Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 September 7

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 6 September	8 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:40, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy as Hell

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

No sources, fails

WP:NFILM. All plot as well, no encyclopedic value. Kirbanzo (talk) 23:50, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 01:40, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A search brought up multiple reviews from places like the New York Times, Variety, TV Guide, and AV Club, enough to have it pass NFILM. ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡) 01:57, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:45, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:45, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as Rotten Tomatoes links to 14 professional film critic reviews in reliable sources such as the New York Times, Variety, Los Angeles Times, New York Post, Village Voice, LA Weekly and many others so it definitely passes both
WP:GNG, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 18:47, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep – Article has been expanded, it has encyclopedic value, and the film passes
WP:NFP. Source examples include: [1], [2], [3], [4], etc. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:53, 14 September 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:40, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of films based on military books (fantasy)

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

Definitely fails

WP:OR. Not a needed list at all. Kirbanzo (talk) 23:40, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete per nom. This list is organized "chronologically" by the dates of the fictional fantasy battles described in books and portrayed in films. Assembling different, unrelated fictional works into a single timeline is
original research and not meaningful. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:32, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 01:37, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 01:37, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:INDISCRIMINATE among others. I appreciate the creators intent and there are probably other spots on the web where they can post this. MarnetteD|Talk 01:42, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as failing to meet
WP:V. E.g., the Harry Potter books being called military books, even of a fantasy sort, is an unverifiable reach. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:19, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete some sort of
WP:OR. I don't see any secondary sources of notability for this "subject". --David Tornheim (talk) 10:16, 14 September 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:00, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Rustem

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

Per

WP:POLITICIAN as Rustem has not been elected to an international, national or provincial legislature or office. There are some in-depth pieces in national sources such as here but I don't see enough to pass the second option on WP:POLITICIAN of a local figure with wide national coverage. Being ethnically Turkish in a white nationalist party is certainly interesting, as is being given a job of liaison between that party and minority communities, but I don't see many sources taking major interest. There are a few passing mentions in books about British fascism or documentaries but it doesn't look like enough for me. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 22:29, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 01:37, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 01:37, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:50, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is wrong to judge this purely on the basis of "politician". On that basis, we would be deleting just about every article on leaders of British fascism, none of who has been elected (other than Brons and Griffin as BNP MEPs). Rustem is (or was) a key member of the BNP leadership, hence his coverage in so many sources, and his ethnicity was frequently used by the party. Emeraude (talk) 10:24, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where are these sources when over half of the references are either election results or from the BNP itself? If he was a subject of public interest wouldn't his suspension be covered by a third party and not just a BNP faction website? Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 00:40, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the second half of

WP:POLITICIAN is relevant here because that is about the notability of people who don't qualify for the first. People like Tyndall and Golding meet its criteria for "significant press coverage", I have not seen enough evidence that Rustem does. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 00:48, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete fails
WP:GNG. No non-primary source in the article significantly covers him. SportingFlyer talk 05:36, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
also ran". Bearian (talk) 00:52, 12 September 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. The general opinion here is that this is a

WP:NPOV fork of Terrorism in Greece, and the topic is better covered in the parent article. This seems like an unlikely search term, and there's currently no incoming links to this from mainspace, so I'm not going to redirect. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Timeline of the Left-wing insurgency in Greece

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

Duplicate of Terrorism_in_Greece#Timeline – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 21:03, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I also want to note this related recently closed AfD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Left-wing_insurgency_in_Greece – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 21:06, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unnecessary
content fork. Kirbanzo (talk) 23:36, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per the arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Left-wing insurgency in Greece which apply here as well. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:13, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Timeline of the left-wing insurgency in Greece (low case).GreyShark (dibra) 21:08, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Terrorism in Greece. I agree that this is an unneeded content fork (and the other article is much more comprehensive), but there are some referenced incidents included in this article that are not on the list in the Terrorism in Greece article that could be added there. PohranicniStraze (talk) 01:33, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename as per GreyShark. This article is very well sourced, which was the primary concern people raise with the Left-wing insurgency in Greece article that was deleted. XavierGreen (talk) 14:27, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article is sourced, but none of the articles refer to this as an "insurgency". That's where the POV/OR comes in. Thus this article should be deleted in favor of the better, non-POV list at the terrorism page. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 16:20, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per [Conventions], "If there is no common name for the event and no generally accepted descriptive word, use a descriptive name that does not carry POV implications." Since this armed conflict has no common name., titling it Timeline of the Left-wing insurgency in Greece seems appropriate, no one has yet stated why they believe the term "insurgency" to be POV. The word insurgency is used quite frequently throughout Wikipedia article titles for a variety of armed conflicts of varying insensity. For examples see: Insurgency in Paraguay, Insurgency in Aceh, Naxalite–Maoist insurgency, Lord's Resistance Army insurgency, Insurgency in Manipur, Naxalite–Maoist insurgency, Insurgency in the Maghreb (2002–present), ect. As you said this article is well sourced, the armed conflict clearly happened, so there is no reason why the article should be deleted.XavierGreen (talk) 17:38, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as
WP:OR and unneeded, since the Terrorism in Greece article has a better timeline without the dubious POV and with better context. Constantine ✍ 17:01, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Per [Conventions] the word "Terrorism" is much more POV than the word "insurgency", to merge would cause a NPOV problem rather than solve one that doesn't exist.XavierGreen (talk) 17:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You insist missing the point. The core of this whole debate is about

WP:OR is, as has been explained over and over again, the use of "insurgency", which is a specific phenomenon. There is a vast literature dealing with terrorism in Greece, especially left-wing terrorism, and, what is important, calling it that; I am Greek, have lived in Greece, and even in Greece that is the word used. I have yet to see, in both this AfD and the previous one, any indication that anyone outside Wikipedia uses the term "insurgency". By taking a string of events and applying your own analysis to it in calling it an insurgency, you are engaging in textbook WP:OR. Constantine ✍ 17:40, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

You clearly are asserting a Greek POV, this is not the Greek language wikipedia, its the english language wikipedia. In English, there is no common name for this armed conflict, per the Wiki naming conventions that I linked to above, in the instance that no common name for an event exists, a title that describes it is sufficient and wiki:OR need not apply. There is no POV connotation to the word "insurgency" in the english language, rather to the contrary the word "terrorism" does have POV connotations per the wiki naming conventions and the manual of style. You have still not stated why you believe the word "insurgency" is POV, as this article and its sourced clearly indicate several greek militant groups pursued a campaign of armed violence against the government. Indeed the wikipedia article for insurgency clearly states that the tactics various militant groups are described as using in this article and its sources are those used in insurgencies.XavierGreen (talk) 19:18, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a Greek POV. You are utterly wrong to call this an "insurgency" which makes 0 sense. An insurgency implies that these leftists were all part of one unified rebellion, whereas the list is literally just a list of left-wing terror attacks. Regardless, even though "terrorist" can be wielded politically, it's still widely used and accepted. There's been plenty of right wing terror attacks in the US. Do we say that there's a right wing insurgency in the US? Obviously not. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 19:54, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The groups carrying out attacks in Greece were and still are organized, Revolutionary Struggle and 17N for instance are not random lone wolves but rather organized militant groups. There is no need for a "unified rebellion" for there to be an insurgency, in the Insurgency in Northeast India there are literally dozens of different militant groups that launch attacks on the Indian government. Your own definition of insurgency is OR and does not comport with the Wikipedia article on the topic. Contrary to your assertion there are no organized right-wing militant groups engaged in armed conflict with the US government, there are however organized militant groups in Greece that engaged in armed conflict with the Greek government and while their attacks in recent times may not be as high profile as the attacks made by 17N, they still continue to exist and launch attacks.XavierGreen (talk) 20:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Argue about the definition of insurgency all you want. There's no coverage that describes all the activities listed in the article as an insurgency, and it's absurd and illogical to do so.

