Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 September 10

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 9 September 11 September >

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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Majhighariani Institute of Technology and Science

Majhighariani Institute of Technology and Science (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)

Unreferenced. A search for significant coverage from independent reliable sources yielded essentially no references, suggesting that this college fails

WP:CORPSPAM. ℯxplicit 23:51, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with a page that collects schools in the area. No need to delete the whole and work that has gone into it. Schools themselves are notable places for many individuals and thus while not meeting the general guidelines for notability, provide their own notability.Egaoblai (talk) 12:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@
WP:GNG, it should be deleted. -- Tavix (talk) 03:05, 18 September 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) 18:59, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wings.io

Wings.io (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 video game that fails

WP:GNG
with insufficient reliable sources.

I am also nominating the following related page as it is a derivative of this game:

Brutal.io (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:46, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:45, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both for lack of reliable sourcing thus failing
    WP:GNG. --Izno (talk) 12:28, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Important Legal Doc. (non-admin closure) Bobherry Userspace Talk to me! Stuff I have done 15:24, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I-1 visa

I-1 visa (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 draft moved from draft-space to main space. I get cautious, seeing that this is done by a user blocked for spamming. I like to check if this is a valid and reliable article, above all suspicion. The Banner talk 22:35, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's... not how this works. That's not how any of this works. Did you do a news search? Did you do a scholarly search? Did you do an open web search? Did you do a book search? Did you search any university library you my have access to? Did you search any public archives you happen to know of? Did you look at similar articles and compare the sourcing? Did you do any of this or did you just nominate this because you expect us to do this for you?
talk 00:45, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm sorry, I'm probably being obtuse, since you really don't seem to understand that these are the kinds of things that are expected. But they are the kinds of things that are expected. I highly recommend you withdraw this nomination, and also highly recommend you read through
talk 01:03, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
You clearly did not understand why I nominated. The Banner talk 01:17, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And I don't think you understand why things are nominated. We don't do AfD noms as "article checks" to see if they pass. We check articles to see if they are likely to pass and we nominate them with a clear deletion rationale, which you don't seem to have.
talk 01:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
You make it absolutely clear that you value the rules more than the quality and reliability of the encyclopaedia. Sad. So, I invoke
WP:IAR. The Banner talk 08:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
If you can't immediately take the time to do
talk 10:38, 11 September 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 procedural close. Wrong forum - AfD is not for merge proposals. Michig (talk) 06:11, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Luichy Guzman discography

Luichy Guzman discography (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 extensive enough for an article. Should be merged into Luichy Guzman Rathfelder (talk) 21:21, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:40, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:41, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:41, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:42, 10 September 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'll let any renaming or repurposing happen on the talk page Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:00, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ugly Duckling: Perfect Match

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

Doesn't seem notable. Nerd1a4i (talk) 21:12, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:39, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:39, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:39, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Nothing to see source-wise, move along! 47.208.20.130 (talk) 01:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Keep Tried searching for Ugly Duckling in Thai: ลูกเป็ดขี้เหร่ with keywords such as the channel GMM, but couldn't find any worthwhile coverage of the show. There was coverage on fan sites, but that's about it. Mr. Magoo (talk) 03:53, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The title you want to be searching for is "รักนะ เป็ดโง่", which is the series' Thai title. ลูกเป็ดขี้เหร่ will only get you the Hans Christian Andersen fable and idiomatic usage. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, that does seem to be the case. Concerning the actual name and the coverage it has, I think it meets the requirements. I'm changing my vote to keep. The new sources should be added to the article however. Mr. Magoo (talk) 05:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: A cursory Google search reveals plenty of Thai news items covering the series' conception and creation, indicating that it probably satisfies the GNG. I'm on mobile right now so will have to take a closer look later. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • PS Should probably be merged into a single Ugly Duckling (TV series) article covering the entire series, though. "Perfect Match" appears to be just one segment among several of the entire series. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:03, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the article to that space and removed the mention of Perfect Match for now. But I need some help with the sources. If nothing happens for a while I'll just try to ram them in somehow. Mr. Magoo (talk) 05:58, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, rename & adjust scope per my above comment. I believe the amount of news coverage it has received satisfies the GNG,[1] not least for being the second-most googled term in Thailand in 2015.[2] --Paul_012 (talk) 15:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Paul_012. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 00:49, 14 September 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. -- Tavix (talk) 03:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey R. Moore

Geoffrey R. Moore (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)

insufficient evidence for notability. DGG ( talk ) 21:10, 10 September 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.

WP:CSD#G7 -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:59, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Mohsen Bahrami

Mohsen Bahrami (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)

Vanity autobiography Orange Mike | Talk 20:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:02, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:02, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The author has now blanked it. I've tagged it for speedy deletion.
    talk) 22:06, 10 September 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) 19:00, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sakultala F.C.

Sakultala F.C. (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 club. No reliable sources with significant coverage. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:55, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:02, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:03, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:03, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:07, 10 September 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) 19:00, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kanjanapat F.C.

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 club. No reliable sources with significant coverage. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:55, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:03, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:03, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:04, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:07, 10 September 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) 19:00, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kranuan F.C.

Kranuan F.C. (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 club. No reliable sources with significant coverage. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:54, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:04, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:04, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:05, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:07, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - vitually no coverage, let alone in-depth. Onel5969 TT me 21:49, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 08:25, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails
    routine match reporting for a club playing in a low level regional league. Fenix down (talk) 11:20, 12 September 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) 19:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shopgate

Shopgate (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, written by promotional editor. The refs are unrelaible and mostly announcements DGG ( talk ) 19:59, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:24, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:24, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:24, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete A lot of sources at first glance, but they mostly turn out to be press releases. A few brief mentions and reviews, but I don't think it rises to the level of significant coverage. Nwlaw63 (talk) 00:22, 11 September 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) 19:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mohkam NGO

Mohkam NGO (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 to deminstrate Wikipedia:Notability criterias. Pahlevun (talk) 19:40, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
    Talk to my owner:Online 19:54, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:25, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:25, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete references are not reasonable to cover the article Leodikap (talk) 14:55, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails
    WP:ORGDEPTH due to a severe lack of coverage.--SamHolt6 (talk) 03:57, 17 September 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

888 Holdings. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

888casino

888casino (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)

essentially promotional, the work of a paid editor DGG ( talk ) 19:53, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Notable, I'd say, although the article should really include details of the company's recent £7.8 million fine for failing to protect people with gambling problems ([3]). --Michig (talk) 20:19, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:26, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be cleaner outcome. If there's a desire to merge anything, it can be picked up from the article history. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per previous editors Chetsford (talk) 19:04, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge agree with everyone else. I would close this, but I can't remember the "Please merge this article" template. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:37, 18 September 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. Speedy deleted by Frank, CSD G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:25, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jade Signature

Jade Signature (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)

Advertisement. The sources are unreliable, mere notices, or both. DGG ( talk ) 19:49, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:27, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Bluebonnet07 (talk) 15:52, 13 September 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) TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:40, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Anton Hagman

Anton Hagman (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 sure if this singer is notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia page. Nerd1a4i (talk) 19:49, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Has a top 20 hit in Sweden and made it to the final of one of their largest music television competitions. I'd say that's notable, although the article could be improved. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 19:54, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:27, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:27, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: - has had song which made the chart. Participated in Swedens biggest televised event Melodifestivalen and even made the final. Per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 05:37, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - his Melodifestivalen participation does not count for notability purposes since he (apparently, according to the sources) did not win nor place second or third, which is what
    WP:NMUSIC #9 specifies. If he has had a charting song, that does however meet NMUSIC, so I'd say the notability criteria are just barely met. --bonadea contributions talk 08:24, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep, per bonadea. /Julle (talk) 05:36, 13 September 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

Olympos Acheritou. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

AEN Ayiou Georgiou Vrysoullon-Acheritou

AEN Ayiou Georgiou Vrysoullon-Acheritou (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)

An unremarkable club that plays in the third & fourth tier football leagues. Article lists no sources and significant RS coverage not found.

Olympos Acheritou, as mentioned below. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:49, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

The sources that were added are primary: http://www.acheritou.com/ and http://www.rsssf.com/tablesc/cyp3part.html. This is not
WP:SIGCOV in independent sources that's required for notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:11, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
rsssf.com and cfa.com.cy are not independent sources? Xaris333 (talk) 12:21, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:32, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:32, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:32, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:33, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability ie playing in the national cup. GiantSnowman 08:22, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - to
    Olympos Acheritou. Looks like the former club, as participants multiple times in the national cup are notable. I have reverted the redirect and added content on the merger there. Fenix down (talk) 11:19, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Just asking: Participation to national cup gives notability? After 2008 no club from 3rd and 4th division taking part. They are taking part to Cypriot Cup for lower divisions. Before 2008 all teams from national division were taking part to Cypriot Cup (the national cup). Xaris333 (talk) 17:26, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Its not a hard and fast rule, if the third and fourth tiers are national level and clubs have been around a while they could well be notable on their own. Fenix down (talk) 17:53, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Fenix down: Yes, third and fourth tiers are national levels. AEN has 5 participation to these levels. Xaris333 (talk) 18:34, 12 September 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) TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

SK Imavere

SK Imavere (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 meet notability requirements for football as far as I can tell. Nerd1a4i (talk) 19:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:36, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:36, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:36, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:36, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - has played in the national cup (see eg this), enough to be considered notable. GiantSnowman 08:24, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - has played multiple times in the national cup competition. Fenix down (talk) 11:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep has played in the national competition per GiantSnowman.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:58, 12 September 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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:37, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Faqua

Shawn Faqua (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:ENT
with no significant coverage in reliable sources. Has had no significant roles in notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions only minor parts. Has no "cult" following. Has not made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. Theroadislong (talk) 17:31, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:35, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:36, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He appears to be notable in Nigeria, which means he's notable. --Michig (talk) 18:17, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Keep - if he has indeed received multiple nominations for major awards he would clearly have met notability criteria. But the current article is completely unacceptable (seemingly written by an excitable fan, or his agent) and I'd suggest it is moved back (again) to draft space to allow someone to re-write and source it. Sionk (talk) 18:47, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm happy enough with the improved citations to be convinced Faqua easily meets notability criteria, having received or been nominated for a number of major awards. Changed my !vote from 'Draftify' to 'Keep'. Sionk (talk) 18:04, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dratify for now The article isn't well sourced and looks promotional. I could not find
    WP:ENT. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 08:28, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Does the the article "look promotional" or its "blatantly promotional"?
talk) 10:00, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Thank you all, I understand you concern. I only mistakenly started editing and improving the article and not the Draft. That is why. It is my first time writing and article on Wikipedia and I was still learning how to properly source the content. So please it should not be deleted. It just needs a simply clean-up with I am currently working on. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inehita (talk • contribs) 15:12, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Given the award nominations, and the number of sources on the actor that already appear in the article (even if some of them aren't quite right), I'm appalled at the suggestion that this should be deleted. We talk about WP's Anglo-American bias being a problem, but how is it ever going to be rectified if articles like this are deleted? Furius (talk) 00:18, 15 September 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) — Zawl 15:21, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Lyle F. Bull

Lyle F. Bull (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:MILPEOPLE
.

BLP article that has no hope of going anywhere beyond stub status. Article subject has held commands, however, there is nothing notable about his commands or career that merits an encyclopedia article. References in the article are nothing-burgers, as well; all five are from self-published or non-major sources and do not meet BLP guidelines. The highlight of the article seems to be his receiving of the Navy Cross, however, many Naval and Marine Corps officers receive the award during wartime. Doing so is notable career-wise and on a DD-214, but still doesn't make for encyclopedic notability or meeting GNG.

As far as the guideline, MILPEOPLE, when looking at the few sources in the article, Bull is only mentioned in passing and, therefore, "should not be considered notable for the purposes of a stand-alone article". -- ψλ ● ✉ 14:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:46, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep According to
    WP:MILNG flag officers are notable and as a retired admiral he was definitely a flag officer.Sandals1 (talk) 23:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
That's not what the guideline states. In total, regarding flag officers, it states: "In general, an individual is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources. It is presumed that individuals will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify if they...Held a rank considered to be a flag, general or air officer, or their historical equivalents...". Even at his rank, he did not receive significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources. Thus, the article fails to meet
WP:MILNG. -- ψλ ● ✉ 01:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC) -- ψλ ● ✉ 01:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
It says being a flag officer carries the presumption of being notable. I thought "presumption" meant something like "taken to be true although not for certain". Since you can't prove a negative--that is that there isn't enough coverage--I assumed that he met the standards. Otherwise, you're just using the GNG and there's no point in having MILNG. Please let me know if I'm misunderstanding the notability standards on Wikipedia.Sandals1 (talk) 13:20, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:02, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:02, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:02, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mild keep He's got two indicia of notability, flag rank and second-highest decoration. On the other hand, neither of the positions listed as commands are commands. There's quite a difference between being a commander and being a deputy. I'd think tagging it for needing expansion would be more appropriate. --Lineagegeek (talk) 15:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be fine with keeping it if there was anything else out there on him to expand the article, but, there isn't. What we've got is all there is, all there ever will be. Further, what's there isn't supported by the kind of sources we need for a BLP. -- ψλ ● ✉ 15:41, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"What we've got is all there is, all there ever will be." And you know that how? I very much doubt that's all the information we'll ever have on an officer who commanded one of the world's largest ships and was deputy commander of a fleet. Having only a limited amount of info now does not equal only having limited info forever. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:31, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For one thing, the man is approaching 80 and in a wheelchair. His career has been over for a long, long time. For another, can you find anything more about him? I sure can't. Unless something more is revealed in a future obituary, there's nothing left to make this BLP stub with inadequate sourcing get better. -- ψλ ● ✉ 21:41, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you're assuming that because that's all anyone has written as yet that's all there is to write. This is blatant rubbish, as Wikipedia is a work in progress. Articles do not spring into existence fully formed. They're added to over the years. Many articles that began as two-line stubs have developed into long and useful articles. That's how it works. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:07, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies is correct. Following the eight points listed in
WP:MILPEOPLE
, the guideline text reads: "Conversely, any person who is only mentioned in genealogical records or family histories, or is traceable only through primary documents, is not notable. Likewise, those who are only mentioned in passing in reliable secondary sources should not be considered notable for the purposes of a stand-alone article, although, depending upon the circumstances, they may warrant mention within an existing article or list. In determining this, the breadth of coverage should be considered. If, for instance, there is enough information in reliable sources to include details about a person's birth, personal life, education and military career, then they most likely warrant a stand-alone article. If this information is not available, then inclusion in a parent article or list is probably the best approach rather than a stand-alone article. As with all other editorial decisions, consensus should be sought where there is uncertainty in this regard.
It is important to note that a person who does not meet the criteria mention above is not necessarily non-notable; ultimately, this determination must be made based on the availability of significant coverage in independent, secondary sources. For example,
WP:GNG
due to the level of coverage he has received in reliable sources."
Based on the above, Bull does not merit a stand-alone article. This is further testimony to the article needing to be deleted (or merged into another article, as appropriate). -- ψλ ● ✉ 20:34, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I added a number of refs. His action on 30 Oct. 1967 is covered in quite a few books, and his subsequent activities as an A-6 aircrew are covered by a couple. Was a flag officer (meeting SOLDIER). Several passing mentions as a flag officer. Regarding "no hope of going anywhere beyond stub status" - that's not necessarily bad, but we still have possible coverage in memoirs and/or obits.Icewhiz (talk) 07:40, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reopen
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Zawl 17:18, 10 September 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. -- Tavix (talk) 02:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Three simultaneous Atlantic hurricanes (2017)

Three simultaneous Atlantic hurricanes (2017) (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 isn't a remarkable event: it has precedent, not just in this basin but in other basins as well. In fact, if we relax the requirement that they all be hurricanes at the exact same moment, the Atlantic has had four or more at once before. This deserves no more than a mention in List of Atlantic hurricane records or Atlantic hurricane. Jasper Deng (talk) 17:08, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It is significantly covered in
    reliable sources, including the references, more are available, and therefore satisfies all notability criteria. Just because it has a few precedents in the past, which are now years ago, it is a rare event. In particular, all three made landfall, were predicted to do so, and warnings were issued. This is unique from 2010 as stated in the article. In any case, notability criteria has been satisfied. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 17:22, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:32, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:32, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Comment I'm torn on this one. On the one hand, there are indeed reliable secondary sources which discuss the topic at length, and yet I think this is also essentially coverage of a specific news event. With that specific event have lasting notability over time? As other enormously destructive hurricane seasons occur, it may not stand out particularly in the historical record. So I guess I'm a weak keep, but I see the argument to delete. Nwlaw63 (talk) 18:33, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is the answer to a trivia question, not an encyclopedic topic.
    talk) 01:41, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete The limited content of the page can easily be accommodated by 2017 Atlantic hurricane season and List of Atlantic hurricane records. I would consider the current awkward name of the article as a plausible search term, and see no reason to keep it as a redirect.TR 08:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Worth discussing in context, but not worth an article. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:02, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have been intending to expand the article, and I am attempting to do so. I think this could be an enduring notable event given that two out of three hurricanes were (or are) very high intensity -
    WP:EFFECT. I also had in mind a name change since I began the article. I just used this one to get it into the main space and begin. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 18:08, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Merge to 2017 Atlantic hurricane season and List of Atlantic hurricane records. I struck my "Keep" vote (see above). I have to agree that merge is the best option here. I can't see any way to expand this article and I don't see how this phenomenon has as much impact and notability than the hurricanes themselves. This will probably be only a footnote in the history of hurricanes, severe weather, meteorology, and so on. As the article's creator, I will request a close as merge over at WP:Administrators' noticeboard. Also, we need someone who knows how to merge the relevant content into the appropriate articles. Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:28, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, at least for now. There is certainly a legitimate claim of notability here as exposed by Steve Quinn's sources, even though the user has switched to "merge". I agree that this may be a case where NOTNEWS comes into play but contrary to Jasper Deng's claim we cannot tell whether the topic will have enduring notability until some time has passed (or until we met a time traveller from the future or Special:PredictFuture is enabled, but either is very unlikely). And then, and only then, can we properly assess whether the topic fails NOTNEWS. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:16, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Jo-Jo. This pretty much expresses my sentiments and how I perceived this AfD in the first place. It is way too early. I dropped my Merge ivote and changed back to Keep. Steve Quinn (talk) 20:01, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - This can and should be merged into the
    WP:LASTING notability in the future would it need a standalone article, not any time before that.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:32, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
My take on this is the topic satisfies
WP:LASTING
. This topic is the incubator for aggregate severe weather phenomena. This topic is a catalyst for three substantial hurricanes which have caused and are causing widespread destruction and eventual rebuilding on a large scale. ...that has impacted literally millions of people, in particular due to mass evacuations; leveling Caribbean communities (and cities); huge storm surges that endanger and destroy - indeed a catalyst that has impacted large numbers of societies, communities; as well as families and evacuation destinations residing in other geographic locales.
Please also note, per WP:LASTING: [Besides the above], it may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable. Hence, losing the continuity of this article to "merge" does not seem to be the appropriate course. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:25, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not merge – With due respect to those who want a merge, if people are going to use Wikipedia to search for this, they are more likely to look for terms like "Harvey" or "Irma" rather than "Three simultaneous Atlantic hurricanes". Keeping a redirect that fits better as a Google search term is really pointless. Mitch32(The many fail: the one succeeds.) 20:37, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    i am intending to change the article title. Thanks ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:01, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to 2017 season, per above arguments. This is a slightly unusual version of a common occurrence (multiple hurricanes in the Atlantic in September). Determining its lasting notability should be built upon reputable, scholarly sources, not clickbait websites and news services. SounderBruce 20:38, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on this logic then we should throw out all new hurricane articles, and many new articles of other topics. These are not clickbate news sources, many are reliable sources that are alluded to in the various notability criteria. And I would prefer scholarly sources, but there aren't any studies out on the 2017 hurricane season just yet. Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:01, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Come back when we have any sources that have gone through full peer review (for climatology sources) or scholarly secondary historical sources, and don't push the fringe theory that news reports are secondary sources for history. Nyttend (talk) 22:22, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Nyttend - please don't push the fringe theory that this is a fringe theory. There is no such policy or guideline that says I have to go through full peer review for "climatology sources" or scholarly sources and so on. We might as well throw out all the recent hurricane articles based on that criteria. Please stop making up rules for editing on Wikipedia. Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Kindly talk to members of my committee, or try to convince one of them to publish an article in his periodical, to suggest that news reports become considered secondary sources. Until then, don't insult my intelligence with your definition of secondary sources. Nyttend (talk) 01:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It is true, these sources would not be acceptable for a prestigious academic journal. I would prefer scholarly sources, but there aren't any studies out on the 2017 hurricane season just yet ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete
    E) 23:53, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]

