Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 May 14

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 13 May 15 May >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Anybody is free to write a new, non-COI, better sourced, replacement for this, per

WP:TNT -- RoySmith (talk) 14:05, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Thornton Hall

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

Article about a defunct private school, "referenced" to a contextless and unfootnoted smattering of glancing namechecks of its existence in books about other things, and

conflict of interest editing is the only possible explanation for how an article can simultaneously contain this much deep detail and this little actual referencing for any of it. Bearcat (talk) 23:41, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk • mail) 04:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk • mail) 04:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
A lot of the text is very likely to be original research or copied from a text somewhere. I could comment it out until it can be written and referenced neutrally. But it isn't primary topic for Thornton Hall, as the one in Thornton, Buckinghamshire is more noteworthy [3] and there are other Thornton Halls as found in the Thornton Hall (disambiguation) page I created. That Buckinghamshire one is currently being used as a private school as well. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:24, 15 May 2018 (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 Draftify. Moving to

Draft:List of candidates by riding for the 43rd Canadian federal election J04n(talk page) 17:23, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

List of candidates by riding for the 43rd Canadian federal election

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

43rd Canadian federal election) to exist as soon as the previous one was done counting its beans, the results table has always waited until the election campaign was actually underway. There's no value in this existing as a placeholder page this far in advance, if there are this few confirmed candidates to actually list yet. Bearcat (talk) 22:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:58, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:58, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to Elections Canada[1] there are now seven official Conservative candidates, and numerous nomination candidates who have publicly declared their candidacy. I was planning to change the page today to footnote the various Conservative incumbents who have the right of acclamation (via Conservative Party deadline that passed last November) but have not publicly declared their intention of running again. The Wikipedia:Too_soon criteria do not address elections. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 14:06, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are 338 electoral districts nationwide, with four political parties that are likely to have a complete slate of candidates across the country and a fifth that is likely to have a complete slate of candidates across the province of Quebec. That means 1,430 candidates minimum, before you have even accounted for the fact that an unpredictable number of minor candidates, for fringe parties and/or independents, are likely to run as well — so for the sake of argument, let's just spitball 70 fringers, so that the number of candidates across Canada hits exactly 1,500. (It will, in reality, be considerably more than just 70, but for the sake of the math I had to pick a random number.) So one party having seven confirmed candidates equals 0.46 per cent of the total (and only just barely two per cent of its own party slate), which is nowhere near high enough a percentage to suggest that the nationwide results table is already needed this far in advance. Bearcat (talk) 16:55, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @G. Timothy Walton: - just because candidates have the right of acclamation does not mean they can reliably be determined as the candidates - 18 months is a long time and multiple ones (not just an unanticipated one or two) might decide they don't want to run (or at least run there). Specific sources confirming candidates as actually running I would argue are needed to make clear statements on this timescale. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:01, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment @Nosebagbear: - I've changed the page so that all Conservative incumbents without a public commitment to run are listed as unconfirmed nominees with a footnote that they have the right of acclamation; there are a lot of them so it will be a while before I finish slogging through Google and Facebook searches for each one to see if they've confirmed running again. There are a lot of Conservatives who have declared publicly that they want their party's nomination. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 15:14, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and despite their intentions some of them may still not actually run again, for various personal or professional reasons that may range from family matters, to quitting to run for mayor of their hometown or their provincial party, to getting embroiled in a scandal, to outright death. It's
WP:CRYSTAL for us to simply presume that an incumbent MP definitively will run again just because they've stated their intention to do so eighteen months before the election. Bearcat (talk) 17:06, 15 May 2018 (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. per

cheap shit room 12:36, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Honey garlic sauce

Honey garlic sauce (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 user named Madmoons repeatedly nominated this for PROD, but it was contested. Madmoons does not believe that this is an "important" topic. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:05, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk • mail) 04:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.

No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America1000 02:24, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Martynas Linkevičius

Martynas Linkevičius (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

π, ν) 22:57, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 04:30, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 04:30, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 04:30, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:52, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:48, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:28, 14 May 2018 (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. —SpacemanSpiff 07:45, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shri Guru Madiwaleshwara

Shri Guru Madiwaleshwara (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 about a religious figure does not meet our notability or verifiability requirements. Aside from presenting religious dogma as fact, neither of this article's two sources actually mention this person. I can't find anything more substantial either. Reyk YO! 08:12, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk • mail) 11:24, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk • mail) 11:24, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk • mail) 11:24, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:06, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:22, 14 May 2018 (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, default to keep. On the one hand, the keep voters relied in part on sources that we later established not to be independent reliable sources. On the other hand, User:Aoziwe makes a valid argument regarding the depth of local sources. The participants advocating delete made good arguments as well, but ultimately the discussion, despite two re-listings, did not successfully generate a consensus one way or another. Steve Smith (talk) 08:22, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

D'Faces of Youth Arts

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

Non notable local (Whyalla) interest group. No national coverage. Local awards only. No claims of importance or significance beyond it own locality. Primary sources. Fails

WP:ORG Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:17, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:40, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:40, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:40, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:40, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:40, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:40, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The two government sites are not independent reliable sources. The Country Arts is clearly labeled as a media release. None of those are any good for GNG. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:11, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Normally I would agree with the NOM on one like this, but while local there is very sufficient sustained non primary coverage for a more in-depth article than usual.
    WP:ORG gives two criteria for the presumption of notability but like all NSUBJECT guides the converse of not meeting these does NOT imply a presumption of not notable. The article seems to be well enough referenced and the subject seems to have quite a sufficient local profile. It is recognised in some state level Government sources. Aoziwe (talk) 11:58, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Seems is not is. Local is local, however many sources there are in the newspaper. It's not difficult to get mentioned in a local newspaper. Local news media is always desperate for fillers. They will even report on a hoe stolen from a garden shed or a missing cat. D'Faces of Youth Arts has not hit nationwide, or even major out-of-state news outlets.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:10, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Adelaide Now source is very clearly only a trivial mention, nothing significant or sustained there. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:11, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:05, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:05, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

László Z. Karvalics

László Z. Karvalics (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)

BLP lacking reliable citations, no inline citations. May not pass

WP:NBIO due to sources not being given to back up claims made in the article. Kirbanzo (talk) 14:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:05, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:05, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:22, 14 May 2018 (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. Sandstein 12:05, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Renato Vercelli

Renato Vercelli (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)

Very very very close paraphrase of [5] which is the only source extant, and is not independent or RS. I Speedy'd all three for COPYVIO, but only Gemma Vercelli was accepted as such. So putting both Giulio Romano Vercelli and Renato Vercelli up for AfD. The museum collections are unverifiable, and seem likely to be inflated, as I can't find anything legit about them online or in databases. BTW not this painter by a similar name [6] Theredproject (talk) 15:41, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:34, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:58, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Guide to Available Mathematical Software

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

The topic of this article is a web site. There are no secondary sources that attest the notability of this site. The web site lists mathematical software as installed on the servers of NIST. It has little interest for practitioners outside NIST. An article about this web site has even less interest. -- Oisguad (talk) 20:11, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. My opinion on this might be stronger if we had anything more than the thinnest of stubs here. In any case, the nomination isn't particularly accurate (specifically: this is a public-facing service, not software internal to NIST). In any case, this looks like secondary source coverage, and this journal article is technically not independent (author is a NIST researcher), but represents something of an analysis of the system. Other sources seem forthcoming from both Books and Scholar searches (although there are some false positives, especially with the journal search). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk • mail) 04:06, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk • mail) 04:06, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk • mail) 04:06, 15 May 2018 (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. The somewhat predictable participants somewhat predictably disagree about whether this is an OR/SYNTH aggregation of incidents, or a topic that is properly sourced and described as such. This can't be resolved by admin fiat, much like the underlying real-word conflict. The acrimony in this discussion will probably need discretionary sanctions, which I'll look at separately. Sandstein 11:18, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish Israeli stone throwing

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, (long tagged for notability, also see discussions on talk page,) is a COATRACK from which to hang a series of unrelated instances in which a Jew living in Mandatory Palestine or in Israel has thrown stones. But is this even a TOPIC? I can find no INDEPTH analysis showing that Jewish Israeli stone throwing exists as a topic. Article is divided among, "Historical" covering dramatic moments during Israel's war of independence when, for example, the defenders of