WP:COMMONSENSE also applies here. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 20:21, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete Per Constantine. Dubious "definition" of insurgency plus original research. The arguments for deletion presented in the closely related to this subject discussion AfD/Left-wing insurgency in Greece are good for this case too. ——Chalk19 (talk) 09:21, 14 September 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:39, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Torana Inc.

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

Company fails

WP:CORP. Dewritech (talk) 21:00, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 01:39, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:53, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:54, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional and fails NCORP. Sdmarathe (talk) 18:04, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: borderline
WP:G11; corporate spam for a nn company. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:51, 12 September 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. No support for deletion

(non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 20:02, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Kay Adams (sports personality)

)

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

Doesn't appear to meet

WP:ENT NE Ent 20:58, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 01:39, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 01:39, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Host of a nationally televised American football show, appeared in several advertisements, has a social media following of over 300000, prominent female journalist, article is sourced, seems to meet

gem 03:42, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:55, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:55, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As stated above, she meets various WP:GNG guidelines (I've added another source about her to the article from The Big Lead/USA Today further cementing it). JC7V-constructive zone 17:41, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There seems to be less biographical background content about her in online reliable sources than one would hope, but all the same, she hosts two well-known national TV programs about professional football (Good Morning Football on NFLN and DirecTV's gameday fantasy channel) and as a result she has a become a highly visible figure in the football world. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:10, 10 September 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:03, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ksenia Larina

Russian singer, participant of Fabrika Zvyozd, a Russian voice of Vanessa Hudgens. Enough?--RTY9099 (talk) 20:20, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 20:42, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:18, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:18, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:18, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:33, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I will be charitable and cite the
WP:TOOSOON standard. The singer has some TV appearances in Russia but none have gained independent media notice, and she is still in self-promotional mode which should be done elsewhere. Also note that there is a Russian journalist of the same name who made the news in 2017, which will complicate the search for info on the singer. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:58, 9 September 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.

(non-admin closure) gidonb (talk) 23:32, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

List of tourist attractions in Helsinki

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

Fails

WP:NOTTRAVEL. Includes promotional text without sourcing like most famous, renowned, certainly worth a visit, popular, easy to recognize and classic tourguide things like This area is suitable for day trip hiking » Shadowowl | talk 20:39, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep Passes
AfD is not cleanup. Andrew D. (talk) 21:06, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:20, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:57, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tourist attractions in Budapest. --Doncram (talk) 22:07, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Eastmain. Issues can obviously be addressed by editing. --Michig (talk) 07:22, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Helsinki. Every single bit is unsourced and needs a citation. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:38, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I made a first pass through for encyclopedic tone. I don't see fundamental problems with what remains; claims about "popularity" can be sourced, for example. Since the entries are blue-linked, inline citations in this article aren't immediately necessary, although they might be convenient. I mean, I don't think we need a footnote right away to demonstrate that the
talk) 15:23, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep: I see the problems with the page, and that's why I've been working on restructuring it in this sandbox. Let me know if you have any feedback about the sandboxed list. Citations are on the way. —Rutlandbaconsouthamptonshakespeare (talk) 19:44, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- That looks nice!
  talk) 21:12, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Keep. Nonsensical nomination. Of course promotional text can be addressed by editing. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tourist attractions in Budapest. If the deletion nominator nominates more of these they should be banned from AFD, IMHO. --Doncram (talk) 22:07, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We seem to have such lists for other cities so this list wants improvement and not deletion. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:20, 9 September 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. – Joe (talk) 20:20, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fraud Resistant Electronic Voting

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

This article is basically a personal essay, exemplified by the fact that the author originally referred to themselves in the first person, before replacing "I" with "we" (which isn't much better). Prod removed by said author without a rationale. Number 5 7 20:37, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a place for essays, spefifically those that aren't for the Wikipedia or user namespace. Kirbanzo (talk) 00:24, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this essay. If someone wanted, they could write an article about Electronic voting fraud, with sources like this. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 12:29, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The subject is notable but the article would need to be completely rewritten if an article of this title were to be retained. It could be moved to draftspace, but I doubt the creator, a single issue editor, would want to rewrite it in encyclopedic style. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:48, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This simply isn't an encyclopedia article. Cwmhiraeth is correct; the subject in general has notability, but this is a manual. Even the author essentially confirms it is a manual, saying it "is much like high level requirements document".[5] He again confirms this (see
not a place for instruction manuals. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:35, 11 September 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. – Joe (talk) 20:21, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Viktor Petlyura

Russian singer chanson with questionable significance. The Russian Wikipedia has been removed. --RTY9099 (talk) 20:13, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 20:26, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 02:43, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 02:43, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:58, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:58, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article doesn't establish any notablility in the biography section. The lead mentions a Chanson of the Year award, but since WP doesn't have a page on this (or even a mention anywhere), it's unlikely that it's of any significance (it's also uncited). No mention whatsoever of any chart activity anywhere in the world. Also, after nearly two years of existence, the fact that the article is still a rough translation shows that the article has very little interest.Tuzapicabit (talk) 07:36, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and above. The significance is not really established yet. Raymond3023 (talk) 20:08, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Non-notable singer, only decent source that currently exists is an article from a regional Aif newspaper, which is a plain interview so it has a questionable reliability.Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 21:16, 13 September 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

United States House of Representatives elections in Pennsylvania, 2018#District 7 , at least until the result of the election is announced. – Joe (talk) 20:23, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Mary Gay Scanlon

