffered here and in the article, all the negative commentary here, and all the rest of it. After that, I must conclude that Creswell does not actually pass
talk) 02:20, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Perhaps you overlooked these. Not government, Libertarian, or self-published sources.

Collapsed long list of sources which were substantially or completely posted above, in comment of 20:03, 7 May 2017

Creswell is the primary topic in these Reliable Secondary Sources

Comments at from (1:55) Martino, Fred (September 27, 2006). "WGVU Newsmakers: Greg Creswell". WGVU Newsmakers. Grand Rapids, Michigan. Retrieved April 17, 2017.

WGVU is a reliable secondary source. The entire program is an interview with him.
Seymour, Ruth (October 17, 1982). "Now it's their time to chip in". Detroit Free Press. Retrieved 2017-04-23.

The Detroit Free Press is a reliable Secondary Source. This is only about Creswell and his wife.
Nicholas, Davis (October 2006). "WCMU Meet the Candidates: Greg Creswell". WCMU-TV. Mt. Pleasant, Michigan. Retrieved May 4, 2017.

WCMU-TV is a reliable secondary source. The entire program is an interview with him.

According to
GNG
"Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." The portion in bold has been over-looked by some AfD participants.

Significant coverage where Creswell is not the main topic of the source material.
Brand-Williams, Oralandar (January 13, 2004). "Affirmative action backers, foes clash". The Detroit News. Michigan. Retrieved 2017-04-01.

Clearly not Trivial mention. The Detroit News is a reliable secondary source. This isn't exclusively about Creswell, but describes an incident in which his actions are the focus of the story.
The program begins at 3:38 . A promotional video plays first. The segment devoted to Gregory Creswell starts at 20:03 Strickland Love, Darchelle (April 1, 2004). "Politics Aside (With Ward Connerly & Gregory Creswell". Detroit Cable Communications Commission. Detroit, Michigan. Retrieved April 17, 2017.

Clearly not Trivial mention. Detroit Cable Communications Commission and (With Darchelle Strickland Love) is a reliable secondary source. This isn't exclusively about Creswell, but the interview is in depth with Creswell representing MCRI in Michigan.
Bulleted Brand-Williams, Oralandar (January 11, 2004). "Race ballot campaign will start Monday". The Detroit News. Michigan. Retrieved 2017-04-01.

Clearly not Trivial mention. The Detroit News is a reliable secondary source. This is about the launch of a ballot initiative that he is involved in starting. He is one of two people quoted on it and he is quoted more extensively then the other organizer, Leon Drolet.
Lansing State Journal, "Petition on race policy to begin:Group seeks to end affirmative action in state". Archived from the original on April 26, 2004. Retrieved 2007-07-28. By O. Brand-Williams, Published January 11, 2004

The Lansing State Journal is a reliable secondary source. Here Creswell is one of two persons quoted to represent MCRI's side of the story.
Langton, Charlie (October 18, 2006). "Michigan Gubernatorial Debate 2006". Community Media Network (CMN). Michigan. Retrieved April 27, 2017.

CMN is a reliable, but not well-known source. The moderators are well-known and represent well-known media outlets: Hosted Charlie Langton of Fox 2 News and WWJ radio. Panelists are Bill Gallagher (WJBK Fox News 2 Detroit), Paul Kubicek (Oakland University), Noah Ovshinsky (WDET 101.9 FM) This is the only Telivised Gubernatorial Debate in 2006 to which all candidates were invited, and in which the majority participated.
Davis, Mathew (August 21, 1996). "Reactions mixed on impact of latest stadium plans". Detroit Free Press. p. 8. Retrieved 2017-04-23.

Detroit Free Press is a reliable secondary source. Creswell isn't the primary topic, but he is mentioned and quoted extensively and a quote from him is displayed in bold on the sidebar of the article.

--Libertyguy (talk) 04:00, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This isn't supposed to be a majority vote, but the "Delete" votes are exceeding the "Keep" votes, so I am putting in a request to the closing editor. I am hoping some of the editors calling for deletion will express support for this suggestion. As mentioned by others, this has been done with articles about two other candidates from the 2006 Gubernatorial election. Instead of deleting the page outright, redirect to Libertarian_Party_of_Michigan#First_Partisan_Primary_Candidate. Others have suggested this. This article is not an orphan. It would be advisable to have those links direct to some information about the subject. The edit history would be preserved in case a change in this persons coverage became sufficient to change consensus on his notability.--Libertyguy (talk) 04:41, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to a redirect. It's reasonable for Libertarian Party of Michigan to mention this race, even if Creswell is not independently Notable. I also see no reason to expect Creswell will stop his perennial runs for office, which very well may attract Notable coverage in the future. Alsee (talk) 06:10, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested that possibility in my nomination statement. Mind you, we're talking about a sentence or two. Out of curiosity, is there a source independent of the Libertarian Party explicitly reporting that Creswell is the first Libertarian to stand in a primary election in Michigan? I've been looking but I hadn't seen one. Mackensen (talk) 11:09, 18 May 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. MBisanz ^talk 12:31, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AHHHA

AHHHA (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 coverage of this organisation is weak and in my opinion, fails to pass
WP:NCORP. The CNN article is a blog archive from 2011 and the company is defunct as far as I can tell since all the links are dead. This was promising in 2011, but I guess it classifies as a failed venture today. Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 17:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:24, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~. References are available. This archived page contains a number of references. Some PR-related stuffs, but not only. I have just added this one to the article: CNET. --Edcolins (talk) 19:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The company has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent secondary sources. See CNN, CNET, and Entrepreneur Magazine references. --Edcolins (talk) 20:52, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:17, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. User:Nicnote is correct that the coverage of the organization is sparse. This is especially true when it comes to indepth coverage. It merely has the CNN source. Therefore, it fails to pass
WP:NCORP. The article doesn't serve a useful purpose either as there is nothing particular historic about the company and it is a defunct company.Knox490 (talk) 06:15, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Hmm... there are other sources than merely the CNN source. Furthermore, usefulness is a subjective judgment (see
WP:DEFUNCTS). --Edcolins (talk) 20:52, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
@
WP:GNG very strongly). I hope that this has cleared up my reasoning for the AfD. Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 21:53, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks for your thoughts. I have a hard time deciding whether the CNET piece is a "news" piece or a blog post (see Wikipedia about
WP:CORP. --Edcolins (talk) 22:20, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:40, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- A7 material with no indications as to why this entry should be included in the encyclopedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:00, 8 May 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) f e minist 17:05, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Any Port in a Storm

Any Port in a Storm (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)

Queried speedy delete as "The "does not site any sources" template has been there since July 2011 ---- just under six years. See
CSD G6.". But the music album exists and is itself a reference about itself and its contents, surely? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:20, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - which shouldn't come as a surprise, being that I am the one that did the CSD.Kellymoat (talk) 12:25, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article does not cite any sources. Unless someone can add content and credible sources, this article should be deleted. Bmbaker88 (talk) 22:05, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:28, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:28, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources added. It charted and there's some coverage, enough such that it meets
WP:NALBUM. Gongshow   talk 19:30, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Good work, @Gongshow:. It meets #2 of NALBUM now at minimum. South Nashua (talk) 20:56, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:35, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An obviously invalid speedy tag does not justify deletion. I really don't know why this is at AfD. --Michig (talk) 07:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

you should have seen what it looked like a week ago. Oh, wait, you can - click here. Six years with the "this article has no reference" warning box, and little more than a track list. Kellymoat (talk) 10:53, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of which is a valid reason to tag for G6 speedy deletion. --Michig (talk) 11:27, 7 May 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 Kurukshetra University. MBisanz ^talk 12:30, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

K.M.Govt.College Narwana

K.M.Govt.College Narwana (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)

Makes no claim of notability. Fails to provide basic directory information, let alone to establish notability, but see
Wikipedia is not a directory. Does not even say where the college is, and so is not even effectively promotional. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:59, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 03:19, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 03:19, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete (per
WHYN. Rebb ing 11:28, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete notability not established. Article creator has long history of creating non-notable articles and repeatedly removing deletion templates and recreating them after they're deleted. JDDJS (talk) 13:47, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the village of Narwana in fact exists thus we cannot simply base a sole deletion of "not existing"; as with usual cases before, we consider whether there's offline sources available and it's something no one has shown here, therefore cannot be a presumptive solution. There are absolutely no violations of WP:NOT here, which is our main policy, and thus there's no policy-backed deletion basis. SwisterTwister talk 21:31, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What an odd vote. No one is disputing that this college exists, so it's unclear why you're making a point about the existence of the city in which it is situated.
NEXIST ("[O]nce an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface."). Rebb ing 21:56, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