Haredi agitators at Sabbath-breakers, immodestly dressed women, and so forth. The incidents listed in the article have nothing in common, certainly not a common topic. Moreover they are sourced to news reports merely show that stones were thrown. To keep an article, we need to have a coherent topic and sources that address that INDEPTH.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:56, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk • mail) 04:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep It is going to take some time to differentiate sources discussing Palestinian stone throwing between Jewish, even when you literally search for "Jewish stone throwing". Nonetheless, news cites discuss it and specific instances [7][8][9], and journals do as well. I agree with Malik that it is highly hypocritical to ask whether this is "a thing"; I have no doubt that the nom would gladly vote keep for an article on an instance (let alone the topic overall) of Palestinian stone throwing, yet chooses to ignore the notability of this subject.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:43, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please provide a link, or name of the "journal" article, your link leads only to the library at Penn State. Your other sources argue for redirecting this page to Israeli settler violence.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's also not a "thing" as you say to have this article because while there most certainly may be instances of stone throwing by Jews in Israel, it's not really ingrained in culture and methods as it is for the Palestinians. We don't need an article on every form of violence, the reason why Palestinian stone throwing is notable is because it is a distinct form notable to the area. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:55, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you read the sources provided above, as well as
    the recent and currently ongoing entries on the TP, you see that, on the contrary stone throwing is very much ingrained in at least two Israeli Jewish subcultures: the Haredi and the settler cultures.XavierItzm (talk) 12:30, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
To prove my point, E.M. Gregory just created
Rusf10 (talk) 02:28, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
  • XavierItzm, you note above that this article is about stone-throwing within "two Israeli Jewish subcultures: the Haredi and the settler cultures." But given that the Haredi subculture throws stones for highly focuses reasons (at women holding a type of prayer service they disapprove of, or at gay parades,) while the fringe of the settler movement throws stones in as a tit-for-tat response to Palestinian stone throwing, you need ot explain in what sense these two things constitute a single topic? Logic seems to dictate that we cover settler rock-throwing at Israeli settler violence, and cver Haredi stone-throwing at Haredi political violence, Haredi stone-throwing or similar.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:05, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure one option is exclusive of another. Generally in Wikipedia one seeks for the untrained seeker to easily find information, and then follow links if so desired. Certainly one could have a page on "Jewish Israeli stone-throwing" and link to more detail on the proper subsections of Settler Violence and of Haredi Violence, or vice-versa. This is the solution adopted in the "public toilets" page, for example: just because Pissoir is a very specific (and pluri-millenial) example of public toilet, it does not mean that the Pissoir page gets deleted; on the contrary, "public toilets" links to Pissoir which has more detail on urinary-only public toilets from Roman times to the present and yet pissoirs are also discussed on the public toilets page. Borrowing again from the Pissoir analogy, historical Jewish stone-throwing from Palestine Mandate times probably fits better here than under Settler or under Haredi violence.XavierItzm (talk) 19:03, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That section provides the narrative that Israeli only throw stones in self-defense. You are throwing a lot of accusations @
Rusf10 (talk) 16:20, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep This article was created from the parallel Palestinian stone-throwing article because several editors there objected to the information re Jewish Israeli stone-throwing I entered there per
    WP:NPOV. E.M Gregory with a record of writing up immediately articles to document Palestinian violence, stone throwing,etc. dislikes this reminder that what he finds appalling,sufficiently so to warrant a wiki page, is also quite common, esp. among West Bank settlers. You can'ìt have it both ways: objecting to a section on Jewish stone throwing in the West Bank on the Palestinian stone-throwing page, and, when the material is moved to its own separate page, object to the existence of that page on wikipedia, testifies only to bias and distaste. The request it be deleted is a patent abuse of our obligations to be neutral (i.e.e covering both sides particularly when the behaviour is identical).The phenomenal is far more common than our page so far documents, and occurs almost on a daily basis among settlers targeting Palestinian farmers, as anyone who keeps tuned to reportage on Youtube can see. And EMG, you should have notified me you proposed deletion of my work.Had it not been for the courtesy and procedural rectitude of Rusf10, this would probably have been disappeared before I noticed, also because I hadn't been notified to argue on behalf of its retention.Nishidani (talk) 19:18, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
While E.M. Gregory didn't break any rules by not notifying you, it is bad form to create an AfD without notifying the page creator (especially when it is such a contentious issue). I always notify when I create an AfD.--
Rusf10 (talk) 19:28, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Are you sure "none of the sources discuss the topic"? For example, ref #20, to cite just one example, specifically addresses the entirety of issue, including Ethiopian Jews, Haredi Jews, and settler Jews:
«And let’s not fool ourselves - Jews are no strangers to rock-throwing.
Recent examples of Israelis using stones as weapons against Palestinians are numerous, especially, but not exclusively in Jerusalem and the West Bank. Residents of East Jerusalem have thrown stones at the neighboring Palestinian refugee camp, Shuafat. Just last January, settlers threw stones at an American convoy containing diplomats who came to examine complaints that settlers destroyed Palestinian-owned olive groves. And Palestinian complaints of stone-throwing and firebombing as harassment methods happens again and again.
And then there is the frequent use of stone-throwing in situations utterly unrelated to the Palestinian conflict. Protesting crowds of ultra-Orthodox Jews have thrown stones while decrying everything from army recruitment, to archaeological digs, to Shabbat desecration, to members of their community being arrested for tax evasion. Stones have also been hurled at the cars of secular and national religious women deemed to be inappropriately dressed in ultra-Orthodox neighborhoods.
And can we really forget so quickly that it was just last April, that angry Ethiopian youth stood in the streets hurling stones, bottles, and firebombs at storefronts and police in the heart of Tel Aviv. »[2].
Clearly this is an issue which Israelis in Israel look at as a whole, and is not a series of unrelated news events, as you propose. XavierItzm (talk) 20:56, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "Nomination Contest Database". Elections Canada. Retrieved 15 May 2018.
  2. ^ Allison Kaplan Sommer (18 September 2015). "When Jews Throw Stones, Will Israeli Police Open Fire?". Haaretz. Retrieved 16 May 2018.
I admit I missed 20. However it is op-edish and in the context of legislation enacted to counter Arab stone throwing. I contend that Jewish Israeli are not used as a set, widely. Stone throwing in Israel might.Icewhiz (talk) 21:09, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • An opinion piece by a non-notable writer that ran in a low-circulation newspaper at one edge of the Israeli political spectrum is not representative of how "Israelis in Israel look at" anything. You are sort of proving the point that sources are just not out there for this as a subject. Haredi stone throwing, Israeli settler violence, and Palestinian stone throwing, now, those are coherent topics. E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:21, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Once more, Icewhiz, I must remind you what all RS state and everyone bar yourself apparently knows here, the West Bank (and Jerusalem in international law for that matter) is not in Israel, and therefore suggesting as a reformulation 'Stone Throwing in Israel' for material that deals with events technically beyond Israel's recognized sovereignty is a non-sequitur, or non-starter.Nishidani (talk) 21:33, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
An I used Jewish Israeli because they do the stone throwing unlike Palestinian Israelis who are 20% of Israelis and not know for hurling strones at West Bank Palestinians.Nishidani (talk) 22:03, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
EM Gregory you are used double standards, just as you write a stub on (tragic as it was) a barely notable inciodent (several unarmed Palestinians are shot every week: we do not memorialize each case) Ohana as victim of Palestinian stone throwing while pressing to delete an general article on similar behaviour from the other ethnicity. And here, while you used Arutz Sheva a notorious settler POV pushing rag to source the Ohana article, you now say Haaretz, the best internatioonally acknowledged source of Israeli liberal Zionis opinion is a neglibible source.Nishidani (talk) 21:33, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do not twist my words. (I described Kaplan Sommer as a nonnotable writer and described Haaretz accurately; it is popular internationally, not among Israelis. Arutz Shava, which has a large circulation in Israel, is reliable on a fact about the establishment and motivation of a West Bank settlement.)I have argued consistently for the material on settler stone throwing to be redirected to Israeli settler violence. And that Haredi stone belongs in an article on Haredi political violence, or a similar title.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:02, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong Arutz Sheva has been adjudicated at the RSN as not reliable on facts. A large circulation never translates into RS, as you must know. Were that true, English tabloids, party papers in China, etc.etc.etc. would automatically qualify. Arutz Sheva, do you read it? peddles conspiracy theories about every one from Obama to Palestinians and Arabs and employs a known plagiarist, Giulio Meotti.Nishidani (talk) 19:45, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nishidani - we already have an Israeli settler violence which covers the West Bank. I do not see why we would separate "Jewish Israeli" as a separate religion from Druze, Christian, Muslim - or groups such as illegal migrants - in a an article on stone throwing in Israel. Such a division - is not borne out by the sources (even the Haaretz source mentioned above - was covering how new legislation (which would not be in the West Bank, where this would not be in effect) - would affect both Jews and Arabs).Icewhiz (talk) 14:45, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Double standards again. We have dozens of articles already on
Jewish Israeli stone throwing, is unnecessary because we already have Israeli settler violence. So what is being done here by editors is to keep creating numerous new pages on Palestinian violence, while deleting any expansion, per NPOV, of the parallel phenomenon from the other community. If you want specifics on a sub-topic, specifically, Palestinian stone throwing, you can't get hysterical over the creation of an analogous page on Jewish Israeli stone throwing, which is just as common. It's a blatant manipulation of Wikipedia to create a glaring imbalance in coverage and the objections are all subjective pettifoggery. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.Nishidani (talk) 10:43, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Comment.Boy! is that refreshingly thoughtful! I'm going to get my mental rocks off today, a busy one off-line taking up your hint about stones in classical literature (I've done some work on the Biblical stuff, but no time to add it here, and had I done so, it would have been removed as
    WP:OR
    ). So my day begins, as I make my way henceforth into the heart of Rome, with Polyphemus hurling half a cliff Odysseus's way:
ὣς ἐφάμην, ὁ δ᾽ ἔπειτα χολώσατο κηρόθι μᾶλλον,
ἧκε δ᾽ ἀπορρήξας κορυφὴν ὄρεος μεγάλοιο,
κὰδ δ᾽ ἔβαλε προπάροιθε νεὸς κυανοπρῴροιο
τυτθόν, ἐδεύησεν δ᾽ οἰήιον ἄκρον ἱκέσθαι, . .
  • If one looks at the Palestinian article, which is constantly being gutted after I tried to built it up into a comprehensive overview from the POV stub it began as, with stuff like this removed, though the eraser has now created at least 2 articles (
    Death of Binyamin Meisner) one will observe that the editor proposing deletion here is engaged in building his case against Palestinians for throwing stones at Jewish Israelis, while systematically contesting articles which document the obverse. Blatant POV pushing in the interests of WP:Systemic bias. It would be easy to mimic this POV pushing by writing a stub like the Ohana one on Edmond Ghanem, to blue link it to this article, but one exercises restraint, with the result that the information re the latter, a perfect instance of murdering a Palestinian by dropping a rock on his head, is suppressed from this article. That's the way these articles are consistently gamed. Nishidani (talk) 09:22, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep – The topic has received significant coverage from numerous
    WP:GNG
    .
As per Malik Shabazz, Nishidani and NSH001, I agree with the apparent editorial hypocrisy/double standard being applied here as this appears to be a politically-motivated nomination in attempt to present a one-sided view of these incidents against NPOV. Tanbircdq (talk)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:08, 22 May 2018 (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. Steve Smith (talk) 08:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy Machinery (professional wrestling)

Heavy Machinery (professional wrestling) (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 tag team GalatzTalk 18:41, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. GalatzTalk 18:41, 14 May 2018 (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. Enigmamsg 04:46, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Myanmar football transfers summer 2018

List of Myanmar football transfers summer 2018 (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)