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

Fails

WP:GNG. Marquardtika (talk) 20:12, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Strong Keep Come on now. Easily meets GNG [6] [7] [8] I could find more. Just because she is a candidate doesn't mean she can't have an article. The election is in two months, and its a virtual certainty she will win. Enough of this nonsense. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:23, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - would close as non-admin
WP:SNOW but we need more !votes first. She's definitely notable though. Kirbanzo (talk) 20:32, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:19, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:19, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
WP:TOOSOON. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:31, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Not sure if you read the articles (which is understanable, since theres some dead links) but most of the campaign coverage is anything but ROUTINE. FiveThirtyEight gives Scanlon a 99 percent chance of being elected, so yeah, theres that. Plus, WP:NPOL states "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article"." This has significant coverage. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 22:51, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- - I looked at what I could, and I disagree with your assessment. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:52, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia does not deal in the realm of election predictions. The fact that one or more election prediction models deem a candidate as favoured to win does not constitute a notability claim — candidates who are "favoured" to win can still lose (Hillary Clinton would be president of the United States right now if "favoured to win" always led to actually winning), or withdraw from the ballot for personal or professional or scandal reasons, or even die, and in some elections different pundits can and do publish conflicting claims about which candidate is "favoured". So the notability test is not "somebody has predicted that they're likely to win the seat" — it's "the election is over and she's been declared the winner of the actual votes cast". Bearcat (talk) 17:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hillary Clinton did not have a 99% chance to win, it was something like 72%. All the models agree that Scanlon is the heavy favorite, and yet people want to know who they are voting for -- official websites are not always the best sources. Also, the notability test is not if the election is over and they've won, it's is there enough sources to meet GNG. And in this case, the answer is yes, see [9] [10] [11]. Just because they are about the campaign doesn't mean they should be discounted. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:31, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Every single candidate in every single election everywhere can always claim that "there are enough sources to meet GNG and therefore exempt them from having to pass NPOL". So "some campaign coverage exists" does not automatically equal "passes GNG in lieu of NPOL", because every candidate in any election would always get that pass — the only way campaign coverage of a non-winning candidate actually gets over GNG as an alternative to passing NPOL is if her candidacy has already made her so (inter)nationally "Christine O'Donnell or Alexandria Ocasio Cortez" famous that even if she loses the election she'll still pass the

people will still be looking for this article ten years from now test anyway. Absent that level of hypersignificance attaching to the candidacy, the notability test for any other candidate is that she has to win the election first. Bearcat (talk) 03:44, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Redirect to
United States House of Representatives elections in Pennsylvania, 2018#District 7. I agree with Muboshgu here. I also think that a prediction of her win probability doesn't give any weight to why the article should be kept, those things are very often wrong anyways. Further, most of the articles about her seem to be routine coverage about her candidacy and endorsements, or interest pieces created due to her candidacy and not because her work has been inherently notable. Zortwort (talk) 23:22, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to
United States House of Representatives elections in Pennsylvania, 2018#District 7, if even if it might just be a couple of months. A redirect is a usual and appropriate outcome for a candidate for US House. --Enos733 (talk) 05:57, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect per Zortwort, Enos733, Muboshgu - I've reviewed the sources and there's nothing inherently notable about her candidacy, the articles linked above making a
WP:GNG claim are an alumni magazine and two routine articles basically announcing her candidacy and don't actually get her over that line. SportingFlyer talk 06:24, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep -- I don't understand why the sources provided are not sufficient for an article. It's a significant seat. --David Tornheim (talk) 15:53, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

People have to win elections and thereby hold seats to be deemed notable as politicians, not just be candidates for seats. Bearcat (talk) 16:56, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:NPOL

also includes:

Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.[8]

[8] ...A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists.

If you are arguing that it does not meet this second standard, that's a reasonable position. I believe it meets the standard. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:52, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" does not cover off unelected candidates for offices that would otherwise fall under NPOL #1 — it covers mayors and city councillors and county executives, not candidates for anything. And even if we waived that and applied it to unelected candidates, every candidate in every election always receives enough campaign coverage to claim that they pass it — so passing it is not a question of "some campaign coverage exists", but of "so bloody much campaign coverage exists that she has a credible claim to being a special case over and above most other candidates". Bearcat (talk) 03:50, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What evidence do you have that, ""Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" does not cover off unelected candidates"? That does not sound right at all. As far as I am concerned candidates ARE political figures. In fact, I see no reason to not have coverage of candidates that have "significant" coverage. Sometimes, I have found Wikipedia a far better and more

WP:RS exists. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:08, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I was involved in the initial creation and writing of NPOL in the first place, for starters — so I know very well what it's supposed to cover, and NPOL #2 most certainly was meant to cover off mayors and city councillors, and not to provide congressional or state legislature candidates with a "get out of NPOL #1 free" card. And you'll find that the corpus of past AFD discussions on politicians also supports my statement — NPOL #2 is not applied to candidates for state or federal offices, but to holders of municipal offices. And at any rate, in reality, Wikipedia articles about political officeholders or hopefuls do routinely turn into electioneering bumf as bad as all the junk mail and phone calls, because we have zero mechanisms to prevent their campaign manager from overwriting the whole thing with a blatant campaign brochure, or even worse than the junk mail and phone calls, because we also have zero mechanisms to prevent their opponent's campaign manager from dirtwashing the whole thing with a pile of libel — which is precisely one of the reasons that we expressly limit NPOL notability to officeholders rather than candidates, because we simply don't have the resources to properly manage and monitor and disinfect articles about tens of thousands of aspiring candidates per election cycle. And another reason is that notability is not temporary — a person cannot be "notable for now because he's a candidate, and then we'll delete him if he loses", but rather must already have a strong and permanent claim to "notable forever" before an article is allowed to be started at all. So Wikipedia has expressly decided that providing voters with information about prospective candidates is not our job — that's what Ballotpedia is for, while Wikipedia's job is to cover the holders of notable political offices and not every person who merely aspires to become one. Bearcat (talk) 04:23, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the lengthy explanation. If you can give links to discussions that created the

WP:NPOL "statute" does not make that clear. As for "case-law" of prior AfD's, I'm not familiar with those either. Examples of that would be helpful too. (It would be really nice if we had something equivalent to Annotation#Law annotated statutes

for our policies, guidelines, etc. and cases that apply them.)

I do agree with you that it is a lot of work to deal with campaigns trying to write

WP:PROMO or trash their opponent, even long after the election or their service in office. And I am aware of these campaigns getting caught doing so. I have definitely seen that before! --David Tornheim (talk) 04:58, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Redirect. People have to win the election, not just run in it, to be guaranteed a spot in Wikipedia as politicians — and as I've pointed out above, a candidate's presumed or predicted likelihood of winning is not an inclusion criterion either. But the depth and breadth and range of coverage shown here is not enough to get her over
WP:GNG as a special case whose candidacy is somehow more notable than everybody else's candidacy, because it simply falls right in line with what every candidate in every election could always routinely show. If she does win, then she'll be eligible for an article after election day — but nothing here is a strong or compelling reason why she would already qualify for an article two months before election day. Bearcat (talk) 17:07, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, that is true that they need to win an election to be guaranteed a spot in Wikipedia, but this is one of the cases where she deserves an article anyway. It is completely untrue that this is the type of coverage any candidate would receive -- many candidates only have a routine article about them running, while there are multiple articles on Mary Gay's bio. No reason to wait two months when the pieces are here for an article. In the off chance she has to resign as a candidate due to a scandal or whatever, she would still be notable due to the ensuing press coverage. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:31, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect Fails
WP:NPOL. Long-standing, sensible consensus is that Wikipedia is not a repository for campaign brochures. She has simply not received significant coverage outside of her political candidacy. Other than a single mention in a specialist law publication, articles cited by keep advocates are literally solely about her candidacy for office. AusLondonder (talk) 02:52, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to
United States House of Representatives elections in Pennsylvania, 2018#District 7. That is the appropriate place for NPOV content about this election including content on all of the candidates. For those who think that her chance of victory is 99%, please realize that if she wins, the chance of this article being restored is 100%. But we really need to follow our standard procedures. If we ignore our notabilty guideline regarding unelected politicical candidates, and ignore past precedent at AfD, then this encyclopedia rapidly becomes a repository for tens of thousands of campaign brochures posing as faux encyclopedia articles. This is an intolerable burden on our volunteer editors. If she wins, there will be an article. Don't rush it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:23, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
We are not ignoring our notability guidelines, nowhere in the guidelines does it say that an unelected candidate is NOT notable. I ask again, why are articles on the campaign considered unusable? And since when did the precedent arise that candidates aren't notable until the election? I suppose we could merge the content into the election article but that would be
WP:SLIPPERYSLOPE argument and fails basic logical principles. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:09, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