What you say is a perfect argument to why the page shouldn't be speedy deleted or even deleted via PROD. However, you make absolutely no case to why this cannot be deleted via AFD.
WP:NOTE is the relevant policy here, and you make no argument to support the fact the article is in fact notable. JDDJS (talk) 23:21, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - The article is better than it was when I
notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Uncertain, probably merge WP:NOT is indeed our principal policy on what articles we keep. It's the basis for everything else about the content of the encyclopedia . WP:N is just a guideline, meant to explain one small part of it--NOT DIRECTORY. Other guidelines explain other parts, such as NOT ADVOCACY. The meaning of a guideline is that it codifies what we usually do--not what we always do, because all guidelines permit exceptions. And WP:N says so explicitly. The status of schools is uncertain, and I urge re-reading of the close of the relevant AfC. It says SCHOOLOUTCOMES does not have consensus as a guideline. But it also says that there is no consensus to change the practice of keeping all secondary schools with verifiable existence. Quite how low in information we should go for this is undetermined. But the key point of considering all secondary schools as notable is to remove the need for these discussions, with their very random results. Consistency helps the readers. DGG ( talk ) 06:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misread the RFC's close. You assert that it didn't "change the practice of keeping all secondary schools with verifiable existence," yet the close plainly states: "Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist." That's a clear refutation of the practice. One of the closing panel members recently reiterated that the RFC did indeed overturn that supposed consensus and precedent and that GNG and individual evaluation is now the proper standard for evaluating schools. Rebb ing 15:02, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant, since this isn't a secondary school. The RfC, which was not about undermining consensus in any case, was certainly not about tertiary institutions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reread my argument. Whether or not they are notable, there remains the widespread convention to consider them notable in order to avoid spending energy on thousands of discussions such as this for generally harmless articles, when there is so much actually bad material we need to deal with. The compromise, I remind you, was to not try to push the notability of elementary schools unless there was something really special. We have similar working compromises all over WP, though usually not articulated explicitly, but just in the consistent practice at AfD. DGG ( talk ) 18:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a degree-awarding institution per longstanding consensus and precedent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:16, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested by DGG, to Narwana. Maybe locally important. Hyperbolick (talk) 15:43, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge not to the locality, but to Kurukshetra University, the university with which it is affiliated per the rationale provided by DGG. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:56, 6 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 03:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Redirect to Kurukshetra University as failing our notability guidelines for a standalone article. The article currently cites no sources, though a search confirms that it exists and that it's affiliated to the university, but that's about it. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:32, 12 May 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. SpinningSpark 15:01, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Church of Lucifer

Greater Church of Lucifer (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 very new (founded 2013), minor religious group. Lack of extensive coverage in reliable sources. There is a small quantity of media coverage, but it seems to be mainly about local events. Some hits on Google books, but they appear to all be self-published works. SJK (talk) 10:00, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. SJK (talk) 10:01, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see not just local, but nationwide coverage (in the 'news' link) of their Texas opening in 2015, as well as nationwide coverage from early 2017 of one of their leaders converting to Christianity... Jclemens (talk) 20:26, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So this Satanist group have received coverage on two occasions – (1) they opened a Satanic church in Texas, Christians protested, there was lots of local coverage but a bit of national coverage too; (2) their founder converted to Christianity, and a Christian ministry he is associated with has been pushing a lot of media about that. Now, is (2) primarily coverage about this Satanist group, or is it primarily coverage about him personally? I think, the fact that he converted from this particular Satanist group, as opposed to some other, isn't very important to (2)–it is primarily a story about him personally, or about Satanists converting to Christianity generally, not about this particular group. And (1) is basically a single event, and while you are right it got some national coverage, but still it was primarily a local story to which the national media briefly paid attention. Is covering this single event enough to meet
WP:ORGDEPTH–maybe that coverage would be better justification for an article on the event itself (e.g. "2015 Old Town Spring anti-Satanism protests"?) SJK (talk) 21:30, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm not one to add 'weak' or 'strong' qualifiers to my !votes, but I grant that the case for keeping the movement is based in part on the uncited assertions of other child denominations springing up elsewhere. Otherwise, yes, your characterization of the topic matches my understanding. Jclemens (talk) 01:14, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 20:27, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paganism-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 20:28, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:55, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:32, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a trivial group; it appears to be a single congregation [engaged in puffery] that has shut down.
talk) 01:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. The delete arguments were in line with Wikipedia policies and guidelines while the keep arguments were decidedly not. Kurykh (talk) 00:28, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trauth

Star Trauth (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:ARTIST as well. The sources cited in the article are mostly trivial listings, blog posts, and some don't even mention the subject. A search found one newspaper article. - Mr X 10:50, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:51, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:51, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:51, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new to this and apologize if it is not formatted correctly. For my part in adding to this article I cited the online versions of newspapers, a book, widely distributed global magazines. The artist is working in an avant-garde media that she is widely recognized for and is currently on exhibition with wiki recognized organizations(and others), the largest art show in the world, and in Museums on several continents. As an emerging artist this is what I'm looking for. I'd be happy to look for more — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronileb (talk • contribs) 04:51, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:31, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Over-reliance on primary sources and misleading statements like "recognized for her outstanding originality and quality of her art" when the source only mentions a Certificate of Excellence don't help this article. Inclusion in the collection of museum when "Collage and assemblage artists from all over the world sent works for the exciting exhibition", per the source and mentions that barely even reach the level of "peripheral" mean that this article fails to meet any standard for independent, reliable coverage.
talk) 22:04, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Bulleted list item

KEEP This is an important artist in the field of fiber art. Working with material in an unusual way. Exhibiting on many continent. Printed in magazines and newspapers. Respected by her peers.Takahashik48 (talk) 00:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)takahashik48--Takahashik48 (talk) 00:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC) -Keep Notation on the above, "misleading statements like "recognized for her outstanding originality and quality of her art" when the source only mentions a Certificate of Excellence," it's an award. The Palm art Award. The quoted text isn't misleading, it's printed on the award. I thought an award was worth mentioning in a person's information and thought I'd be thorough and say what's it was for. Fiber Art, Fiber Artists, and Frmale Visusl Artists, are undervalued and under recognized in this country. This artist is innovating in the field, right now. Ronileb (talk) 02:00, 9 May 2017 (UTC)Ronlieb[reply]

Delete Non-notable artist with lack of credible, verifiable, independent citations. Some of these "collections" are not even real museums. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST Netherzone (talk) 03:06, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Good living, female, fiber artist in REAL museums -The Haegeumgang Theme Museum, 53334, the Haegeumgangro 120 Nambu-myeon Geoje-si, Gyeongsang Province, South Korea http://www.gjnews21.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=33976 -ONTOLOGICAL MUSEUM 4810 West Alameda Street Santa Fe, New Mexico 87507 -Gyeryongsan Natural History Museum (the largest museum in SK) 49-25, Imgeumbong-gil, Banpo-myeon, Gongju-si, Chungcheongnam-doOrangeStrawberry (talk) 04:41, 14 May 2017 (UTC)OrangeStrawberry[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. Closing early per
may be entirely made up. Mz7 (talk) 06:56, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Julie The Honeybee

Julie The Honeybee (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:PROD). StonefieldBreeze (talk) 03:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 03:37, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete No GHits, author is redlinked. Do not see evidence that it has yet been released. Jclemens (talk) 05:11, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Blackguard 06:08, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG, at least
WP:TOOSOON, G11 applies. Widefox; talk 09:37, 10 May 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 speedily deleted by
CSD G4 (recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion: Previously created multiple times under the name Blacksnipe Records). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Blacksnipe Entertainment Company

Blacksnipe Entertainment Company (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:NCORP. I attempted to remove the same page per XfD earlier this week. Based on the comments from that nom, it sounds like this page has been removed on several occasions. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 03:01, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:35, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:35, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing notable about this entertainment company. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 23:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is just another name for the repeatedly recreated Blacksnipe Records. I have speedy-deleted and salted this article. I also indeffed the sock who wrote it. --MelanieN (talk) 23:59, 7 May 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 Broadcasting House. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:55, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

World (sculpture)

World (sculpture) (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 public artwork in the piazza of the BBC's head office, which fails to show the depth of
primary sources in this context, since by definition they're not independent of an artwork they commissioned for their own office building) and the third is a glancing namecheck of its existence in an article that is in no way substantively about it. It would be perfectly acceptable for this to be mentioned in Broadcasting House, but there's no evidence being shown here that it has anything approaching the depth of reliable source coverage needed to qualify for a standalone article separately from that. Bearcat (talk) 23:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, here are a couple of sources:
Telegraph - BBC unveils £1.6million pavement, Melbourne Art Netwok - Invasion or integration? Public art in urban spaces, "Case studies, including BBC Broadcasting House", but more is needed. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 01:30, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge to Broadcasting House. The sculpture is considered as part of the building's refit by most sources, rather than as an independent work. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge The building is notable. As an artistic installation, this isn't. It should be part of the building's page, not its own article.
talk) 02:23, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Move to draft space. This isn't at the top of my 'to do list', but it'd be nice not to delete this content and I can try to get around to expanding later. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 04:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Broadcasting House. Sorry for my delay in getting to this. Of all the independent reliable sources I've found so far, including ones from the Guardian, the Observer and University College London (and discounting five from the Mail on HighBeam per this decision), only the Telegraph article found by Coolabahapple discusses the work for more than one paragraph, and at six brief paragraphs I don't think it's very in-depth. So I'm struggling to find significant independent coverage.