:*Not --- Steve Quinn (talk) 01:01, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – Original and arbitrary synthesis of a new topic from three distinct weather events that are already covered in appropriate depth in other articles. That the storms are individually notable does not change this, and the argument that we must keep this page for the purpose of alerting people to the dangers of climate change falls squarely under
    WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion; their rebuttals are increasingly without any new insight. – Juliancolton | Talk 01:09, 12 September 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:09, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meghdad Mostafaei

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

Fails

WP:GNG. References in article aren't relevant reliable sources, zero Google News hits. Unable to find any substantial coverage. ~ Rob13Talk 16:48, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:57, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:57, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:57, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Subject lacks any kind of coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 17:36, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I checked his name on Google, he is completely notable for Wikipedia duo to his songs are famous in several countries in Asia and middle east by various languages Leodikap (talk) 15:00, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
— Leodikap (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • @Leodikap: That doesn't support notability. Feel free to provide sources demonstrating that Mostafaei passes our notability criteria. ~ Rob13Talk 16:01, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- same as the 1st AfD. Does not meet
    WP:CREATIVE and significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:38, 15 September 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) 19:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I Need Drugs (song)

I Need Drugs (song) (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)

Long unsourced article, over five years. Certainly not a reason to delete but here's what is: no significant secondary sources existed to begin with. That fails

WP:NSONG. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:42, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:49, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:49, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Not independently notable; fails
    WP:NSONG. Since this ended up at AfD, might as well delete. Normally, I'd say "Redirect" to the album (I Need Drugs), but this would be a cleaner outcome. Additionally, it's unlikely to be a valid search term, as this is the same name as the album's. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:12, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete: fails
    WP:NSONG and isn't independently notable outside of the album. And K.e.coffman is right, there's no point redirecting it, as typing the title in a search would bring up the album name anyway. Richard3120 (talk) 13:02, 12 September 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) 19:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Charnock

Nathan Charnock (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 of a footballer that does does not pass

WP:GNG. Also COI and promotional.Atlantic306 (talk) 16:13, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:29, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:30, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:30, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:31, 10 September 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. This is a film promoting Young Earth creationism, which we cover, with respect to science, as a fringe theory. The question here is, do we apply the notability standards for fringe theories (which require sources independent from those associated with the theory), or for other subjects like films (which just require reliably sourced coverage independent from the subject itself, i.e., the film)? The 7 "delete" opinions express the first view, and the 22 "keep" opinions either express the second view or propose that the article should be kept because it did receive coverage from non-religious or non-creationist sources. The question of which notability standards to apply is one to which policy provides no clear-cut answer, and reasonable arguments can be made for both, so as closer I can't decide this by fiat. This leaves us, given the headcount, with a rough consensus for keeping the article (or at the worst, with no consensus for deleting.)  Sandstein  13:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is Genesis History?

Is Genesis History? (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:PSCI policy. This movie did not get nearly as much press as say Vaxxed which had enough independent refs, that we can have an article on it without promoting its pseudoscience. Not in this case. Jytdog (talk) 18:20, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