This article particularly reads like a campaign brochure as it is. Candidates who aren't politicians and who haven't done anything else in their lives have strong
WP:PROMO concerns. SportingFlyer talk 23:32, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as a notable lawyer - notable case, tax commisison vice chair, school board member, etc. I would go along with a redirect instead. Bearian (talk) 00:55, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bearian: She's not a notable lawyer though. Her history isn't significantly more distinguished than many lawyers without wikipedia articles, and the only source supporting her legal history is her firm's own webpage. There's nothing constituting notable coverage of her legal career except a few mentions of it in election campaign news. If every tax commission vice chair and school board member got a wikipedia article it'd be loony. Zortwort (talk) 01:06, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, noting that editors are free to save the text and bring it back if she wins in November. I searched for notability (news archive search set to show oldest articles first), and saw articles going back as far as 1992 (mostly in the
Inky) that mentioned or quoted her, many on school related issues and cases. I did not find profiles, and - scanning - nothing looked sufficiently INDEPTH to claim pre-campaign notability, nor did there appear to be any single accomplishment that does so. Feel free to ping me to reconsider if someone finds such coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:11, 13 September 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. The argument is that because insufficient sources exist to verify a well-formed list about this subject, Wikipedia should not have a list about this subject. I'll note that a broad-concept article about this subject exists at

Railway Schools. Interested editors may wish to contribute there instead. Mz7 (talk) 08:32, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

List of Railway Schools in India

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

No useful content Rathfelder (talk) 09:08, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:12, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:13, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:13, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The page had been effectively blanked before you nominated it;[12] you're supposed to review a page's history before starting what appears to be a completely unnecessary AFD (see
WP:BEFORE B.3.). So I suggest you take another look at the page and consider withdrawing, or actually present a substantive and valid deletion rationale based on the page's topic and potential. Until that is done, I don't see anything here to discuss. postdlf (talk) 15:06, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Happy to withdraw my suggestion. I'm afraid the sort of work I do doesn't lend itself to
WP:BEFORE. Rathfelder (talk) 17:49, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, even with the content has been restored there is nothing of importance in this list. It just appears to be an indiscriminate directory of non notable schools with no indepth sources. Even the term
Railway Schools is barely notable itself. Ajf773 (talk) 20:17, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment is there such an official list somewhere by the Railway Schools organization? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:07, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Would it not be better to merge the list with the article about them? Rathfelder (talk) 07:16, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on how many schools are going to be listed. If it's less than 30 then it's not a big deal, but if it's going to be in the hundreds, then it should be separated. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:15, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that is that the list just has a bunch of schools with the word Railway in it. While most of them are likely to be Railway Schools, there are NO references for any of the entries to confirm. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:05, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. High schools are notable per se, and these railway schools must have been studied in depth. It seems likely that this topic is covered properly in the India version of wikipedia but I can make little of it. (https://bn.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%A6%AD%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%B0%E0%A6%A4.)
Oculi (talk) 10:55, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

That link just goes to India. And there's already a

Railway schools article here. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:15, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

That link is just the article India on the Bengali Wikipedia though.--DreamLinker (talk) 02:02, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a perfect example of !voting without the slightest clue which shall be avoided.I don't know what the India version of wikipedia is.(Probably, you've equated India to France, Germany et al with their equivalent French or German wikis.)India has several regional languages, each with a wiki, of it's own.I don't have any idea, either, as to what we are supposed to do with the bn.wiki entry (In Bengali language, the second-widely spoken language in India) about India.......∯WBG^converse 17:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 01:38, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the topic of Railway Schools in India is likely to be notable, given the history of railways in India (which at one time had the world's largest rail network). The main problem with this article is that there are no references. As mentioned by AngusWOOF, it is not possible to verify if indeed each school is managed by Indian railways. I will try to add references to the article.--DreamLinker (talk) 02:17, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Certainly if these are run by a government agency, then reliable sources exist even if they are primary (official) ones. postdlf (talk) 14:56, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you can find a government agency that has a listing of the railway schools, that would suffice. I just haven't seen any of them. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:09, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:18, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We also have Category:Railway Schools in India. Lorstaking (talk) 16:20, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is only one keep vote and one delete vote and only a few other non-vote opinions. Should have been relisted a third time almost two weeks ago. If an admin objects, feel free to close this discussion as no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

69 20:06, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete There's no sources. It's not clear that a single entry in the list is notable. Even if the concept or general history of railroad schools would be, individually the list entries are not. This sort of list should be maintained by some other authority, not by wikipedia. Zortwort (talk) 23:27, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Fails
WP:LISTN.No source treats the concept of railway schools in India in it's entirety. SER and ER have their own webpages that mention the schools under them but nothing more.∯WBG^converse 17:03, 10 September 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

(non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 19:57, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Lauren Underwood

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

This individual does not meet

WP:TOOSOON. Marquardtika (talk) 19:58, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:22, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:23, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:32, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
WP:TOOSOON. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:31, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect per Muboshgu. SportingFlyer talk 06:19, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - as per above. Subject does not currently meet
WP:NBIO but will if she gets elected in November. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:07, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect. As always, candidates in forthcoming elections are not automatically eligible for Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — the notability bar for politicians requires winning the election and thereby holding the office, not just running for it. But the standard campaign coverage that every candidate in every election always receives does not automatically get her over
WP:GNG by itself, either — to be exempted from having to pass NPOL on "media coverage exists" grounds, that media coverage has to mark her candidacy out as nationally, not just locally, significant for reasons beyond simply having her name on the ballot, but no such evidence is on offer here. Bearcat (talk) 17:16, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to
United States House of Representatives elections in Illinois, 2018#District 14 as per usual with candidates lacking pre-campaign notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:28, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to
WP:NPOL notability. The senior advisor to HHS under Obama is interesting, but it's not enough to establish notability outside of this candidacy. Bkissin (talk) 14:42, 14 September 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. – Joe (talk) 20:25, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of bilateral meetings of the Speaker of the 8th National Assembly

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

No secondary sources. Likely an excessive amount of detail for Wikipedia.