If the notability of this work is in question, though, it should be considered alongside Jaume Plensa's Breathing, also commissioned for the Broadcasting House extension and also with its own article. (The Guardian piece linked above notes that World was the more expensive work of the two, so by that very crude measure World is more notable than Breathing.) Ham II (talk) 15:04, 10 May 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. Even those recommending keep all agreed (or most of them anyway) that this the page as it stands is not acceptable. That strongly comes down in favour of a
WP:TNT
deletion.
The strogest argument I saw for the existence of the page was from Slatersteven: "No article on one party can convey the real and powerful fear that Nazism represented to American liberals in the 30's." That is not an argument from policy of course, but together with WP:GNG could justify a better recreation of the page.
Anyone considering doing that should take into account the strong criticism of the current article that it fails to adequately distinguish between Nazism and neo-Nazism and the coverage of neo-Nazism has no place in an article of this title. SpinningSpark 16:16, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nazism in the United States

AfDs for this article:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/US support for the Nazism
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nazism in the United States

Nazism in the United States (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 clearly broken page, with many
WP:NPOV violations, and almost seems like an attack page at times. —JJ Be rs 02:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note To really explain what I'm trying to say, see
WP:JUNK, an essay. —JJ Be rs 02:54, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Here is the article in quotes: "Sometimes, an article on a notable subject comes up for AfD, which, however, has no redeeming qualities whatsoever. Perhaps its only source is a promotional, questionable website. Perhaps its material seems to be completely made up from thin air. In such cases, just delete it. Wikipedia lacks articles on a lot of things, and, if the people who found 87 blog and chatpage sources using the University of Google really cared about the subject, they'd find reliable sources to remake the article." —JJ Be rs 12:42, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A: This is an essay, not policy and B:The article up for AFD meets none of the suggested reason for deletion, it is clearly sourced to multiple RS, it clearly is not promotional and it clearly is not made up.Slatersteven (talk) 12:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I said it was a essay above, and I quoted it to fully describe what I was saying.... —JJ Be rs 12:55, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but it still doers not support deletion as this page does not violate it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The whole essay is about deleting really broken articles and restarting them. I don't get why you didn't read it. —JJ Be rs 18:14, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a policy.Slatersteven (talk) 18:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I already said that, I'm using it as a way to describe my deletion rationale. —JJ Be rs 18:24, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And I think it is flawed. I do not agree that this article is in such an appealing state it cannot be remade. I simply do not agree this article is so bad it cannot be repaired.Slatersteven (talk) 18:33, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly needs major
WP:AADD. ~~So, my !vote is Keep.~~ Upon reading the rationale from others I'm switching to the Delete side. – S. Rich (talk) 03:01, 7 May 2017 (UTC) 02:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, Look at the history. One add information supported by sources, the other delete because his heart can not tolerates historical facts that indicates that America could have been contaminated by the Nazism. Where is the support (books, news article, etc) that basis the systematic destruction of the article? "I don't like it" is not a good reason. Show us the source that contradicts the statements. This is not Russia or China. This is the Wikipedia. Dr. Loo^{Talk to me} 03:17, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is best not to ascribe motives to the contributions of editors -- you have no way of knowing what is in an editor's "heart", and should
assume good faith about their purpose in adding or removing material from the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

This is 'professional level English'? --Tarage (talk) 04:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep – "Weak" only because the article at this moment is extremely deficient. The subject, however, is a legitimate one, Nazism (and Fascism in general) has been a consistent fringe political belief in the US since the rise of Hitler. Whether it is a coatrack of another article, I don't know -- will someone please specify what article that is? This article in its expanded form will probably overlap significantly with German American Bund, Neo-Nazism and other articles, but if it brings together these subjects and presents them together in their historical context, it would be a worthwhile addition to the encyclopedia. It is most assuredly not that now, but this simply means that editors who are knowledgeable about the subject need to expand it into what it can (and should) become. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Coatrack of an article? First you'll have to explain what you mean by this.

As to "what it can ...become" What should it become that is not completely covered now by three better articles? Anmccaff (talk) 05:33, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Far too many issues/redundancies to fix. Merge it in with Antisemitism in the United States. --Tarage (talk) 04:32, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the "see also" section of the article. Nazism in the States has existed in multiple forms and while this article is not great now, deletion is not the answer: cleanup is. Having an article that presents an accurate synthesis of Nazism in the United States is absolutely warranted on Wikipedia, and it doesn't fall foul of any of
WP:NOT in an irredeemable way. Since it doesn't fail NOT, and most certainly passes GNG, I can't see a reason not to have it. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:43, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. There is no portion of this article that should not be legitimately covered by en.wiki's articles on the
Neonazism. If there is anything in this article not there now that belongs, merge it. For other countries, Germany and Austria most obviously, where there was a continuous nazi movement, a single article makes good sense, but WWII was almost completely disruptive to US nazoids. Anmccaff (talk) 05:33, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as it stands the article would need to be gutted and built from the ground up. If someone wants to step up and take this under their wing I would say keep it provisionally, but short of that the article could always be constructed again at a later date. Tivanir2 (talk) 07:37, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article as it is now is crap, but the same was true (arguably truer -- even the title was ungrammatical) last September when there was (weak) consensus to keep. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:42, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum If, per my response to User:MjolnirPants below, a closer wants to take me as being a "tacit support" for TNT deletion of the article, they are free to do so. I actually agree that TNT should be a valid rationale for deleting a page that has nothing worth salvaging. In fact, if more crap articles got deleted per TNT without regard for N and NOT, there would't likely have been a recent blowup at ANI with the creator of a bunch of crap articles trying to game a few AFDs that resulted in "keep" into a HOUND case against the user who, in good fai, posted the articles in question for deletion. And the one time I tried nominating a page for deletion per TNT (back in 2014, mind you) I was overruled by the "Forget TNT; it's all about GNG" crowd. I just don't see TNT deletions happening a whole lot, and so don't generally take it into account when !voting in AFDs. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:00, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't buy that logic. If it was crap last September and it's still crap, that means that it's not going to improve. --Tarage (talk) 08:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then the people who think it is crap should be trying to improve it, not delete it. Now I have no idea how bad it was last September, but Hijiri88 seems to imply it has improved.Slatersteven (talk) 10:00, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the job of the people who want it deleted to improve it. If the people who voted to keep it can't improve it enough to the point that it deserves to be kept, then it shouldn't be kept. --Tarage (talk) 10:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is the job of everyone. Indeed I seem to recall that you should only nominate and vote for delete after making an earnest attempt to look for sources and improve an article.Slatersteven (talk) 10:30, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let's be clear -- if I was in a position to judge absolutely whether the article has improved or gotten worse, I would ... well, I'd be a much better GA reviewer than most of the people who actually do GA reviews. I'm saying that at first glance it has improved at least a little (at least it's title is literate English), and whether or not it has improved it almost certainly can be improved. It's not like there's someone saying No. I will not allow changes to be made to this page to make it conform to policies and guidelines. I think it is fine as it is. If you think it is crap, then you should just delete it. If that was the case ... AFD
still wouldn't be the place for that discussion. But if the rationale for deletion is the same as it was last fall, and it survived AFD last fall, then something invalidating the "keep" !votes must have changed since then. Just saying that the article is still crap isn't enough, in my opinion. There was consensus to keep, not to keep, on condition that the article be brought up to code by May 2017, at which point a new AFD should be opened. This isn't GAR we are talking about; this is about whether the subject meets our inclusion criteria or not. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep As others have said, it is not that this is not a real subject, just that the article needs work. It's not as if Wikipedia is not fuill of other kinds of "XXX on XXX" type articles, why should Nazism in the USA not have one?Slatersteven (talk) 08:43, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I support this article for
Fascism in the United States and extend it. 201.17.139.105 (talk) 09:54, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
We have two articles that say the same thing (literally it seems, in some instances), these need to be merged.Slatersteven (talk) 10:32, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is because a particpant in this AfD copied an old version of the article to what had been a simple redirect. During the AfD. That looks like the sort of thing that needs some admin attention. Anmccaff (talk) 14:31, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS:I've restored the re-direct. Anmccaff (talk) 14:37, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If this is the case, yes we need an admin to take a look. But I am mystified as to why it was done, as it seems an argument for deletion (we have this already).Slatersteven (talk) 15:15, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the (repaired, mea culpa) link, do you have any doubt whatsoever that this is the case, Slatersteven? Anmccaff (talk) 15:49, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well that is the odd thing, because either I have the wrong user or he voted for keep and not delete.Slatersteven (talk) 16:37, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The perpetrators of the article originally tried to float two versions simultaneously, probably on the theory that one of them might survive AfD; I think this is the same mindset in play. Anmccaff (talk) 22:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like there was a similar article in 2005. Please send his historical archive to Luiz, we need to expand this. 201.17.139.105 (talk) 10:24, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per TNT. Also, it is a duplicate. We have the Articles German American Bund, Neo-Nazism, American Nazi Party, and Antisemitism in the United States. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 12:17, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fascism is not Germanism, anti-Semitism or National Socialism. 201.17.139.105 (talk) 12:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I know, that's why we're talking about NAZIS. And to get the !vote below, I too am opposed to Nazism, and think (if done prorperly) an article on Nazism in the US should exist. But the current article should be removed and rebuilt from scratch, preferrably with parts from the existing articles mentioned above. Too much NPOV, and the history is filled with bad edits. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 12:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So why not change the title? 201.17.139.105 (talk) 12:50, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We normally reserve
WP:TNT for things like borderline notable actresses who haven't preformed in anything in over a decade and whose article is sourced to a blog. This is about a major historical ideology and its prescence in a world power that fought on the opposite side of it during a World War. This isn't the type of article we should TNT. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:08, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Is there a way we can hide this from the public while y'all are fixing it? Oooh, how about Move to Draftspace. Atatck articles shouldn't be public where they are disgracing Wikipedia. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 23:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It maybe badly written and/or biased in it's current form but the topic is a perfectly legitimate. I, like the vast majority of sane people, am opposed to Nazism but that does'nt mean the topic should be written about. Djln Djln (talk) 12:37, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agreed, it is not the best-written article, but that is an argument for improvement, not deletion. Emeraude (talk) 14:12, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Iraq's al Qaeda was minimal before 2004, we should wait until at least 2019 to see if it should be eliminated. 201.17.139.105 (talk) 15:26, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- here's a chapter titled "American Neo-Nazism" from a book by Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke, Black Sun: Aryan Cults, Esoteric Nazism, and the Politics of Identity. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:10, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A book for scrutiny . 201.17.139.105 (talk) 17:24, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To add to the above we must also remember that there was a real (unfounded maybe, but real) fear of a fascist take over of the USA (see swastika night. That this was not one (or even two) parties and that (i would argue) it was the fact it was a fragmented movement, rather then ideological disdain that made fascism in the USA so weak. No article on one party can convey the real and powerful fear that Nazism represented to American liberals in the 30's. Nor can an article (or even 15) about historical parties that are now defunct convey the fact that many of the same kind of people fear it is rising again. Hitler admired American racist laws, as did the wider Nazi movement.Slatersteven (talk) 17:30, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Swastika Night is actually about German military victory, in England, rather than about fears from any homegrown-version in the US. Terrifying, but an external threat. And "Friendly Fascism" has next to nothing to do with nazism or neonazism, but about an establishment grown so intertwined as to be stultifying. That 201 added it here is a symptom of what is wrong with the article: agenda-driven writers digging up any mud they can off of tendentious, incompetent searches, and flinging it, hoping some will stick. Anmccaff (talk) 18:03, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct I was thinking of It Can't Happen Here.Slatersteven (talk) 18:10, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this irreparable article per
WP:TNT. Miniapolis 22:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect/Merge The page works as a subpage about the Second World War. Having a list of groups described as "having Nazi tendencies" is an obvious topic for vandalism.
talk) 02:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