It is remarkable that there is not one ref here that says "this movie is unrelenting pseudoscience". Terrible. Jytdog (talk) 18:50, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is irrelevant if the answer is "no." The movie has received a lot of coverage from multiple independent sources, as I showed below. That's all that matters. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:34, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: This article has plenty of good independent sources. In addition to the two sources that Jytdog considers good, there is
    WP:RUBBISH. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:31, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
As noted in the nomination, these are all in-bubble refs. They are in the pseudoscience creationist bubble, and are not independent of it. There are insufficient independent sources per
WP:FRIND to have an article here. The movie advocates psedudoscience, and is so marginal that we don't have enough actually independent sources to talk about it neutrally. The Orlando column gave half a thought to noting the baloney ("Just a guess, the twist is going to be that the movie answers its own question with a resounding “NO!”"), but that is the only one. Jytdog (talk) 20:44, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
The Orlando Sentinel writer had clearly not seen the film, therefore this is 'blurb' rather than review. Pincrete (talk) 16:12, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So
WP:FRIND. Apparently, your definition of meeting it is having sources that attack the movie. These sources definitely meet it and most of them don't -- so what? Also, where's your evidence that The Christian Post and the Christian Examiner support the movie? Having the word "Christian" does not cut it, nor does writing an article on the movie. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:56, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
You don't seem to be aware that the RSN ref is a press release and doesn't count toward notability regardless. You are also not addressing the deletion rationale, which is that there are no independent-of-creationism sources that discuss the movie itself. Please do. Jytdog (talk) 21:02, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So BoxOffice Mojo and AMFM magazine are not independent? What about the Business Insider article that ‎Boeldieu just found? Or the Orlando Sentinel? Even for the sources run by Christians, they are acceptable and can be considered independent per Joe Roe's comment below. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:50, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Additional note here - you mentioned "
WP:RUBBISH" in your !vote. The nomination has nothing to do with RUBBISH. This page violates PSCI and there are no sources with which to correct that. It fails NFRINGE. Jytdog (talk) 18:18, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
No it does not -- since this discussion, several more reliable sources have been found that affirm that this article is notable enough to be kept. What you're effectively saying is that any movie that promotes pseudoscience is inherently unworthy of a Wikipedia article. I will only take your argument seriously once you nominate The Principle and Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed for deletion. Many more independent sources, in addition to the many that already were there, have been found. Add the sources, rather than delete the article. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Repeating this accusation doesn't make it any more true. Go look at the article for
WP:OTHERSTUFF is problematic. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: Jytdog posted this AfD to the fringe theories noticeboard at 20:51, 2 September 2017 (UTC). – Joe (talk) 21:36, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: Deleting an article because we disagree with its ideological position sounds like I don't like it. This is not a reason for deletion. The release and reception section seem decently sourced, and includes opinions by relatively notable fringe writers such as Ken Ham. Given its nature as a low budget film, which barely made it to the box office, I am quite surprised it received so much coverage. I would not want to set the bar too high for independent films. Dimadick (talk) 20:52, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PSCI policy. Do not misrepresent the nomination. Jytdog (talk) 20:54, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
And indeed, not liking it, is not the deletion rationale. Jytdog (talk) 21:00, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I demonstrated that the article is well-sourced, at least enough to keep. Some of your comments seem to go against IDONTLIKEIT. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:02, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That you are confusing a description of a violation of the
WP:PSCI policy, with "I don't like it", is very concerning, and I will be dealing with that elsewhere. Jytdog (talk) 22:01, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
You appear to be confusing the notion of
independent movie. This is a documentary promoting pseudoscience, and fails NFRINGE, as noted in the nomination, due to the lack sources independent of the pseudoscience that the movie promotes. You have created a COATRACK. Jytdog (talk) 21:20, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
No I am not. Many of the cited sources are clearly independent, and several more have been found since this discussion was opened. Of course it's not like the NYT or WaPo has stories on the movie, but the sources that do exist are clearly acceptable. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:50, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Extended discussion of reliability of WorldNetDaily
I cannot speak to the rest of the sources, but the assertion that
Location (talk) 15:26, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
If WND is not a good source, that fact changes nothing with this discussion. I already pointed out many other sources other than WND that are reliable/independent and which discuss this topic, and this evidence has already convinced at least two editors to change their position from "delete" to "keep." I will say for the record that I mentioned WND because its focus is mainly politics, rather than religious/YEC topics, and a political website commenting on this movie seems unusual. But whatever. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:11, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The [http://www.wnd.com/category/front-page/faith/ discussion of religious topics on WND] is not unusual. You can poo-poo the point with a dismissive "whatever", but what it changes is that your declarations that certain sources are "clearly reliable" - or that you know the first thing about the sources you are throwing around - should be met with a little skepticism. -
Location (talk) 23:14, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Its Wikipedia article calls it "a politically conservative American news and opinion website and online news aggregator," so while I never denied that it discusses religious topics, it seems mainly like a political website. Also, my mention of the website above was the last time I mentioned it. as of the time I write, this comment is only 20% down the article and while I mentioned other, non-conservative/right-wing websites/organizations, I never mentioned WND or other websites similar to it. As I said, your quibble with WND means nothing to my case. If it should be thrown out of my argument, I'll happily do it (and I actually already did a while ago). --1990'sguy (talk) 23:46, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You inserted a link to a website that promulgates the worst of the "Sandy Hook was a false flag" conspiracy theorists, birthers, truthers, and white supremacists, called it "clearly reliable", wouldn't deign to retract it, then you condescendingly characterized my rejection of that stance as a "quibble". Well, at least you removed it from the article. Oh, wait... -
Location (talk) 00:39, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Emotionalistic attacks don't foster rational discussion. WND is a notable source that focuses on politics and not religion, regardless of what you think of it personally -- and I do admit (and always have) that it has a POV. Its notability is why I included the source in the IGH article. You are blatantly going against
WP:IDONTLIKEIT in your statements, and I will proceed to ignore them. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:58, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Regardless of what I think of WND, its reliability - or lack thereof - has been discussed many times in WP:RSN. And from what I've seen here, WP:IDONTLIKEIT is simply something you fling around when you encounter someone who disagrees with you. Ignore away. -
Location (talk) 01:31, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 21:15, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 21:15, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 21:15, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 21:15, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 21:15, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 21:15, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Joe Roe, thanks for your note. I am starting to write too much but no, this is not how we deal with works (books, films, etc) that advocate pseudoscience. If we did, WP would be full of COATRACK pages like one. Please think that through. If there aren't refs outside the bubble that discuss it, we cannot have an NPOV article about it. Jytdog (talk) 22:17, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(
notability is not inherited, which is not policy but seems to be rather widely accepted by the editing community. Again, an interesting point that could be worth broader discussion. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:21, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
User:Elmidae I did BEFORE before i nominated; I did not find discussion in actually independent sources, so the "if" is not going to happen based on refs that exist as of now. I found some blogs but too bloggy to cite even per PARITY. Jytdog (talk) 22:03, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there you go :/ Honestly it seems to come down to having a reception section that says "No-one who wasn't a dedicated creationist already took much notice of it", or treating it as non-notable. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:10, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It would violate
WP:NFRINGE; if there are not sufficient sources discussing the pseudoscience of X, we don't have an artile about X, because we cannot provide sourced content that complies with NPOV. Jytdog (talk) 22:14, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Re: how can something be fringe when it is believed by 38% of Americans?. Science is not decided by a 'popularity contest'. It is decided by what objectively fits the known evidence in terms of other known science. Science equally does not answer the 'big' questions that religion seeks to address. These theories are fringe science because they are rejected by nearly all professional scientists (including many religious ones) since they explain nothing and confuse poetic metaphor with science. Pincrete (talk) 15:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And, FWIW, the editor also found several Patheos articles about the movie. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:25, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Extended discussion of sourcing
You mean Patheos blog posts. More reinforcement from inside the bubble.
Right so the exchange between the two of you, shows why PSCI is essential policy in WP. There is no echo chamber allowed here. Just because something looks like a mountain inside a bubble, this does not mean it is a mountain in the real world. We get this all over the place in Wikipedia. There are many websites saying that Electromagnetic hypersensitivity is a real thing; and people show up here demanding that The Truth that they and people they know are actually undergoing Electronic harassment be expressed in WP.
There is no end to it, and the creationist bubble is no different.
Such bubble worlds do not stand in WP, because WP articles are build from independent sources. Again, please see
WP:FRIND
. This has to be, due to the open nature of this encyclopedia. Everyone is obligated to follow this.
This article needs to go, because outside of the creationist bubble, this documentary is not notable. Jytdog (talk) 04:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I never thought that Business Insider, Box Office Mojo, Religion News Service, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, and the Orlando Sentinel were all infested with creationists. These are reputable and independent sources -- far from being some "creationist echo chamber." You are either denying this fact or setting a standard so high for film articles that a substantial amount of existing WP articles, including some that have passed AfD, would have to be delted under those standards. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:50, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, see the Vaxxed article. Same deal. You are dancing around the core issue here; no independent sources but the Orlando passing mention even address the pseudoscience here. I get it that you want to see your bubble expressed here. We don't do that. I won't clutter this AfD further, trying to explain this to you. Jytdog (talk) 04:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So how does something 38% of Americans believe become a bubble or a Fringe theory? It's determined fringe by the other 62%, right? Patheos is not inside the bubble. There's a whole series of posts that takes the film apart one section at a time. If Patheos has so many writers talking about it positively and negatively, clearly this was an event of substance for a lot of Christians in the US. Should high-grossing documentaries that represent the views of that "other" 38% of Americans be ignored by WP just because a few editors don't personally like those views? There are equal, if not more, outlets listed on this film than many other documentaries. It is subjective to say that those outlets are not significant when they all themselves have WP entries as well as circulations in the tens of millions. You're clearly letting your bias take over. Surely you can see that?Boeldieu (talk) 05:06, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It would be pretty easy to find dozens of examples of even a majority of a population that believes that such and such fringe and/or even completely disproven idea is true. We go by what reliable, mainstream sources say, which may or may not be supported by public opinion. Should high-grossing documentaries that represent the views of that "other" 38% of Americans be ignored by WP just because a few editors don't personally like those views? is an obvious misrepresentation of what's happening here. It has nothing to do with not personally liking the view. There are countless articles about those views (or about works on those views) that are notable, and I don't think anybody in this thread would disagree with that. If it's a significant presentation of a notable point of view, it will receive coverage beyond proponents of that point of view, beyond blogs, beyond press releases, etc. The Business Insider article is a good step towards notability, but it's not enough. Orlando Sentinel would be ok, but it's a brief mention of a local screening. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 06:12, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I cannot let this "highest grossing documentary" thing keep flying around. This film brought in $1,796,182. That is the total take. That doesn't even crack the top 100 documentaries according to your BoxOfficeMojo. Try 70x that number to get the highest. heck Religulous had a 7x bigger take than this. Jytdog (talk) 06:27, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
First off, the "$1,796,182" number was for the first day. The movie was in theaters two additional days, but BOM did not update for those two days. IGH's website says it made about $2.6 million altogether, but as I could not find an RS that mentioned that number, I just left the BOM box office. Also, the movie was released in over 700 theaters, according to BOM.
Second, as Metropolitan90 also noted, there are many movies with Wikipedia articles that have smaller box offices that still have articles. And Metropolitan90's examples are by no means exhaustive. Considering this is an independent film, the box office is actually relatively large. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:02, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, it has been demonstrated that many reliable sources exist for this movie, such as BOM, AMFM Magazine, Business Insider, Patheos, The Post, The Christian Post, and others. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:05, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see, so BOM is not reliable. Good to know. At no point have you addressed PSCI. Not once. This is a problem. Jytdog (talk) 20:15, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
BOM is reliable -- the website just did not update for the remaining two showings. The page makes very clear that the box office was as of February 23, 2017, the first showing. Other editors addressed PSCI, but if I have to, this article is about a movie, not a pseudoscientific theory. Just because a movie promotes pseudoscience does not mean we cannot have an article on it. What matters is that people are talking about it, and in this case this is what is happening. Many reliable sources exist for the movie. Do I realy have to repeat is again? And in addition to the numerous secular RSs, sources by Christian publishers do not disqualify the article (some Christian sources have been quite critical of the film, btw). So let me repeat: when will you nominate the articles of other movies that promote pseudoscience for deletion? --1990'sguy (talk) 20:26, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for again making the deletion argument for me. In the nomination I pointed to Vaxxed which passes NFRINGE as many, many article from outside of its bubble addressed its pseudoscience propanganda head on, and named it for what it was. (note that we don't even call it a "documentary", and we wouldn't call this one either if there were RS from outside of its bubble discussing it). Those kinds of sources don't exist for this movie. That is exactly the point. It was not notable enough to be debunked. If you are aware of other COATRACK articles like this one, please make me aware of them. I would appreciate it. Jytdog (talk) 20:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I already addressed your argument elsewhere. Is it just me, or is this happening a lot, where I address a point, and you repeat your claim that I rebutted somewhere else in the AfD? There are numerous indepdendent RSs, as I've pointed out a lot already, about this movie, and they do not challenge the designation as a documentary film. Just because a movie promotes pseudoscience does not automatically disqualify it as being a documentary film, unless numerous RSs call it otherwise. There are many documentary films that promote certain points of view. A documentary film does not need to be "correct" or even neutral to be a documentary film. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:28, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
nope. Jytdog (talk) 22:15, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment here directly contradicts
WP:PSCI, which is policy. Jytdog (talk) 17:24, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
No it does not, I have not said we cannot call this film Pseudoscience. Nor is this about the Theron, it's a film about the theory. Nothing that I can see in policy says that scientists have ignored it so should we.Slatersteven (talk) 17:39, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It does. You are making an argument only saying "there are sources" but not looking at the subject matter, which PSCI says we must do. So many people make this bad argument - "there are sources for X", without dealing with other policies like NPOV and NOT. We do not just rotely record what sources say; we look at all the policies and the mission as well. And here the PSCI part of NPOV is essential to take into account. In any case, I will not respond to you further here. Jytdog (talk) 18:15, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This article existing is not "undue weight." Numerous sources (independent ones) exist about the movie, and for an independent film, it did reasonably well ($2.6 million box office, including all three showings, and released in 700 theaters). Also, this article is not about a fringe idea, it is about a movie about a fringe idea. They are different. We have numerous articles on other movies that promote fringe ideas, and many (a vast majority, I believe) did much worse than this one and received less coverage. We have articles on movies in general that performed poorer than this one. "Undue weight"? Absolutely no. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:35, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll say that the point about it being an article about a film about a fringe theory and not about an article about a fringe theory per se is a legitimate one. Compare
TimothyJosephWood 21:00, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
A lot of the coverage is not "in-world." I already mentioned many independent secular sources that discuss the movie. Also, even for the Christian sources, they are not necessarily "in-world." Most the negative reviews that I found about the movie were from Christian organizations. It is not a good idea to think that all the Christian publishers are cheerleaders. Some of those sources (such as The Christian Post and World), in addition to the secular ones, are notable sources/organizations on their own right. And BioLogos once was run by Francis Collins, who now chairs the National Institutes of Health (Obama appointee). --1990'sguy (talk) 21:17, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm still watching and waiting also. It's a movie, so some newspapers write brief blurbs about it. 'Brief' is the operative word here, eg 3 sentences in the Business Insider article. Have I missed any indept discussion in mainstream media? Doug Weller talk 17:06, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. I did a BEFORE, before i nominated. And no mainstream sources with substantial discussion of the actual subject matter of this documentary have come up. Jytdog (talk) 18:16, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This is a notable film, being noted in numerous publications and reviews by reputable organizations, such as The Biologos Foundation, chaired by the head of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). To delete the article would be nothing short of censorship. desmay (talk) 19:53, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Extended discussion of advocacy allegations
And here is another !vote from someone who has come to WP campaign against atheism and for christianity, not to mention other stuff per this and this. This is another advocacy-driven !vote that ignores PSCI, which is policy, Jytdog (talk) 20:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thou doth protest too much, methinks.
TimothyJosephWood 01:23, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes i am a bit allergic to pseudoscience advocacy. Jytdog (talk) 02:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cast thy burden upon AfD, and it shall sustain thee: it shall never suffer the notable to be deleted, nor the non-notable to be kept.
TimothyJosephWood 02:48, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Whether to keep this article has nothing to do with whether YEC is true or not, or whether it is pseudoscience. It has to do with whether the coverage of a movie about YEC is sufficient enough to keep the article. There is plenty of indepdendent media coverage, and you shouldn't make this an issue of whether YEC is fringe or not, because that is besides the point. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:38, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, I was mainly responding to this wording, but still, this article is not YEC "advocacy." And if it is, you should improve the article with its many indepdendent sources rather than delete it. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is the first correct thing you have written here. Keeping this article depends on whether mainstream sources address its subject matter. None are here, and I looked and found no more. So it fails NFRINGE. And the advocacy i get exercised over, is that of editors, like your creation of this page and everything else you have written in this discussion. Jytdog (talk) 02:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have found plenty -- and stronger sourcing than some other articles that passed AfD. The movie was also more successful, even if you only count BOM, which recorded the box office of only one of the three showings, than numerous WP articles of movies. It is clearly a "keep" and it is not "YEC advocacy." Even if it is, fix it. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • So,
    TimothyJosephWood 04:12, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Timothyjosephwood, here are the sources: Orlando Sentinel[16], Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (the newspaper of record of Arkansas)[17], Business Insider[18], AMFM Magazine[19], Religion News Service[20], The Christian Post (Christian organizations are divided over this movie, so this source is not "in-bubble")[21], Box Office Mojo[22], The BioLogos Foundation (already mentioned elsewhere on this page why it is a mainstream organization)[23], and Patheos (negative review). --1990'sguy (talk) 20:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Now, the boxofficemojo link is weak sauce. But other than that, this is the good stuff. I'm fine with it. Keep.
TimothyJosephWood 00:01, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
That is only Amazon and I still see no reviews there though... Imdb has a score and many user reviews but we can't use it as a reliable source... —PaleoNeonate – 00:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. It is unfixable, as there are no mainstream sources. Not one of these sources says: "The subject of this movie is pseudoscience. The Big Bang happened around 14 billion years ago; our solar system is about 4.5 billion years old. The earliest life probably appeared on Early around 3.5 billion years ago. On earth, continents have moved around, and the current configuration came into being around 65 million years ago. Humans evolved via evolution; the earliest members of our genus appeared around 3 million years ago, and our species, between 200 and 100,000 years ago. Genesis has uses for people of faith and students of mythology, but it is not science or history". In other words, there is no mainstream discussion of this movie. Your sourced this completely in-bubble, and you had to, as the rest of the world can't be bothered to address one more instance of creationist bullshit. Jytdog (talk) 04:17, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that the article was sourced completely "in the bubble". The article creator cited several sources which express disagreement with the claims of the film. [24] says, "So what did we see in this film? It would take a book to flesh out all the false assertions made, so we’ll confine this review to a few illustrative examples. ... [T]he ubiquitous misrepresentations promulgated in this film are disturbing in their own right ...." [25] says, "[M]any of the segments interviewed scientists in disciplines far outside mine (geology, paleontology, biology). ... Often, I lacked the knowledge to counter the case they presented. However, these all seemed less credible after hearing an astronomer give the astronomical case for a young Earth. Astronomy is my area of expertise, and I quickly recognized the flaws in the story being told and know all the data presented fit quite comfortably in an old-earth perspective." [26] says, "In the first interview, ... geologist Steven Austin remarks, 'The story that we all learned in grammar school—(the) Colorado River over tens of millions of years cut the Grand Canyon—most geologists have jettisoned that idea.' There is some debate among scientists about how many millions of years the formation of the Grand Canyon took (70 million years or 5 million to 6 million years?), but outside the young-earth camp few if any scientists would question that the Colorado River did the carving, and that it took millions of years. It’s misleading to give viewers the impression that what’s being 'jettisoned' by 'most geologists' is this basic idea (Colorado River + millions of years)." Now, admittedly, all three of these are Christian sources, and the authors all assert their belief in the universe having been created by God, yet all of them object to the film's bias in favor of Young Earth creationism and assert that the film is misleading in its presentation of some scientific claims. If the film needs to have secular critics object to its claims, or perhaps more famous Christian critics objecting to its claims, then that may be a problem, because I haven't found those yet. But I don't think it should be implied that User:1990'sguy created an article just to present the film favorably without acknowledging criticism it has received. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:08, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well the first two are blogs. Admittedly they're affiliated blogs, so they come with the weight of a name other than "some dude", but they don't seem to have anything like a bonafide university or museum affiliation. So, it's not clear that there's any reason to expect them do have any type of editorial oversight. The third seems better, but not exactly spectacular.
I'm not really on board with the standard that we need coverage saying "wrong, stupid, wrong" for several pages. Scathing coverage isn't synonymous with mainstream coverage. But I'm not sure this really counts as mainstream in any meaningful sense.
TimothyJosephWood 13:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Biologos is a mainstream organization. Not only do they fully accept evolution, but its president was Francis Collins, who resigned his position do be could become the head of the National Institutes of Health under Obama.
Jytdog, comments like these[27][28][29] go against
WP:CENSOR content that is offensive, even if it gets notable coverage. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
On no. I have an affinity for offensive things. I'm a big fan. Sometimes I just like things that offend people for its own sake, and I don't particularly care for "people", so I'm not really that concerned with who it is that is offended. Offense is a bit like rioting. It's not very constructive in the short term, but it's often very constructive in the long term. The real issue in my mind is that we do similar things with video game characters on Wikipedia. If they only receive coverage from very niche sources, we tend to discount those sources as closely affiliated.
TimothyJosephWood 23:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
@
WP:CENSOR content," was directed at Jytdog -- I should have made myself more clear. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:14, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
This !vote misunderstands the PSCI policy,
WP:NFRINGE. Jytdog (talk) 16:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Another example:
perpetual motion machine
that nobody bothered to even debunk.
The kind of arguments folks are making here would leave Wikipedia opem to all kinds of works proclaiming all kinds of pseudoscience without contextualizing them, and without that contextualization, they are just
WP:COATRACKs
.
Turning back to this page in WP. We have creationism, YEC, etc because those subjects pass NFRINGE by miles and miles. This does not. Trying to pretend that this is just "some movie" like Star Wars or something, is straining very hard to ignore what this is - a "documentary" completely in a pseudoscience bubble. Lacking sources that say that, we cannot have an NPOV article about it. Where is the mainstream view of this movie described in the article? Where is the maintream view of the movie's topic given the most WEIGHT in the reception section, or anywhere? The answer is -- it is no where. And it cannot be, as we lack sources to summarize.
One can take the line or argument in !keep votes in a lot of very toxic directions - virulent atheist works, or racist/racial theory works, or what have you, could all come in. This is toxic. Jytdog (talk) 16:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Extended discussion of
WP:COATRACK
It might be time to
drop the stick, Jytdog. I'm sure we're all fully familiar with your argument for deletion by now, and not everybody !voting keep is a creationist infiltrator trying to subvert the encyclopaedia. – Joe (talk) 18:10, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Please respond to this problem -- namely that the reasoning in !votes like yours, opens the door to wide to all kind of nasty things. Is that what you think the policies are guidelines are aiming for? Jytdog (talk) 18:17, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Jytdog, you're essentially saying that you want Wikipedia to
WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
CENSOR is the last refuge of scoundrels and pseudoscience advocates. The tinfoil hat people at the
electromagnetic torture article yell the same....exact... thing. (see this AE for example... and that person has come back a'socking to try to get The TruthTM into WP which the "censors" keep "suppressing". (socks) And by the way, thanks for bringing in -- for the second time -- content that i decided not to add, trying to keep things concise. You keep helping me! And I am sorry that you cannot see that pseudoscience is toxic.-Jytdog (talk) 20:44, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Until today (when I saw your AE link right above), I have never seen anyone use CENSOR to "protect" fringe content. I brought up WP:CENSOR because of some of your comments in which you clearly voice support for censoring article subjects because they are "nasty" or offensive. Your examples are much more "nasty" than the article we are debating over, by the way. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:08, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you are learning! That is great. If you have any doubt as to why PSCI is policy, see
electronic torture on the other, and snake oil salesman in the field of medicine on yet the other hand, from the perspective of science. That is not "nasty" that is just reality. WP is reality-based. And again, the arguments being made to !keep here, would let COATRACKS about all that garbage into WP. Jytdog (talk) 21:13, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
If it's such a bad thing that that the article does not say the Earth is 4.5 billion years old and the universe 13.8, then go fix it! The numerous negative reviews I added say things along that line. You're trying to make this discussion a question of whether creationism is true or not -- that's beside the point. This article has received a lot of coverage from notable and mainstream sources, and it is an article about something that promotes creationism -- not a creationist theory itself. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can't as that would be
WP:NFRINGE talks about. Jytdog (talk) 21:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Once again,
WP:NFRINGE discusses fringe theories themselves, NOT a movie about a fringe theory. There is a lot of independent media coverage of this movie, as I showed above. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:05, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
The only reason you created the article, and are arguing like mad to keep it, is because of its subject matter. What you are saying here compared to what you are doing, is ridiculous. Jytdog (talk) 23:23, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's a bit of mind reading isn't it?
TimothyJosephWood 23:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Nope. 1990s's guy has made it clear that there is not nearly enough creationist content in WP. They have complained about bias against creationism (here), and have been warned by multiple people that they are pushing a creationist POV (here, here, here, and elsewhere - and none of those are me). And they got DYK redit for [{Ark Encounter]] (diff) and if you look at their edit count, the top articles are conservative politics or creationism. It is what they do here. Jytdog (talk) 23:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and some people only edit articles related to pornography. ANI is that'a way. This is AfD.
TimothyJosephWood 00:05, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Jytdog, I make my personal views very clear on my user page -- I'm not hiding anything. And as someone who is most interested in politics and social issues, those are the articles that I prefer to read and edit. If you actually care to look at the articles I edit most (or in general) I think even you will find that I improve them and adhere to NPOV. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was responding to was the argument (which has been made several times) that this should be viewed as "just a movie". It isn't "just a movie". The subject matter teaches pseudoscience which the creator embraces fervently and it is especially silly for the creator to argue "Its just a movie". (and timothyjoseph your response was inapt; i answered the question you asked about mind-reading, and then you responded with something else. ANI is indeed thataway, as is AE, but that is not what this AFD is about Its about creation science. "documentary" - I don't even know what to call the genre of this film. It isn't a documentary about reality like Ken Burns The Civil War. Propaganda maybe.
Part of the problem with not having independent sources is that we actually call this set of lessons in pseudoscience a "documentary". argh. Jytdog (talk) 13:25, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It has been demonstrated a lot already here that there are numerous indepdenent sources regarding the film -- the evidence has already cinvinced two skeptical editors to change their positions. These RSs call the film a documentary film, so that's what we will and should call it. We are not going to call it "propaganda", as you suggested. Many documentary films push certain points of view -- we are not going to call them "propaganda" because of that. Is An Inconvenient Truth propaganda? What about Fahrenheit 9/11? America: Imagine the World Without Her? Hillary's America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party? These are called documentaries, like the RSs say, and just as the RSs call IGH a documentary, so should we. Promoting pseudoscience does not make the OR designation any more appropriate. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:20, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:NFRINGE
directs us to ignore, as you put it, "in bubble" coverage by the promulgators of a fringe theory, but in this case I interpret that as just the filmmakers themselves, who we don't cite so the point is moot. There are reviews in notable publications, some of which are creationist, others mainstream Christian, and on balance I think that passes the threshold of notability. As I indicated in my original !vote I do think it's a marginal case, so I absolutely see your point and won't be at all surprise if consensus goes the other way. However I do honestly think that at this point your continuing to rhetorically bludgeon every keep !voter is achieving nothing but making the closer's life more difficult.
On an off topic note, this discussion made me curious enough to watch the film itself last night. I highly recommend it. The photography is stunning and the commentary is so inane you'll be asleep in minutes. – Joe (talk) 23:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Joe Roe, Thanks for your note. If there is "bludgeoning" here (and I noted above that i am writing too much) that would be the creator and me together. Oddly enough you have not responded, even now, to the problem of COATRACKING that your line of argument creates. I won't ask you again, and I will stop writing so much. Please do consider the merge/redirect proposal below. Jytdog (talk) 23:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - so long as Since there is significant coverage, it is irrelevant whether the film is pseudoscience, porn, anti-religion, or totalitarian propaganda. Do not confuse the subject matter of the work with the work itself. XavierItzm (talk) 19:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is the second !vote along these lines, and... I guess it needs pointed out that "keep so long as there is significant coverage" is ... like... going to FAC and saying "support as long as all the criteria are met". That's... just restating the purpose of the forum.
TimothyJosephWood 19:49, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
@
Timothyjosephwood: If I'm not mistaken XavierItzm is saying "so long as there is significant coverage, it is irrelevant..." not "keep, so long as there is significant coverage". – Joe (talk) 23:37, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
You are really stretching here. The story if very much "hey local boy did this thing!". (its the reason why this is the only mainstream newspaper to give this film any attention) Doesn't talk much about the subject matter, in any case. Again see Vaxxed which is a "documentary" about pseudoscience where independent sources talked about the message and there is no question of its notability. Jytdog (talk) 21:31, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're ignoring the many other mainstream sources discussing this movie. The specific medium is not important. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:38, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PSCI is the key policy here - and again you are correct that the medium is not important. Jytdog (talk) 23:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Jytdog, that is simply rediculous, to say the least. We are debating the article of a movie, one that does have many indepdendent sources. Creation science is an article of a type of creationism. Two different things. What you're proposing is like redirecting the 2017 Dunkirk movie to the article of the actual evacuation, redirecting the movie An Inconvenient Truth to the global warming article, or redirecting the movie America: Imagine the World Without Her to American nationalism. --1990'sguy (talk) 12:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commenht @
    Timothyjosephwood: The Arkansas article is behind a paywall, but the first sentence shows and can be found elsewhere.[30] - It looks like it came from a prses release and doesn't discuss the film in any depth. As said before, the Orlando piece doesn't discuss the film in any depth. AMFM magazine - I'm not sure what it is but I can't find an article here for it or any evidence that it is a reliable source, and it is just a fawning interview inviting Tackett to repeat his views, no discussion at all. Doug Weller talk 06:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Forgot. RSN[31] - how is this not just a passing mention? It doesn't qualify as an indepth discussion and IMHO isn't worth using as a source. Doug Weller talk 06:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well Doug, there's coverage. That doesn't seem to be the crux of the issue, but rather whether there is mainstream coverage. I'm sympathetic to the argument that Christianity isn't the fringe thing here, young earth creationism is the fringe thing, and so it's not quite even handed to discount any religious affiliated source as a fringe source. The real issue is whether that source is only talking about the film because they have an interest in promoting a wild belief that few or no serious and informed folks adhere to.
You can't really say that about the TGC source. It's unquestionably in depth, and pretty openly critical, all "brother and sisters in Christ" caveats aside. Of all things, they seem to be writing about the film because they feel it is in many ways theologically dangerous. That doesn't look very much like mouth-breathing-creationism; it looks a lot like mainstream Christian apologetics. I'm not personally a big fan of apologetics, but that probably just makes me personally not-very-mainstream, and when you get into comparatively sophisticated argument about where nature ends and where the "guiding hand" begins, when you get into interpretive issues of stylized, broad stroke, idiomatic, and/or symbol-laden language, you're getting into areas where the Pope starts nodding his head and agreeing with you, and that's pretty damned mainstream.
I think what really pushed me over the edge was the BI source. It's not a full page spread, but it does seem pretty tailor made to answer the question of how, if at all, does this film have relevance outside of a few tin-foil hat wearing basement dwellers, since the entire point of the piece seems to be very directly look how these things you may have otherwise discounted as irrelevant are actually highly relevant to the larger socio-political scenery. "Passing mention" isn't just raw word count, but rather why they are writing about it, and there seems to be a purpose to the BI article that is not very far from the purpose of AfD, namely, why the thing should be considered broadly relevant.
TimothyJosephWood 11:00, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Yep and that BI article says ""One of the key reasons why people come to faith-based films is because of the message," he said. "You have to drive the message first and then wrap an organic story around the message. If you are leading with just a great story, then they could see a Hollywood release."". This movie exists because of the message. Where is the msinstream response that the message is pseudoscience? I think it is fine that Christians want a safe space at the movies. WP is not a "safe space" - we have PSCI here. Jytdog (talk) 05:46, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well I don't think it's fair to expect that Richard Dawkins needs to come out and hold a live press conference on the thing before we can consider it notable. I think given the social landscape here, a source coming out and saying essentially this is grossly theologically over-simplistic is actually pretty mainstream. Just because we don't have a section in the article entitled lies and utter horse shit doesn't mean the thing isn't notable. Because what you seem to be arguing along the lines of is The due weight doesn't swing my way enough so that I can write an article that rips this movie a new one. Therefore, it must not be notable. You seem to be confusing "scathing" with "mainstream" but the standard is independent of their promulgators and popularizers and not vitriol, and I don't think you have a very strong argument in the absence of conceptually expanding NFRINGE here to include all Christian sources and not just YEC sources.
You don't seem to be getting, and at this point I'm growing dubious you will get, that this is an article about a movie about creationism, and not an article about creationism. It's not necessary to have a detailed breakdown of the film's "arguments" such that we should need Mr. Dawkins's rebuttal. Maybe that's a movie review, but this is an encyclopedia. Maybe there's a place for that in
TimothyJosephWood 10:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
"if there is sufficient coverage of the subject" the lack of sufficient coverage was precisely the reason for the deletion nomination. —PaleoNeonate – 11:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I demonstrated above that there is sfficient coverage, and more indepdendent sources were found since the AfD was started. --1990'sguy (talk) 12:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing editor a series of editors has argued for judging this a film, and the rules on which sources can be used for a film (independent sources are those without financial or direct links to film,) are very different from the argument made by Nom and Rhododendrites for judging this as a theory and disallowing media and gorups that believe in creationism.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:08, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
E.M. Gregory nice COATRACK "reminder". :) Any competent closer is going to see that some see this as a film and ignore its subject matter, and others see this as a film that exists to promote pseudoscience and if that reason cannot be addressed with sources (per RS or PARITY) per PSCI, we cannot have an article on it. You are just repeating your argument in a pseudo-objective way. I shudder at what WP would look like if everyone thought this way.Jytdog (talk) 15:30, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Keep: this is an article about a movie, and only its notability should decide whether it should stay or go, and it's certainly more than an unknown-to-the-public-or-media 12minute 8mm short shot in grandma's backyard. Yet even by (those in) the discussion here I see already a potential for it becoming the full-fledged
    WP:COATRACK
    concerns that a few have voiced here. So my 'keep' opinion depends on:
  1. Its passing the
    WP:NOTABILITY
    test.
  2. That the hatnote:
    This page is about a film. For the article about the topic of this film, see Young Earth creationism.
    be added below the article title.
  3. Article should meet Wikipedia policy in the same way Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed does.
About the hatnote condition,
WP:COATRACK
concerns voiced throughout this discusssion, to use this article to further promote the movie promotes.
Actually, that's it. I also wanted to add a condition that any of the movie's scientific claims mentioned should be compared to scientific consensus (so perjorative adjectives like 'pseudoscience' aren't required), and that the 'reception' (criticisms, whatever) section begin with an overall assessment (a mainstream-press cited one, preferrably, or a collection of the same) of critic/audience reactions, and that acclaim-citations be limited to acclaims for the movie itself (and not weasel-y 'because movie acclaims' citations that read like acclaims for YEC) as but all of these should be done, anyway, if they are to adhere to
WP:POLICY. Anyhow, adding '(movie)' to the title will at least draw a clear reference line for all that, and I don't see how anyone who really wants to make this article about the movie itself (and nothing more) can have any objection to that. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 10:42, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Extended discussion of article title
I see where you're coming from but we don't
WP:NAME, the title of the article should be the title of the work. I believe the fact that it is a film is made clear by the first sentence, which reads "Is Genesis History? is a 2017 American Christian documentary film". – Joe (talk) 11:21, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
I didn't suggest the 'movie' addition (in bracketed, whatever form) as disambiguation, but as clarification. One would think that an article title should reflect its content when it can, before anything else, no? The title as it is couldn't be more ambiguous in that regard, and, again, making the 'movie' distinction would nip potential
WP:WIKILAWYERING should come after, and not be an argument point in itself (that (fallaciously) distracts from and 'discredits' the main concern... I have seen this often, unfortunately).THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 12:15, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
The article makes it very clear that it is a movie and not a question or anything. Not only does the intro, movie poster, and infobox make it clear, but the title is italicized like how it is for all movies and books. Besides, this is Wikipedia, not answers.com, so I doubt that people will think that the article will give them a yes/no answer. --1990'sguy (talk) 12:43, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The title isn't at all clear - not in google results, nor in any search here. Is it italicised there, too? But hey, if 'hooking' is the goal... but that's missing (or distracting from) the point that that fact that this article is about a movie, and nothing more, must be clear to readers and contributors alike.
The rest of your comment isn't an answer to anything I said. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 13:07, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've made my points, and don't see what else I can add, so I'll leave them to stand to testing for themselves. Take care, all. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 13:12, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with what talk is saying and vote for delete. Hmcst1 (talk) 12:31, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick note. Have spent a bunch of time looking for refs, and the only ones I found that are (only somewhat) independent of the creationist/religious bubble (and even these are from a blog focused on religion and not totally outside of that bubble, but is at least well outside the creationism bubble) is this 5 part series by some blogger I never heard of. This is really poor, and all we have here (and I looked for a long time), compared to the actually mainstream refs like the NYT and Vanity Fair that dealt with the subject matter of Vaxxed. It isn't enough, and instead the reception section of the existing is all in-bubble propaganda:
If this is kept, we'll have to introduce content from these per
WP:PARITY and give the most WEIGHT in the reception section to the mainstream view of the subject matter. Jytdog (talk) 22:32, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
This is rediculous. There are many indepdendent and reliable sources, enough to have convinced two skeptical editors to change their !votes above. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:50, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please identify which one of those describes what this movie is about from the mainstream scientific perspective and calls it pseudoscience. Please also answer - why does the reception does not describe what this movie advocates as pseudoscience? Jytdog (talk) 23:30, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need sources that say that this movie promotes false things -- other editors have also made this point clear above. All we need is for reliable and indepdendent sources to be talking about this movie -- and this is the case (at the same time, we do have plenty of negative reviews that say what you want). Besides, if YEC is obviously garbage, why would the RSs want to constantly repeat themselves? You constantly bring up the movie Vaxxed, but the vaccine stuff is much newer than YEC, which goes back at least as far as the Bible itself. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:41, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is nonresponsive to the question about sources - again which of those sources address the mainstream view on the subject matter of the movie? Jytdog (talk) 23:46, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're refusing to see the point -- it doesn't matter so long as reliable and independent sources are talking about the movie. You're question is irrelevant because I have demonstrated that many of those sources discuss the movie. You still want sources addressing the mainstream view? Look at the "Reception" section. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:03, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let me also add that the problem is not the coverage of the movie -- it's the fact that
you don't like how the RSs are covering the movie. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:05, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Still not responsive. I understand that you do not intend to answer, so you don't need to reply again. And I will ask you again tostop misrepresenting the nomination; the nomination is policy-based concerning the pseudoscience policy which is not IDONTLIKE it, and your continued description of it as such is likely sanctionable. You have been made aware of the discretionary sanctions on pseudoscience topics; I am reminding you of them again. Jytdog (talk) 00:32, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
'Sidebar' directed at E.M.Gregory

The Civil War (TV series) that is actually a documentary. It is very much like Vaxxed
that is seeking to persuade people, in both cases adamantly opposed to what science says.) There are literally no sources about this film that are independent of its bubble-world and address its subject matter, like there are about Vaxxed, which got coverage from all major media including the NYT, all of which addressed its subject matter and debunk it. Please look at the Reception section of this artcle, and compare it with that one if you like. Please.