Generally

WP:FANCRUFT, why can't this be in Myanmar National League/ 2018 Myanmar National League or the individual club as player roster changes. (2017 club roster to 2018 club roster). Not keen for merge as nothing notable to merge, come on individual sign in and out reasons??? No need for redirect as rarely this will be search upon. Quek157 (talk) 18:11, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk • mail) 04:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk • mail) 04:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk • mail) 04:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:15, 19 May 2018 (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. Enigmamsg 04:46, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Meganne Young

Meganne Young (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 actor lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. Fails

WP:ENT. reddogsix (talk) 16:45, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 18:49, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 18:50, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:01, 17 May 2018 (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. Mz7 (talk) 02:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Testimony (Icha Kavons song)

Testimony (Icha Kavons 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)

Fails

WP:NMUSIC. Kleuske (talk) 16:43, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk • mail) 04:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk • mail) 04:07, 15 May 2018 (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 06:22, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kemi Otegbade

Kemi Otegbade (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 individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 16:41, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk • mail) 04:08, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk • mail) 04:08, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk • mail) 04:08, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment: After further search, I discovered she was the executive producer of a notable reality show, and her management of the show led to some controversies. Aside the Vanguard interview, which doesn't seem independent, nothing else seem substantial enough to make this PR woman notable, at least not for now. Article is also filled with puffery. Still sticking with delete. HandsomeBoy (talk) 19:43, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Seems like she has had some notable activities under "Other Activities" section. There are also several proper references from valid sources.Peter303x (talk)
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. Mz7 (talk) 02:42, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of startups in Florida

List of startups in Florida (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 adds no context and hasn't been updated in the two months since it's creation. Snickers2686 (talk) 16:23, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 18:50, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 18:51, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:29, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:29, 14 May 2018 (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 rdelete. Steve Smith (talk) 08:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

National APIA Panhellenic Association

National APIA Panhellenic Association (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)

Apparently not notable by our new and more stringent

standards for organisations (and probably not by the old ones either). Three passing mentions on GNews, nothing in GNews archive, nothing on JSTOR. There are a number of passing mentions in books, but I don't see anything resembling in-depth coverage; the only mention in this book about diversity in sororities/fraternities is apparently attribution for some "advance praise" in the back-cover blurb. A redirect may be a viable alternative to deletion. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:50, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fraternities and sororities-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 12:10, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:16, 14 May 2018 (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 Mio Technology#PDA navigation. J04n(talk page) 17:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mio P560

Mio P560 (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 notable product also poor sources. Article style and clone are not per

WP:MOS policy. Siddiqsazzad001 </Talk> 17:16, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:14, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:50, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Yeah, sources are pretty poor (including an article from WP), and the article is poorly formatted. But I found sources for verification and notability:
    [10], [11], [12] and [13].

The article would require to be rewritten, but wouldn't be a problem for me. I already leave my "Possible keep" here... Gidev the Dood(Talk) 19:56, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:21, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:13, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete- sources are promotional though secondary, and in depth. so no independence. specification based sources are press releases style. with this corpdepth is not there. Quek157 (talk) 15:46, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, or redirect I looked at the current version of the article. It's marginal as far as both sourcing and content goes, but I don't think it's so bad it needs to be deleted. At a minimum, redirect to
    WP:ATD. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:12, 22 May 2018 (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. Steve Smith (talk) 08:27, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Street Profits

Street Profits (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 tag team GalatzTalk 16:09, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. GalatzTalk 16:09, 14 May 2018 (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 06:20, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sierra Capri

Sierra Capri (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 actress that has only one noble role, does not meet the notability guidelines of

WP:TOOSOON category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lbtocth (talk • contribs) 15:43, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Lbtocthtalk 15:48, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. — Lbtocthtalk 15:51, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or at least Merge. A leading role on one series is technically not enough and while she is noted and interviewed the coverage is perhaos not enough to meet the notability guideline but I favor keeping the article independent. She's an up and coming star and her notoriety will only grow with time. If we're going to be sticklers for the rukes then a merge to the show where she and her role are covered would be the appropriate outcome. FloridaArmy (talk) 18:55, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:51, 17 May 2018 (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. Enigmamsg 04:46, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of video games owned by Microsoft Studios on Nintendo platforms

List of video games owned by Microsoft Studios on Nintendo platforms (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)

Trivial list, publisher X on platform Y? That's

WP:SYNTH. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 15:09, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 15:12, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 15:13, 14 May 2018 (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. Steve Smith (talk) 08:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gustavus Zesch

Gustavus Zesch (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 meet the subject-specific Notability criteria for military personnel (

WP:SOLDIER) and there's no evidence in my WP:BEFORE search of anything more than trivial, passing mentions or run-of-the-mill "This person was here" type comments. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:07, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk • mail) 04:10, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk • mail) 04:10, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk • mail) 13:26, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete. Doesn't pass SOLDIER. Some congressional hearings and the like. Not enough coverage for SIGCOV.Icewhiz (talk) 16:22, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a clear example where consensus can get it wrong. There are detailed accounts of his command actions during the Civil War. A Merge / Redirect to
    WP:PRESERVE. All of the commanders of the platoon are notable and Zesch in particular. He commanded a unit of 1848er veterans who fought for the free German States and then during some of the earliest and most important battles of the Civil War on up to Vicksburg. He commanded 6 companies in the Louisiana bayou on a raid. His unit was presented a flag by the lady Turners of Leavenworth. It is part of the state historical society's collection. How do I know all of this? Various reliable sources. The idea that there isn't substantial coverage of this fellow is absurd especially considering not every source is readily available online for events that took place 160 some odd years ago. The article has been greatly expanded with many additional sources since the initial delete votes. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:51, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I beg you @
WP:NSOLDIER before you create any more articles about military personnel. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:56, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
"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." And indeed he satisfies other parts of the policy page as well. First company organized from his area. Important role in significant battles. Etc. Etc. FloridaArmy (talk) 21:14, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure which of the 8 criteria you think he meets. Never mind, consensus will decide. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:16, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well... that's... something. "Assume Good Faith" isn't some sort of blind suicide pact. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:58, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AGF "is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. It is the assumption that editors' edits and comments are made in good faith." and since I see no reason to think otherwise, I will... assume good faith.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:24, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Saying that "the offline sources... show a clear pass of
WP:GNG" is a bit daft when you haven't seen them and don't even know that they exist. Never mind eh. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:28, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
If I had read them, I wouldn't have to "assume" anything. I see no reason to believe that the contributor to the article has not read them and that they do not support the article. Therefore... I "assume" "good" "faith" -- Assuming good faith in sources requires having not read them.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are wrong here, Paul, and if you are going to persist in using such logic at AfD, as you have done recently, then a topic ban might be in order. AGF is not a suicide pact and your logic opens the floodgates for disruptive editing etc. - Sitush (talk) 08:07, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Insufficient notability to pass
    WP:SOLDIER. Platoon commanders are not presumed notable, and I could source every captain in the First AIF better than this from the AIF database. Not impressed by the fact that fn 1 does not cover the cited fact. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:30, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Needless to say there were no databases during the American Civil War, although catalogs of the deployments have since been compiled by historians. FloridaArmy (talk) 21:41, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Or during the Great War. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He was not a platoon commander (led by a Lieutenant) but a Company Commander. And his unit was composed of German immigrants including veterans of the 1848 revolutions. And there's actually quite a lot about Zesch including specifics on his combat roles as a commander. This new article has been greatly expanded and new sources added since the original nomination. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:52, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I can appreciate how frustrating this must be for you but the guidelines are clear. Failing to meet the
WP:NSOLDIER guideline is bad enough, but the failure to meet the General Notability Guideline is the clincher. You can't gather lots and lots of trivial mentions and hope they add up to something. It just won't work. The sort of depth required would be an in-depth profile of him - not just a collection of run-of-the-mill stuff. There's nothing to support a stand-alone article & I'm concerned that your energies are going to waste. Have you considered adding a paragraph about him to the article of his parent regiment? Exemplo347 (talk) 22:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Then I will point out that
ignore all rules. While we don't just "throw that one around" in general, I've no problem applying it here because of the off-line research mentioned.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:58, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Why would deletion be approproate before redirecting? FloridaArmy (talk) 19:00, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Does Newspapers.com include German language media? As a
Turnverein, coverage of his early life and role in the revolutions of 1849 would not have been covered in U.S. media. FloridaArmy (talk) 19:08, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
And an unfortunate fact for foreing names is they are often misspelled. So I have seen him listed as Gustovus. Zish or Zisch. And his burial marker appears to go with Gustav. But even with the problems and his European origin we know a great deal about his milotary career and company. FloridaArmy (talk) 19:11, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was unclear, I meant weak delete or redirect. Newspaper.com does index some German language papers, but all of those are American ones (they are largely from Illinois or Missouri, in my experience). They are usually (always?) written in blackletter, so the OCR is iffy. I used variations on the name that I could think of in my searches, but thanks for pointing that out. Smmurphy(Talk) 19:47, 21 May 2018 (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. Enigmamsg 04:45, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scarlet Grace

Scarlet Grace (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 yet notable per

WP:TOOSOON for an encyclopaedia article. Proposed deletion contested by article creator. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:53, 14 May 2018 (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. Enigmamsg 04:46, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cheapskate Records

Cheapskate Records (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)

Seems like advertisement and all the sources are from same site and its not remarkable too. MTKASHTALK Contribs 14:34, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. cinco de L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:56, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. cinco de L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:56, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. cinco de L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:56, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. cinco de L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:56, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. cinco de L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:56, 14 May 2018 (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. Enigmamsg 04:45, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nazmudin Rayani

Nazmudin Rayani (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)

Other than the announcement of his award, and very little of that, no in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources. Not sure receiving Canada's second highest civilian award meets notability criteria. If this were a discussion of a military man, the second highest award wouldn't qualify them. So, based on his not meeting

WP:GNG, this should probably be deleted. Onel5969 TT me 14:29, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. cinco de L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. cinco de L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. cinco de L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. cinco de L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete Fails GNG. cinco de L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:58, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • He also goes by Naz. He has been covered subatantially in two articles. I don't know if it's enough. As the founder and owner of a regional pharmacy chain, community leader, award recipient, and.prominent member of a minority religious community I would probably lean to Weak Keep. FloridaArmy (talk) 19:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only the award seems to have gained him any coverage and, as noted above, it's probably not enough to get him over the notability line. Eagleash (talk) 22:49, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The Order of Canada is a valid notability claim if a person can be properly referenced to enough
    WP:GNG for the work he did to earn the honour — but it is not an automatic inclusion freebie that exempts a person from having to be sourced better than this. For some reason, the two news articles being cited here come up as blank pages when I try to view them, so I had to run a ProQuest search to find them — and what I found was that while "Bringing people together" is substantively enough about Rayani to start counting toward GNG, "Pharmacy's new name reflects founder's community spirit" is not. But we require more than just one GNG-counting source before GNG is actually passed, and I couldn't find anywhere near enough other sources about him to build a GNG case — I get a fair number of glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things, but few to no sources about him beyond "Bringing people together". Bearcat (talk) 18:29, 20 May 2018 (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 06:37, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bray Ketchum

Bray Ketchum (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 ice hockey player who fails to meet

WP:NSPORTS. DJSasso (talk) 14:10, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. cinco de L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. cinco de L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. cinco de L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. cinco de L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The men's leagues are constantly discussed, just look through the archives of
    WT:NSPORTS. The discussions are probably well into the double digits for how many times what is or isn't on NHOCKEY has been discussed. -DJSasso (talk) 23:42, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • @Hmlarson: Your question was: "can you provide links to similar discussions + criteria for men's leagues?"