The intended scope of the article goes well past WWII into current times, so this comment seems inappropriate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:06, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What you describe as the "intended scope of the article" is generally self-promotional in nature, and should not be included in Wikipedia. A single Nazi organization might be notable; a list of twenty otherwise-non-notable groups is not.
talk) 04:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

But we have several notable organizations: the Klan, the StormFront, the Silver Legion, the Bund ... It's not because it has become a big list that can not be fixed. 187.104.26.115 (talk) 08:53, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Vide: wp:PENSE.187.104.26.115 (talk) 08:55, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I mean a list would be so hard to remove or rewrite. Also not being notable is not relevant for inclusion in an article, only for having one. As to an target for Vandalism, well then we should not have pages on any politician then, this is not an argument for deletion but for watchfulness.Slatersteven (talk) 09:08, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:V exist. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:36, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

MPants, you're probably right. Honestly, my !vote was partly coloured by how rarely I see TNT deletions actually work. I am reminded (pretty constantly) of an incident a few years back where it was basically 5-2 in favour of deletion of a similar article from day two until day eight (with one of the two clearly
only having shown up to !vote the opposite way to me), on day eight two random AFD junkies showed up and !voted keep, clearly without having read either he original deletion rationale or any of the ensuing discussion, and on day nine it was closed as "no consensus". It was almost like there was some conspiracy at work, since the hound was !voting against his own POV, the closer just happened to wait an extra two days to close what had previously been a clear consensus to delete, and then right before the closer chose to show up, two dei ex machina show up out of nowhere to turn the tables, with those arguing in favour of deletion not even having a chance to convince them to change their misplaced !votes. So, yeah ... I guess I'm a moral support for TNT deletion, but procedural oppose on the basis that I don't think TNT deletion actually works. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:00, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
That is certainly a fair view, and I understand it. And I don't think this subject should go without an article (even if it's just a quick overview with links to other pages). But the version I saw was pretty bad. I'm not opposed to wiping the page and starting over fresh, but to me, that's a TNT !vote. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:21, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Given that both chronological parts of the article (prewar Bund, and post-war neo-nastyism) are already covered by far better articles, just blowing it up would work fine, especially with a little salt plowed into the dirt. Anmccaff (talk) 22:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TNT (delete) The article is, to put it mildly, not very good, not very coherent, not very neutral and not exactly properly sourced. I could overlook things like "Mien Kamph" (sic) if there were at least proper sources for the various claims made. Kleuske (talk) 15:42, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - While rewritten, this has improved only slightly since its previous AfD,
WP:NPOV and I think the most likely path to passing those guidelines is a complete rewrite, so keeping the article/saving its history doesn't seem overwhelmingly necessary. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:47, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete and salt. The 1930s through the end of WWII are already covered by
WP:SYNTH, not least by its unscholarly conflation of the Naziism of the Hitler era with the sharply different phenomenon of post Third Reich Neo-Nazism.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Whether this winds up on salt or not, the attempts to clone it need to be. Anmccaff (talk) 02:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, I really think this page should remain at least as a redirect. In fact I think a reasonable case could be made for moving the Bund article to this title, since the meaning of "Nazism in the United States" is universally clear, while only people with a fair degree of technical knowledge are familiar with the name "German American Bund". That, plus the inherently non-NPOV nature of using the "official" name of a fascist group that was deliberately identifying itself with a specific ethnic minority group (not all of whom identified with Nazism!). I think it would be a terrible time-sink to actually try to move, and possibly refocus, the page, and have no intention to do so. I just think the current title should be kept as a redirect, and perhaps put on permanent full protection or extended-confirmed protection, rather than the traditional definition of
WP:SALT. If removing the revision history is important (not arguing this one way or the other), then maybe rev-del, or delete the page, then recreate it as a redirect, then protect it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:20, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
The conflation of
WP:SALT needs to be applied.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:44, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

That said, I do see the value of, as User:Hijiri88 suggested, redirecting this article's title (but not content) to
National Socialist White People's Party.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:54, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Wait, but ... American Nazi Party is not a whitewashy euphemistic name, even if it is problematic in its conflation of skinhead wannabes with the National Socialist German Workers' Party. It's also debatable that the majority of people who search it are looking for information on the Bund. I wouldn't know, since I'm not American (and so am automatically in a fringe minority of our readers) and have a disproportionate interest in the history of far-right groups. As I said above, the Bund is not really all that well-known to popular culture, whereas the skinhead wannabes are, having played a prominent role in a classic 1980 comedy film. I don't think I've ever seen an off-handed subplot in a film that assumed awareness of the German American Bund, but I might be forgetting something. (I also used to be addicted to shows like The FBI Files and Forensic Detectives, and I distinctly recall an episode of the former about Joseph Paul Franklin referring to the "American Nazi Party".) Whether this or that specific group is the PRIMARYTOPIC shouldn't really be determined by your opinion or mine anyway, nor is it a topic for an AFD. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen something about American policies resembling fascism here. 189.101.36.156 (talk) 18:12, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But the contemporary Nazi wannabes are not Nazis, they are Nazi wannabes. The only significant
nazi parties (in terms of size or impact) were in the 1930s. Hatnotes can handle users looking for the sundry groups of modern wannabes.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Well, if you want to get technical about the word "Nazi", I might as well point out that, as far as I am aware, the Bund were not a political party in the conventional sense, which technically makes them even less of a noteworthy political party than later groups that were/are American political parties that use the word "Nazi" to describe themselves (and are described thus by third-party sources) whether or not they really are Nazis. The Bund was only the "American Nazi Party" in that it was an (at best unofficial, again as far as I am aware) American wing of the Nazi Party. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hardly any attempts have been made to expand the article at all, even at the current form the article doesn't seem to be bad.
Capitals00 (talk) 06:58, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

See why some people think salt? Either didn't read it, or couldn't understand it, but still absotively convinced it's relevant. As long as this article exists, or spin-offs from it exist, this will be the standard of research and writing. It doesn't need trolls to come by to disrupt, it's autotrolled. Anmccaff (talk) 18:28, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment K8 D10 R1. (next person to say "it's not numbers it consensus" gets a trout) I don't think some of the early keep !voters don't get that this is not about Notability. This is about an article that is/has been from nearly the start (original article author is innocent) used for unsourced NPOV, coattracking and attacks. The subject is clearly notable (even though it is covered in 4 or 5 other articles as said by multiple editors). But the current version and 95% of past versions are unfit for human consumption and it could be argued that they are candidates for rev-del. that is why the article is here fior deletion. I have no opposition to it being immediately being created with section yanked from the aforementioned 4 article and then new stuff, along with an indef SEMI. This is why I mentioned Moving to draftspace in my delete !vote. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 14:54, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

The topic is notable, but there is no article here. There is one paragraph that touches on the topic promised by the title. Move to
Neo-Nazism in the United States and it's a start. Srnec (talk) 02:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

I'm support, Luiz. 201.17.138.36 (talk) 08:12, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is this bibliography good? He did not accept her:
"Edwin Black, IBM and the Holocaust: The Strategic Alliance between Nazi Germany and America’s Most Powerful Corporation (London: Crown Publishers, 2001)".