I am really concerned as I view you as mainstream and active in AfDs, and in my view the argument you are making here would allow all kinds of COATRACKed material, sourced almost entirely from inside its bubble, into WP.

Would you please reconsider? Happy to hear any response you have. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:34, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I already mentioned above, a documentary movie does not need to be "correct" or neutral. There are many documentary movies that promote strong points of view. For example: An Inconvenient Truth, Fahrenheit 9/11, America: Imagine the World Without Her, and Hillary's America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party. If a movie promotes pseudoscience, that does not automatically disqualify a movie from being a documentary. We go by what the sources say.
As I demonstrated a lot already, there are a lot of independent, third party sources that discuss this movie. Saying there are none is a flat-out lie. There are quite a few secular sources, as other editors have also noted (including at least one who is an atheist), just because a source is Christian does not disqualify it as being independent. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:21, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The question was not to you.Jytdog (talk) 21:27, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I stand by the analysis I gave above. I won't repeat that I already wrote, but I will add that I have a particular problem with the assertion that "are literally no sources about this film that are independent of its bubble-world." Following
    WP:NFILM.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
User:E.M.Gregory two things. First, I have barely touched this article. (edits by user). More importantly, you didn't engage with what I asked you and instead talked past it. You are of course free to be nonresponsive. I tried... Jytdog (talk) 23:44, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Message) -  15:45, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
On further review, I don't think this meets the relevant film guideline
WP:NFO.--Jahaza (talk) 17:31, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Invalid argument;
WP:NFILM criteria.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't see how it passes
WP:NFO? There aren't multiple independent reviews.--Jahaza (talk) 17:31, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
@Jahaza: Huh? There are plenty of independent reviews; see the reception section of the article or 1990'sguy's first comment above. – Joe (talk) 17:55, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Extended discussion of policies, guidelines and
WP:CONLEVEL
  • Quick note - PSCI and SOAPBOX are each policy, and people are citing a project level guideline (NFILM) as somehow trumping policy. This is deeply wrong and I hope the closer takes into account policy-based discussion, and the way that policies and guidelines work together. I can only imagine the same issues would arise with say NBOOK or any other specific media where pseudoscience can be propagated and get an article here in WP that becomes a COATRACK. It may take a project-wide RfC to get NBOOK, NFILM, and any other project level guidelines brought into harmony with policy. Local consensus cannot be used to trump policy. I'll end up doing that one way or the other after this closes. Jytdog (talk) 17:33, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • And the UNDUE weight given to praise for pseudoscience just keeps growing, per this. The article is pure COATRACK and violates PSCI and is only going more strongly in that direction. That diff shows how phony it is to be considering this to be "just a film". Jytdog (talk) 22:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COATRACK
, but that is an issue that (unfortunately) must be dealt with seperately.
Wikipedia simply does not have a mechanism for dealing with
WP:SOAPBOXing, nor do its (beleaguered) admins seem willing/able to recognise that often very-organised under-the-radar 'slow attack' pattern, and yes, as long as an article has at least one valid reason for existing, it will undoubtedly continue until Wikipedia learns to deal with it. FWIW, I am making some attempt (albeit clumsily) to bring attention to this problem globally. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 09:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
You are wrong about that. This article fails NFRINGE and should be deleted. Decisions are only as good as the gathering of editors who makes them. Just counting noses and not taking policy into account,, this one is going "no consensus". We will see what the close is. But regardless, I will fix the NFILM guideline to bring it in line with PSCI and FRINGE and NFRINGE. Things take time; sometimes it takes a few AfDs to delete things. Jytdog (talk) 09:31, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Look, the article title is a demonstrably real 'thing' (in this case, a movie) in itself. If one goes through all the (rather predictable) Wikilawyering process, that point will remain in the end (and will be no doubt isolated (ignoring other issues) and hammered home by those intending to abuse it), so the only criteria for its in/exclusion from Wikipedia is its
WP:NOTABILITY. Yes, I see that this will be abused (and that must be dealt with accordingly), but trying (futilely) to get it deleted will only (fallaciously) help justify that abuse (and probably trigger a(n off-wiki) 'call to arms' that will result in even more abuse). THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 09:48, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
PS: Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed is a great example: this movie should get the same treatment. If some insist on presenting its claims as 'truth', and those claims have been addressed, that should be included in the article, too. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 09:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is full of bad content. This article fails NFRINGE. Don't confuse the fundamental, long-term policy issues with hopelessness. We will get things right eventually. Jytdog (talk) 09:56, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, Jytdog, I know things can get passionate at AfD, but surely you didn't mean to state "I will fix the NFILM guideline to bring it in line with PSCI and FRINGE and NFRINGE," as opposed to writing that you intended to make a proposal and attempt to gain consensus. Or to seem to accuse other editors of not trying to "get things right," as opposed to recognizing that honest editors can have different perspectives on what the "right" approach to assessing notability is.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:51, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I will be very surprised if the community allows a guideline to remain unamended that violates policy. Very surprised. If this article is kept it will be exhibit 1. Jytdog (talk) 19:21, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: For my own reasoning it should be deleted because the misleading article title, if "kept" I suggest it be at least deleted in its current location and moved (maybe Is Genesis History? (film)). However the current article title suggest to me some amount of COI, as does the some of the promotional style wording in the article itself. Anyway, that is my !vote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Endercase (talk • contribs)
    • @
      move function is for. Regardless, the title of the film is Is Genesis History?, so the title of the article is Is Genesis History?. There is no policy-based reason for calling it anything else. – Joe (talk) 20:37, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • @
        wp:civil, and attempt to not talk down to fellow editors in the future. Also, the move function is a form of deletion as the original article is deleted. Also familiarising yourself with typical reply formats would be helpful. Endercase (talk) 21:01, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
        ]
Extended discussion of article title and hatnotes
  • It also occurred to me that moving to Is Genesis History? (film) would help with the pseudoscience concerns. But, somewhere in the endless comments above, I think someone already expressed the next thought that ocurred tome, which was: Yeah, but we don't do a disambig unless there is some other thing (another film, a book, or similar) also entitled Is Genesis History?. If someone thinks that we can override that, and rename this article, I'd be in favor.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:24, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm glad that some are starting to see where I was coming from, but in this case, given this article's possibly-
    WP:FRINGE nature (or an invitation to that end), the addition would be for clarity and not disambiguation. But yes, some may see the addition as disambiguation, or try to make it seem that way, and move to eliminate it. TP ✎ ✓ 21:40, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I'm making a point, and if there's no rule about something, we can't do it? But anyhow, even that's not important when there's a risk of someone removing the 'unneeded disambuguation' (because there is a rule about that that someone short-sighted (or of bad faith) might act (or game) on)... so even without opinion, that idea won't hold out in the long run, anyway. I don't have another solution to propose, for now. TP ✎ ✓ 23:06, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wait: a hatnote indicating that this is an article about a movie, with a link to the what the movie is promoting (YEC)? TP ✎ ✓ 23:17, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant. I'm not sufficiently expert in the wikilawyering dept. to know four sure. But, yes, I think that would work.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC) Striking, as per info by User:Joe Roe.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:30, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endercase, E.M.Gregory, and ThePromenader: are there any existing examples of articles with such a title for clarity (as opposed to disamiguation) purposes? --1990'sguy (talk) 21:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are there many articles about movies that are propaganda for
WP:FRINGE
theories like this one is, and is there any rule against adding clarity to an ambiguous title, and are we not rational adults, here?
I predict a citation of the 'disambiguate only when necessary' (even though no-one proposed disambiguating anything) rule... TP ✎ ✓ 22:55, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:HAT. The short version is that, like parentheses in the article title, they are used sparingly, where disambiguation is necessary. We don't need to insult our reader's intelligence by plastering "this is pseudoscience" notices all over the article. They can form that conclusion by reading literally just the first sentence. It seems to me that you're coming up with solutions in want of a problem: nobody has tried to turn this article into an answer to the question "is Genesis history?", or a coatrack for YECism, or anything other than a straightforward description of the film. And there are no doubt now dozens of editors watching it who will prevent that becoming a problem in future. – Joe (talk) 00:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Well, if we must reallly wikilawyer,
WP:HAT
states:
"Only mention other topics and articles if there is a large possibility of a reader arriving at the article either by mistake or with another topic in mind."
Which pretty well covers this case in a nutshell. I really, really don't understand the 'need' to eliminate even that added clarity. TP ✎ ✓ 11:59, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Prominader, there are many documentary movies that promote "propaganda" that have Wikipedia articles (and none of them have "clarified" titles, which are simply unnecessary in this case). This movie has plenty of independent sources, as I've demonstrated a lot above, so the fact that it promotes YEC is irrelevant to whether to keep the article -- and because there is only one use of the title "Is Genesis History?" notable enough for use on Wikipedia, there is no need for a "clarification." If we are all "rational adults" here, we should accept that the reader is not going to think that this article discusses the actual question or YEC theories when they see this article. Being a movie that promotes YEC does not make a "clarification" any more appropriate. Thus, I strongly oppose any proposed page move. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:17, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm seeing the word 'documentary' hammered a lot as a description of this film, but I don't think that a...
"A documentary film is a nonfictional motion picture intended to document some aspect of reality, primarily for the purposes of instruction, education, or maintaining a historical record."[32]
...definition fits this movie at all. And no-one is 'insulting anyone's intelligence' with a
This page is about a film. For the article about the topic of this film, see Young Earth creationism.
...so thanks for that. And no, we cannot 'accept' that readers will come to 'the right conclusion' (convenient to 'keep' rationalising) when seeing an ambiguous title in search results, but the clarification wasn't about that anyway, it was more to prevent the article from becoming a (further)
WP:COATRACK for its topic's material. All I'm seeing in the rule-citing and vote-counting here is a drive to keep this article...'s title as ambiguous as possible. TP ✎ ✓ 04:59, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
And yes, in the best of worlds, this article would be subject to a sort of perma-patrol, but we all know that's not going to happen. TP ✎ ✓ 09:00, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Promenader, that is a classic
WP:IDONTLIKEIT rationale for changing how we describe the movie. We describe the movie by what the RSs do, and the RSs call this movie a documentary -- thus, that's what we will call it. I have noted a lot above, there are many different documentary movies that promote many different points of view, and unless the RSs call them otherwise, they are call documentaries. Do you think that 2016: Obama's America is documenting reality? What about Fahrenheit 9/11
?
Also, you misinterpreted the intro of Wikipedia's "Documentary film" article. Read closely: the intro says that a documentary film is "intended to document some aspect of reality." The filmmakers don't have to be correct -- they can be very wrong. But if their intention is to document reality, then it is technically a documentary film. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Citing the article directly isn't 'interpreting' anything, and besides, 'interpreting' here is
WP:OR. TP ✎ ✓ 18:00, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Might I suggest, in the interest of keeping this AfD on topic and making the difficult job of closing it no more difficult than it has to be, that we postpone any discussion of moving the article, hat-noting the article, or changing the description of the film from "documentary" until after this AfD closes. If it closes as "delete", all the arguing over the other issues will be moot. If it closes as "no consensus" or "keep", a
WP:DEADLINE. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
  • We don't delete articles just because there is something wrong with the title deletion can however be adequate for unambigiously promotional articles, which was also one of his points. —PaleoNeonate – 01:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While no reason to reject the strong notability, article in its present form seems informative and encyclopedic. Also agree with @
    Capitals00 (talk) 03:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Mmmmmm keep, many of the sources mentioned above are mere 'mentions', such as Business Insider, which is discussing 'god' films in business terms, How religious movies are thriving more than ever before under Trump other sources are mere press releases or 'blurbs', such as 'Orlando'. Some of the 'reviews' from advocates of this film's position even cannot be taken seriously, since they barely discuss either content or how well the content is presented, it being taken as a given that 'godly' content deserved support. However, some of the strongest, most informative sources come from non-creationist christians, such as this, these people take the view that 'creationism' is pseudo-religion, rather than just pseudo-science We long for the day when the church will realize that the gospel and the authority of Scripture do not need to be propped up with convoluted arguments and misrepresentations of the natural world. When nature is allowed to proclaim its message without preconceived notions of its history, it declares the glory of God just fine. . On balance I thought the sourcing is just strong enough to give a balanced account of content and enough true reviews from 'outside the bubble'. Pincrete (talk) 19:31, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Not sure why this has become such a huge pissing match. Vast number of sources of presumed reliability about THE FILM, which is the subject of this piece. My personal view of the absurdity of the movie's thesis is irrelevant; so should it be for you. Passes GNG, done. Carrite (talk) 00:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional keep I was leaning towards strong delete at first glance considering the nature of the topic in the movie and some comments by User:Rhododendrites, but I think that the well formatted comments by User:ThePromenader are worth leaning on. The distinction between the movie's popularity and the fringeness of the content in the movie are two separate things - and different things like adding "(movie)" to it can disambiguate it. Seeing that others have mentioned that it has gained some responses from outside sources like BioLogos, then it has some notability. Not to mention that as the movie gets more reception by "outside" organizations and gets more attention, the movie can become even more notable and get more reviews from the outside. This movie was released this year (2017) and since it has some receptions already, it is possible it is gaining momentum on its own. Most people do not get their latest movie info from wikipedia! They hear about the movie outside of wikipedia and then they may try to look it up only to stumble on wikipedia. I am thinking of the recent movie called The_Red_Pill for example on how it is a movie on men's rights activism also from 2017 and as time goes on it seems gains more notability with more people watching. I will have to agree that the treatment of this movie should parallel other movie wikipages like Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed or I would say even Forks_Over_Knives and other films that share less fashionable ideas.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 01:25, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @
    WP:OTHERSTUFF, and even ignoring, for the time being, the fringe/psci arguments, I think it would be useful to have a succinct breakdown of only the high-quality sources that establish notability. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
To my mind, it doesn't matter whether an independent publisher of information is mainstream, alternative, or "fringe" (quote, unquote), but rather whether the coverage is substantial and the information presumably accurate. This qualifies. Too many people take the attitude that if it's not in in the New York Times or Time magazine, the independent source providing coverage is somehow invalid. Not so. Good information sometimes comes from "bad" places, bad information sometimes comes from "good" places. We are not here to be monkeys to count the number of NYTimes cites: "1-2-3" — we've gotta use our god-given brains (irony intended) to parse and analyze and weigh. Coverage of this film in the Christian press is massive; information about the film is presumably accurate. That is all we need. It does not matter if the Washington Post or the San Francisco Chronicle or the Hollywood Reporter is silent on the matter... Is the independent coverage out there? Can we trust the content therein? If yes and yes, GNG is met, to my mind. Carrite (talk) 04:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Saying not everything has to be the New York Times isn't the same as affirming the sources presented here are
WP:RS. Regardless, if someone will indulge me, I'd still like to see the "best of" that people are basing their keep !votes on, since most people are referring to sources as though they've already been mentioned. I see people pointing to 1990'sguy's initial list at the top, which contains not even one example of in-depth coverage in a reliable source. All either unreliable or a mention of a screening, snippets from a press release or the filmmaker's promotion -- not reviews (i.e. in-depth coverage) but promotion/advocacy/superficial coverage. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
That BioLogos are christians seems to be irrelevant, their criticism of the bad science is detailed and exact and they are competent to make it . Their criticism of the bad religion aligns them with most of christians worldwide and most of the greatest christian thinkers through 2 millenia, (Aquinas realised that god would have to create time, how long did that take?) BioLogos are 'outside the bubble' of creationism and their most effective criticism is of the 'false dichotomy' (that you have to be a creationist or an atheist), the 'false dichotomy' is as much bollox as the film's science probably is. btw I'm an atheistically-inclined agnostic who just happens to think that these people give god a bad name as well as making crap films.
It would be good if we also had more assessments of the film's worth 'as a film' in addition to those that assess the validity and honesty of the scientific and religious content, but the 'content' is the key here. Pincrete (talk) 08:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That BioLogos are christians seems to be irrelevant - it's not just that they are a Christian organization, but that they are an advocacy organization. If PETA, the Heritage Foundation, the Satanic Temple, the National Smokers Alliance, or Answers in Genesis issued a statement about a film, I would likewise point out that it's an advocacy organization doing advocacy. Regardless of the bias itself, they're reliable only for their own opinion and so should be weighted as such when considering notability. The words in the sources (the content) is only part of the picture, or otherwise I could start a blog right now and write an in-depth review of a film (if the content is good, I'm still not a reliable source because my website doesn't have a reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, editorial oversight, neutral presentation of facts, and I make no claims to be a film reviewer -- it would be entirely in the service of this AfD, i.e. because it's my own website and it serves a particular purpose that is not to give in-depth reviews of films). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are christians incapable of evaluating science? Are they incapable of evaluating 'bad religion', which seems to me to be an equally valid point of reference from which to criticise this film? BioLogos are an advocacy org perhaps, or at least a 'belief org' but one which opposes 'literal Genesis' and is competent to criticise on both scientific and theological grounds. How many sources are going to be wholly free of a religious viewpoint, scientifically literate and also able to review films? All film reviews are ultimately opinion, documentary reviews benefit from some critical 'expert opinion' from those who know something about the subject. Are these people's scientific credentials not considerably stronger than an average secular reviewer? Do they have any vested interest in supporting creationist arguments? A bonus to me is that they criticise from 'inside the tent', proving that it is quite possible to have christian belief and NOT accept this pseudo-scientific hogwash, billions of christians have been doing just that for two millenia. I'm not a practising christian, but I do know that not all of them are stupid or scientifically illiterate or brain-washed. Creationism is actually a relatively recent belief masquerading as a 'true' belief. Pincrete (talk) 16:06, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how this is a response to my last comment. Again, that they are Christian isn't the point. The websites of advocacy organizations -- in general -- are not good sources for film criticism (or most purposes). A reduction of all film criticism to "opinion" doesn't make them equivalent. Evaluating the words on the page, as well, isn't enough to overcome the poor quality of the source (unless, again, the same people writing writing the same thing on a blog I create today would be considered a reliable source). That the film is advancing a POV that Biologos rejects (in part, at least) doesn't make it more reliable -- it means the advocacy organization is doing its advocacy via this review. And, I do want to highlight, that this is the best source anybody has found. I want to be clear that this doesn't mean I don't think it has a place in the article, but that it doesn't go very far to help notability for an advocacy organization to review a film about one of the very subjects in that organization's wheelhouse. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:57, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the film itself meeting
    WP:NF. As some of the crappiest and most unbelievable films are found notable, we do not judge film content, which can be discussed and sourced elsewhere. Schmidt, Michael Q. 21:00, 15 September 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 editor who uses the pseudonym "