    My answer was: "here is some links over the several years where we discussed men's leagues and which qualify based on observations over even more years of AfDs." Yosemiter (talk) 02:14, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • You are wasting your time. Her typical method of operation is to ask questions and then when you answer ask another and another trying to filibuster the discussion. She has an extreme bias and would likely keep any article that featured a woman. I don't know that I have ever seen her admit there is no sourcing for an article on a woman and vote delete, even in situations where is was crazy obvious the article was delete worthy. -DJSasso (talk) 02:18, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No,
    WP:NHOCKEY?" It doesn't exist - is that right, Djsasso + Yosemiter? Hmlarson (talk
    ) 02:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC
  1. This discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive69#Women's hockey, initiated by Yosemiter and cited above has a consensus of editors in support of adding to NWHL to the notability guideline, but appears to have been derailed by the same editor by creating a standard/analysis of inclusion that just doesn't exist for men's leagues. Hmlarson (talk) 02:44, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you reading the same discussion, multiple people disagreed, there was very much no consensus. Secondly, that standard of inclusion/analysis is used on all sports criteria on NSPORTS. In fact there is one on the talkpage there right now for NBOXING with the exact same standard of analysis. This isn't just some attempt to block them out like you are trying to play up. NHOCKEY is meant to show when GNG can be met. There is no evidence that even all of the top award winners in the NWHL can meet GNG let alone the players who only play a single game. The standard criteria used on the NSPORTS talk page to make a change to any of the guidlines is that 99.999% of players that would be affected by the new criteria need to be able to meet GNG. The discussion analysis Yosemiter, Ravenswing and 18abruce did showed that not even the top players in the women's league were guaranteed to make it. -DJSasso (talk) 02:49, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1) It was a discussion to look into a proposal, not an actual proposal. I wanted facts,
    we should never write a guideline that might make it more likely to conflict with GNG as GNG supersedes NSPORTS.

    (Maybe I should note, that you to never answered my critique below. Please provide evidence of GNG for the AfD at hand. We have gotten far off topic here.) Yosemiter (talk) 03:26, 17 May 2018 (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. Enigmamsg 04:45, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S Mithran

P.S Mithran (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)

Debuting director who fails to meet

WP:TOOSOON. P.S Mithran directed Irumbu Thirai (2018 film), which was released on 11 May 2018, and seems to have no other credits to his name. This is in violation of WP:NDIRECTOR, which mandates that creative professionals have a widely-cited claim to notability. SamHolt6 (talk) 13:54, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:04, 14 May 2018 (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. J04n(talk page) 17:19, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Holly M. Lewis

Holly M. Lewis (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 her book may or may not be notable, this assistant prof does not appear to meet notability criteria. The commonality of her name made WP:BEFORE difficult, but I could not find any in-depth coverage from independent, reliable secondary sources to show she meets

WP:NPROF. Onel5969 TT me 13:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete fail

WP:AUTHOR, philosophy book put out by a minor publisher that got no reviews on JSTOR, only a couple of online reviews in very small socialist publications.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:17, 14 May 2018 (UTC)E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:42, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Which peer reviewed academic journals? Xxanthippe (talk) 07:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Critical Social Policy. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 07:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for responding. There is apparently one book review, which I have been unable to download. I cannot find a single citation to it on
WP:Prof at present as WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:41, 16 May 2018 (UTC).[reply
]
Experimental scientists cannot be compared with human scientists. They are totally different worlds and the number of citations in human sciences (particularly philosophy) is not that important in notability. I think it is clear that the current article has independent reliable sources (if not "academic" sources) and it passes GNG (if not WP:Prof). If you think the sources are not reliable or independent, let's check them one by one. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 21:24, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It has long been accepted that citation rates vary by field, so philosophers are compared with other philosophers. Many of these have significant citation records, This one has zero so a pass of
WP:Prof is not possible. Can you point to other BIOs of philosophy academics on Wikipedia whose work has received zero citations? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:40, 16 May 2018 (UTC).[reply
]
Although she can be said to somehow possess criterion 7, I accept she does not pass WP:PROF and I stick by GNG.Ali Pirhayati (talk) 08:04, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Under which category? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:40, 16 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Your comments only show that one of the sources may not be independent and that she is not academically-notable. But my argument that she passes GNG still is the case. You said "...that the reviews appear in formally Socialist publications makes it possible that they are not independent of the author"? What does it mean? For example, if reviews of the works of a structuralist thinker appear in journals which publish articles on structuralism, the reviews will not be independent!? I think Lewis passes GNG because the article has at least three "independent reliable" sources which cover her ideas "significantly" (means "not trivial"). Then you can provide a counterargument by showing that the sources are not 1. reliable or 2. independent or 3. significant. I can't see such a counterargument in your comments.Ali Pirhayati (talk) 09:36, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete E.M. Gregory's analysis basically shows that 1-Lewis's work does not rise to the level of a major contribution. 2-Wikipedia already has way too much of a presentist bias, keeping an article like this on an unremarkable activist leftist professor, just adds to this overcoverage of the present.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:54, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not professor, Assistant professor (who are almost never notable). Xxanthippe (talk) 09:42, 23 May 2018 (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. Enigmamsg 04:45, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018–19 Football Superleague of Kosovo table

2018–19 Football Superleague of Kosovo table (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 also

talk) 13:52, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Also I have declined his CSD, see:[21]
talk) 14:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Also, I think it is better for author to read
talk) 14:13, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 13:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 13:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 13:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 13:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 13:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in
talk) 14:15, 14 May 2018 (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. Enigmamsg 04:45, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Asia Designer Communication Platform

Asia Designer Communication Platform (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 highly promotional article solely the work of multiple sock puppets. Multiple pages created by these socks have already been deleted. See

WP:CSD#G11 as well. Deli nk (talk) 13:27, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. cinco de L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:01, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. cinco de L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:01, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. cinco de L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:01, 14 May 2018 (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 Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:04, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

Suman Kumar Malick

Suman Kumar Malick (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)

Search doesn't produce any coverage and substantial information in the independent RS about the person so I can't see any significance, Saqib (talk) 13:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. cinco de L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:03, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. cinco de L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:03, 14 May 2018 (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. Enigmamsg 04:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ananda Chandra Bhowal

Ananda Chandra Bhowal (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)

Search doesn't produce any coverage in the independent RS about the person so I can't see any significance. Saqib (talk) 13:12, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. cinco de L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. cinco de L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:04, 14 May 2018 (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. Enigmamsg 04:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Denka

Denka (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)

Can't find anything on Google about this - a search for Denka turns up a bunch of irrelevant things, and even "Denka God" (without the quotes) just turned up mirrors, nonsense, and a couple books with a character named Denka. Possible hoax, and in any case fails GNG. Smartyllama (talk) 13:03, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. cinco de L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:06, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. cinco de L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:06, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Sportsfan 1234. JimRenge (talk) 20:41, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added some refs and content. There are plenty of refs available regarding this deity. I'm surprised that the nominator didn't take the time to research
before nominating. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 00:06, 17 May 2018 (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. It's clear that a lot of people who don't normally frequent

WP:CANVASS, per-se. There's off-wiki pointers to this discussion, but as far as I can see, they're in topic-neutral fora such as /r/wikipediaafdwatch on Reddit. The most likely explanation is that people just saw the thread on WP:AE
and headed over here.

Be that as it may, it made for a messy discussion. However, it seems pretty clear that the delete arguments are the ones that are citing good policy reasons. In particular, the sources presented have mostly been found to not be

WP:RS
, her book appears to be self-published, and there's no evidence of widespread library holdings or independent critical review.