π, ν) 15:02, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Seconded, article also arguably doesn't have enough context to identify the subject.Rosguill^talk 20:11, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 15:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:53, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:57, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:45, 9 September 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:03, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rekha Thomas (pastor)

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

Doesn't meet

WP:ANYBIO guideline. Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:26, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete - Two of the listed references don't even mention the subject (just her husband), and one is just an article about homeschooling that happens to interview her family. That just leaves the "Everyday Hero" article, which is trivial at best. A Google search doesn't pull up any additional reliable sources. Fails
WP:GNG. Jmertel23 (talk) 20:09, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 02:50, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 02:50, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:01, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:02, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:02, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Dubai City Church, which she appears to lead. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:23, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails
WP:GNG. How is she "international"? Bearian (talk) 00:56, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. I can only find sparse coverage, a long way from establishing notability. Redirecting would be a reasonable suggestion except a) Rekha Thomas (pastor) is an implausible search term and b) there are no incoming links. – Joe (talk) 11:29, 12 September 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

(non-admin closure) — Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:53, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Max Rose (politician)

)

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

Per

WP:COI editor, and is promotional. Marquardtika (talk) 19:25, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete Since he is an unelected candidate and no other plausible claim of notabilty is made, he fails
WP:NPOL. If someone chooses to write a neutral article about the 2018 election in New York's 11th congressional district, then a redirect is appropriate. If he wins, the article can be restored instantly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:30, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 02:51, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 02:51, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 02:51, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:03, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect if a suitable redirect target can be found - article was originally very
WP:PROMO, and while it was cleaned up a bit, still has the same problems as before. SportingFlyer talk 06:22, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment
United States House of Representatives elections in New York, 2018#District 11 is an appropriate redirect target. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:43, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Yes, thanks for noting this. I should have mentioned this in my nomination. Marquardtika (talk) 01:59, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is well sourced, and congressional candidates can be notable. Otherwise a redirect would be preferable to deletion. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 17:14, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to
WP:BLP1E - with the campaign as notable. --Enos733 (talk) 16:54, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect. While it's true that candidates can be notable just for being candidates in certain circumstances, those circumstances are not just "campaign coverage exists" — campaign coverage always exists for every candidate in every election, so the actual circumstances needed to make a candidate a special case over and above other candidates require a depth of coverage that goes well beyond what's simply normal and expected. But there's no compelling evidence of special status being shown here at all, neither a credible claim of preexisting notability for other reasons besides the candidacy nor a depth of coverage that marks him out as somehow more notable than most other as yet unelected candidates in the current election. Bearcat (talk) 17:48, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect Fails
WP:NPOL and has only received routine coverage related to his candidacy for office. No other significant coverage or claim to notability. AusLondonder (talk) 02:49, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - he's gotten lots of media attention and has a decent chance of an upset. If it's not kept, I strongly urge a redirect as we do in such cases. Bearian (talk) 00:51, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to
United States House of Representatives elections in New York, 2018#District 11 as per usual. I can find no pre-campaign INDEPTH or WP-defined notable accomplishment .E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:50, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete and Redirect to

WP:NPOL

.

Redirect to
United States House of Representatives elections in New York, 2018#District 11 per above. Sdmarathe (talk) 16:23, 14 September 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 and redirect to Family of Donald Trump#Robert Trump. The consensus was to delete, but I don't see any good reason not to recreate as a redirect, as suggested by Redditaddict69. – Joe (talk) 20:29, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blaine Trump

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

No new coverage emerged since the previous AfD one year ago. Her ex-husband's article was deleted. Her own notability per RS hinges only on a New York Times socialite puff piece from 1987. Her role as vice-chair on a charity's board is only sourced to that charity's web page, which does not even have a mini-bio of this person. Delete per

WP:NOTINHERITED, especially not-inherited twice-removed. — JFG ^talk 17:04, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

6 9 17:22, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:30, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:31, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm seeing multiple reliable sources: NY Times, People. Two reliable sources = passing
Join WP Japan! 17:42, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete:I agree that this page should be deleted. I don't think this person, although one time married to a relative of a person of notoriety, is reason enough for a page, esp when there is limited information available about the person. There just isn't anything that meets
WP:SUSTAINED with this person to merit a page. P37307 (talk) 17:46, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete human interest coverage in a puff piece does not add up to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:15, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, this article hasn't improved WP:GNG wise since the last AFD and as mentioned above she fails
WP:SUSTAINED .Blaine's mention in the 'Family of Donald Trump' article is suffice. JC7V-constructive zone 03:41, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be really easy to close this as delete right now, but nobody has addressed why Nihonjoe's NYTimes and People sources aren't sufficient. Relisting in the hopes that people will comment specifically on those sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 19:25, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't think it is required to justify or dispute the old sources or whether they are enough to justify a page. There just isn't anything that meets
WP:SUSTAINED with this person to merit a page. She hasn't made news and just because her ex-husband is related to someone isn't enough for a page. No offense to the relister, but this relisting needs to be disputed and the page deleted as a consensus has been met.. P37307 (talk) 20:14, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete The New York Times is an outstanding source for many things but it is also the local promotional newspaper for Manhattan society life, and this type of gushing "high society" coverage is not sufficient, in my opinion, to establish notabilty. As for the People source, it says "These days, Trump, 41, conforms to the standards of New York City society", and that pretty much summarizes the whole thing. People who have a lot of money and like to attend charity balls are not notable for those reasons alone, even if their wealth and attendance at gatherings of the rich can be verified. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:50, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
^(talk) ^(contribs) 20:39, 10 September 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.

(non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 19:52, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

WBLA

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

Doesn't meet

WP:NMEDIA. Couldn't find significant coverage for this local radio station. Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:21, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep
chatter) 01:36, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 02:52, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 02:52, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:03, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: ~~Five~~ 19 references, three from local media, that MORE than meets GNG and NMEDIA as well. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:35 on September 12, 2018 (UTC)
Speedy Keep: Licensed station with long established history. Easily meets GNG and NMEDIA.--Tdl1060 (talk) 01:07, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The core conditions for the notability of a radio station, including the most important one about
reliably sourcing the content, are all met here. Bearcat (talk) 16:27, 14 September 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. postdlf (talk) 13:21, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nortel people

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

List of employees of a now defunct company.

Wikipedia is not a directory. » Shadowowl | talk 18:45, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep. The people on the list are individually notable, and for most of them, their work at Nortel was a significant part of their careers. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:55, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And why does this company specifically deserve a list dedicated to it's employees? No other company has one. » Shadowowl | talk 19:02, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:55, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:55, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:55, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:08, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Seems like a fine navigational list corresponding to Category:Nortel people. There are a lot of bluelinked people with sourced biographies. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:40, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

cleaned things up a little FYI -- no more redlinks and tangentially related people; just a simple list of a little over 30 articles about people connected to, and in many cases notable for their role at, a defunct company. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:41, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The article has been cleaned-up and it qualifies as a standalone article per
WP:NOTDUP, relative to Category:Nortel people. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:27, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per NorthA and Rhodo. Article seems to be ok for a stand alone list now. AmericanAir88^(talk) 11:04, 14 September 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. – Joe (talk) 20:31, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tom O'Carroll