talk) 15:09, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Dagga Magazine

Dagga Magazine (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:CORPDEPTH Kleuske (talk) 21:38, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Extended content regarding processes
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I am unsure why this article is nominated for deletion? Could you please clarify your rational?--MickeyDangerez (talk) 21:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:PROMO). HTH, HAND. Kleuske (talk) 21:47, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
I am sorry for giving the impression of promoting the publication, that is not my intention for creating this article. I still do not comprehend why the publication may not have credible indication of importance. Could you please elaborate on how you have come to this conclusion or what forms the basis for you to believe that this article has no credible indication of importance? PS. There is conflict of interest. I am part of this organization. I will review the COI documentation. Please get back to me on credible indication of importance.--MickeyDangerez (talk) 21:55, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is not my intention to use Wikipedia for the purpose of advertising, promoting the publication or to boost web-presence. Please see the publication's most
Durango Herald, an international & independent source, quotes the Dagga Magazine. The guidelines of Wikipedia do not set 'n minimum number of sources, although I have included other mentions, notability requires that others are writing about the publication and this has been proven true, even though these mention are not in depth reviews of the publication. I find it hard to accept that some of the voters, in nomination for deletion, purely rely on Google Search to disprove notability. Although Google searches do help, I do not believe it should be the only criteria votes are based upon. There are many other sources that write about the magazine that are not online searchable. This includes Twitter and Facebook. Where the magazine receives the most notice / mentions. Please do understand also that local mainstream news sources do not reference or mention the magazine because of the illegality of dagga (cannabis) in South Africa. Hence why most local sources are subject related (part of the cannabis culture) but still independent organizations. Thank you again for engaging with me directly on this matter.--MickeyDangerez (talk) 08:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Notability in terms of
Cannabis Culture (Magazine) mentions Dagga Magazine "The above chart, courtesy of David J. Nutt at Dagga magazine, illustrates the harm trends" (International: Canada)Reference
--MickeyDangerez (talk) 09:09, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of local audience the magazine received 49288 article views which attracted 1371 comments on 63 approved articles on the MyNews24 platform.reference
-- MickeyDangerez (talk • contribs) 21:44, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:54, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: The content of this article is commendably frank about their Indiegogo campaign. However, neither that nor the primary sources in the article, nor the several mentions listed above provide the in-depth coverage in reliable sources that is required for
    WP:NWEB and my own searches are not finding better. AllyD (talk) 06:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Extend commentary
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Thank you for your comment, please note the inclusion of the closed Indiegogo campaign is entered as part of the history of this publication. Please take note that dagga is still illegal in South Africa and just like you won't find local coverage of apartheid heroes or organization fighting apartheid during apartheid mainstream coverage is limited. I don't believe notability should only rely on Google searches.--MickeyDangerez (talk) 08:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my comment above, "notability requires that others are writing about the publication and this has been proven true" also note that there is no minimum number of sources required, reasoning also in comment above, please engage in the discussion section above. --MickeyDangerez (talk) 08:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the
WP:CORPDEPTH.-- MickeyDangerez (talk • contribs) 18:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
The subject article does not inherit notability from a passing mention in a Durango Herald article about another matter. To say "The event, according to Dagga Magazine, a marijuana culture blog..." is not substantial coverage about the blog. AllyD (talk) 10:09, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It may not be an in-depth discussion of the publication but establishes that the magazine has an international audience and in conjunction with other sources makes it notable.--MickeyDangerez (talk) 10:47, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: MickeyDangerez, I have restoring the nominator's rationale to the top of this discussion, where it belongs. Please do not relocate or refactor others' contributions here. AllyD (talk) 10:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, I was just trying to organize this page as it is included elsewhere on wikipedia, see notices, hence why I created category headings to keep the page organized.--MickeyDangerez (talk) 10:11, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to clean up the layout of this AfD to make it readable by removing unnecessary templates and subsections, etc. If anything got put in the wrong place or in the wrong order, it wasn't intentional. @MickeyDangerez: Please don't tweak the formating anymore. This is not an article and does not need to be formatted as such with subsections, etc. and citations as references. Keep the formating as simple as possible to make it easier for others (particularly the closing admin) to follow as explained in
WP:TPG when posting on community discussions such as these. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
In my opinion the previous formatting was highly readable especially where this page is re-displayed in other categories. I have no clue what is going on on the current formatting. references for notability are obscured and commentary and voting is now intertwined.--MickeyDangerez (talk) 12:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs are generally meant to be read from top to bottom. There's a certain flow to an AfD discussion, and posts are in most cases read in chronological order.
!Votes and recommendations, etc. are marked with bullet points and indicated in bold. I'm not sure what other categories you're referring to, but anything relevant to this AfD is best discussed here so that everything stays in one place. Detailed discussion can be posted on this AfD's talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:23, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Thank you for your help.--MickeyDangerez (talk) 15:36, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not sure if my nomination means anything.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MickeyDangerez (talk • contribs) 21:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The sources as extant don't amount to the level of coverage required to establish notability. The fact that the magazine is about something which is illegal in its country of publication is neither here nor there when the sources are only passing mentions. I'm also concerned to some extent about the assorted format changes made to this AfD, although they may simply be good-faith efforts by someone "new to the game". BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Extended commentary
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Thank you for your commentary, the formating was done in good faith, this is my second encounter with a nomination for deletion, however my first on the english wiki. The formatting changes were made for clarity (was much clearer format for myself to grasp in totality. I realize now that it may have been strange to those who work with this on a daily basis. I am regrettably sorry for that but it is teething problems that come to light from new & inexperienced wikipedians. Regarding coverage what would you suggest is a sufficient level of coverage to qualify? For example some animal articles have no coverage except for a single source from the publishing of the finding. Certainly all articles on Wikipedia should have some general equality when it comes to applying the general notabilty guidelines?--MickeyDangerez (talk) 05:57, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Duly noted regarding the format changes. As far as coverage is concerned, I'll refer here to
WP:GNG, which I'm sure has been cited before in this discussion somewhere. Multiple, non-trivial mentions in reliable, third-party sources is always the standard, which is currently not what we're seeing here. To expand on the other-stuff-exists argument (Fylbecatulous is correct that the existence of other articles in parlous states isn't an argument in favour of keeping another article in a similar state - and that's true whether the articles in question are of magazines, animals or Foreign Ministers of Nauru), the publication in a scientific journal that a new species has been discovered is an order of magnitude more significant than a passing mention of this magazine in a more general discussion about drug laws around the world. I might also pick up on the point regarding advertising/promotion and indicate that it's not just a case of "are you trying to make money out of this?" If the subject of the article is a relatively minor publication (and, no offence, but it looks that way at the moment), a Wikipedia article can easily be seen as promoting that publication and/or the agenda of that publication. The fact that there's no link saying "click here to subscribe" doesn't prevent it from being promotional in aspect. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete: Nothing in the article or the existing sources is newsworthy or notable except to promote the magazine or the push for legalisation for dagga. It is up to the article creator to provide the needed relaible sources to support their claims made in the text or in arguments in this discussion. I agree (since I work with feline (cats) articles, some are poorly sourced). But this is invoking
    WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS which is usually ignored in deletion discussions. Besides, this specific argument is comparing 'apples to oranges'. An equal argument would need to provide examples of poorly sourced magazines articles in a plea to keep. Fylbecatulous talk 15:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Further commentary
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The comparison was only made in an attempt to ascertain what amount of references is required to make it notable. Thus far nobody opposed the fact that the magazine enjoys an international audience adding credibility to notability. Thus I ask again for example what would make it notable otherwise. The main principles of the notability guide ask does the subject receive notice and to what geographical extent does the notice reach. In this case the local South African magazine is recognized internationally even though it has not received in depth coverage, the audience and the reliable independent sources already added must be considered. For it to be a advertisement something must be sold for monetary gain or purposely written for promoting rather than record keeping of notable events and organizations. My edits show the later and that is my only intentions on Wikipedia. None of the content suggest pushing for dagga legalization agenda. Those allegations are unfounded. Have a great evening. --MickeyDangerez (talk) 17:21, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The main principles of the notability guide with rational for notability of the magazine:

Significant coverage more than a mention: The magazine was quoted by a reliable (accredited), independent(non affiliated) source. A clear distinction should be considered between a trivial mention and quote. As well as have been the subject of various local non affiliated pro-cannabis organizations.
Reliable: The referenced sources are reliable, the most notable a newspaper and high profile pro-cannabis organizations.
Sources: Sources are secondary and not all of them are verifiable with a google search engine. Multiple references.
Independent: None of the sources are or have been affiliated with the magazine.
Article content does not determine notability: Some of the rationales given for nominations have been based on the content of the article rather than the notability of the magazine.
Newly rediscovered reliable & independent source: the Anti-Drug Alliance of South Africa publicly responded to an article about employee dagga rights in which they created a lengthy article focusing on the subject in terms of the notability guide. While I am looking for the original source. A mirror is available on [33]

Therefore I conclude my plea to keep this article. Should the conclusion be to delete the article I ask that it be merged with Daggafari in the section that chronologically detail the evolution of the dagga culture of South Africa.

I thank all participants for investing their personal time on this matter. Have a great day/evening--MickeyDangerez (talk) 19:24, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Thank you for your participation, please take note article content does not determine notability.
WP:CONTN--MickeyDangerez (talk) 13:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
SInce you are referring to
WP:NRVE (same guideline), which states: " Notability requires verifiable evidence". You can't push forward one assertion without having the other. Fylbecatulous talk 15:52, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Also, Mickey, it's not a good idea to add comments after everyone else's input. We are already aware that you disagree, and we don't need to be "corrected" or argued with. Deb (talk) 15:56, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A
    velut luna 16:36, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Extended content
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Comment Please forgive my noobiness.
-Fylbecatulous in one reply you mention that I haven't included any references but I have included the ones that are searchable online.
-My bad Deb (talk I didn't know one is not allowed to rebut statements in-line, however the AfD guidelines does ask that the outcome be determined by policy-based arguments. Hence why the points I have made thus far is very important to reach a logical conclusion based on the guidelines and not purely on statistics of a Google search.
-
Durango Herald
reference: My argument is that quoting the words of another person cannot be consider a trivial mention. The reason is that they aren't merely referencing the magazine's name but they are actually talking about a statement that was made by the publication. The Three Blind Mice example shows that a trivial mention is when the name of the subject is merely mentioned. Although a quotation is not in-depth coverage it is still not a trivial mention as there is a powerful message behind any quotation. Also note that this quote reference is not the only reference that has been given. The other very important reference is the one in which the Anti-Drug Alliance of South Africa created a lengthy document about an article the publication wrote about employee dagga rights. Reference also above.
If anyone's statements in nomination for deletion can be rebutted with policy based arguments I have an obligation do so and therefore it is not an indication of trying to prove my disagreement. Please accept that everything I do on Wikipedia is in good faith. If I was convinced by what others have said that the publication has zero notability, and if I had the privileges would delete the page myself. One <3 Love,--MickeyDangerez (talk) 18:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Message) -  15:31, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
It wasn't a comment upon the length of the discussion, but rather the fact that it was less a discussion and more an exercise in
velut luna 07:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete: Nothing notable about this "magazine" (for want of a better word) that failed in its attempt to go into print. The fact that it failed in its Indigo campaign speaks volumes on the notability claims made by its only contributor and editor pushing for the keep here. Robvanvee 10:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: ^ Really? The notability of a subject has been determined by the failure of an Indiegogo campaign held at the subject's birth. Clearly Rob you some vendetta against my person or against the subject. --Mickey ☠ Dangerez 11:21, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but the guidelines for nomination of deletion clearly state that the outcome is based on logical policy based discussion. Therefor let me rephrase my previous statement. The failure or success of an Indiegogo campaign does not determine whether a subject is notable, therefore the comment by Rob is based on a personal attack rather than that of a policy based discussion. I was a little but frustrated but none of my actions or opinions are intent of personal allegations. The truth however is that Rob has personal connections to FOGFA and the Dagga Magazine has recently published incriminating evidence of this organization hence why I called Rob out on his reasoning for nomination that is based on personal opinion rather than Wikipedia Guidelines, I unconditionally retract all statements that infer personal allegation and humbly apologize for any actions that may be deemed as such. Please seeTalk:Dagga Couple for Rob's undeclared COI. Regards--Mickey ☠ Dangerez 13:15, 14 September 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TravelBank

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

Doesn't pass

WP:TOOSOON. It says number of employees to be 17, which makes clear, created by an affiliated user. Delete. Sundartripathi (talk) 04:18, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:31, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:31, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:15, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  This is an uncivil tone in this nomination, and there is no argument for deletion.  AfD is not a forum for incivility.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:27, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unscintillating, My bad, apologizes for doing it. It just happened in the flow of nominating a number of spam pages in one go for deletion(clearly created for Advertising their product & services). Corrected the tone. Sundartripathi (talk) 03:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:36, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- There is a pattern for articles about startups that are accepted; they included less data. The more that is written, the more possible objections there are. At the risk of a standard that can be gamed, I suggest an informal yardstick in addition to WP:RS (a common flaw). Fulfill two out of five, keep. Fail to make two, delete.
  • Time in business: two years
  • Employees: 20
  • Funds invested: $2 million
  • Profitable
  • Products: Two demonstrably new, not improvements or derivative
I suggest that the list of investors and founders is not important, even if the article is a
WP:COATRACK
for them.
The most successful publishers can be found in List of Y Combinator startups. Competing suggestions requested. Rhadow (talk) 11:59, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow time to evaluate the sources suggested by Burroughs'10
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 15:11, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
TravelBank CEO and co-founder Duke Chung acknowledges that business travelers have historically prioritized convenience over cost.
He noted that more than 90% of business air travel is determined by three factors: flying on their favorite airlines; the desire to travel during business hours (between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m.); and flying to and from a specific airport.
But, unfortunately, adhering to these criteria results in employees purchasing the most expensive flights out there.
“Companies are already expensing the highest quartile flights out there. So our idea is to actually reward travelers for choosing options that could be several hundred dollars cheaper,” Chung said.
“It is such a pain in the butt for a CFO to have predictable travel expenses and it’s actually very difficult for these large organizations to control expenses for employees’ travels. With TravelBank, the user wins, the company wins and TravelBank wins. I like the scheme,” DCM co-founder and general partner David Chao told Yahoo Finance.
Chao, who will receive one seat on the TravelBank board, said he was particularly intrigued by the company’s enterprise approach.
This is literally the company's co-founder and the company board's member praising the company's relevance and pitching its business to prospective customers. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:51, 15 September 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) 19:04, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alpine Hotel (New York)

Alpine Hotel (New York) (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 contains little information and it is unclear which hotel is being described - possibly Scribner's Catskill Lodge. No sources other than tripadvisor rating it "top 5" (out of 6). Certes (talk) 13:52, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  14:24, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  14:24, 10 September 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) 19:04, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Allan Laya

Allan Laya (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)

CSD template removed by someone who is at least ostensibly not the original author. There's nice pictures, and content, and a few "sources", but at the end of the day this is still in and around

TimothyJosephWood 13:22, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
Message) -  13:47, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Problem is if you put it in userspace all you do is move it from an A7 to a U5, and nothing's really been solved.
talk 15:08, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:34, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:34, 10 September 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 and redirect to Work Weather Wife. —SpacemanSpiff 14:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reema Nagra

Reema Nagra (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

talk) 13:07, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 13:08, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 13:08, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 13:08, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 13:08, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:41, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to
    talk|c|em) 17:07, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Agree with GSS. Bluebonnet07 (talk) 15:57, 13 September 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. No consensus on salting, so I'm not going to do that.

It's claimed that this has been recreated several times, but I'm not seeing that in the logs. Perhaps the other creations have been under alternate titles? If that's the case, I'd appreciate it if somebody could update this with a list of those titles, so they're part of the archival record (yeah, I know, the closing template is going to say not to edit this, but I'm waving my magic mop and making it OK). -- RoySmith (talk) 19:35, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taawdo the Sunlight

Taawdo the Sunlight (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 has been repeatedly recreated. It doesn't fit under a speedy criteria, because it claims it won prizes at "RIFF film festival" which appears to be the Reykjavík International Film Festival, but I can not see that it was ever shown there. It also claims to be "an all-time blockbuster" but I can not find any sources to confirm this, just the film's own facebook page. Created by single-purpose account, in my opinion, unless my findings are proved false, this needs to be deleted and salted. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 07:18, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Further findings - It may have won "Best Rajastan Film" here [37] I do not know if the Rajasthan International Film Festival is a notable film festival, if so and if this is deemed a notable award, this nomination should be withdrawn. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 07:26, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • please have a look on these links-

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/preeti-jhangianis-first-rajasthani-film-taawdo-wins-a-big-at-riff/articleshow/56668369.cms https://in.bookmyshow.com/movies/taawdo-the-sunlight/ET00055413 https://www.filmipop.com/movies/taawdo-the-sunlight-movie-14500 http://www.moviebuff.com/taawdo-the-sunlight http://www.imdb.com/title/tt7302010/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRfnOhy6yis https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSZI21drzbI — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhanush2bnair (talk • contribs) 07:41, September 4, 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:02, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

http://givemeidea.com/taawdo-sunlight-review/ https://in.bookmyshow.com/delhi/movies/taawdo-the-sunlight/ET00055413 http://news.raftaar.in/tags/taawdo- http://news.raftaar.in/tags/taawdo- http://www.khaskhabar.com/tags/taawdo http://www.hellorajasthan.com/tag/taawdo-film-news/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Singhseema (talk • contribs) 05:10, 11 September 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 deleted by

non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:21, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Christos Giousis

Christos Giousis (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)

Never played in a fully professional league, hence fails

WP:GNG. Ymblanter (talk) 08:55, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:39, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:39, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:41, 10 September 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. Author requested deletion of the page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:35, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Black Rose Anthology (TV Series)

Black Rose Anthology (TV Series) (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)

Dammitkevin (talk) 11:54, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:12, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:44, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Zawl 08:23, 10 September 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) J947(c) (m) 19:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

AkahtiLândia

AkahtiLândia (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)

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of

WP:GNG. Promotional article, created by a now-banned sockpuppet. Edwardx (talk) 20:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 21:20, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 21:20, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Zawl 08:19, 10 September 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 CSD A7 (no claim of notability) and G11 (article was obvious spam). I note that this article had been previously speedy deleted for these reasons, and have salted it as well to prevent recreation.. Nick-D (talk) 11:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vision6

Vision6 (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)

Subject not meeting

WP:ORGCRITE. References presented in the article are either not reliable or contain passing mentions. Hitro talk 12:48, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:16, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Zawl 08:18, 10 September 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 No valid rationale given.. John from Idegon (talk) 08:41, 10 September 2017 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Bowmanville High School

Bowmanville High School (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 an insignifuicant ordinary school.  Diako «  Talk » 07:13, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 07:25, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 07:25, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 07:25, 10 September 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 Joe Adonis. A keep argument of assuming there are sufficient sources for notability doesn't fly. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:48, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Adonis