Vide Bulgarian National Front. 2804:14C:5BB6:8EF5:FC02:90F6:634C:E0B4 (talk) 21:12, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

r.i.l. agenda-driven writers digging up any mud they can off of tendentious, incompetent searches, and flinging it, hoping some will stick? Anmccaff (talk) 21:23, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Support for Hitler (or Fascism) in the United States 2804:14C:5BB6:8EF5:FC02:90F6:634C:E0B4 (talk) 21:03, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yepp, that's again what we mean by agenda-driven writers digging up any mud they can off of tendentious, incompetent searches, and flinging it, hoping some will stick. Thanks for the illustration. Anmccaff (talk) 02:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They could change the name of the article to Totalitarianism in the United States and put Zoster content there. 189.61.187.196 (talk) 16:34, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If half the energy that has gone into this AfD had been put to improving the article, it would be better for it, and so would Wikipedia. I'm exremely busy in RL right now, what's everyone else's excuse for bitching instead of fixing? Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:45, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No "excuse" is needed, getting rid of this page -is- improving Wikipedia, full stop. It's an attach page, a POV fork, and a rolling ball of incompetent research and writing. If it were brought into standards, it would simply parallel other, better, existing pages that already cover the same ground. Anmccaff (talk) 17:52, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note that User:Beyond My Ken misses the point, certainly out of good faith and probably due to lack of familiarity with the nature of scholarship on Naziam - an vast academic field with more than its share of pseudo-historians and revisionists,. But a field where Wikipedia, like Wikipedia articles on hotly contested forms of identity, is subject to regular attempts add POV forks that, as Anmddaff states, "simply parallel other, better, existing pages that already cover the same ground."E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:44, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I may well have "missed the point", but it's not because of unfamiliarity with the things you mention. I am, in fact, fairly familiar with them. You, actually, have yourself missed the point, which is that I don't agree with you concerning the (potential) value of the article. That has nothing to do with ignorance on my part. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:34, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving aside any mistaken assumptions made, what would you see a cleaned-up version adding to Wikipedia? We already have several good articles covering the same ground; adding more might just create backwater articles with few eyes on them, and I think this article is a great example of what can go wrong with that. It's a damned pity that Wiki can't handle this sort of thing with transclusion. Anmccaff (talk) 22:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What article is it that you believe covers the overarching history of Nazism, specifically -- not Fascism in general -- in the United States, from the German-American Bund through the current neo-Nazi groups? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't one, because there wasn't one. WWII caused a nearly complete break. Anmccaff (talk) 04:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's your problem. There does not have to be a physical connection between groups, as long as they share the same basic philosophy. There's an obvious and almost continuous political lunatic fringe in the U.S., even after WWII, which is clearly based on Nazism. To deny that is to deny reality. The current article sucks dead bears through straws, but it can be rewritten to be the article that covers that history. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:01, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, there is this article's problem. There is no decent scholarship showing the "nazi wannabes" as EMG put it above having any real continuity with the old Bund, and for very obvious reasons. The Bund's leadership was essentially a tool of a government that declared war on the US, and that was the breaking point for most of the membership, and for outside tolerance.

It isn't coincidental that this article has has bad sourcing, misrepresented sourcing, misunderstood sourcing and flat out made up sourcing, and that isn't all down to its promoter's deficient English skills. It's because the article is in opposition to mainstream scholarship. To ignore that is to ignore reality. Anmccaff (talk) 05:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but you are confusing physical or personnel connections with adherence to a political philosophy. The article is (or should be) about the latter, because there is no former. The lack of "continuity with the Bund" is irrelevant, the Nazi philosophy and political agenda was clear, and anyone who adheres to it is, perforce, a Nazi, whether they've ever heard of the Bund or not. You position is untenable and frankly, absurd. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:23, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't feel any need to confuse anything here, having so many right nearby willing to do it themselves.

Three points. First, anyone who adheres to a reanimated philosophy from the past is the very essence of a neo-nazi. Neonazis are very nicely covered already in Wikipedia. Next, you appear to be attempting to argue from authority...your own, that is. I see no reason why that should have any relevance here, that you find something absurd might reflect lack of knowledge, or poverty of imagination. Most importantly, though, Wikipedia is supposed to be a trailing tertiary source, with nothing but the most dead-obvious synthesis of ideas allowed. What's your source here? You've already rightly conceded there's a real break between prewar and postwar organizations, what do you think is a good mainstream source for any overarching continuity? Anmccaff (talk) 07:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep clearly notable. Even if the article is poorly organized and written, that just means it needs to be fixed. Hopefully when this
MLB for pro-Nazi comments [27], Jewish Community Relations Council monitors Nazi activity in Cincinnati, Neo-Nazi's create 'enemies list' 12-14-05, Borowitz Satire 'Sanders Sends Vegan Thugs to Attack Peace-Loving Nazis' (at Trump rally in Cincinnati). --David Tornheim (talk) 13:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

A closer coming across this vote, essentially based on one point that everyone agrees on, that the general topic is notable, and a Trump-like assertion about what a great article it's going to be, will rightly ignore this as
WP:ILIKEIT. Anmccaff (talk) 13:49, 16 May 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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:50, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rubik, the Amazing Cube

Rubik, the Amazing Cube (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 only has this article needed additional citations since May 2012, it has been missing sources entirely for 5 years. DBZFan30 (talk) 02:49, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. DBZFan30 (talk) 02:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. DBZFan30 (talk) 02:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. DBZFan30 (talk) 02:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You had time to create a discussion this, but not time to perform
chatter) 03:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep trivial web search shows many RS places the show's existence and run are documented. Jclemens (talk) 06:07, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per nate. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:32, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above. I've incorporated a couple sources into the article. Gongshow   talk 23:19, 11 May 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. I'm withdrawing it; the sources listed in the first AfD are sufficient, but they need to be added. DGG ( talk ) 16:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cluster of Excellence "Asia and Europe in a Global Context"

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Cluster of Excellence "Asia and Europe in a Global Context"

Articles for deletion/Cluster of Excellence "Asia and Europe in a Global Context" (2nd nomination)

Cluster of Excellence "Asia and Europe in a Global Context" (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)

Research program in a single university. No evidence for actual notability. All the references arefrom its own site. DGG ( talk ) 02:37, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:03, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:03, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:04, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:04, 7 May 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) 22:19, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Coletta

Carol Coletta (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 promotional bio. I tried to fix it, but there was nothing left. There are also no third party references. DGG ( talk ) 02:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:14, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom. Promotional bio of someone doing thier job with no independent sources, let alone multiple sources. Poorly written - that's correctable - but non-notable - that isn't. Emeraude (talk) 14:17, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Junior researcher who is yet to establish a citation record. WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Delete, yes TOOSOON seems right. Agricola44 (talk) 16:13, 10 May 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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:47, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kat Blaque

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Kat Blaque

Articles for deletion/Kat Blaque (2nd nomination)

Articles for deletion/Kat Blaque (3rd nomination)

Kat Blaque (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)

Blogger on youtube and the Huffington Post. Everything here is related to that, or otherwise part of her publicity. There is not a single source here I would consider reliable--certainly not the Huff Post, where she's a contributor. Certainly not a student newspaper. Certainly not the 4-word listing in The Advocate. The nearest is the MTV write-up. DGG ( talk ) 01:07, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being a blogger and/or a YouTuber is not relevant to whether someone is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. What is relevant is whether there is sufficient coverage in reliable sources, and I believe Blaque meets that threshhold. ~~Is there a limit on how many times a page can be brought to AfD? She's hardly become less notable since the second nomination...~~ Strike that last bit, I now see that the second nomination was made in error. Funcrunch (talk) 05:08, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:22, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:22, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:22, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:22, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes GNG in my eyes but not by a whole lot. Nominator, however, appears to miscast the sources. Advocate.com has a whole article on her. As does The Independant and Bustle and The Daily Dot. She's mentioned on a list of black changemakers by NBC News. Her name is mentioned by Salon. Featured in an article from 2014 by LA Times. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:42, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no significant achievements & Wikipedia is not pop-trivia-pedia. Citations are to sources such as Gurl.com, etc. Not suitable for inclusion at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:50, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Now has material sourced from coverage in reliable sources The Independent and The Advocate. PamD 07:13, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This nomination is an exercise in absurdism - a couple of editors, having failed on multiple previous occasions to argue non-notability, apparently think that if they (repeatedly) try to gut the article they might just con people on the next go-around. This is not an appropriate use of AfD. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:27, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The Drover's Wife: While I agree with keeping, to be fair there was one user repeatedly removing things from the article, who has since been blocked. Neither of the two people advocating for deleting here have removed content from the article, nor did they participate in the previous AfD. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:58, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The Drover's Wife:, Re: a couple of editors (...) (repeatedly) try to gut the article they might just con people on the next go-around..., I would request that you strike this statement. I've not participated in the prior AfDs and have not edited the article. My "Delete" vote was not based on any prior involvement with this page. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree with
WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 11:13, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep As per EvergreenFir's findings, there's quite a bit of coverage of her. --ChiveFungi (talk) 12:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above. If anything, the sourcing is better than at the time of the last AfD, which was a unanimous "keep". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:37, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes
WP:ANYBIO per the sources linked in both this and the previous AfD. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:54, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Clear pass of GNG from coverage in major sources such as the LA Times. Having all coverage being about the subject's vlogging/blogging activities is not a reason for deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:43, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject of this article is notable. Passes WP:GNG. Article is well cited by major sources. Netherzone (talk) 17:32, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes GNG clearly as demonstrated above. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Major newspaper coverage turns up in the likes of the LAT and WaPo, besides the Advocate and Independent, if you use tools you can access via
due diligence disturbing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep National coverage on her from major sources consistently enough makes her notable for a Wikipedia page
talk
) 17:40, 10 May 2017 (EST)