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

Failing GNG aside of "prominent pedophile"-type stories. "Occupation" listed as "pedophilia advocate." Potential BLP issues galore. Carrite (talk) 17:44, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:12, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:12, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per sources, per coverage. Per WP:GNG. BabbaQ (talk) 18:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom O'Carroll. Nominated five years ago and kept. As an AFC reviewer, I frequently note that an article has previously been deleted, and this creates a presumption at AFC against accepting it. The opposite is true. Has anything changed to warrant deletion now? If so, what? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:41, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Just to be careful, Google shows another Tom O'Carroll, a folk musician, but the discussion does appear to be correctly focused on this Tom O'Carroll, the pedophilia advocate. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:41, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Is the argument for deletion any stronger than
WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:41, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Whether anyone likes it or not, O'Carroll happens to be a well-known/notorious figure, especially in the United Kingdom, as witness the sources already in the article. In addition to those sources, O'Carroll is discussed in a number of academic books - just looking through those on my shelves, I found significant discussions of O'Carroll in
talk) 00:15, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep unless an answer to my above questions persuades me that there is a policy-based reason for deleting. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:11, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG in my opinion. A prominent pedophile is still prominent, unfortunately. ^†Basilosauridae ❯❯❯Talk 00:20, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly his work with PIE had a significant impact, most notably its astonishing affiliation with the NCCL in the 1970s. PIE succeeded in gaining support from figures such as Harriet Harman and Patricia Hewitt at the NCCL, and when this fact later emerged in 2014 it was a major political scandal. Passes GNG without a doubt, the fact that his activities are so distasteful has no real impact on this (and if anything they increase notability given his links to major political figures) --Shakehandsman (talk) 02:45, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Emily Khine (talk) 20:23, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Anotherultimatename (talk) 06:42, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article on this appalling man. Simply not seeing justification for deletion at this time. Coretheapple (talk) 14:25, 14 September 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:57, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Amor Torres

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

This article was edited by multiple COI editors, it was later reviewed by non-connected editors who removed all promotional material and self-published sources. There is a discussion on the talk page trying to find reliable sources, for more than a week, it seems nobody managed to find enough reliable sources that are worth for writing anything more than a one-line article. MarioGom (talk) 16:50, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Although technically this article qualifies, I can't bring myself to vote for deletion. She's a Princess! And a beauty queen! I honestly believe we do have one reliable source, The Star. Its reliability has been questioned, and there is discussion going on about this but it has not reached a conclusion. So I think it's too early to say that we have no sources. Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:12, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Her "title" doesn't seem to be legitimate, as there is no credible source backing her claim to royal status (and various self-publicated sources have contradicted each other by calling her "Her Highness", "Her Royal Highness" "Queen", "Princess", and "Crown Princess". -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 15:57, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Kendall-K1 and Ronz have put a lot of work into finding and critiquing sources. I accept The Star may be reliable but even with that there's just not enough coverage. Tacyarg (talk)

Delete A huge amount of effort put into this by conscientious editors despite one of the COI editors admitting that the subject had paid for its creation. Regardless of if the Star is found to be reliable or not sometimes RS are wrong. Her title is a vanity one and her organisation is a self seeking publicity machine. Lyndaship (talk) 17:33, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We've found nothing that qualifies as a reliable, independent source demonstrating notability. Instead, we've found that Torres is quite the self-publicist, often using
talk) 21:18, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:15, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:15, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:15, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:16, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - yes, quite a publicity machine. Even if the Star source should be judged reliable, one such source would not be sufficient for
WP:GNG. It is quite clear that she is not a princess, the talk page discussion shows that it's simply a title she uses, with various permutations that would not be possible if she had an actual royal title. The beauty queen title appears to be from a non-notable pageant; there are many such in the world. --bonadea contributions talk 14:49, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as almost all of the sources seem to be self-published or published by people closely associated with her. Her royal status seems to be fabricated and I have yet to see a credible independent source regarding her philanthropic work. Her beauty pageant work seems minor, and she is not notable as a fitness instructor. If anything she's a fauxcialite. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 15:57, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt for the aforementioned reasons and the likelihood that COI editors will recreate it in short order. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 18:13, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Princess" Maria Amor Torres lacks depth of coverage in independent reliable sources.
reliable sources, passing mentions and PR driven puff. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:39, 14 September 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. – Joe (talk) 19:41, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I-Space (Chinese private spaceflight company)

)

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

Does not meet

WP:GNG. Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 16:02, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 16:05, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 16:05, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed - The company's SQX-1Z rocket just flew a successful sub-orbital flight. Although this company may not impact the western market, its technological achievements are notable, as indicated by the references, and is likely to succeed in the Asian market. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 17:48, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - given that this is a Chinese company, I would hesitate to vote delete for failing to meet notability without evidence of a thorough search of Chinese-language sources. See
WP:WORLDVIEW. Rosguill^talk 20:58, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Opposed - In agreement with Rowan Forest and Rosguill. Csgir (talk) 05:41, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are enough sources in English [13][14][15][16], as well as in Chinese [17][18][19]. Should qualify under
WP:GNG. I would however retitle it to something more succinct (for example the word private is unnecessary, although Chinese may be needed as there appears to be a similarly titled Japanese one -[20]). Hzh (talk) 08:23, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

I agree. I just moved it to I-Space (Chinese company). Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 14:45, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The company has been notable since their first test flight in April 2018, and the second test in September seals the deal for posterity. Sources in the article are good enough to meet the GNG bar. We would need to discuss the article name, because the company is sometimes referred to as "Space Honor", but that's for another debate. — JFG ^talk 09:29, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it seems hard to see how this one wouldn't get over the
WP:GNG bar all things considered. Simonm223 (talk) 18:26, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as per the previous contributors. MaeseLeon (talk) 08:44, 14 September 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. Consensus is that the sources found by User:Indy beetle were insufficiently in-depth and/or not independent. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:36, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Studies Centre for Social Action

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

Four incidental sources in article. Lack of SIGCOV means it fails GNG. WP:BEFORE ("Studies Centre for Social Action" + Congo) found nothing.

talk) 17:42, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:46, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:46, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:47, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seeing as this is about a Congolese institution, the WP:BEFORE should have included more research of the French name or its French acronym, CEPAS. Doing this has unearthed the following:

What appears to be an in-depth article in a journal/magazine about the centre's founding: [21].
An article from Radio Okapi about a three day event organised by CEPAS: [22]
An article from a Central African Jesuit website about CEPAS: [23]
Post from the Jesuit European Social Centre on CEPAS' mining reform activities: [24]

-Indy beetle (talk) 04:24, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did my WP:Before and still judge it to be non-notable. There are two good sources above, although the second one is not as in-depth as the first. Numbers three and four are Jesuit sources that cannot be considered as independent: Jesuits writing about other Jesuit centres is trade promotion. Notability is still marginal even with these.
talk) 05:48, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete fails
WP:GNG. And it is not so strange that Jesuit institutions write about a Jesuit institute. Unfortunately, that makes the sources related and so unsuitable. The snippets from the book are too short to make clear if this is the same institution as the one in the article. Besides that, the book is published in 1965, the same year CEPAS was founded. The announcement on the radio is clearly (as the article states) based on info by the organisation itself. The Banner talk 11:08, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 15:51, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Per Banner.I tried to access the snippet-one through my subscriptions but none seem to have it.∯WBG^converse 07:33, 10 September 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Flannery

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

Only notability seems to be as a co-founder of Kiva. Suggest we change this to a redirect to Kiva (organization). Edwardx (talk) 14:45, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:31, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:31, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —AE (talk • contributions) 15:34, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as suggested by K.e.coffman. There's little in the way of sourcing from high-quality media, and most of the references are dead links. The article doesn't even seem to claim notability beyond Flannery being a founder of Kiva, so it seems like a no-brainer.Zortwort (talk) 23:31, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed my vote, as I agree with coffman's rationale. Zortwort (talk) 01:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet
WP:ANYBIO; significant RS coverage not found. I'm not a fan of redirect for BLP names to companies, hence my "delete" recommendation. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:18, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per K.e.coffman. Redirecting BLPs is non-ideal in that it means that they are associated with articles where there actions have no bearing about potentially problematic content that could be associated with their name on the 5th most popular website in the world. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:39, 15 September 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:11, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Priya Amar Jaan