If anybody wants to research better sources, I can restore this to draft for you. But, please, don't ask unless you really do intend to do the research and find better sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:54, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Poray

Anna Poray (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)

Activist in Polish-Canadian organizations, and author of a (single?) book. The book seems to be self-published (the publisher is A. Poray), and does not seem to be notable in terms of coverage of the book. Sourcing in the article are the subject's own writings, some obits, and an interview with her on the release of the book. The subject does not meet

WP:GNG. Icewhiz (talk) 12:55, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Addendum: per this obit she worked in the libraries of several Montreal universities which would not satisfy
WP:NACADEMIC.Icewhiz (talk) 15:58, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Addendum2: It seems that the scant coverage of Poray focus on the
WP:NFRINGE - A fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, by major publications that are independent of their promulgators and popularizers - which is not the case here. Critical coverage of Poray is limited to a few footnotes in which an interview with her (in a conservative Polish newspaper) is noted as an example. We generally lack INDEPTH pieces on Poray - and the sole one that approaches it (the wpolityce obit) is from an outlet that is sympathetic to her views.Icewhiz (talk) 06:24, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:59, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:59, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:59, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
  1. United States Holocaust Memorial Museum - Collections Search - Polish Righteous, those who risked their lives by Anna Poray.
In one hour, Icewhiz deleted Anna Poray from over 60 articles. What a joke! Poeticbent talk 15:54, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any sources to back up this claim, besides use on Wikipedia (much of it inserted by editors above)? The sole book by Anna Poray was published by A. Poray. Per google-scholar it is not cited by others (there is a citation entry, but zero uses of it) - which indicates very low use of this sole work.Icewhiz (talk) 15:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    USHMM attempts to hold every single document relating to the Holocaust in its library - USHMM possessing a copy of this self published book does not indicate notability of the author (or reliability of the book). Per worldcat it would seems this is the only library that holds a copy.Icewhiz (talk) 16:03, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • OPPOSE and KEEP-this author has written extensively on the subject of rescue of Jews in Poland.It seems to be target of Icewhiz recent intense edit spree aiming at deletion of information about Polish rescuers of Jews during Holocaust.These edits are becoming more and more obsessive.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:06, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • OPPOSE removal, (Keep) - as per oposing above. --E-960 (talk) 04:00, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • To add to my above 'Keep' recommendation — I would like to highlight the SECONDARY REFERENCES about Poray listed by user Malik Shabazz in his comment bit further down, it shows other academics to reference Poray and her work. --E-960 (talk) 15:46, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Poeticbent @E-960 @Malik Shabazz: So she has one self-published book, and a few short publication (interviews, articles), at least one of which mentioned as "polityka historyczna". Is this correct? How is it any different than your average Ph.D student? François Robere (talk) 11:04, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I understand she also appears under the name of "Anna Poray-Wybranowska". Her book was quoted a number of times based on Google searches [33]. Can her book be used as a source in WP? I do not see why not because it was used as a reference in reliably published sources. I would expect her citation index to be low (did not check), but this is area of humanities. My very best wishes (talk) 12:27, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of the google book hits do not mention her book. Many are directory style entries such as this one or this one where she has a line (as a librarian). In terms of citations - "Anna Poray-Wybranowska, “Naród bohaterów,” Nasz Dziennik, October 9, 2004" (which is actually an interview with her) - is mentioned in a few hits (mainly due to repetitions of Michlic's footnote). Those Who Risked Their Lives is not cited (save for Irena's Children - a mass market book) as far as I can tell. Note that the raw google hits are probably "contaminated" from google suggesting plausible results based on use in Wikipedia - many of the hits do not actually contain the string "Poray" inside them (which is evident from there being no preview text, and verified by searching inside the book).Icewhiz (talk) 12:47, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The question here is notability, not reliability, as this isn't an RSN discussion. Any random Google Scholar search will come up with hundreds, if not thousands of more notable scholars that aren't mentioned on Wiki. Not to detract from Ms. Poray's contribution, but we might as well scour universities' websites and just add everyone there. François Robere (talk) 13:30, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, she is definitely on a borderline of our notability guidelines. Too low citation. Given the well written info and refs currently on the page, I would still be inclined to keep as an "inclusionist". My very best wishes (talk) 20:10, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Quick and dirty exercise: Input the query "fire ant" into Google Scholar; the first five results were authored by a total of 17 authors and cited a total of 1790 times, or 105 citations per author; only two of these have Wikipedia articles of their own, and several are not even cited as sources. Now, this isn't exactly a perfect methodology, and I wouldn't use it for much else (although you can substitute the subject as you please), but it does give some perspective. François Robere (talk) 21:30, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Fortunately, we have a page about Fire ant. He is a lot ore important. My very best wishes (talk) 03:52, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What we have (besides one obit in an outlet sympathetic to her) is passing mentions - not indepth coverage - which is actually not borderline. However even if this were borderline, per
WP:NFRINGE (which is relevant since passing mentions of her in a few footnotes of a RS are as an example of fringe) - for notability we would require her to be referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, by major publications that are independent of their promulgators and popularizers - leaning towards deletionists for fringe subjects.Icewhiz (talk) 06:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
as mentioned in
talk) 13:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
That's not a "well-known and significant award or honor". In
WP:SOLDIER we only recognize the nation's highest award for valour. This particular order of merit is 4th class in Order of Merit of the Republic of Poland which itself ranks below other awards such as Order of Polonia Restituta or Order of the White Eagle (Poland).Icewhiz (talk) 13:55, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
The Order of Merit of the Republic of Poland (Polish: Order Zasługi Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej) is a Polish order of merit created in 1974 and awarded to foreigners or Poles resident abroad who have rendered great service to Poland. One recipient of it was Sir Edmund Hillary, conqueror of Mount Everest. It is not a negligible decoration.
The
order established on 4 February 1921. It is conferred on both military and civilian persons as well as on foreigners for outstanding achievements in the fields of education, science, sport, culture, art, economics, national defense, social work, civil service
, or for furthering good relations between countries.
The
order awarded to both civilian and military persons for merit. It was officially instituted on 1 November 1705 by King Augustus II the Strong and is awarded to the most distinguished Poles
and the highest-ranking representatives of foreign countries.
Even some prominent foreign-based historians such as
Jan Grabowski
do not appear, from their Wikipedia articles, to have received any of these decorations.
Nihil novi (talk) 21:26, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It would seems this order of merit is awarded not on the basis of the international recognition or quality of the research, but perhaps based on the Polish government recognizing the activism (minor as it is) of the recipient. Thus, for instance, the Polish government has stripped the order of merit from a highly notable historian that the current governemtn seems to not like."Princeton University professor Jan Tomasz Gross faces losing Order of Merit over comments Polish villagers were complicit in massacre of Jews. In any event, this is an award that is handed out in great numbers and says very little.Icewhiz (talk) 03:27, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:35, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You malign me. Kindly
WP:AGF and do me the courtesy of assuming that I know this subject area well and recognize FRINGE revisionist POV-pushing masquerading as scholarship when I see it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:11, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
E.M.Gregory, I do assume good faith, but it appears that you are simply ignoring certain facts, are you going to say that Emanuel Ringelblum, was just wrong? That Żegota did not save all those Jews? I'm also aware that out of all the academic pursuits 'history' is the most subjective, so to just say one historical view is 100% correct and the other 100% wrong, already exposes a bias. Btw, famous sayings such as this 'history is written by the victors' expose and highlight just how flimsy and unreliable the this area of academia can be, just one example out of many. --E-960 (talk) 15:23, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per this PHD dissertation (and no - a single paragraph (and much of it on Nasz Dziennik) in a PHD dissertation on the right-wing Polish press portrayal of Jews does not advance notability much (for any bio - all the more for a NFRINGE one).... But a PHD dissertation is per
    WP:SCHOLARSHIP a usable RS, and University College London is a word class university) - Kwiatkowska, Hanna Maria. Conflict of images. Conflict of memories. Jewish themes in the Polish right-wing nationalistic press in the light of articles from Nasz Dziennik 1998–2007. University of London, University College London (United Kingdom), 2008. - Nasz Dziennik constantly reminds its readers about the lack of Jewish gratitude for Polish heroism. The most dramatic in tone of those reminders was the interview with Anna Poray-Wybranowska from Canada who documents Polish heroism in saving the Jews during World War II. She claimed to have convincing evidence to estimate that `1 million of Poles were saving Jews'. She criticized the `restrictive conditions of Yad Vashem in acknowledging the Righteous Among the Nations' - it almost sounded like a deliberately unjust system that belittles the Polish efforts. Wybranowska made a plea `to erect a memorial wall with the names of all those who saved the Jews because `those Poles are the greatest heroes in the world 17l The article asserted what the title implied, not only a great number of Poles were heroes during the war, Poles in general are a `nation of heroes'. The original Polish interview might be this (it is scroll-able - you need to move the double-red bar down the yellow bar with numbers) - and I'm saying might since this is hosted on what seems to be a dubious website and not on Nasz Dziennik. I'll note that after going through all the crud on google-books and google-scholar it seems much of the coverage of Poray in these sources is a passing mention of this notorious 2004 interview (The PHD giving it a paragraph - usually it is just an example (one of a few) in a footnote with little beyond title, name, and date), other than that there are random directory / reports from her work as a university librarian, and not much else - the self-published book is mentioned much less than this interview (there is one mass market book that cites it - however I wouldn't be surprised if they mined the citation from Wikipedia, as we cite (or rather cited) the same page in relevant articles - and the book was published well after this was added to Wikipedia).Icewhiz (talk) 15:07, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Interesting. I am regularly daunted and discouraged by the frequency with which I see books, and even journal articles, by reputable publishers in which authors use bad facts that I can trace to Wikiepdia articles.15:15, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Icewhiz, it really comes across as if you want to remove Poray because you simply don't agree with her. Don't forget that Jan Gross was also soundly discredited on several points he made in his "research". Does that mean he is not a scholar because he was wrong on something. --E-960 (talk) 15:16, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OSE argument in relation to a retired librarian with scant coverage and one self-published book - is absurd.Icewhiz (talk) 15:29, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Icewhiz, I'll give you that, she is not the most famous of researchers on this topic, but when your book is mentioned by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum example: United States Holocaust Memorial Museum - Collections Search - Polish Righteous, those who risked their lives by Anna Poray., than there is a level of notability regarding your work, whether you are correct on everything or not. --E-960 (talk) 15:38, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per worldcat - that's the only library holding this book - which is a strong sign of non-notability. As for being held by USHMM - their policy is to hold everything - any quality, any location, any language, anything - that pertains to the Holocaust and World War II - so no, that is not a sign of notability.Icewhiz (talk) 15:44, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Icewhiz, what about the SECONDARY REFERENCES to Poray listed by user Malik Shabazz? --E-960 (talk) 15:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
wpolityce is an obit by a sympathtic source. The rest are not in-depth. Going over one by one - Chodakiewicz says he interviewed her - that's it - one of many interviewees he spoke to. Joanna Michlic (which I quoted for the FRINGE assertion) - mentions her 2004 interview in footnotes (in each case - one of several examples for the phenomena she describes). She is cited by Irena's Children as a source (this is a mass market book, and in any event - she is not close to the number of citations for NPROF) - quite possibly copied off of Wikipedia - with no coverage of Poray herself.Icewhiz (talk) 16:02, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User Poeticbent raised a interesting point below, that 'diminishing the role of Polish rescuers of the Jews during the Holocaust, has become an Israeli state policy of Benjamin Netanyahu in recent past'. Really, my observation, every Polish reference is being labeled as unreliable or not significant. Obviously, it just looks like a general trent out there. Icewhiz, you should at lest to some extent acknowledge that there maybe a different view points of the events in question. --E-960 (talk) 16:10, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a point but an unsubstantiated claim, which PB's "reference" doesn't even mention.
every Polish reference is being labeled as unreliable or not significant: Not true. First, we have more than one Polish source cited in the relevant articles. Second, several of the sources you disagree with are Polish expats who maintain an active connection with their homeland. Third, Polish historiography has been politicized both during the communist rule, immediately after its fall, and in recent years (we have sources about it, and Polish historians admit at least the first two), so it's naturally questioned. And lastly, probably as a result of the previous issue, there seems to be a gap between how these issues are perceived by conservative Polish historians, popular media and politicians, and the rest of the world, which itself raises questions about some narratives that are cited here. François Robere (talk) 20:29, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @
    WP:GAME of casting aspersions (NOT just about Anna Poray), please ask for citations next time, to confirm claims made by the AFD nominator. In our Wikipedia entry on the Holocaust in Poland many notable historians give estimates of the one million Polish helpers including Lukas, Mirriam-Goldberg, Kwiatkowski, Marshall Smith, and Zajdler. Anna Poray is an expert in the field. The reason why her groundbreaking work wasn't picked up by a leading publisher is because of how highly specialized it is. Those who Risked Their Lives (ISBN 0979221307) by Anna Poray is a book of pure statistics, not profitable commercially. Poray died in 2013 of old age, which should make it clear to anyone here that other concerned individuals published her findings of her behalf, and in all likelihood withheld their names out of respect for her. She hasn't "self-published" the study. It is a false claim made by notorious POV pushers. Research by Poray was conducted over a period of 30 years, and hasn't been matched by anything even remotely similar in its magnitude. Poeticbent talk 15:33, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I have refactored my statement from above. Sorry, and thank you for the feedback. Poeticbent talk 23:48, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The irony of it is that my policy based argument leads directly to the same guidelines used in this AFD nomination. Poeticbent talk 23:43, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Shrike, regarding your comment if there were any SECONDARY SOURCES which reference Poray, here is a couple of them, as noted earlier in the discussion: Between Nazis and Soviets: Occupation Politics in Poland, 1939–1947, Memories of Jews and the Holocaust in Post-Communist Eastern Europe: The Case of Poland, and Irena's Children. --E-960 (talk) 17:47, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If that all you found that I am very sorry per our policy she doesn't meet
WP:GNG.The articles with far more stronger sources were deleted Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Scholars_for_Peace_in_the_Middle_East.If you can provide same level of sources like in my keep vote there I will change my vote.--Shrike (talk) 18:53, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Those sources from that AFD were atrocious Shrike which was largely the reason the article was deleted; it wouldn't be difficult to find sources of the "same level". Perhaps you should raise the bar a little bit?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:52, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:TheGracefulSlick If those source were "atrocious " what do you think about sources that E-960 presented?--Shrike (talk) 05:24, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:47, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ISBN 0979221307
    . Retrieved 7 October 2013.
Does not meet
WP:ANYBIO. If the AfD discussion closes as “keep” or “no consensus”, the article should be modified to remove the hyperbole & to conform to independent RS; it would most likely be a stub. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:13, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Strongly OPPOSE deletion. KEEP the article and references to Poray's book. Anna Poray’s book is based on reliable sources like Michal Grynberg, Ksiega sprawiedliwych (Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, 1993), and others. It focuses on rescue efforts, and therefore the notion that it should also focus on something else is spurious. She worked closely with the Righteous Department of Yad Vashem for years. It must be pointed out, with regret, that there is an ideologically based assault going on here, including manipulation and misrepresentation. One of many examples: It is not Mark Paul who is promoting the myth of Jewish ingratitude. In fact, Mark Paul canvases a broad spectrum of Jewish attitudes. Rather someone doesn’t like the sources that he cites, which are Jewish authors exposing this phenomenon based on Jewish testimonies:
(1) “‘Now you see why we hate the Polacks,’ one survivor concluded her account, in which she presented many instances of Poles’ help. There was no word about hating the Germans.” Cited in Eva Hoffman, Shtetl: The Life and Death of a Small Town and the World of Polish Jews (Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1997), 245.
(2) “The Wanderers were among the luckiest Jewish families in town. Both parents and the girls survived the war. They were hidden successively by several Polish families. After the war, the Wanderers emigrated to America. I sent the Wanderer sisters information about the Regulas, one of the Polish families in whose house on the outskirts of Brzezany they had hid after the Judenrein roundup. I hoped that they would start the procedure of granting them the Righteous Gentiles award, but nothing came of it. … When I called Rena, the older one, and asked whether a young Polish historian, a colleague of mine who was doing research in New York, could interview her for my project on Brzezany, her reaction was curt and clear: ‘I hate all Polacks.’ … Rena advised me not to present the Poles in too favorable a way ‘for the sake of our martyrs.’” See Shimon Redlich, Together and Apart in Brzezany: Poles, Jews, and Ukrainians, 1918–1945 (Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 2002), 22.
(3) Liwa Gomulka, the wife of Communist leader Wladysław Gomulka, “refused to see an old Polish woman who had hidden her during the Nazi occupation and had come to her for some small favour.” See Michael Checinski, Poland: Communism, Nationalism, Anti-Semitism (New York: Karz-Cohl, 1982), 143.Tatzref (talk) 16:16, 18 May 2018 (UTC)— Tatzref (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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. Enigmamsg 04:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cityflyer Route A21