Frank Adonis (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 film actor. IMDB does list him with 40 character roles, but I have not been able to find any RS about him. Most of his roles seem to be minor parts. Natg 19 (talk) 23:13, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 23:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 23:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 23:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:26, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:27, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no reliable sources and no notable roles. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 15:23, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - he played several great mafia roles in films for years and is a small legend in some circles (so many Italian restaurants have his picture up). And, although the kids of famous people aren't famous on their own, his dad is mafioso Joe Adonis! :-)
    Donmike10 (talk) 17:56, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Redirect to
    WP:GNG or to demonstrate a significant cult following. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:25, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:16, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 02:52, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
talk) 07:10, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Why do you assume there are sources? A Google Books search throws up only passing mentions, mostly in cast lists or in parentheses in plot summaries. There are several books about Scorsese but no evidence that they discuss Adonis. Film reviews sometimes mention bit-part players, but normally focus on the main actors.
WP:ACTOR should provide guidance on notability even when sources are hard to find, and it's not clear he meets its requirements. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:25, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 12:47, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gudang Padimas S2

Gudang Padimas S2 (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 is about a dairy farm https://gudangpadimas.com/ and lacks notability. The language is Indonesian, but the farm is located in Argentina. Marvellous Spider-Man 14:50, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The subject appears to be an Indonesia-based warehouse/distributor that sells products from Argentina. I see no assertion of notability. • Gene93k (talk) 04:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:50, 10 September 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 Time management. No consensus to keep the article as-is. Redirecting without deleting to permit either a merge to "time management" or a rewrite at a later time. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Time allocation

AfDs for this article:
Time allocation (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:NOTTEXTBOOK from top to bottom, requires complete rewrite from different sources even if the topic is notable. Ivan Pozdeev (talk) 17:23, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Just because a topic is notable, doesn't mean we need an article on it, especially when already covered in other articles as is the case here.--Pontificalibus (talk) 09:55, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the topic is covered elsewhere then this would further demonstrate the notability of the topic and per
    alternatives to deletion such as merger. In this case though, the topics are somewhat different. Time management is mainly concerned with efficiency while time allocation is more about priorities. Entire books are written about the way in which people choose to allocate their time -- for example, see Bargaining over Time Allocation:] which demonstrates that this is a substantial topic for which we need more than one page. Andrew D. (talk) 13:06, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I would say time allocation is a part of time management, unless sources say otherwise? The sources I found (e.g. 1) support this. So I think it belongs in the
WP:SIZESPLIT is called for.--Pontificalibus (talk) 15:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:50, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, there's more to it - see above. Andrew D. (talk) 13:06, 10 September 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) CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Elia Petridis

Elia Petridis (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 demonstration of notability. Doubtful notability. Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of

WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 19:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:09, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:09, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Original article was poorly written, sourced, and verified. I have cleaned up the page to include non-promotional biography, reliable sources with independent in-depth coverage, and proof of notability due to high profile career directing and producing for multiple high profile people, and international awards. The person is also a notable figure in virtual reality production. Multiple indications of notability. I strongly recommend this page be kept now that it is in line with Wikipedia guidelines and requirements. This person is also referenced in multiple Wikipedia articles of notable people and works. Amandadoyle543 (talk) 12:03 PM, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep kudos to Amandadoyle543, the article is now in great shape. Sethie (talk) 00:17, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:49, 10 September 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. bd2412 T 22:59, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Malaysia Architecture Museum

Malaysia Architecture Museum (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:ORG. malaysian article has only 1 primary source. 2 gnews hits and gbooks reveals only directory listings. Despite the fancy name, just looks like a museum in a converted house. LibStar (talk) 00:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:44, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously, as for other museum articles at AFD recently. As previously noted, museums are public attractions, and in practice they are KEPT at AFD. I resent, in advance, commentary upon my !vote.  :*About specific sources, Google book hits include numerous guidebooks (which are fine as sources, though I understand in advance that the deletion nominator disagrees), and seems to include "Museums of Southeast Asia", Iola Lenzi, Archipelago Press, 2004 - Ming qi - 205 pages, although I cannot see specific pages within that source.
Please be civil, please don't harass participants at AFD. --doncram 06:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am always civil, " I resent, in advance, commentary upon my !vote", "don't harass participants" is not a civil nor
good faith response.nor is telling me how you did in another AfD that I am not allowed to add further comment. AfDs are discussions not, closed maximum 1 edit per AfD. LibStar (talk) 06:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
As previously noted, museums are public attractions, and in practice they are KEPT at AFD. is a false statement and falsely arguing for inherent notability of museums. There is no such notability guideline. Whilst many museums are notable, some have been deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scandinavian collage museum [which doncram recently participated in but conveniently forgets the result], Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthias Rath Museum , Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fenerbahçe Museum , Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Texas Railroad Museum (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serbian American Museum St. Sava. please do not say all museums are notable. LibStar (talk) 06:46, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, relax doncram. I'm used to this AfD debate with LibStar, with around 30 of my articles got deleted already ~ :P. Yes, it does cause a sudden heart attack once it is AfD-flagged. But at least it helps remind you to improve some of your article to be more notable for Wikipedia standard. Nevertheless, actually it is not us who didn't wanna write it completely to make it fully notable. But sometimes I do realize the available online information for some articles are very limited, especially in some countries where digitization are not yet a common practice. Cheers ;) Chongkian (talk) 07:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, 5 more references have been added (including one from online news), add more history, add exhibition section, add opening time, add management in the infobox, add more links in the article body. This museum is the government-owned museum (more notable), not privately owned (which is generally less notable). I have added this article also in WikiProject Museum (at the talk page). The notability of this museum is to show the architectural style of Malaysia (then Malaya) under the Dutch colonial rule. Chongkian (talk) 06:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
appreciate you making a genuine effort to find sources, not just say all museums are notable. cheers LibStar (talk) 06:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 21:23, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:39, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per meeting
    Message) -  14:30, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
the fact I do not speak Malay is not relevant, secondly doncram actually said he couldn't see the one source he found. lastly, there is no inherent notability of non profit government subject. LibStar (talk) 01:19, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
in fact it gets 1 gnews hit for its name in Malay. therefore fails WP:GNG. your arguments are
WP:ITSNOTABLE without evidence of meeting WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 01:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
I wasn't aware that any Malay newspapers published on the web, my assertion is that a nationally relevant museum administered by the government is going to be notable, I am assuming notability is met on reasonable grounds per
Message) -  08:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
you are false asserting notability the basis of
WP:MUSTBESOURCES. gnews covers malay newspapers plus also Malaysia's biggest english language newspaper the Straits Times. LibStar (talk) 08:25, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
please list the offline significant coverage you are referring to. LibStar (talk) 08:29, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

there is no inherent notability of museums even government run ones. No notability guideline grants that. LibStar (talk) 08:32, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, my first sources are: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7]

Note there are various searches to gain information for this museum: Muzium Seni Bina, Malacca architectural museum, Department of Museums Malaysia, Muzium Seni Bina Malaysia, Malaysia Architecture Museum, Architecture Museum Melaka, sejarah muzium seni bina melaka. etc. there is also another wikipedia rticle about it with less information on the MS wikipedia. [38]

  1. ^ "Muzium Seni Bina". Pangea Guides. Retrieved 11 September 2017.
  2. ^ "Muzium Senibina Malaysia – Melaka Cool". melakacool.com. Retrieved 11 September 2017.
  3. ^ "Malaysia Architectural Museum | Department of Museums Malaysia". www.jmm.gov.my. Retrieved 11 September 2017.
  4. ^ "Malaysia Architecture Museum - Melaka". Retrieved 11 September 2017.
  5. ^ "Muzium Seni Bina Malaysia | Jabatan Muzium Malaysia". www.jmm.gov.my (in Malay). Retrieved 11 September 2017.
  6. ^ "Follow the Dutch heritage trail in Malacca - Star2.com". Star2.com. 19 July 2016. Retrieved 11 September 2017.
  7. ^ "Man claims trial to cheating Malacca Architecture Museum". Malaysiakini. 4 July 2017. Retrieved 11 September 2017.

1. pangea guides would not qualify as a reliable source. it simply lifts content from wikivoyage "Pangea Guides reuses, corrects and modifies open content from -Wikivoyage" 2 is from melakacool.com a promotional Site for tourism in melaka 3 and 5 are primary sources. 4 looks like an advertorial site. 6 is one paragraph in a longer article about multiple attractions. 7 is ludricous as a source. it's simply about a contractor who submitted fake invoices. adds zero notability. the sum total of these 7 is that WP:GNG is completely not satisfied. LibStar (talk) 11:55, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

where are also the offline sources you refer to? or did you just mention
WP:OFFLINE without any evidence? LibStar (talk) 12:36, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Of course I did:) But seriously no the sources are in Malaysia, I doubt they will get back to me this year if i ask them, better just recreate the page if/when more sources are available.
Message) -  13:29, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to

(non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:38, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

ED1

ED1 (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)

While this clone seems to fairly widely-used, I can't find enough information on it to merit an article. It's not clear the subject meets

WP:GNG. Perhaps it'd be better for any mention of ED1 to be in the CD68 article. Thoughts? Ajpolino (talk) 23:55, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Ajpolino (talk) 23:57, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note:
WikiProject Molecular and Cell Biology has been notified of this discussion.Ajpolino (talk) 00:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC) [reply
]
Redirect to
talk) 00:07, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Redirect to CD68. Agree with above. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 00:30, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This subject is covered in depth in numerous serious books and is therefore notable.
  • Manual of Stroke Models in Rats spends about a page on ED1 staining.
  • Macrophages and Related Cells spends about two pages discussing it (under "Selected Antigens of Rodent and Avian Osteoclasts"). The author singles out the importance of ED1 with; "Earlier studies were limited by the lack of adequate reagents. An exception is the ED1 antigen, which is expressed at high levels in the cytoplasm of both osteoclasts and tissue macrophages."
  • Gscholar returns 13,000 results for the search term "ED1 antibody" and 43,000 for just "ED1", including many papers with the term in the title such as Rat macrophage lysosomal membrane antigen recognized by monoclonal antibody ED1 which has the opening sentence "The monoclonal antibody (mAb) ED1 is being used widely as a marker for rat macrophages." SpinningSpark 17:54, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good finds. But my impression is the current thinking is that the antibody called "ED1" is an antibody against rat CD68 (as the two book sources you cite indicate). Can anyone confirm (or deny) that? As such, I think it's best covered there. The only other antibodies we have articles on are antibodies that themselves are therapeutics. Ajpolino (talk) 19:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing an argument from policy there. My rationale for keeping is
WP:OTHERSTUFF rationale which is widely considered invalid reasoning at AfD. SpinningSpark 20:30, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Sorry, to clarify: ED1 is an antibody and the topic of the article. The book passages you posted give a bunch of info about the "ED1 antigen", i.e. the protein to which ED1 binds. That antigen is covered substantially in these books and therefore almost certainly meets
ED1 article about the "ED1 antigen" and just note that it's the rat homolog of CD68 and that it's so-called because of the name of the antibody that recognizes it? Thoughts? Ajpolino (talk) 21:06, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
As Kingofaces43 points out, ED1 even with more content is hardly worthy of a stand alone article, thus Redirect is a better choice.Lapabc (talk) 17:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to CD68. The rat ED1 antigen is a synonym for rat CD68 (e.g. 1).--Pontificalibus (talk) 10:08, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to CD68. I don't think anything can be said to dispute or overturn the points made by SpinningSpark who advocates Keep. I agree that saying only therapeutic antibodies have their own WP page is not valid. Drug companies use WP in a quasi-marketing manner and have their personnel place those WP pages there -- I've witnessed that. Many of those therapeutic antibody pages are useless placeholders, lacking useful information. In any case, the ED1 page suffered from a lack of citations. I just remedied that. With primary citations now in place, the rationale to Delete is reduced. Kingofaces43 points out that this is too minimal for its own article and should be retained if content added. I agree with that too, thus I added content. But with added content it is still too short. If a person was looking to Google for a rat anti-CD68 antibody, an ED1 hit within the WP CD68 page would come up and be very useful, it is not necessary for ED1 to have its own WP page. (As far as policy, if every antigen had its own article we'd have to have tens of thousand of more pages, all fairly minimal and of limited interest.) An ED1 redirect to CD68 meshes well with the "Uses in Pathology" subsection that is already there on the CD68 page. Redirect of the improved ED1 page should be the appropriate action.Lapabc (talk) 17:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to non-scientists: GScholar is not a great research tool for biomedical sciences, and it is not as useful as one might think for determining
    WP:N. GScholar yields things like books that have been scanned by Google, blogs that are not peer reviewed, and multiple hits of the same reference (triplicates, quadruplicates, etc.) -- some of that arises from GScholar checking ResearchGate which is yet another multiplier of the same hits. Google took away good Boolean search delimters a long time ago, the lack of which worsens GScholar's utility. Book references are not favored by working scientists because they are derivative in nature -- primary matters -- and they are less accessible and current than electronic journals. As useful as the discussion above was about the number of citations, it would have been more relevant and stronger had the search been from PubMed / PMC / PubChem / NCBI / National Library of Medicine / Web of Science. GScholar returned 13,000 hits for the search term "ED1 antibody." That may be, but that's certainly a bogus result. PubMed turns up 686 hits for "ED1 antibody" and it turns up 688 hits for "ED1 AND (antibody OR monoclonal)." The agreement between those tells you that's the truer number, not 13,000. Sources matter because people misinterpret science all the time, there's a of misinformation out there, science deniers, you name it that Google pulls in but cannot distinguish. For WP to be the source of record, it itself must depend on reliable sources and in science, that means peer-reviewed sources such as those found on PubMed, etc. One hit on PubMed is worth twenty on GScholar. The importance of PubMed cannot be overstated... that's why PMID and PMC and are *standard* parts of WP journal citation templates. Lapabc (talk) 17:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Just a note that in my vote for clarification since you commented on it. I meant that content should be developed at
talk) 13:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
BTW, the CD68 page could use some beefing up.Lapabc (talk) 17:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:05, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pan American Youth Beach Handball Championship

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

fails WP:GNG. zero gnews hits. and the 6 google hits don't look reliable. this is a regional Under 17 tournament. LibStar (talk) 00:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Not sure if i can vote as i created the article, but i added some more sources all searched in gnews, searchs were "panamericano juvenil balonmano playa" and "panamericano juvenil handbol playa" Argemiro1975 (talk) 13:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Argemiro1975: For your future reference, yes you can vote if you created the article. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's an international handball competition. --Malo95 (talk) 15:10, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paraguay-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Handball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:37, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the new sources added.
    Message) -  07:53, 10 September 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. SoWhy 15:38, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Hope Club

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

Does not meet notability criteria under

WP:BAND Shritwod (talk) 22:03, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The band is signed to
The X Factor. I created the article, which is averaging 542 page views per day over the last month, so there's clearly a lot of interest in the band.--Bernie44 (talk) 13:31, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment A subsidiary of a major label is not the same as being on a major label. Steady Records is not an important label, but Hollywood Records is, so you are half right. Billboards Next Big Sound Chart is not the same as actually being on a billboard chart; rather, it is a tracking systems of releases that are close to making the charts (in other words, for eight weeks this band almost made it into the charts, but didn't) And page views mean nothing as they are unreliable. Otherwise, I have no opinions about this AfD nomination. ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:05, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a band that might be notable at some point at the future still doesn't mean that it is notable now. I can't see anything about this band at all that would qualify it under
WP:BAND. Also for band member notability, if two or more members are notable in their own right then that can be a qualification. One person placed fifth on the X Factor doesn't qualify for that. Shritwod (talk) 09:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:37, 10 September 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. Particularly per the scholarly sources found by Timothyjosephwood. No consensus for a merge to backsliding since that's a specific "technical term" of its own, as it were. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:38, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic backsliding

Democratic backsliding (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)

Wikipedia is not a collection of Neologisms. Article itself says it's a recent term. Whispering 01:47, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 02:08, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
  • "Merge" into backsliding, is most valuable path forward, so if we have to remove the page. At least add it on the another article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shelsel.lh (talk • contribs)
  • Note that a merge to backsliding would be awkward because backsliding is a page about a specific concept in Christian theology.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:10, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Backsliding is general concept that is merely used in one specific way in Christian theology. We could, in theory, have a broad concept article on "Backsliding" and move the Christianity-specific material to Backsliding (Christianity), but it is already such a short article that it would benefit from a merger. bd2412 T 13:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just fyi, "backsliding" is a word coined during the Reformation, according to the OED, by John Knox. We could expand that article with later uses, but it stars life and spends several centuries as a specificially Chirstian and theological term.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This concept doesn't seem to have anything to do with backsliding in the religious sense, and I highly doubt adequate sources could be found treating them together. FourViolas (talk) 20:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a stub, but this is a notable concept with many dozens of substantial political-science papers and books written on it (as shown by TJW's links). Also tagging
    Snooganssnoogans, who I believe has some interest in political science concepts. Neutralitytalk 04:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep. "Democratic backsliding" is an accepted term in political science, and a key term in research on democracy. The term has nothing to do with the general term "backsliding" (per bd2412) and is a recognized precise term in political science scholarship (per EM Gregory, whose comment I'm struggling to understand). One could make the argument that "democratic backsliding" should be added as a section in the article on "Democracy", but I think the concept is important enough and studied sufficiently to warrant a large comprehensive article of its own on it. It would be no problem at all for someone interested in contributing to this article to find scholarship in the best political science journals on this exact topic.
    talk) 12:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep -- a sufficiently notable concept, per sources already present in the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:38, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:33, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I revisited, making time to read more of the books and journal articles. Most of the hits on this term fail to support notability or meet
    WP:NOTDICTIONARY and sources do not support the proposition that "democratic backsliding' is a term of art with a specific meaning or set of meanings like deliberative democracy or democratic socialism.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:05, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The term democratic backsliding is frequently used but rarely analyzed ... Like an old steamer trunk, it is opaque and unwieldy but yields much that proves useful when it is unpacked. This... looks like an argument against NEO... somehow used as an argument in favor of NEO.
talk 20:12, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Sorry, Tim. I often edit
    WP:NEO: "To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term. An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position, which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy." E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:04, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Umm...
talk 21:57, 10 September 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. This was the incorrect forum to discuss this, which is

WP:RNEUTRAL. I will relist this at RFD shortly. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC) (now at RFD: Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_September_18 --00:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC))[reply
]

United States military occupation

United States military occupation (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)

  • Strong DeleteThe name is POV and is not a reference to any armed forces, but rather exists to imply that the U.S. Armed Forces serves to occupy Garuda28 (talk) 06:29, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Really, since it is a redirect it should probably be under RfD rather than AfD, but it should be deleted either way. "United States military occupation" is not a suitable redirect for the US armed forces in general, and there is already a list of US (and non-US) military occupations at List of military occupations.PohranicniStraze (talk) 06:52, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and PohranicniStraze's points. Rockypedia (talk) 15:29, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • OPPOSE The term is neutral with no point of view. It refers to one of the historic roles of the military forces. The U. S. has conducted numerous missions of temporary occupation of places during and after conflicts, with the primary role being to restore a functioning government by getting the populace back on its feet. Some U. S. military occupations that come to mind range from Spanish East Florida in 1812 to post-WWII Japan to post-Saddam Iraq. Indeed, the historic Marshall Plan was born of the Allied occupation of Europe after World War II. Also, this is simply a Redirect. If a user searches on "U. S. military occupation", what better place to be redirected than the article about the U. S. military? Jeff in CA (talk) 15:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As stated above the term is derogitory and isn't another way to say armed forces or military. Even the article has very little to do with U.S. military operations. Moreover no other Armed Forces or military page has this kind of redirect.65.152.162.3 (talk) 17:01, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all of the reasons above are good reasons to delete this redirect. It shows significant POV and bias, and frankly that doesn't work with the encyclopedic standards of Wikipedia. 2600:100E:B02D:F472:C4BD:B5B6:2456:E255 (talk) 20:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note:
See WP:Redirect#Reasons for not deleting
8.2.1 Neutrality of redirects:
Just as article titles using non-neutral language are permitted in some circumstances, so are redirects. Because redirects are less visible to readers, more latitude is allowed in their names. Perceived lack of neutrality in redirect names is therefore not a sufficient reason for their deletion.
[One reason] Non-neutral redirects are commonly created ... :
  • The subject matter of articles may be represented by some sources outside Wikipedia in non-neutral terms. Such terms are generally avoided in Wikipedia article titles, per the words to avoid guidelines and the general neutral point of view policy. For instance the non-neutral expression "Attorneygate" is used to redirect to the neutrally titled Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. The article in question has never used that title, but the redirect was created to provide an alternative means of reaching it because a number of press reports use the term. (NOTE: Many press reports and history books use the term, "military occupation".)
8.2 Reasons for not deleting a redirect:
  • You risk breaking incoming or internal links by deleting the redirect. For example, redirects resulting from page moves should not normally be deleted without good reason. Links that have existed for a significant length of time ... should be left alone in case there are any existing links on external pages pointing to them. (NOTE: This redirect has incoming links from elsewhere on Wikipedia.)
  • They aid searches on certain terms. (NOTE: This redirect aids searches on its term.)
  • Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful—this is not because the other person is being untruthful, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways. (NOTE: I find the redirect useful.)
  • The redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and deleting the redirect would prevent unregistered users from expanding the redirect, and thereby make the encyclopedia harder to edit and reduce the pool of available editors. (NOTE: This redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article.)