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

This sockpuppet creation doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Searches of the usual Google types, EBSCO, HighBeam, JSTOR, Project MUSE, and Questia, by Bengali script name and transliteration, found trivial mentions (in list of films released that season, in lists of films in which such-and-such an actor appeared, in TV program listings, etc.) and the single sentence "Popular actor Shakib Khan lip-synced to the song 'Kintu Ontore Prem Dila' in the film Priya Amar Jaan."[25]. This degree of coverage doesn't meet

WP:NFILM. Worldbruce (talk) 16:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 16:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 16:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. There does seem to be little here, and the creator was banned, but the film does seem to exist. I did a search, couldn't find indepth sources, but it is not my language, I'm going to partly rely on nominator who seems to know what they're doing. If someone finds sources, would gladly change my opinion. --GRuban (talk) 12:08, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article created in 2011.[26] I wonder how many results there were for this subject in those days.
Capitals00 (talk) 17:46, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:46, 23 August 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)} 21:07, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —AE (talk • contributions) 15:31, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (or maybe merge) to
69 20:09, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

There isn't an obvious redirect target, because

Misha Sawdagar, Andrew Kishore, and Sabina Yasmin are also notable (assuming it's true, as the article claims, that they were all connected with the film). --Worldbruce (talk) 23:11, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete. One passing mention in Google News. Doesn't seem notable enough to keep.
Capitals00 (talk) 17:41, 14 September 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 Uttarakhand Open University. – Joe (talk) 19:40, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Haldwani

)

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

Community radio station fails

WP:GNG. Contested PROD. Redirect to Uttarakhand Open University per Wikipedia:Notability (media)#Student media. Cabayi (talk) 14:37, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 14:37, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 14:38, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per the nominator. I checked out the links that were recently added by the creator and sadly they do not show it meets
WP:GNG. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:40, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:41, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Editors, I have filled all necessary materials in
Hello Haldwani
page like Inline citation, Reflist, and other important editing according to the Wikipedia's parameters. This community radio page has information about community based social academic activities in hills of north India.

Krishna Kumar Mishra (talk) 19:00, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per nom. The references do not show significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:29, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom as an {{R from subtopic}} is sensible. Sam Sailor 08:37, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the above mentioned page, per nom and above. MBlaze Lightning 13:55, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the university per nominator. The references being cited here are not
primary sources — and the only two references that could be considered potentially reliable fail to actually be about this station, verifying the existence of the university and of community radio as a concept while both completely failing to even mention this station's existence at all in the process. This is not how you demonstrate that a radio station passes our notability criteria for radio stations — though in the case of student radio stations, Wikipedia does permit them to be mentioned in the article on the educational institution even if they don't qualify for their own standalone articles. Bearcat (talk) 16:34, 14 September 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. – Joe (talk) 19:40, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Werner Herrmann

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

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hans Peter Dengel which proposes the deletion of another article created by the same editor (who has been banned for chronic fabrication of content and sources, and copyright violations). The same author added material connecting the characters in Das Boot to real-life crew members of U-96, but it was all completely unsourced and I can't find any reliable sources.

This article is sourced solely to one newspaper article which is conveniently not online - I can find no articles looking similar to the title on a Google search. And I find it hard to believe that one newspaper article (even if it did exist) would support the entire content of this article.

Notability seems to depend solely on the Das Boot connection, and that is all looking like OR at best at the moment (and fabrication at worst). Even with that, notability would be debatable, and without it this is just a non-notable U-boat officer. The only reliable source I can see here is his service history, but that doesn't make him notable. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:34, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as not shown notable for stand alone article and lack of shown RS citing ~~and Re-direct name to German submarine U-2510, where he held a command.~~ Kierzek (talk) 14:44, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:23, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, patently non-notable. I don't think we should redirect it either; "Werner Herrmann" is too frequent a name to warrant such a specific treatment. There might be dozens of other people of that name with equally weak claims to notability. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:02, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet GNG, marginally meets WP:SOLDIER, but as the sub he commanded didn't do any combat patrols, probably not. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:46, 11 September 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. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:42, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ben George

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

Not sure if the person is notable. Pelmeen10 (talk) 20:12, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:35, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:35, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:35, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:36, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ an exception to
WP:NFOOTBALL requires a better argument than "not sure". Jack N. Stock (talk) 04:37, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - meets
WP:NFOOTBALL through his appearance for Walsall in League One. 21.colinthompson (talk) 04:56, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - meets
WP:NFOOTBALL; needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 14:52, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments Where is the rest of his career? I feel
WP:GNG regardless of passing NFootball, I would say delete if there is no career here. Govvy (talk) 18:04, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
I found some information about the rest of his career. Jack N. Stock (talk) 02:02, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes
WP:GNG is met is neither here nor there. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:31, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep passes
WP:NFOOTBALL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:31, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Definitely meets NFOOTBALL, even if it's one game. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:55, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes
WP:NFOOTBALL. Nom should have done research to see if he was notable or not before wasting all our time when he was, by his own admission, "not sure if the person is notable." Smartyllama (talk) 16:00, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Basically the reason what Govvy mentioned. Found no coverage of the person in the internet. 1 appearance and then amateur football is the down-side of NFOOTBALL: "Players who have played, and managers who have managed in a competitive game between two teams from fully-professional leagues, will generally be regarded as notable". Generally is not always, or is it? --Pelmeen10 (talk) 16:04, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NFootball should cover a few appearances not a singular one in my opinion. Govvy (talk) 22:06, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of significant coverage in
WP:BEFORE, though some passing mentions at least in mine. 2017 consensus suggests that SNGs are not to supersede GNG if the presumed references are not found, assuming they should be easy to find (recent, english language). — Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:55, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete and thoughts -
WP:NFOOTBALL which is a rough and ready way of considering notability (and at ruling out cases). The RfC linked above correctly identifies that GNG must still be met, and it isn't here, either in-article or elsewhere, as it takes the form of either primary/non-reliable or short mentions. I'd ask the deluge above to give their thoughts on whether their !votes still stand up. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:53, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I still feel this fails basic
WP:ROUTINE. I am normally for keeping players that pass NFootball but on this occasion I feel there is a severe lack of notability as the player has failed to have a professional football career and carry the same sentiments as the above delete's. Govvy (talk) 20:59, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

*Keep. He passes

~~WP:GNG. Ifnord (talk) 21:10, 28 August 2018 (UTC)~~[reply

]