Keep Clearly passes the notability guide as shown by the multiple reliable sources. LA Tiems and WaPo are solid. And perhaps I'm missing something regarding multiple nominations over time, but the rationale to nominate again seems spurious, as it is identical to the last one which was only 1.5 years ago, "there are sources out there that cover the subject but they'r not adequate or independent". There was unanimous consensus then, there is thus far almost-unanimous consensus now. A second nomination (I see the labeled #2 was an error) should contain as a primary component of its argument the reason why the nominator thinks something has changes since the last go. Otherwise it just comes off as a form of jury-shopping. ValarianB (talk) 12:14, 11 May 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 Forewick Holm. Mackensen (talk) 02:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sovereign State of Forvik

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Sovereign State of Forvik (2nd nomination)

Articles for deletion/Crown Dependency of Forvik

Sovereign State of Forvik (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)

Completing nomination on behalf of an IP editor, whose rationale is below. On the merits, I have no opinion. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The related article is Stuart "Captain Calamity" Hill, which has also been nominated for deletion. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would favour a merge of both articles to the islands page
Forvik, there is more information than needed with the two pages that are for deletion. --Pennine rambler (talk) 18:24, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
As with the Stuart Hill page, this is a non-state created and recognised only by the author of this page. It is delusion. Obviously for deletion. 109.151.239.156 (talk) 10:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge and redirect to Stuart "Captain Calamity" Hill. At the point that this (second) nomination for deletion was made there was a lot of dubious material in the article including many overstated claims. I have gone through and cleaned a lot of it up. The content had also been duplicated across several connected articles- Forewick Holm, the Sovereign State of Forvik and Hill himself. With some of the poor-quality material stripped back I think that this does not meet the proposed criteria for a standalone article that is set out at WikiProject Micronations. There was some coverage that went beyond the local area- several UK newpapers ran stories. Some of these were about "Forwick". Although the starting point for coverage of Hill's activities had been several years before this with his widely-reported nautical misadventures in 2001. By the time was inviting press attention in 2008 he already appeared eccentric and had a nickname. Some of the coverage was also reporting the story along the lines of "Hill plans to...". But, after a burst of coverage mid-2008 (much of which was making fun of him) there was little further coverage beyond local sources. I think there are various reasons: it became apparent that Hill might not actually own the rocky outcrop, it was not particularly habitable, his stated plans weren't plausible and his efforts appeared to be geared towards seeking confrontation with the authorities. The reports of Forvick are all essentially dealing with the fantasy of a single person, Mr Hill. There was some further mentions of Forvick in the papers after 2008, but these were appearing as part of reports about Hill's antics, protests and encounters with the court system. Looking back at the 2008 discussions on the article's talk page and at AfD it seems clear that there were several editors who could articulate reasons why the material shouldn't stand alone as an article. The case for keeping this content as a separate article hasn't improved over the past 10 years. Drchriswilliams (talk) 13:38, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Whether the coverage of Forvik is in connection to Hill's "antics"or not is immaterial. The
WP:GNG asks for significant coverage in independent, reliable sources and this article has sources demonstrating such. That's all that's required. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
talk) 00:40, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. No AFDs should be done "on behalf of" someone else, which wastes AFD editors' time and attention, with no accountability. Deletion nominator is UltraExactZZ, who presumes to have no view of their own, and provides no rationale for deletion, should be accountable for this waste of time. --do ncr am 15:28, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Completing nominations for IP editors is a legitimate part of an admin's job. Rather than a delusion, as the IP nominator calls it, I consider this micronation a fringe assertion. As I said in the previous AfD, a merge to Forewick Holm makes sense. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:22, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Merge to
WP:GEOLAND and will unquestionably continue to exist without challenge. Since it would be very short article with everything related to "Mr. Calamity" stripped out, it's probably best to cover his antics there to minimize overlap. I don't see a good reason for a separate article, especially due to the fringe nature of it. MB 04:18, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge a condensed version to Forewick Holm. There is justification for keeping two articles on one, uninhabited island among the many uninhabited (List of Shetland islands) islands in the Shetlands.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:45, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Pharmacy. I'm redirecting rather than deleting because of the large number of incoming links and the old age of the article (it's been here since 2006 so may well have incoming external links as well). Really, that's something the proposer could have done without bothering with AFD. I'm completely ignoring the the comment that it should have been speedy deleted A10 for the same reason - A10 can only be applied to recently created articles. It is also necessary to preserve the history if any of the material is merged elsewhere, as some participants have indicated they want to do. SpinningSpark 22:55, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pharmacy practice

Pharmacy practice (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)

There's no reason to have a separate "pharmacy practice" article, when the subject of pharmacy practice is already discussed in the "pharmacy" article.
By analogy with the "medicine" article, there is no separate "medical practice" article; rather, "medical practice" redirects to the "medicine" article.
Therefore, I propose the deletion of the "pharmacy practice" page, and redirecting to the "pharmacy" article. Biochemistry&Love (talk) 05:18, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - I might have had a different opinion had this article been written as an appendix to the
WP:NOTDIC to determine whether or not there is significant disparity, as well as substantial need for a separate article. unak¹⁹⁷⁸ 21:20, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

I agree with you, Unak78. How does this sound?
Merge
Pharmacy practice into Pharmacy

Blank
Pharmacy practice

Redirect blank
Pharmacy practice to Pharmacy

Biochemistry&Love (talk) 03:10, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:20, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete this is some contorted work of OR that just duplicates the content in
WP:A10. Jytdog (talk) 01:35, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

-That's a good point. After all, nothing was actually cited there. If deleted, I think I'll just cross reference the list to make sure anything worth noting isn't already included in pharmacist#Nature of the work. E.g. the pharmacist article doesn't mention IV compatibility checking. Biochemistry&Love (talk) 03:26, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is nothing of value on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 04:25, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

-The
pharmacy practice article, so we'd need to find verifiable sources for these concepts. ―Biochemistry🙴❤ 21:31, 11 May 2017 (UTC) (signed as "Biochemistry&Love" above)[reply
]
Aricle Pharmacy already includes such section. This page is a pure content fork and should be deleted, unless we want to split content from main page to this page (I do not think that be reasonable). My very best wishes (talk) 14:53, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While
Pharmacy practice that should be spliced into Pharmacy--precisely in the section you quoted. ―Biochemistry🙴❤ 19:03, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was redirect to
Alsagoff Family#Syed Ahmad ibn ‘Abdur-Rahman. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 03:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Sayyid Ahmad ibn ‘Abdur-Rahman As-Saqqaf

Sayyid Ahmad ibn ‘Abdur-Rahman As-Saqqaf (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)

There seem no grounds on which this person is notable in themselves. They existed, were a merchant, married someone's daughter, had children. Sources mention him only fleetingly, eg as his wife's husband (and using different spelling of name, Alsagoff, which is not mentioned in the article). Possibly include a brief mention of this person in
Alsagoff Family with redirect, but stand-alone article does not seem appropriate. PamD 17:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Contesting the deletion - Not all sources mention him only as the husband of his wife. Regards, Leo1pard (talk) 17:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, it is now even bigger than the article about his father, and it includes a picture that has a connection to him. I do not think that putting all this information into another article would be attractive to readers or editors of that article. Leo1pard (talk) 04:19, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:40, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Contesting the deletion – Is this article not too informative or big to be merged with another article, redirected to another one, or deleted, now? Leo1pard (talk) 05:38, 30 April 2017 (UTC) Only one !vote is required.[reply]

Delete - I can't find any
notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmedema (talk • contribs) 23:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Contesting the deletion Firstly, you did not sign your comment. Secondly, I do not know why you cannot find any, but I do find sources that say things about him, apart from his existence, otherwise, how would I have been able to separate it into those sections?[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7] Leo1pard (talk) 08:45, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Even if these are
notability here to make it encyclopedic. - Pmedema (talk) 17:05, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - How come? The article discusses his role in cementing
Masjid, and life. Leo1pard (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete The article says a lot about his family members, some of whom may have been notable (though others were not), but this notability is not inheritable. Of him, the article says he was a merchant. That's it in total. Nothing to suggest he was special as a merchant. Emeraude (talk) 14:24, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Or even redirect
Alsagoff_Family#Syed_Ahmad_ibn_.E2.80.98Abdur-Rahman, we do have redirects to parts of articles in Wikipedia. Leo1pard (talk) 13:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect I think redirecting makes a lot of sense here.
talk) 02:47, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

References

ISBN 981-4068-23-3
.