Jeff in CA (talk) 01:02, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Consensus is for deletion. North America1000 12:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea D'Angelo

Andrea D'Angelo (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:NAUTHOR. Little independent coverage, having published a few books confers no notability. DrStrauss talk 18:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:29, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:30, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable author.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:40, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Apparently important Italian science fiction. Also in the French WP. and I givethem considerable respect for notability. Has the nom made a proper search in Italian review sources? DGG ( talk ) 01:18, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
interesting. I interpret that result as meeting the GNG. It looks like substantial coverage to me, as appropriate for the subject. DGG ( talk ) 00:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's no mention of Andrea D'Angelo in those Italian sources. They all refer to different people with the same name (a council politician in Civitavecchia, a football patron, a lawyer...).--Alienautic (talk) 01:10, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- it.wiki article is equally unconvincing for notability. No 3rd party sources are present in the article, and my searches have not been successful. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:49, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:30, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.
    Message) -  08:06, 10 September 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:46, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Khushboo Purohit

AfDs for this article:
Khushboo Purohit (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 BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sources listed in the article are passing mentions or routine coverage. Created by Special:Contributions/Piyushpriyank with a history of creating articles on nn subjects. An article under the same name has been deleted twice, in 2009 and in 2014. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:39, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:39, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:00, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:00, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 15:18, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
— Bisharch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. see also: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shashi 1980
  • Note  Please include a signature with five tildes, possibly using small font, when making sockstrikes; both to provide attribution, and to provide a timestamp for the discussion to show when the post was stricken. 
    The diff for the sockstrike is here, and was posted at 2017-09-16T06:12:51‎.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Callanecc: As per this diff, this editor is "unrelated", but the editor is also blocked.  Please sort this out.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nom's comment -- I do not find the sources listed in the article as sufficient for notability. They include:
  • "Khushboo Purohit, Remo and Prince Gupta of Lux 'Dance India Dance' during a photoshoot in Ahmedabad - Photogallery"
  • "Reporters Gossips: Khushboo Purohit aka Trisha to exit the show"
These are trivial mentions; there's not indication that the subject meets
WP:NACTOR either. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:34, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:29, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:08, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:K.e.coffman, If you have evidence that this topic was in a beauty pageant, why are you not revealing the source of information?  Otherwise, why are you listing it with Beauty pageants?  Unscintillating (talk) 00:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't have evidence that the subject was in a beauty pageant. However, I consider reality TV competitions to be sort of pageants. Seeing that this AfD has had low participation and is on its third relist, I added it there. However, it appears to be confusing, I will remove it from the list at Deletion Sorting - Beauty Pageants. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:09, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am looking up more information about her and will comment later with my findings.--DreamLinker (talk) 13:06, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep She has some notability. Verified the Times of India article. Page requires editing.Shashi 1980 (talk) 15:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
— Shashi 1980 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. see also: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shashi 1980
  • Delete as the sources hardly provide any coverage about her. She participated in a dance reality show called Dance India Dance, but there are many such reality shows in Indian tv these days. Simply participating doesn't make one notable. The claims in the article that she acted in "numerous films" is slightly misleading. Her roles are quite minor and in some cases related to simply dancing in one music video. I would also like to mention that the sources are all Times groups (Times of India, Indiatimes) related and is limited to very short gossip articles. Here are some important points about the sources as well as about the person in general.
    1. Ref 1 is not a reliable news source, but one of the many gossip websites online. These websites are often worse than tabloids and publish content without verification, often posting all sorts of rumours.
    2. Ref 2 is just one tabloid image and a one line description. Indiatimes is part of the TOI group.
    3. Ref 3 is a similar Indiatimes tabloid "news" (usually generated from anonymous sources). If you read the article, it is very short and that too only one sentence is devoted to her. A news article wouldn't end with "We wish luck to Khushboo for her Bollywood debut."
    4. Ref 4 Once again a similar Indiatimes tabloid news with one sentence mention of her. The role in the movie is restricted to dancing in the music video.
    5. It is surprising that there is no significant coverage about her in Hindustan Times and the Hindu, both major English dailies in India. A notable actor would usually have significant coverage in all three newspapers. Clearly, this is not the case here.
    6. I am also quite surprised that so many new accounts are voting on this afd right after the account has been created, such as "Shashi 1980" and "Bisarch". Neither do I understand the rational of "Barbara (WVS)" who says sufficient citations to establish notability, despite the citations being really low quality.
    7. She is upcoming actor who has had a few minor roles and I wish her all the best. But at this point of time she is not yet notable.--DreamLinker (talk) 01:35, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I've stricken votes by two now indef blocked accounts; pls see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shashi 1980. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:12, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - clearly not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show she meets
    WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 TT me 12:53, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. SoWhy 15:37, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Budgie (desktop environment)

Budgie (desktop environment) (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)

It does not have notability and reliable sources.

talk) 05:23, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's
list of content for rescue consideration. —Syrenka V (talk) 22:59, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:47, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Reliable sources do appear to exist: ZDNet InfoWorld Datamation and possibly OCS-Mag (the author for the last can be identified by name from the OCS-Mag Editors Page, though he uses a pseudonym in the article itself). The nominator cannot be blamed for not having done
    WP:BEFORE diligence on all of these, as some are so recent that they were published after the nomination! But they still establish notability and provide material to incorporate into the article. —Syrenka V (talk) 23:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:27, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article in current issue of the c't magazine (in German) on Budgie (within Solus)[1] --Brevity (talk) 20:09, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Liane M. Dubowy (2017). "Linux-Distribution Solus 3 unterstützt Snap-Pakete". c't (in German). 2017 (19): 38. Die für die Standardvariante Solus Budgie entwickelte grafische Desktop-Umgebung basiert auf Gnome und lässt sich mittlerweile auch in anderen Distributionen installieren. Solus 3 bringt sie in ihrer neuesten Version 10.4 mit, die etwa gleichzeitig veröffentlicht wurde. Die primäre Desktop-Leiste mit Anwendungsmenü, Schnellstartern und Systembereich ist an den unteren Bildschirmrand gewandert. Panels lassen sich bei Bedarf nun auch am linken oder rechten Rand platzieren. Die Einstellungen eines Panels bieten einen Dock-Modus, der die Leiste mittig anordnet und auf die nötige Breite reduziert. Neu hinzugekommen ist ein Panel-Applet "Night Light", das die Farbtemperatur des Bildschirms automatisch nach Einbruch der Dunkelheit anpassen kann. Überarbeitet wurde das Places-Applet, das alle Partitionen auflistet. Die Suchfunktion des Anwendungsmenüs wurde ebenfalls erneuert. Die Desktop-Einstellungen sind nun nicht länger in die Seitenleiste Raven integriert, die Benachrichtigungen sammelt und einen Kalender bereithält. Sie sind in einem eigenen Dialog "Budgie Einstellungen" untergebracht, der sich über das Anwendungsmenü sowie eine Schaltfläche in Raven öffnen lässt.
  • Update on sourcing: I've added all of the sources mentioned above, as well as a few more I found in the meantime. The availability of suitable sourcing should no longer be in doubt. Incidentally, the journal cited by Brevity has its own Wikipedia article: c't. The Datamation source mentioned above had unaccountably disappeared from the web for a while[!], but is now back—and has been archived. The OCS-Mag reference is wrongly linked above; the correct link is here—and referenced in the page.
—Syrenka V (talk) 20:10, 17 September 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. This was the incorrect forum to discuss this, which is

WP:RNEUTRAL. I will relist this at RFD shortly. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC) (now at RFD: Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_September_18 --00:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC))[reply
]

United States military occupation

United States military occupation (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)

  • Strong DeleteThe name is POV and is not a reference to any armed forces, but rather exists to imply that the U.S. Armed Forces serves to occupy Garuda28 (talk) 06:29, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Really, since it is a redirect it should probably be under RfD rather than AfD, but it should be deleted either way. "United States military occupation" is not a suitable redirect for the US armed forces in general, and there is already a list of US (and non-US) military occupations at List of military occupations.PohranicniStraze (talk) 06:52, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and PohranicniStraze's points. Rockypedia (talk) 15:29, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • OPPOSE The term is neutral with no point of view. It refers to one of the historic roles of the military forces. The U. S. has conducted numerous missions of temporary occupation of places during and after conflicts, with the primary role being to restore a functioning government by getting the populace back on its feet. Some U. S. military occupations that come to mind range from Spanish East Florida in 1812 to post-WWII Japan to post-Saddam Iraq. Indeed, the historic Marshall Plan was born of the Allied occupation of Europe after World War II. Also, this is simply a Redirect. If a user searches on "U. S. military occupation", what better place to be redirected than the article about the U. S. military? Jeff in CA (talk) 15:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As stated above the term is derogitory and isn't another way to say armed forces or military. Even the article has very little to do with U.S. military operations. Moreover no other Armed Forces or military page has this kind of redirect.65.152.162.3 (talk) 17:01, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all of the reasons above are good reasons to delete this redirect. It shows significant POV and bias, and frankly that doesn't work with the encyclopedic standards of Wikipedia. 2600:100E:B02D:F472:C4BD:B5B6:2456:E255 (talk) 20:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note:
See WP:Redirect#Reasons for not deleting
8.2.1 Neutrality of redirects:
Just as article titles using non-neutral language are permitted in some circumstances, so are redirects. Because redirects are less visible to readers, more latitude is allowed in their names. Perceived lack of neutrality in redirect names is therefore not a sufficient reason for their deletion.
[One reason] Non-neutral redirects are commonly created ... :
  • The subject matter of articles may be represented by some sources outside Wikipedia in non-neutral terms. Such terms are generally avoided in Wikipedia article titles, per the words to avoid guidelines and the general neutral point of view policy. For instance the non-neutral expression "Attorneygate" is used to redirect to the neutrally titled Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. The article in question has never used that title, but the redirect was created to provide an alternative means of reaching it because a number of press reports use the term. (NOTE: Many press reports and history books use the term, "military occupation".)
8.2 Reasons for not deleting a redirect:
  • You risk breaking incoming or internal links by deleting the redirect. For example, redirects resulting from page moves should not normally be deleted without good reason. Links that have existed for a significant length of time ... should be left alone in case there are any existing links on external pages pointing to them. (NOTE: This redirect has incoming links from elsewhere on Wikipedia.)
  • They aid searches on certain terms. (NOTE: This redirect aids searches on its term.)
  • Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful—this is not because the other person is being untruthful, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways. (NOTE: I find the redirect useful.)
  • The redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and deleting the redirect would prevent unregistered users from expanding the redirect, and thereby make the encyclopedia harder to edit and reduce the pool of available editors. (NOTE: This redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article.)

Jeff in CA (talk) 01:02, 13 September 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) 19:05, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HelloFresh

HelloFresh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:48, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:48, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:49, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:49, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 12:37, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Crosslee plc

Crosslee plc (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 in-depth coverage. Fails

WP:NCORP. Greenbörg (talk) 15:06, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:37, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:37, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:09, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 12:33, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hollow Tree Books

Hollow Tree Books (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 in-depth coverage. Fails

WP:NCORP. Greenbörg (talk) 16:12, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:07, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A local-interest publisher: their web domain is defunct and the listing links in the article provide only the barest verification listing of one of their books. My searches are finding nothing which can go towards meeting
    WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 07:39, 10 September 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 under

(non-admin closure) MassiveYR ♠ 05:17, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Jeddah Hilton Hotel

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

This article seems to be here simply to promote the hotel and includes contributions from a paid editor, User:Valgetova. Leutha (talk) 16:19, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This article was created without the {{
    WP:AFDHOWTO. Thanks. --Finngall talk 17:51, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:06, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Despite concerns about the nomination. The page was created by
    routine coverage about the hotel. The subject appears to lack significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:41, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:58, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:07, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as unambiguous advertising; the article is 100% promotional. I'll request a G11 -- let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:55, 11 September 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

Adobe Systems. SoWhy 15:37, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Fotolia

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

Poorly sourced, a

WP:BEFORE showed much the same. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 18:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:20, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:20, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails
    WP:PROMO. Per nom, poorly sourced.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:54, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:07, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per TonyBallioni as this is a plausible search term. -- Dane talk 20:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to
    WP:ATD-R. Source searches are not demonstrating notability to qualify a standalone article. North America1000 12:18, 17 September 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. Numerically, the keep and delete camps are about even, but once the film was released, opinion was clearly running towards keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Project Peshawar

Project Peshawar (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)

See

promotional. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:57, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:57, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this film has not been released yet, but very soon will be. Would it not be sensible to have an article on this film after the film has been released?Vorbee (talk) 09:31, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Only if the film is released on schedule, and if the article is updated to include film reviews and similar independent information. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:59, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait - See: The News - Mfarazbaig (talk) 22:55, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:31, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as it seems to be getting more coverage now it has been released. It needs a reception section referencing reviews from reliable sources. Atlantic306 (talk) 15:20, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- an apparently nn film; I could not find any reviews, just pre-release publicity. Article is 100% promo content which is excluded per
    WP:NOTSPAM. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:29, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 18:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:06, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: extremely
    Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. If the film turns out to be notable, recreate it. At the moment it serves only to promote the film before its release. DrStrauss talk 14:09, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Keep this (finally) released and screened and reviewed film per meeting
    WP:CRYSTAL by DrStrauss is inapplicable. Wow. Had he read the article in The News [41] he might have understood the film has screened and received poor review. Again, wow. Even a hated bad film can meet standards. Schmidt, Michael Q. 09:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
@MichaelQSchmidt: there's no need to be condescending. Furthermore, even if this is the case, the promotional aspect is still unaddressed. DrStrauss talk 10:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@
tagging for tone or other editorial work, not deletion. As for "condescending", if one realizes CBALL is inapplicable or inappropriate, why not strike that error if leaving it could mislead? Schmidt, Michael Q. 10:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
@DrStrauss: As @MichaelQSchmidt: notes, accusations of promotional bias are not appropriate here, if you feel that is problem then the talk page on the article is the place to address it. The talk page is currently empty, why not start a discussion there instead of here where it is not relevant?Egaoblai (talk) 08:24, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:NFILM was. That was just a side-point. DrStrauss talk 08:50, 13 September 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 Gangarampur#Parks. Clear consensus not to have a freestanding article on this topic. Redirects are cheap. bd2412 T 22:55, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kalitala Children Park

Kalitala Children Park (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 pass GNG or any other notability guideline. It is a local children's park, with the only reference being the yellow pages ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 02:20, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:04, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - clearly fails
    WP:GNG; no more notable than any children's playground/park Spiderone 10:35, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 15:18, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 18:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:06, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:39, 11 September 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 with the option to redirect if anyone wants to. Hut 8.5 20:59, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alison James

Alison James (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 without reason. Concern was Obscure actress. Fails

WP:GNG

I concur hence the nom Gbawden (talk) 14:19, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The actress appears to have received virtually no coverage in reliable sources. She played only one significant role, which is insufficient to pass
    WP:NACTOR. Rentier (talk) 21:09, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Redirect to Tiffany Pratt the fictional character portrayed by the actress. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:16, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • leaning to Delete - one role in a soap is just not enough to be notable. Redirect is possible, but, though I'm sure others would disagree with me, I'd likely be in favor of deleting the article on the character as well. Smallbones(smalltalk) 13:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pending further editing. I've just noticed that James is her maiden name and under her married name of Alison Raine she has had more of a career: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0416265/bio?ref_=nm_ov_bio_sm MurielMary (talk) 10:01, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I cant find reasonable and valid references about this article.Mr.ref (talk) 15:16, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) (m) 18:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:06, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- no SIGCOV found, and one role falls short of notability for the actor. A redirect is unnecessary, as there's no usable article history to preserve. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as above, actor known for only one role. The purpose of a redirect is to help people find articles, so the page history is irrelevant. (And even if Tiffany Pratt is deleted, there may be an alternative target.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:06, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Starr (actor)

Mike Starr (actor) (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)

Starr has had a prolific career, but his roles have not really risen to the level of significant roles. So he does not pass the notability guidelines for entertainers, and the sources are not enough to pass the general notability guidelines. John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:48, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:56, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:57, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:57, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:02, 10 September 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.

(non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:31, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Peach blossom debt

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, cannot find reliable sources. Vozhuo (talk) 05:13, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:12, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:12, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:06, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It has a real ISBN and exists, if that's what the nominator means by sourcing. That should be added to the article. 158.59.127.132 (talk) 15:52, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:06, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:57, 10 September 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) 19:06, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Elias

Andrew Elias (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This page was created in the Main space and Draft space by the same editor [48], [49]. No evidence of notability at this time. Fails BASIC, ANYBIO, and BLP. Maybe

WP:TOOSOON. Delete Main space version, and leave keep the Draft. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:19, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:02, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:02, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not enough significant roles in notable productions to pass actor notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:04, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:32, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:56, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Very weak stub. Not seeing anything on the Google that counts to GNG. Carrite (talk) 01:06, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 12:15, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Lettieri

Gregory Lettieri (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 real demonstration of notability. Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Fails

WP:SPA, who has only edited this and the company he co-founded, Recycle Track Systems. Edwardx (talk) 19:48, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:14, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:14, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. promotional intent for a non-notable businessman. Such articles should be deleted as pure promotionalism regardless of how they are worded, but in any case, he's not notable. DGG ( talk ) 04:00, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:55, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A search turned up nothing in-depth from independent
    WP:NBIO. Narky Blert (talk) 15:34, 16 September 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ghelani

Ghelani (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 page isn't appropriate for Wikipedia as it merely offers subjective opinions about the derivation of a surname, with no evidence and a number of frankly bizarre assumptions. The Raincloud Kid (talk) 11:09, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:27, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree that this is nothing more than pure speculation and original research Spiderone 11:57, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 12:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:22, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:55, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to

(non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:29, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Pannonian Romance

AfDs for this article:
talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 18:58, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 18:58, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 18:58, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
About the contents: having checked the sources (each one can be checked online luckily, although it may take some advanced googling in GBooks), I can say that they either only support circumstantial content or discuss
WP:VERIFIABLE. --HyperGaruda (talk) 22:18, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Changed !vote, considering that it is a viable search term, as demonstrated by that one passing mention. --HyperGaruda (talk) 09:02, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- It looks like a valid article to me. The subject matter seems to be about something transitional between late Latin and Romanian. The worst that should happen this that this merged or redirected, but where? However this is not my subject. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:57, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Godric on Leave (talk) 10:18, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This points to scholarly legitimacy: "This article is not the right place to discuss the complex problem whether Pannonian Romance was very close to Proto-Romanian ...". And this appears relevant too: "In the West, only Britain and Pannonia changed their language (from Celtic to Anglo-Saxon, and from a Romance language to the Ugrian language Hungarian)." Thinly covered subject, but quite encyclopedic IMO. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 13:05, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Thinly covered" versus the GNG's
significant coverage requirement... --HyperGaruda (talk) 04:32, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
The page articulates an apparently legitimate scholarly discourse, largely based on offline sources. Its Italian peer does the same, referring also to several Italian sources. As I wrote, the topic appears to have scholarly legitimacy and hence genuine encyclopedic character. It is also politically charged, since it relates to Romanian vs. Hungarian claims over Transsylvania. The crucial "Bonosa" hairpin is significantly mentioned in "The Romanians in the Anonymous Gesta Hungarorum. Truth and Fiction" by Alexandru Madgearu, Cluí-Napoca, 2005 : "... a very important discovery. which proves that the inhabitants continued to speak Latin in the 6th century. A gold hairpin of local manufacture found in this 6th century cemetery bears the inscription BONOSA". Whether this is is relevant to the mechanical implementation of WP policies, I don't know. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 07:33, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can slap a list of books on a page, but without proper referencing to pages, we are left to wonder whether they are genuine sources or just there to make it look professional. And I do not doubt the Pannonians continued to speak some sort of Latin at the time, but at least I was not able to distill a defined other language besides (vulgar) Latin and
proto-Romanian out of the listed sources. --HyperGaruda (talk) 09:02, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
A distinction that does not appear to be common/accepted knowledge, considering the utter lack of sources that actually discuss such a transition. Heck, even the wikipage is mostly discussing the Pannonian people and their history, rather than what they spoke. --HyperGaruda (talk) 09:02, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is some confusion here. The transition from Latin to the Romance languages is a huge topic with a substantial scholarly literature devoted to it (see e.g. [50],[51], [52]). Here we are talking about an hypothetical language, whose very existence is controversial. The controversy and hence the topic however are arguably scholarly relevant. By the way, the relationship to
History of Romanian. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 17:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Redirect to Pannonia (locality) as the better target. The article is largely unsourced original research and sources look sketchy. I'm not able to find sufficient reliable sources to justify an article. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:22, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  06:32, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last relist. Possibility of merge or redirect, but target article is unclear.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 14:24, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:55, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 12:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hands-On Machine Learning with Scikit-Learn & TensorFlow