Cityflyer Route A21 (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)

Totally unremarkable bus route. TheLongTone (talk) 12:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:45, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:45, 14 May 2018 (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. Mz7 (talk) 02:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of fish on stamps of Afars and Issas

List of fish on stamps of Afars and Issas (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)
List of fish on stamps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of fish on stamps of Afghanistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of fish on stamps of Ascension Island (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of fish on stamps of Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of fish on stamps of Brazil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of fish on stamps of Bulgaria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of fish on stamps of Burundi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of fish on stamps of Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of fish on stamps of Cape Verde (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of fish on stamps of China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of fish on stamps of Ivory Coast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of fish on stamps of Dubai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of fish on stamps of Equatorial Guinea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of fish on stamps of Estonia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of fish on stamps of Ethiopia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of fish on stamps of the Falkland Islands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of fish on stamps of Fiji (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of fish on stamps of Guinea-Bissau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of fish on stamps of Iceland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of fish on stamps of Kiribati (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of fish on stamps of United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of fish on stamps of Madeira (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of fish on stamps of the Maldives (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of fish on stamps of Malta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of fish on stamps of Monaco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of fish on stamps of Mongolia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of fish on stamps of Montserrat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of fish on stamps of Morocco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of fish on stamps of Mozambique (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of fish on stamps of Oman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of fish on stamps of Ras al-Khaimah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of fish on stamps of Romania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of fish on stamps of Seychelles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of fish on stamps of Singapore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of fish on stamps of Tajikistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of fish on stamps of Tanzania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of fish on stamps of Thailand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

All original research and list cruft.

💴 12:26, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

@
💴 13:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. cinco de L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:10, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. cinco de L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:10, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ability to source and verify these sorts of lists isn't really the problem, though. Topical philately generates plenty of supporting material. The problem is that Wikipedia is
    no more a topical stamp catalog than it is a stamp catalog in general. By means of example, the American Topical Association publishes checklists of stamps by topic. There are currently approximately 1200 different topics, with several hundred stamps each on average. Their checklist for fish on stamps has a little bit shy of 10,000 entries. This stuff is verifiable, and factual, and to some people, even useful, but policy still supports deletion. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Doctor (band)

Oh Doctor (band) (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 indication the band satisfies

WP:BAND. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:30, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 15:07, 14 May 2018 (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. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:43, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Oyster

Operation Oyster (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

WP:GNG, lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. The source used in the article has barely a paragraph on this operation, and it does not appear to be mentioned in the history of the RLI. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:41, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk • mail) 11:27, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. cinco de L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:11, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. cinco de L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:11, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. cinco de L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:11, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:53, 15 May 2018 (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 Desta Global. Merge from history as appropriate, perhaps. Sandstein 07:38, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Desta Talk

Desta Talk (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)

Zero notability.No significant non-trivial coverage in reliable non-PR sources and thus, fails the rigor of

WP:NCORP, to be a stand-alone article.Seeking a redirect to Desta Global.It's for another day, about whether the target meets our notability guidelines..... ~ Winged BladesGodric 08:09, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged BladesGodric 08:11, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged BladesGodric 08:11, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged BladesGodric 08:11, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:38, 14 May 2018 (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. Sandstein 12:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Romaine Waite

Romaine Waite (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 referenced

primary sources and glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage that isn't about him. Every single footnote here is a complete and total non-starter in terms of establishing an actor's notability -- the ones that are about him are unreliable sources, and the ones that are reliable sources aren't about him. Bearcat (talk) 16:19, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:07, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:07, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is no number of roles that ever hands any actor a free exemption from having to have enough
WP:GNG for the having of roles. Notability for an actor is a question of counting the number of quality sources that are present to support the content, not of counting the number of roles he's had while handwaving the sourcing issues away. Bearcat (talk) 00:26, 15 May 2018 (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. Although numerically this is only leaning towards deletion, those arguing for deletion have offered more detailed and specific rationales than the other side, and these haven't been rebutted. Hut 8.5 21:23, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Katrin Alvarez

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

The exhibitions and awards are either pay-to-play or not notable. I've spent much of the past week doing a deep dive into this world of pay-to-play exhibitions, and have coalesced some of that info, including links to evidence of exorbitant fees here: User:Theredproject/Predatory Exhibitions and Vanity Galleries. Below I have sorted all the claims in the article into categories to clarify that they are pay-to-play or not notable:

These are all Pay-to-play

  • In 2012, she won a gold medal ( La Grande Médaille d'Or ) at the Monde de la Culture and the Cannes Azure Exhibition,
  • and a Leonardo painting prize at the Chianciano art award. [18]
  • In 2013, she won first prize for Applied Arts in the Chianciano Biennial Leonardo Award. [19]
  • In 2015, Alvarez won the Winsor & Newton Prize from the Palm Art Award. [20]
  • In 2018, Art Tour International magazine declared her Artist of the Year (for 2017) and made her one of its "ATIM Top 60 Masters". [21]
  • In 2004, she had her first exhibition at the Agora Gallery, a contemporary fine arts gallery in Chelsea, Manhattan .
  • the same year, she is exhibiting at the International Biennial Artists Exhibition, Miami; [9]
  • at the Chianciano Art Museum, Italy; [9] [11]
  • In 2017 she exhibited at the London Biennale,
  • The German psychiatrist Hans-Thomas Gosciniak has written that "they do not try to explain, educate or teach, they do not carry them to a mission." The ripples felt through the individual may expand the horizon of feelings and dreams, clearing memories from debris, thus opening a new way to find one's deeper and inner self ". [22] -- ArtisSpectrum Magazine is Agora Gallery
  • Maureen Flynn, writing for the Agora Gallery, describes Alvarez's figures as often doll-like, sleep-walkers "cut off somewhat self-protectively from their own benumbed emotions, as they traverse desolate landscapes". [5] Flynn finds the portraits of women in the foreground of the painting "luminous, clear-eyed", [5] but other figures in the background can be ghostly, recalling Edvard Munch 's The Scream , or ominous, "suggesting an allegory of pedophilia. " [5] In Flynn's view, Alvarez may be on a mission to teach the viewer "to look unflinchingly at the demons that we all harbor"; if so, she writes, "well, no one does it better." [5]
  • Victoria Ludwig, writing about the Chianciano Biennale for Art News Report , described Alvarez as the viewer into a world that blurs the line between the real and the surreal. In her view, Alvarez had been influenced by Hieronymus Bosch , Albrecht Dürer and Rembrandt , while her interest in poetry and psychology connected her surrealism with expressionism . [11]

These are non notable and/or unverifiable exhibitions:

  • In 2007, Alvarez won the Federation of Canadian painters' Allan Edwards Award for her painting Exorcism . [15]
  • In 2011, she received the Vivid Arts Network's "Onore alla Creativá et l'eccelenza nella arti" award at the Castello Estense , Ferrara, [16] and placed in the Artrom Gallery's "The Spiritual Essence of Art" for her painting In the Beginning there was Woman . [17]
  • In 1981, she was an exhibition of a series of miniature paintings framed in pure gold, silver, and jewelry in the gallery Art and Psyche in Cologne . [4]
  • In 2013, she showed eight paintings at the "Fantastic Realism" exhibition at the LuminArté gallery, Dallas, [9] and she exhibited there again the following year; [10]

This is a print on demand book only held in 12 libraries in the world, all in germany:

  • [5] In 2008, Alvarez was included in Gerhard Habarta's "Encyclopedia of Fantastic Artists". [6]

We are left with the following:

  • In 2012, she was an exhibition entitled "Transition realms - paintings and word paintings from the inner world" at the Phantastenmuseum ( de ) in the Palais Palffy , Vienna, Austria. [7]
    • Their website on the Palais Palffy[37], which seems like a building that you can rent space, links to the official website... a facebook page [38] That FB page links to... a squatted wordpress page [39]
  • In 2016, Alvarez gave an exhibition of paintings on the theme of child abuse Entitled "Memorandum in Pictures" at the gallery Beck in Homburg , Germany. [12] [13]
  • Ashley Knight, in ArtDistricts magazine, wrote that Alvarez uses "a surrealist language that reveals the conflicts, fears and anxiety of our contemporary society." [9]
    • May be legit, but isn't notable
  • A series of art fairs that we don't have any details on, and which wouldn't establish notabilty anyway
    • and at the Beijing Art Expo 2013, China. [9]
    • [14] and at art fairs and galleries in Paris, Miami, Beijing, and Vienna. [1]

Hence, I feel confident saying we should delete this article. Theredproject (talk) 17:08, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - she has been discussed in reliable sources, and she has won enough independently-awarded prizes in different countries over a long enough career to pass the GNG threshold easily enough. Obviously she's not Picasso, but her notability is really not in doubt. I don't begin to understand the reason why anyone should choose to spend a week of their life trying to get this article deleted, as documented above, but I do think it mistaken, which is all that matters. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:34, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:06, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:06, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Chiswick Chap: You have misinterpreted my words: I have not spent the last week trying to get this article deleted, I've spent some time over the last week doing research into pay-to-play exhibitions in the arts. Theredproject (talk) 18:13, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to hear it, but you know what I think. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:20, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We don't accept vanity presses as reliable sources, and these vanity galleries, and their assiociated fake biennales, fake awards and pay-to-publish magazines are no different. Anyone can get exhibited there, written about or given an award, as long as thy're willing to pay. That we would compromise ourselves by providing these frauds with a cloak of respectability is unconscionable. Vexations (talk) 23:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • What the rule says:People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards.
Artists: The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.
The rule, however, also says: Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included. A person who does not meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability. It's also interesting that the native- (i.e. German-) language Wikipedia does not cite one single source. Taking into account the numerous exhibitions and mentions in various sources in the English-Wikipedia article, I cannot see light yet. -The Gnome (talk) 09:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@The Gnome: I'm unsure what you mean here by "I cannot see light yet" - do you mean you are undecided? You mention the "the numerous exhibitions and mentions in various sources in the English-Wikipedia article" - can you indicate which of these sources you think are WP:RS? --Theredproject (talk) 02:25, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How do you determine that the awards listed in the article are "pay-to-play"? (Which I take it to mean that they're vanity awards, given to whomever forks up.) Take, for example, Art Tour International magazine declaring the subject "Artist of the Year" (for 2017). What's the play there? -The Gnome (talk) 07:07, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi The Gnome I have the link to the research posted above. I just updated it with some ATIM specific info. You can see that diff here Special:Diff/838843127/840732778, which includes links to sales documents where they specify the amount you have to pay to be included in the magazine, and in one case specify that everyone who pays, gets a specific award. I hope that clarifies the degree to which these are Vanity publications and exhibitions. See also Wikipedia:Vanity and predatory publishing, Vanity gallery, and Vanity award --Theredproject (talk) 20:13, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's a vanity affair. If the rest of the cited sources about the subject's awards are of the same caliber, it's all trash. -The Gnome (talk) 21:57, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@EnPassant: same question as above: 1. Which of these sources do you think are Significant, Independent, Reliable and Secondary? 2. Given the presence of pay-to-play/vanity exhibitions in this article, which of the exhibitions and awards do you think are significant and substantial? Theredproject (talk) 19:39, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to the numerous pay-to-play career promotion events, and the lack of independent recognition followed by independent reporting in reliable sources.104.163.159.237 (talk) 18:26, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete After examining the prizes won, I conclude most are vanity affairs and schemes designed for money making, rather than artistic recognition. There's a plethora of sources but, on examination, they turn out to be mostly duds. -The Gnome (talk) 21:50, 20 May 2018 (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. J04n(talk page) 17:14, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Alden Milne

John Alden Milne (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 referenced and semi-

conflict of interest rules. Bearcat (talk) 17:21, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

First of all I am a Canadian film and indie music fan and not related to the subject. The feature film mentioned has been picked up for distribution and as such, will ultimately be reviewed and will receive additional coverage. The subject has numerous references including an article from a national magazine that has been inexplicably deleted. User:Thomsonobrien

I wasn't talking about you — you did not create this article,
reliably sourceable as already true. Bearcat (talk) 18:05, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:05, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:05, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:35, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:35, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Received substantial coverage where, given that a small smattering of hometown coverage alone is not enough to get a person over
verifiably screened anywhere beyond that one film festival alone. Bearcat (talk) 00:32, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
"Evidence of attention by regional media is a strong indication of notability." He's had entire bylined articles about him and his work and has won regional awards for his films and muaic videos. It's not some minor locality of a few thousands but a city of more than 100,000 people. There are many countries that size. FloridaArmy (talk) 01:23, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't — notability per
WP:NMUSIC for anything, everybody who ever exhibited their pottery at a local artisan's fair, and on and so forth. For a filmmaker, "notable because awards" attaches to awards on the level of the Academy Awards, the BAFTAs or the Canadian Screen Awards, not to every "Best Local Film" award at every second-tier film festival in every filmmaker's own hometown. And you might want to peruse Talk:Greater Sudbury, wherein I reveal something you probably didn't know about me, if you think you have any chance of ever schoolin' me anything I didn't already know about it. Bearcat (talk) 18:27, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

A colleague who worked on the feature film Savage Tales, which Bearcat had deleted, just shared that the film received a distribution offer and an announcement will be made. Generally, reviews will follow. It often takes 2 years from screening (even at a "second-tier festival") to distribution. Milne is also a Toronto bred and based filmmaker and your comment is offensive comparing the work of a professional filmmaker (who brought a high level of skill to "the North" working on large format films) with high school poetry, local pub bands and potters. The need to win an Oscar or CSA in order to be a noted Canadian filmmaker is incredibly narrow and biased. The article needs to be edited yes but deletion is an extreme and premature measure. User:Thomsonobrien —Preceding undated comment added 02:17, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The notability test for a filmmaker is not what might happen in the future, and neither is anybody's personal opinion about the quality of his work relevant at all — the notability test is "a
WP:CREATIVE today". If all we had to do to keep an article was predict that somebody might pass a notability criterion in the future that they haven't already passed yet as of today, then we'd have to keep an article about every single person who exists at all, because absolutely everybody could make that exact same claim. Wikipedia is not a free public relations database to help aspiring future notables promote themselves — notability is determined by the significance of the accomplishments, and the depth of sourceability, that are already true today, not by what a person might accomplish in the future. If and when one or more of his films actually get commercial distribution, and enough coverage of him actually materializes accordingly to get him over GNG, then an article about him can be recreated because the notability equation will have changed — but for him to have an article today, we can only evaluate the significance and sourceability of what's already true today, and nothing that's already true today gets him over CREATIVE or GNG yet. Bearcat (talk) 16:17, 16 May 2018 (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