^ Azrah, Edian (2003). "Hajjah Fatimah". Singapore Infopedia. National Library Board. Archived from the original on 2014-12-24. Retrieved 2017-04-13.

^ "Masjid Hajjah Fatimah". National Heritage Board. Archived from the original on 23 November 2015. Retrieved 11 November 2015.

ISBN 9780810873872
.

ISBN 9789627093190
.

ISBN 978-981-4279-12-3. (PDF version
).

^ "Hajjah Fatimah Mosque". Singapore Infopedia. National Library Board. Retrieved 2017-05-06.

Leo1pard (talk) 08:29, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:19, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I have a plan. Leo1pard (talk) 04:57, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alsagoff_Family#Syed_Ahmad_ibn_.E2.80.98Abdur-Rahman, so can we keep it like that, close this discussion, and get rid of those big signs, now? Leo1pard (talk) 05:38, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

I have reverted that edit: see
WP:EDITATAFD which says You should not turn the article into a redirect. A functioning redirect will overwrite the AfD notice. It may also be interpreted as an attempt to "hide" the old content from scrutiny by the community.. PamD 06:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment from nominator: I agree with the article's creator that a Redirect to
Alsagoff_Family#Syed_Ahmad_ibn_.E2.80.98Abdur-Rahman would be a good outcome from this AfD, but the process needs to run its course so that any decision to do so is recorded as the result of an AfD for future reference. PamD 06:56, 7 May 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. MBisanz ^talk 12:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Harriet Grant

Harriet Grant (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 claim of notability outside of
one notable event. Hirolovesswords (talk) 04:27, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the limited content to Scooter Libby which already mentions their relationship. She doesn't seem independently notable based either on marriage or clients as a lawyer; but might be relevant to Libby's bio. Colapeninsula (talk) 10:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:50, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Her being the wife of Scotter Libby is no claim to fame. Interviewing Anita Hill as one of a team of lawyers is also not a show of notability. No actual show of notability here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:34, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:19, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete do not assert notability Legal Seagull (talk) 12:38, 13 May 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. (
talk stalk 06:16, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Semih Çalışkan

Semih Çalışkan (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:AUTHOR. Mathglot (talk) 19:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep This author is the subject of a good bit of independent coverage in reliable news outlets and is the author of a best-selling novel in Turkey. While the author's media coverage may not be in English, that doesn't matter with regards to establishing his obvious notability.--SouthernNights (talk) 17:26, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mathglot (talk) 21:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Mathglot (talk) 21:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:53, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One of the nice thing about Turkey is that they use the Latin alphabet, here's a gNews search on him:[28]. I ran a couple of them through google translate and despite the garble factor it is easy to see that he is, indeed, a hot young novelist. (I actually did not intend that double entendre, but it works: he fills a dinner jacket to advantage.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:47, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not bothered by the fact that there are no English references, nor by the fact that Turkish uses Latin (I read non-Latin scripts as well). What I am bothered by, is that nobody is citing any policies or guidelines in their responses, which to my way of thinking, makes them all
WP:AUTHOR which has four bullet points; and this author, as I see it, meets none of the four criteria, therefore is not notable. I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise, but please cite policies, not preferences, and maybe I'll come around; thanks. Mathglot (talk) 10:49, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:18, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by the nominator. Bishonen | talk 09:13, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

False Mirror (René Magritte)

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 really isn't an encyclopedia article. It's a subjective analysis of one work of art, possibly~~
digression into a general discussion of Magritte that no longer concerns the work that the article is nominally about. The conclusion returns to the work, declaring it "exquisite". Wikipedia doesn't declare things to be exquisite or state any other evaluation of them. Largoplazo (talk) 11:05, 29 April 2017 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn, as it is no longer the original article. Largoplazo (talk) 02:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

commentSurely that is grounds for cleanup rather than deletion, since this is clearly a notable subject? Artw (talk) 16:43, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notable is insufficient if there is nothing there that can simply be cleaned-up. There's isn't anything here that can be cleaned up. Someone would have to write a new article, and we don't leave an article that is beyond repair in place in the hope that someone does that some day. See
WP:TNT. Of course, if someone is moved by this to write a valid article beyond now and the expiration of this discussion, that's fine, but the discussion is valid, as a decision to delete will be at the end if the article isn't salvaged. Largoplazo (talk) 18:54, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Would stubbing not work just as well? Artw (talk) 20:57, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a useful stub, sure. (One that isn't so lacking in information it's subject to
WP:CSD A7, for example.) Largoplazo (talk) 21:33, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
There are literally hundreds of mentiosn of this painting in the press, books and other media. Try
WP:BEFORE. It's crazy how many great sources are out there for this painting. It's a hugely famous work. Nominating it for deletion is a giant waste of time, although it did get the article cleaned up.198.58.173.248 (talk) 09:08, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
I didn't nominate the article for deletion on account of a lack of sources, so protesting that there are sources is a non-sequitur. See
WP:TNT. Largoplazo (talk) 10:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
TNT would be an argument for restarting the article from scratch, which has actually begun to happen. Deleting it at this point would actually get in the way of that process. Artw (talk) 21:22, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ keep - I think this could be expanded upon but there is not a lot to start with. Artw (talk) 22:14, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removing "weak" due to recent improvements to the article. Artw (talk) 13:09, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:34, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG Keep A great example of why people should do a
WP:BEFORE before nominating an article for deletion. A hugely famous painting from the canon of 20th C art. In the MOMA NY collection. I had no trouble adding about ten references from Google books. Please Google "CBS eye Logo Magritte" to see how this painting has actually entered the pop culture vernacular.198.58.173.248 (talk) 08:37, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

I didn't nominate the article for deletion on account of a lack of sources, so protesting that there are sources is a non-sequitur. Largoplazo (talk) 10:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously you did not do your background research. It's clearly a lazy nomination that you should withdraw. Artw and myself were able to easily clean up the article. Had you done your research, you would have seen that it was an easy fix. TNT was not required-- just some work!198.58.162.149 (talk) 20:11, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I responded here, but I'm moving my response to your note on my talk page. Largoplazo (talk) 20:52, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Artw (talk) 21:27, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why you would not just withdraw the nom. The article is notable and now without significant problems.198.58.162.149 (talk) 22:25, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:17, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Gross incompetence by the nominator, who argues that it's okay now because the article has improved? What utter BS - you can't nominate an article simple because it could be improved - the subject is either notable or not notable, and a quick application of
WP:BEFORE would have made it obvious to anyone that the subject was notable. Nfitz (talk) 04:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Article on notable artwork by an unquestionably notable artist does not have rationale for deletion at this time. Netherzone (talk) 02:47, 9 May 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. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:11, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Jalowiczor

Peter Jalowiczor (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 individual was very briefly in the news for having been credited with the discovery of four exoplanets, but I don't believe this confers the necessary degree of notability. While the article appears well-sourced, many of the references are of questionable reliability, or totally unacceptable for use as citations (Amazon, Daily Mail). Only a handful of sources discuss the individual with any depth, and they're all substantially identical, focusing on the same misleading theme that it's somehow remarkable to have made these sorts of discoveries without the ownership of a telescope. Citizen scientists, particularly amateur astronomers, frequently make comparable discoveries from crowdsourced data, and are often listed as authors inthe resulting papers as a courtesy. I've searched for additional coverage of his work, either in astronomy or otherwise, and have to conclude that he unfortunately fails to meet the GNG. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:23, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep (or redirect to
WP:1EVENT (guideline), which recommends having an article about the notable event rather than the person. Neither one strongly points to deletion here. My feeling is that these amateur astronomer discoveries will become more common, so this topic should probably be folded into an overall article about such discoveries made by amateur astronomers. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: I've added multiple references to supplement the Amazon citation which are more reliable. I'd also point out that those two are the only references you have problems with out of what is now 19 sources, and all of them corroborate each other, so I don't think references are a problem anymore. I'm also in the process of adding a section on another piece of research he did - please take a look and let me know if these changes help. --Nerd1a4i (talk) 13:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate your efforts and don't wish to denigrate your hard work, I think it's concerning in its own right that all of the sources corroborate each other so strongly – this means Jalowiczor is only known for one minor event, and there isn't much to say about him.
WP:REFBOMBing. Very few of these sources – if any – rise to the level of credibility and depth that would satisfy the "well documented" criterion established in BLP1E, and to the best of my researching abilities, this story was never even picked up by any major, reputable news outlets. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