Hands-On Machine Learning with Scikit-Learn & TensorFlow (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 book does not appear to meet

WP:NBOOK. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:17, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:57, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of many books on this subject. Too early to determine whether this particular book will become a classic (published this year). Delete. --bender235 (talk) 14:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:52, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete fails WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG. could not find any third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 05:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this is one of the many books on this subject. Self help books about technologies are quite common. This one has been recently published and I cannot see any particular significance to distinguish it from the rest.--DreamLinker (talk) 12:57, 13 September 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. Based on the consensus of this discussion. Alex ShihTalk 16:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pearlretta DuPuy

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

Poorly sourced biography of a person whose only discernible claim of notability is that she was a member of almost entirely non-notable local clubs. And the only sources here are a 100-word blurb in a biographical dictionary of mostly non-notable people, and a family genealogy in which she's briefly namechecked on a single page — which means she isn't the subject of anywhere near enough

WP:GNG, and she has no notability claim strong enough to exempt her from having to clear GNG. As important as it is to address Wikipedia's gender imbalance, the way to do that is not to apply strict notability and sourcing standards to men while letting women into Wikipedia just because they can be nominally verified as having been vice-president of a local social club. Bearcat (talk) 21:16, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

WP:AUTHOR for being president of a local library's weekly book club even though she never actually wrote anything herself. Bearcat (talk) 21:32, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
"Parliamentarian (consultant): A parliamentarian is an expert on parliamentary procedure who advises organizations and deliberative assemblies. This sense of the term "parliamentarian" is distinct from the usage of the same term to mean a member of Parliament. [...] Parliamentarians are expected to be experts in meeting procedures and such books as Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised as well as the rules of the body they are working for." --Elisa.rolle (talk) 22:31, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:12, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:12, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless examples of more substantial coverage can be provided. References number 2, 3, 4, 5 currently listed in the article are just brief mentions. The only current source providing more substantial coverage is ref no. 1 on p. 39, [53]. It is a brief biographical entry, about 6 sentences/approximately 80 words total. GoggleBooks and GoogleScholar searches do not produce anything else of relevance except one brief mention here[54]. As things stand, does not pass
    WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 23:35, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Nsk92 you are searching in the wrong way unfortunately at the time there was no use of first name for women. If you search for "mrs. Robert g. Dupuy" you have more hits... this is the result of how women were treated beginning of the XX century. And more than google books a better source for these figures is archive.com or newspaper.com. Elisa.rolle (talk) 23:44, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Could you give a link to make these searches on as I can't find much yet? Xxanthippe (talk) 00:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Xxanthippe:
archive.org "mrs robert g. dupuy" (2 hits): [55]
archive.org "mrs robert dupuy" (6 hits): [56]
archive.org "mrs r. g. dupuy" (2 hits): [57]
archive.org pearlretta dupuy (2 hits): [58]
newspapers.com "mrs robert g. dupuy" (9 hits): [59]
newspapers.com "mrs robert dupuy" (1883 to 1939) (16 hits): [60]
newspapers.com "mrs r. g. dupuy" (1883 to 1939) (38 hits): [61]
newspapers.com pearlretta dupuy (1 hits): [62]
as per comment below, they are still using male-oriented logic. --Elisa.rolle (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the immense effort that you have but into this BIO. You have established that the person existed but unfortunately the references are all trivial. Extistence does not confer notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:44, 4 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]
I tried varies searches along the lines of what Elisa.rolle suggested but have found essentially nothing. For a genuinely notable subject from late 19th-early 20th century one would expect to find more examples of later and more recent coverage, including some mentions in modern scholarship, etc. That's not the case here. Nsk92 (talk) 05:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NEXIST Atsme📞📧 01:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Keep There is evidence that the biography should be allowed to grow. this indicated that the subject used "Pearl" as a diminutive. Searching under Pearl Severance, [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69] indicates that she had recognition in Iowa, California and Arizona as a zither player. this indicates she taught the instrument. this while not substantial, also indicates that she was of interest in more than just a local area. (I actually found several references in Waterloo, Iowa though most were simply social visits to the area). As Elisa.rolle pointed out, searching for women, especially historic women requires more skill than a google search for one name. As for the "mentions in modern scholarship" that is not a requirement on WP. She meets GNG, as there is enough coverage in independent reliable sources which cover the subject over time to create a fairly comprehensive biography without performing original research. SusunW (talk) 16:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Despite the hard work that has been put into the media searches, nothing of enough significance to confer notability has been found. Recognition of teaching the zither, a worthy activity that contributes to society, is not enough for notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:44, 4 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep A lot of recentism and IDONTLIKEIT in this debate. The historic sources are print, and if they were 21st century, we'd have more than enough to establish WP:GNG. Just because the Zither is not an electric guitar or that the coverage has a society column tone does not mean that there was no notability in the time. The article has multiple third-party sources independent of the subject. It is adequate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montanabw (talk • contribs)
Regardless of whether
WP:IDONTLIKEIT, it remains that there are no in-depth sources to support this biography. The fact that sources cannot be found has never been taken to prove that they must exist. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:16, 6 September 2017 (UTC).[reply
]
Wikipedia does not have any rule that our sources have to be published online; print-only sources do count toward GNG. But we do have a rule that sources have to be shown to exist. It is not enough to simply presume that better sources probably exist somewhere, because anybody could simply claim that about anything whatsoever. I could claim that somebody wrote a book about my cat and get her into Wikipedia if I didn't have to prove it. Bearcat (talk) 15:26, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure when the argument that there are not sources came out. The point has always been that the way how the sources were researched is wrong. There are plenty of sources, in print and with the name of DuPuy in the headline. Therefore if, as per previous comment, "print-only sources do count toward GNG", than as stated by others before, this article meet
WP:GNG. on Archive.org you have print books with DuPuy in them. on Newspapers.com there are plenty of articles.Elisa.rolle (talk) 23:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:52, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per previous editors; locating extensive sources on these historic figures is often difficult; that this one appears in a number of major, reputable listings establishes adequate indicia of notability. Montanabw(talk) 18:55, 12 September 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Collision Conference

Collision Conference (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)

What secondary sourcing there is here is not enough for this to pass the GNG. Plus, what there is is really not great--this is basically an op-ed piece that does little more than promote, and this reads the same way. This might help--but it's actually not about this particular conference, if it's anything at all, but points at the walled garden that this seems to be part of. Drmies (talk) 04:15, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:58, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:32, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:32, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:32, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:34, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a variety of extra sources to show the notability of the conference, such as coverage from USA Today, The Guardian, and Inc.com. The USA Today article suggests that Collision Conference is the biggest rival to

SXSW, which already has a very established Wikipedia page. Similar smaller, not as notable, events already have Wikipedia pages such as Slush and Dublin Tech Summit with less notable sources than Collision. If these events are considered notable enough for Wikipedia, then Collision is too. --JordanSamBoyd (talk) 09:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:41, 10 September 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.

T
22:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Assertive Display

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

Declined prod. Promotional for a feature of ARM displays.

talk) 02:53, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk • mail) 14:45, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
All those articles are sourced to Apical and Qualcomm and are basically PR. --Pontificalibus (talk) 12:59, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:08, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Pontificalibus: what are the problems with the coverage cited in the article and the additional sources I reference above? ~Kvng (talk) 14:44, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, all those articles are sourced to Apical and Qualcomm and are basically PR. By these I mean none of the sources pass
WP:SPIP as they don't appear to be sufficiently independent, but just regurgitated press releases.--Pontificalibus (talk) 15:00, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
For example the second link you posted androidheadlines.com gives the source as this Apical page where much of the content has been directly copied from.--Pontificalibus (talk) 15:24, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I missed/forgot about your earlier comment. I respect and appreciate your assessment though I still believe there is enough qualifying
WP:SECONDARY coverage to establish notability. ~Kvng (talk) 17:38, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:40, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- borders on G11 with promo content and non independent sources. Lacks SIGCOV in 3rd party sources; what comes up is PR driven or passing mentions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:36, 14 September 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carrie & Tommy

Carrie & Tommy (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)

Radio shows generally aren't notable, and I can't find any indication of this one being notable. The only references are regarding the pending start of the show.

talk) 01:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:13, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:13, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:05, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete fails WP:GNG. not suitable for redirect as would need to go to 3 articles. LibStar (talk) 04:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@LibStar: Then maybe should be a disambiguation page? (Just a passing comment, don't have a opinion in this entry.) --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:59, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:39, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- fails
    WP:GNG. These shows are generally transient, so a redirect to another entity would not be appropriate. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:27, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 12:05, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Behind the Voice Actor Awards

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

Fails

WP:EVENT due to lack of reliable sources. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 00:10, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:24, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:28, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:28, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 07:42, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 07:43, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While BTVA is a helpful website for verifying filmography credits, that doesn't even have an article, and there isn't much coverage in secondary sources, only anime convention announcements and the actors' websites themselves when they win the award. Compare to Crunchyroll Anime Awards which has more secondary source coverage. It too was AFD'ed and result redirected to Crunchyroll. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:34, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:03, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:39, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here might be a source (at work, so can't review) for something: [74]. That said, it's the only one popping on the VG CSE, so I'm inclined to a delete for demonstrating at this time a lack of notability. --Izno (talk) 13:28, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete.

WP:REFUND applies. SoWhy 09:09, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Firas Alsarray

Firas Alsarray (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 evidence of notability, no article at either arWP or faWP to support notability — billinghurst sDrewth 09:11, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:05, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:05, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable film director. Does not meet notability requirements for filmmakers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:21, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by BD2412 (talk • contribs) 04:00, 10 September 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:32, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ami Dror

Ami Dror (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)

Struggling to find enough independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Fails

WP:SPA (Amidror1973 - looks like an autobiography). Edwardx (talk) 22:35, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:40, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:40, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mild keep: I updated it, but I am not 100% certain (hence my "mild" vote) if he has attained notability yet. Seems very young though year of birth not available so maybe
    just too soon. Quis separabit? 00:04, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete nothing in the article indicates he is more than just a run of the mill business founder.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:08, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - I don't see the required level coverage in Hebrew and English. There's some "feel good" coverage on his latest Arab-Israeli venture - which also goes to him. in XPAND he was a co-founder, and wasn't the CEO (Had some sort of marketing title), mentioned mainly in the context of the company. 1-3 additional, good in-depth pieces about him would probably make him notable, but with what I found - I don't see it.Icewhiz (talk) 09:11, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:49, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleteim agree with Johnpacklambert Leodikap (talk) 15:41, 11 September 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. czar 17:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Gerrity

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

Delete: does not meet threshold for notability as

actor. Quis separabit? 23:13, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:51, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:51, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:51, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:52, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:49, 10 September 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Silvera for Seniors

Silvera for Seniors (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)

promotional article for small social service organization in one city. DGG ( talk ) 05:09, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:47, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:47, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 19:05, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:35, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --
    WP:ADVOCACY for a local charity; significant coverage not found. Wikipedia is not a free means of promotion, even for worthy causes. Such content belongs on the org's web site, not here. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:24, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete Advocacy Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:00, 11 September 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. czar 17:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rap Snacks

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

Doesn't appear to meet

WP:SPAs and promotional language has been seriously toned down, but not completely. Some sources, but not enough. Boleyn (talk) 08:04, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:34, 10 September 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. SoWhy 15:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Sutton (criminologist)

Mike Sutton (criminologist) (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)

Abandoned since 2010, primarily contributed to by biased sources. Self promotion. mordicai. (talk) 10:28, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:25, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnpacklambert: Could you expand on your reasoning, please? – Joe (talk) 12:22, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Needs to be thoroughly trimmed, but there is a notable subject underneath the promotional junk. As a criminologist, Sutton is reasonably well cited (
    WP:GNG on its own. The fact that the article has not been edited in a while, and the content has outstanding problems, are not valid arguments for deletion. – Joe (talk) 12:20, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: Posted at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Mike Sutton (criminologist). – Joe (talk) 12:25, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 12:26, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:31, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 21:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 21:24, 16 September 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 problem with this debate is even those proposing to merge to UK deaths in custody are concerned about the appropriateness of a merge. I think the best thing to do is to delete for the moment, then userfy the article when somebody is prepared to do a suitable merge. (PS: On seeing this, I raced to the news sites thinking the more famous Richard O'Brien had died.) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Richard O'Brien

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

Delete: as non-notable incident. If we are going to include the deaths of everyone in police custody around the world, then we need to change our priorities. This is not inherently notable; it is ethnic coatracking. Quis separabit? 13:50, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:37, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Received significant, in-depth coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources for many years. Had lasting significance with police forced to pay sizeable compensation. Nom's rationale is dishonest and incendiary. AusLondonder (talk) 02:45, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Rather than criticism of
    talk) 09:35, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
When the nom chooses to make comments suggesting "ethnic coatracking" then they should expect criticism. AusLondonder (talk) 14:47, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You have a point there, although I'm not sure if 'dishonest and incendiary' or references to 'ethnic
talk) 15:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting so that further discussion can hopefully concentrate on questions of notability rather than (perceived or otherwise) personal agendas, etc.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
velut luna 11:47, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
which article is that?
talk) 19:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
UK deaths in custody or Death in custody. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seems a reasonable idea. I don't think this article merits its own article, but as as section of a larger article, it would at least still be included.
talk) 07:15, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:30, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and selective merge to UK deaths in custody, seems appropriate because case got substantive news coverage and is mentioned in books, gBooks search [87]. However, If anyone wants to take a closer look and make a substantive case for keeping, ping me and I'll revisit. Note that page describes him as an Irish nation, and - I'm stereotyping - his name is O'Brian; neverthelessthis gBooks hit [88] in a book called Race, Crime and Resistance, by By Tina G Patel & David Tyrer, seems to assert that he was not white and that this was race-related.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC) Striking that because while my comment was accurate, I went to a news archive and checked. That book looks reputable, but the authors mistook. O'Brien was of Irish ethnicity, but his case is often discussed in a group or series of police custody deaths that happened soon after one another and that involved the death of The Guardian: "The three, two blacks and an Irishman, died after they were forcibly restrained.". [89]. After scaning the coverage, I continue to think redirect.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. SoWhy 14:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Ritchey

Jimmy Ritchey (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)

reliable source coverage about him to support an article -- but the references here are glancings namecheck of Ritchey's existence in an unreliable source list of Owen's songs, and a brief blurb in an industry trade publication about him signing a songwriting deal with a record label. So I'm willing to withdraw this if the sourcing can be improved, but nothing here entitles him to a Wikipedia article just because he exists if the sourcing for it is this weak. Bearcat (talk) 17:00, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

I am not exactly certain why you believe the article Jimmy Ritchey should be deleted. Is it the fact that you believe the sources are vague, or unreliable, or is it that you believe that Jimmy Ritchey is not entitled to an article? Please, let me know, so I may try to improve the article in the direction you mean. Citationhelper(talk) 01:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment - A significant number of blue-linked songs written by this subject, which should be taken into consideration. Carrite (talk) 16:51, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A fairly clear pass of GNG here. See, for example, THIS PIECE from the Lewis County (WA) Chronicle. Carrite (talk) 16:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note also that a label signing was deemed worthy of mention in the Aug. 4, 2001 issue of Billboard, pg. 31. LINK. Carrite (talk) 16:57, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notability asserted as co-writer of a #1 hit on a major chart. Several notable songs in
    WP:NMUSIC quite easily. I added a few more sources. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:20, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Notability cannot just be asserted; it has to be
properly referenced. Passing NMUSIC is not a question of what the article says, but of how well it sources what it says — and none of the sourcing present in the article is acceptable. Bearcat (talk) 05:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:21, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As stated, meets notability guidelines by being co-writer for a charted song. 331dot (talk) 00:40, 11 September 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:30, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aimee Challenor

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

Note that this is written differently enough from the first version that it doesn't qualify for immediate speedy as a recreation of deleted content -- however, neither her actual notability claim nor the sources are appreciably stronger than the first time. Being an individual issue spokesperson for a minor political party is not an automatic inclusion pass -- it would be fine if she could be sourced well enough to clear

blog -- which means there's only one source here (#5) that represents coverage about her in a reliable source, but one acceptable source is not enough sources to pass GNG. As always, Wikipedia is not a place where anybody is entitled to have an article just because it's technically possible to verify that she exists -- she has to be the subject of reliable source coverage in media independent of her to qualify, but that's not what the sources here are. Bearcat (talk) 21:05, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:20, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:20, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:21, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've added further sources that I've found through Google. Hope this helps with your request above. I've also found other Green Party Spokespeople with pages, for example; Rachel Collinson. Thanks, Digestive Biscuit (talk) 12:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A political party spokesperson can get an article if she's the subject of enough reliable source coverage to clear
primary sources and more glancing namechecks of her existence in coverage that is about subjects other than her. So no, you still haven't demonstrated that she clears GNG. Bearcat (talk) 18:33, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:18, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unelected politician, not a party leader. Carrite (talk) 01:51, 15 September 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. Needs work and additional sources, but not deletion. While I am not that familiar with this genre of music, there does appear to be a fair amount of coverage, which contributes to the notability of the subject and passes WP:MUSICBIO.

(non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:56, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Robb Banks

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

Fails

WP:MUSICBIO. Only paragraph-long bios on hip-hop websites to support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:34, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:42, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:42, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:42, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There appear to be multiple examples of non-trivial coverage on this person's music, enough in my view to meet
    WP:MUSICBIO. I have added references to the article.  gongshow  talk  00:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:16, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article needs some work, including some citations needed for some uncited passages, but I would concur with Gongshow above that there seem to be enough sources here to meet notability. 331dot (talk) 00:36, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Musician with several noted successes within the music industry (songs that charted, collaborations with established artists, etc...) This isn't an advertisement for someone's dream, but rather an artist who has passed the threshold of notability. 2602:306:CCC2:5F00:D129:5510:BB24:1DBE (talk) 22:43, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May I also add that notability shouldn't be subjective. I've seen too many times where we've deleted articles on various celebrities despite them meeting the "letter of law" for notability, because they weren't on a network or genre the person supported. For example, despite an extensive career in TV, Teck Holmes's entry in Wikipedia was deleted for lack of notability. This man starred in a season of MTV's Real World, then continued with career with a number of other appearances on the network and in various movies catering to the African-American community, with a cast of actors with similiar star power. If you are a fan of hip-hop, then the references easily validate his notability. If you loathe hip-hop, then you have never heard of him or his famous father either. But that fact doesn't reject his notability in my book. He has released several albums and not self-published with 20 sales, but through established record labels. A quick search shows songs that charted. That is in keeping with WP: MUSIC BIO and again too many times I see articles get rejected that would easily meet the guidelines of notability, merely because the genre is not what the delete nominator would like. You do not have to be Jay-Z to be a successful hip-hop artist. I say this as an objective, but R&B, Opera, and sometimes Rock music fan :-D

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_September_10&oldid=1142617457"