Uzbekistan national basketball team. J04n(talk page) 16:52, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Samender Juginisov

Samender Juginisov (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:NBASKETBALL and WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:00, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 12:14, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 12:14, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 12:14, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:35, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think you need to brush up on the meaning of GNG. "Significant coverage in reliable sources", which is not the case for the first two sources. The third source is a blog. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:46, 17 May 2018 (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. Enigmamsg 04:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Ashkanani

Mohammad Ashkanani (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:NBASKETBALL and WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:59, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 12:15, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 12:15, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kuwait-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 12:15, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:35, 14 May 2018 (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. Enigmamsg 04:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talal Al-Nuaimi

Talal Al-Nuaimi (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 and

WP:NBASKETBALL. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:47, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 12:15, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 12:15, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 12:15, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:35, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:08, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OpenTV

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

The article is almost entirely based on non-independent sources, primarily press releases, and has been tagged for three years for this defect. The text is excessively

WP:CORPDEPTH. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:31, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 12:22, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 12:22, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 12:22, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep + Comment Notable = Yes. The article is confusing and promotion and at least half of the sources used are press releases. Why are press releases being used when a quick search on google shows a wealth of great coverage some of them from well-known media outlets like Fortune. Confusing Yes, the first line states openTV is a software platform and the line under it states its a company. Half the article discusses it as a product and the other half discusses it as a company. Then a company named Nagra and their product are discussed. I have made some improvement to the article which includes deleting promotional content and adding sources that are not press releases. But in terms of long-term retention of the article, the author might consider rewriting from scratch.Freetheangels (talk) 01:27, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Freetheangels:, thanks for bringing these points up. If you've found better references, I urge you to add them to the article or this discussion. I so far see only that you changed the URL for one of the press releases from the company's own web site to an industry announcement web site article that is all of two paragraphs long, one of which is a verbatim quote of the original release. That's not exactly showing editorial independence and journalistic judgment. The reference to Fortune made me decide to re-search for RS and led me to this article from almost two years ago which positions OpenTV as little more than a patent troll. This still does not rise to the level of significant coverage in independent reliable sources, in my evaluation. Thanks again. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:51, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:35, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 15:11, 14 May 2018 (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. J04n(talk page) 11:32, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Judi McLeod

AfDs for this article:
Judi McLeod (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 editor of an online publication Rupert Rostenkowski (talk) 19:10, 29 April 2018(UTC)— Rupert Rostenkowski (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

A wildly inaccurate summary of a long career in journalism, with a website at the end of years of reporting for mainstream newspapers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:34, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:27, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:27, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:27, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:27, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Flatly untrue assertions. But the edit history both of this article and of an article on her website [49] that may have been deleted in some irregular way, show that IPs and SPAs have been deleting, editing, and fighting over her pages for many years. An IP was tagging and deleting material on this page this morning. And this comment by User:Rupert Rostenkowski shows a great deal of familiarity with Wikipedia for an editor who has been here for only a few days and a handful of edits.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
EM Gregory should focus on the merits of the article rather than engage in ad hominem character assassinations of editors. I have been editing as an IP for a long time but created an account because you can't create an AFD without one, and then forgot to log back in. He says, "An IP was tagging and deleting material on this page this morning", that is highly misleading and prejudicial. All that happened was in one edit[50] I restored some material I found in an earlier version of the article and then three minutes later I self-reverted[51] when I realized the source links weren't working so EM's claim that I was "deleting" material is a half-truth. I actually self-reverted. As for "tagging", I tagged a number of claims for being unsourced and several sources for being self-published.[52] EM has not claimed that a single one of those tags were unjustified yet he again insinuates that something untowards was done. The fact that he subsequently attempted to find third party sources to replace the self-published ones and/or substantiated the unsourced claims only shows that the tagging was a) justified and b) his insinuations to the contrary, as well as his claim that my statements were "flatly untrue assertions", were unfair and baseless. Rupert Rostenkowski (talk) 14:20, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only genuinely serious claim of notability here, the blip of media coverage she got in 1983 for being fired from
    ten-year test-passing encyclopedic notability. Bearcat (talk) 04:59, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:33, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - "Cover" and mention unfortunately mean two very different things and I do not see many sources that "cover" her substantially. Bearcat said it best: ...glancing namechecks of her existence in coverage whose subject is somebody other than her.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:23, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slick, can you please be specific? I ask because your comment puzzled me so much that I have just looked at all 16 citations, and I cannot figure out which one is a mere "namecheck."E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:07, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Spartaz Humbug! 07:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedily deleted by Doug Weller. Sandstein 11:52, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First genocide of the 20th century

First genocide of the 20th century (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 disambiguation is misleading. It's quite hard to establish which was first and why it relates to Armenian genocide only? Arthistorian1977 (talk) 06:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: It relates to the Armenian Genocide because it is the most well-known of them, and it might be a common saying. Prominent leaders such as Pope Francis used the term. I feel this is an important list of early XX century genocides. However, I agree that having this as a dab page is misleading. Maybe we could rename it "List of the first genocides of the XXth century".
    talk) 07:15, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:12, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:12, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:12, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:12, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If an event is demonstrably the first occurring in a defined period of time, then the article should ipso facto contain only one entry, and therefore not be written as a disambiguation page. The word "genocide" is a much-debated term, and the article already notes that one current entry is "Not widely considered genocide by scholars, but called one by many media outlets". Which scholars, which media outlets, and according to which references? But per
    WP:RS, not a disambiguation page. The subject is already covered in detail at Genocides in history#1490 to 1914 and Genocides in history#Australia 1900–1969. If there's a case to be made for which was the first genocide of the 20th, according to agreed criteria, then that's the place to document it. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:44, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete Needs citation as to how, why, and by whom these events are considered to be the first genocide of the 20th century, otherwise it is just pure
    WP:LISTCRUFT. Acnetj (talk) 10:15, 14 May 2018 (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. Sandstein 11:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Galactic empire

Galactic empire (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 TVTropes, and this reads like a work of original research remarking on the similarities of galactic empires between works, but is not backed up by any reliable sources. There are a lot of weasel words like "most", "many", etc. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 05:33, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Exemplo347 (talk) 07:58, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep, per arguments above. The article needs rewriting, but the subject is a notable concept. /Julle (talk)
  • Keep. Concur with all the above. This should not even be on a discussion list for deletion. It needs sources, not deletion, nor even talk about deletion. Merely checking Google for "encyclopedia" entries about the topic turned up articles in Enc. Britannica, in Enc. of Science Fiction, and in Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy (hardcopy). A Google Scholar search turned up lots more hits, such as Newman & Sagan (noted above) and Galam's Sociophysics: A Physicist's Modeling of Psycho-political Phenomena. I haven't read these, so I can't cite them appropriately. But the idea that there might not be any, so this article should be considered for deletion, is preposterous. Jmacwiki (talk) 19:07, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:08, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sahed Sahedul

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

The article is poorly sourced, most the content of the article is not even about him. The article appears highly promotional. While he does admirable work I do not think he meets the notability guidelines. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 05:30, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reasons expressed by Vinegarymass911, also seems promotional of a political POV. Barbara ✐  ✉ 09:05, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 15:24, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 15:24, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Delete per nom. --
talk) 15:41, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Delete per nom.MensanDeltiologist (talk) 19:21, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep Nomination withdrawn

(non-admin closure) –Ammarpad (talk) 04:27, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Coconut Island (Florida)

Coconut Island (Florida) (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, an "island" created in the 60s from being disconnected from the mainland which rapidly eroded and no longer exists. Also the entirety of the article is seemingly original research blaming disappearance of the island due to removal of pine trees in the late 1990s. The best I see to support this notion is a mention on this site
stating:Hurricane Donna created Coconut Island in 1960 when the south tip of Cannon Island was cut off; over time this little Island shifted and moved some but was mostly stabilized by tall Australian pine trees that dominated the north end of the island.

However this is contradicted by this coastal engineering report which notes that the island had already shrunk to 10% its 1967 size by 1990 and was continuing to erode rapidly.TypingAway (talk) 04:46, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 15:15, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:01, 17 May 2018 (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 Gordian I. Sandstein 12:07, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fabia Orestilla

Fabia Orestilla (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)

Regardless of the notability of the subject, there just isn't enough definite information known about the wife of Gordian I to justify a separate article. Her name is disputed (consensus is that it most likely is not "Fabia Orestilla", but otherwise nothing can be said). Starting with T.D. Barnes, some experts think she was the granddaughter of Herodes Atticus -- or the granddaughter might be her mother-in-law. And that is the whole of it, not enough to definitely say who she was. I think the material is better merged in Gordian I where it can be maintained & found. llywrch (talk) 02:51, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk • mail) 03:26, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk • mail) 03:26, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk • mail) 03:26, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:06, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixd Repair

Fixd Repair (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)

Company lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Mostly just local coverage. Meatsgains(talk) 02:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 15:26, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 15:26, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Insufficient sourcing fails
    WP:GNG. Not only did I find no sources beyond what's in the article, I went to their site where they list media logos and Googled their name with each mediaq company name and still couldn't find anything that's not already here. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 03:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:06, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bulo Gadud

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

There is one reference to military action there, but once again it's another Somali "no there there" supposed town. Geonames gives one name as "unverified" and the other as a "variant", which does not inspire confidence. Mangoe (talk) 02:30, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk • mail) 03:30, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk • mail) 03:30, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:06, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kathleen Bryson

Kathleen Bryson (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. I haven't been able to find any coverage in RS other than brief mentions. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. cinco de L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:11, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. cinco de L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:11, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. cinco de L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:11, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There was a lot more to it, but it had been tagged "BLP source" for 11 years so I removed the unsourced material, leaving what you see now. I considered A7 but given the length of time this article has been around thought AfD might be more appropriate. I certainly won't oppose speedy. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:09, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2018_May_14&oldid=1142615637"