When you say that the sources "corroborate each other so strongly" and also link to
WP:REFBOMB, I might point out that it's only REFBOMB if all of them say the exact same thing and are stacked up beyond a max (ish) of three at the end of sentences. That's not what's happening - the citations are distributed throughout the article because some add different details, though the main point - that he discovered four exoplanets - is indeed the same. However, this is true for just about any subject - articles about Benjamin Franklin will mention he was one of the Founding Fathers, that he did experiments with electricity, or what-have-you, but provide different details about those things (of course, Peter Jalowiczor clearly did less than Benjamin Franklin, but hopefully my point makes sense). In response to the general quality of the sources, I will work on improving those and finding better sources - I saw a CNN clip on YouTube that I haven't watched yet (so major news sources have reported on it). Finally, many researchers (professors/academics) are not reported on in mass media but are still notable as per Wikipedia standards. Jalowiczor has done research beyond just the four exoplanets, which I'm adding a section about (mentioned in my last response). To conclude, I'll do some more work on the sources and finish that section, and hopefully at that stage you'll agree we can keep the article. Thank you for your response! --Nerd1a4i (talk) 20:14, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

@Juliancolton: I have improved the sources and removed the ones you've objected too. I've also improved the article with respect to WP:Notability (academics) and added another section (the section on the delta effect) to show that his work isn't just related to exoplanets. --Nerd1a4i (talk) 16:09, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
WP:GNG. Moreover, it is not uncommon for amateur astronomers to discover astronomical objects. For example, the exotic white-dwarf pulsar AR Scorpii was initially discovered by an amateur astronomer who would later be a co-author on the discovery paper in Nature; in addition, you can see at List of minor planet discoverers that many of the people listed are amateurs. In fact, amateurs are frequently included as co-authors in major articles (as Mr. Jalowiczor has been), and on occasion, one will even be lead author of a paper in a major journal. The current article attempts to establish Mr. Jalowiczor's notability (in part) by the fact that he has been a co-author twice. Co-authorship is a ubiquitous practice in astronomy research, and being a co-author by itself does not confer notability -- especially on just two papers spaced by 18 years. Before finding him to be notable, I would need to see that reliable, secondary sources have discussed in appropriate detail how he has made some unique and significant contribution to amateur astronomy that distinguishes him from other amateurs who have engaged in research and/or received transient media coverage. Put another way, we want to ensure that he is truly notable, not that he has been in the news a few times. Redirecting the article will at least preserve the history, should Mr. Jalowiczor become notable at a future time. On a side note, I commend both Juliancolton and Nerd1a4i for their dispassionate and respectful discourse; I don't see it often in AfD discussions. Best, Astro4686 (talk) 07:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

@
WP:Academics. This, added to his amateur status and his other work (he also wrote a book, for example, and was in the news for this) I believe combines to admitting a stand-alone article for him. --Nerd1a4i (talk) 12:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment. The problem is that although these news sources provide some facts about Mr. Jalowiczor's work, they are not reliable in terms of establishing the significance and notability of what he did. If Mr. Jalowiczor has made a unique and significant contribution to astronomy, I want to hear it from experts, not journalists who probably lack the requisite expertise. The news articles establish what he did; expert opinions tell us whether it is notable. As for the academic notability route, being a co-author on two papers over 18 years, while a nice achievement for an amateur, isn't notable in comparison to academics who crank out multiple first-author papers each year for many years. I will continue to monitor the AfD discussion, but for now, I remain convinced that a redirect is the best option. Best, Astro4686 (talk) 05:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete and/or redirect per the above. While I do not deny that there is a fair amount of coverage, the time of that coverage spans no more than one month. This means that he falls under
WP:PERSISTENCE as a relatively notable event but really just a guy's 15 minutes of fame. His books are relatively minor, with the mentions being local "community bulletin" type releases. To echo Astro4686, I appreciate the level of respect in the discourse happening, and I never like to see hard work be deleted, but at the moment I just don't see Jalowiczor as a notable individual. Primefac (talk) 12:20, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I don't believe this falls under
WP:FUTURE
down upon my head though, we'll just say point two is true. Point three, "If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented", however, is not met. Articles about 2 of the 4 discovered exoplanets exist (i.e., notable by Wikipedia policy; I don't know about the other two) and an article about the group that did the discovery with Jalowiczor exists (i.e., also notable by wiki policy) so the event is significant. Further, the individual's role is clearly substantial and well-documented. So Jalowiczor does not meet BLP1E - it only meets half of it.

As for
Lick-Carnegie Exoplanet Survey because that is an on-going project that has a scope well beyond Peter Jalowiczor. In this case, we must then compare the Jalowiczor article to the astronomical object article. Whether or not the astronomical object is notable by WP:Notability (astronomical objects)
is a different issue that has already been determined, but we must consider it as the event, in which case Peter Jalowiczor is more famous than the astronomical object. Some may consider this a nitpicky argument, which it kind of is, but this is where I must introduce my last point.

WP:Ignore all rules states that "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." A couple of you, and others who weren't directly involved in this AfD, have stated that they were kind of on the fence with deletion here, and that they could go either way. In other words, the article is, I hope you would agree, not complete junk, and is decently well sourced, and since most delete votes here are weak deletes or redirects and seem like it might kind of sort of fit into a policy for deletion - well, I'd just suggest we keep it. Thanks for reading through this longer response! --Nerd1a4i (talk) 21:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 20:59, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There do seem be be several independent references, so passes the notability requirement. Wikipedia would be worse off without the page, so we may as well keep it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I respectfully disagree with the implied
WP:Not news) with truly noteworthy subjects. In this case, I think that the existence of a few transient news sources about the same event isn't a sufficient basis for discarding the notability requirement, especially when those sources don't reliably indicate whether experts in the field regard Mr. Jalowiczor's achievement as being notable. Unfortunately, enforcing the notability requirement sometimes means redirecting or deleting someone's good-faith, hard work, which is never fun. (As this is my third contribution to this discussion, I will refrain from further participation unless someone directly responds to one of my comments or I decide to change my vote.) Best, Astro4686 (talk) 01:10, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

@Astro4686: Comment: I meant the WP:Ignore all rules argument to come at the end of my points which tried to show that Jalowiczor is notable or at minimum on the fence, in which case it seems that nitpicking isn't as valuable as just keeping the article, which is (I believe) a fairly decent one.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:05, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - for the reasons I've stated above, Jalowiczor does meet Wikipedia notability standards, and so the article should be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nerd1a4i (talk • contribs) 11:45, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. in a field where citizen scientists are still capable of making contribution, they can be as notable as professionals. DGG ( talk ) 04:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Disclosure. I have just made significant edits to the article's research section. I mention this because I have voted to redirect, and I didn't want it to seem as though I was trying to manipulate the AfD. Details of my edits are on the article's talk page. Best, Astro4686 (talk) 10:16, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Disclosure. I have manually undone most of Astro4686's edits though I am working on fixing some of the concerns brought up. Details of my reasoning for doing so are also on the article's talk page. --Nerd1a4i (talk) 12:00, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per
WP:BLP1E. No significant coverage other than being covered as a "dancing bear" - noted in a single event as a non-scientist contributing to a scientific discovery. A notable person would have an actual biography somewhere: we do not have that here - biography is cobbled together OR from disparate sources (Czech news blurb, alumni news, football websites). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - in reference to your "a notable person would have an actual biography" - Peter Jalowiczor does have pages that cover the basics of his life/achievements, such as this or this. Secondly, above I have already pointed out that Jalowiczor does not meet
WP:BLP1E - to quote (you can scroll up and read the full thing) "Point three, "If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented", however, is not met. Articles about 2 of the 4 discovered exoplanets exist (i.e., notable by Wikipedia policy; I don't know about the other two) and an article about the group that did the discovery with Jalowiczor exists (i.e., also notable by wiki policy) so the event is significant. Further, the individual's role is clearly substantial and well-documented. So Jalowiczor does not meet BLP1E - it only meets half of it." Finally, there are multiple amateur scientists who have articles - just because they are an amateur does not mean that they are not noteworthy. He has done scientific research on more than one thing, too - not just the exoplanets (see the section on the delta effect research he did). In summary, I don't believe your comment is a good reason to delete the page. --Nerd1a4i (talk) 00:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. The discovery of these planets is very significant, with one at least being in the habitable zone. His work on comets, although quite minor by comparison, defeats the 1E argument, and the fact that the work was published way back in 1993 defeats the argument that coverage of him lasted only one month. SpinningSpark 09:37, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: I think there just isn't enough coverage here outside of the discovery to pass muster with
talk) 02:31, 18 May 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_May_7&oldid=1142617833"

[1] Detroit News
.

[historic-2] ISBN 981-4068-23-3
.

[SI_2003-3] Azrah, Edian (2003). "Hajjah Fatimah". Singapore Infopedia. National Library Board. Archived from the original on 2014-12-24. Retrieved 2017-04-13.

[NHB_15NOV11-4] "Masjid Hajjah Fatimah". National Heritage Board. Archived from the original on 23 November 2015. Retrieved 11 November 2015.

[Justin_1-5] ISBN 9780810873872
.

[IM1992-6] ISBN 9789627093190
.

[GrafSchroter2010-7] ISBN 978-981-4279-12-3. (PDF version
).

[infopedia-8] "Hajjah Fatimah Mosque". Singapore Infopedia. National Library Board. Retrieved 2017-05-06.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]