Hi Ifnord, could you clarify which BBC reference you're referring to? I've re-gone over the 3 given in-article, and none of those give more than 2 lines on Ben. However I wanted to check I wasn't missing one. GNG usually requires multiple sources but an actually in-depth bbc source would certainly be sufficient to shift me here. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:21, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nosebagbear: I was looking at [27], but you're right. It looks like only a cursory mention. Ifnord (talk) 21:26, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit clash, and a rewrite) - Cheers for clarifying. Given your comment, me expanding on why it doesn't satisfy GNG seems unwarranted. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:29, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after Nosebagbear made me reread the BBC reference. Ifnord (talk) 21:31, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
69 23:33, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 02:11, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Largely per User:Govvy and User:Alpha3031. As SNGs are not to supersede GNG, I fail to see how the subject meets the necessary requirements to warrant an article. It could be possible that the subject will eventually meet GNG in time, but at the moment, that doesn't seem to be the case IMHO. I have to add however that the nominator probably should have worded the AfD a bit differently.--White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 02:21, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It has been 5 years since his professional debut, and he seems to be barely making the eighth tier of the English football league system, having been dropped by Stamford after five appearances. He previously dropped from the sixth tier. Based on the stated reason he left Stamford, it seems George is concentrating on a career outside of football, and unlikely to return to a professional level. To me, the article that comes closest to GNG is the Express & Star article that probably precipitated article creation in 2013. I'd prefer the NFOOTY SNG was a clear guideline without referring back to GNG, but this is not the case. Jack N. Stock (talk) 15:47, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes
WP:NFOOTY and articles like these suggest he squeaks in under GNG too:[28][29][30]. @Jacknstock: Judging by this article, it seems his appearances last season were restricted by injury. Number 5 7 19:53, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
- So he's maintained tier 8 and found a team much closer to home? That's good for him, but it seems we're tracking the soccer career of a very good amateur, not a professional. I think that articles like this should be kept, but it doesn't seem to meet the guidelines, and consensus seems to be swaying towards
  WP:5P. I hope others agree with you that it squeaks in with all the ever-shifting rules and guidelines. Jack N. Stock (talk) 23:15, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment The
WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 06:20, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Clearly passes
WP:NFOOTY. No reason to make an exception to a general rule. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:29, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment the real question is not if the article passes NFOOTY (btw "Players who have played in a competitive game between two teams from fully-professional leagues, will generally be regarded as notable" – so not always), but if it passes
WP:GNG? NFOOTY basically covers a part of GNG - appearing in fully professional league generally means lots of coverage. Few apps in English lower leagues gets actually much less coverage than many professional footballers in half amateur leagues – hundreds, even thousands of them have been deleted from Wiki for not meeting NFOOTY... But in this case, people dug out every mention of B.George found in web. The article did look like this when I nominated, ofcourse it's much better now. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:19, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: given the debate here and activity, it only makes sense to relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:29, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The current way Wikipedia has the guidelines for footballers, Ben George is evidently notable due to NFOOTY - arguable whether he passes GNG. Whether or not the guidelines for footballers need changing is a different discussion, as it stands George is notable. Can't be nitpicking different players on different guidelines, consistency should remain key. Change may or may not be needed, but that should be discussed in a more suitable place than on an AfD.
talk) 10:56, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Reply @
R96Skinner: NFOOTY is a secondary of GNG, hence #2 will generally be regarded as notable. This implies that even if you do play one professional game GNG rule still applies first and foremost. I truly believe we have a false positive here. For all the keep votes at the top haven't applied NFOOTY rules correctly in my opinion. And we are going to have such weak rules I could have a football article on wiki, I've played more than this guy!! Govvy (talk) 12:25, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment It isn't perfect, that's another point. I understand the wording of NFOOTY, but the fact is (rightly or wrongly) it has been used as an 'actual' guideline for so long and will continue to be as long as NFOOTY remains the same regardless of the Ben George outcome. That leads to a ridiculous amount of inconsistency. Why not go after changing NFOOTY, rather than everyone having a guideline vs. guideline vs. guideline discussion on individual AfDs. Nothing seems to change doing it this way; give it a few months, another AfD like this will come up again - in the meantime, similar articles will continue to be deleted/kept inconsistently.

talk) 12:38, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep Meets NFOOTY, I'm not convinced that he doesn't meet the GNG either. I appreciate the sentiment that SNGs do not overrule the GNG, and that is true, but the sources linked above are borderline, but in borderline cases I think we should refer to the SNG. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 23:19, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has enough coverage for
WP:NFOOTY, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 19:48, 14 September 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. There is a rough consensus that the subject meets

WP:PROF and possibly also the GNG. A major concern of those editors in favour of deletion, that this is a BLP without reliable sources, has been rectified by David Eppstein. – Joe (talk) 07:14, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Etzel Cardeña

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

Contested PROD. PROD reason was "No reliable secondary sources tending to show notability. Two of the reference links are dead, but can be seen by their names to be in any case primary sources; one is to the editorial board of a journal that Cardeña is on; one, in Swedish, is an extremely popularly written interview with Cardeña ("Are you more telepathic when you're in love?" "Why are Swedes so rude?") in Salongk.se, via the Wayback Machine; the venue is no longer online. The last one, billed in the article as an article written by Cardeña, is actually an open letter signed by nearly one hundred academics, of whom he is one, and published in the controversial

WP:BLP can be allowed to exist. David Gerard (talk) 19:46, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:49, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:49, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:49, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:49, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no notable Ghits, fails
WP:NBIO. Since this is a BLP, the fact it has no sources also is a reason for deletion. Kirbanzo (talk) 20:11, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Full transparency: I wrote the PROD rationale which David Gerard quotes above. The PROD was removed with the comment that "article makes a clear claim of notability through multiple
WP:PROF criteria; prodder appears to be using the wrong notability guideline for this subject".[32] Of the WP:PROF criteria, I believe the remover must be referring to number 5, "The person holds or has held a named chair appointment ... at a major institution of higher education and research". I say that because I can't see any other WP:PROF criterion that Cadeña remotely meets. It is claimed in the article that Cadeña is "the Thorsen Professor of Psychology at Lund University"; so, he holds or held a named chair appointment. Lund University is certainly a major institution of higher education and research, but there is something unusual about the Thorsen chair of psychology. The only mentions of it that Google finds are closely together with Cardeña, in contexts where Cardeña himself has listed his credentials, with one exception: an interesting article from 2015 titled "A decade in the borderland of science", just one and unfortunately in Swedish, in Sydsvenskan
, a respectable daily. Apparently the Danish industrialist Poul Thorsen had difficulty in persuading any major university to take his money and create a chair in parapsychology: both Copenhagen and Stockholm declined. I quote an exerpt from the Sydsvenskan article:

Lengthy quote from source

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Quote from Thorsen's will:

"The rest of my fortune will be offered to a Swedish university in the order of Lund, Upsala, Stockholm, as the university in question will undertake to apply the interest of the untiring fund capital for full or partial remuneration of a professor, possibly a lecturer, in parapsychology linked to teaching in hypnologi."

"The story of Lund University's most odd professor's chair begins in 1961. The Danish manufacturer Poul Thorsen writes the above formulations in his will. It states that his wealth must be devoted to two purposes. One was to ensure lifelong livelihood for two women, servants in the Thorsian household. The second was to finance research within Thorsen's great interest, parapsychology. From the beginning, Thorsen would [=wished to] benefit Copenhagen University, but they thanked no [=declined]. The same message met Thorsen in Stockholm. In the end, Lund University accepted the donation. An important role, then, was [=was played by] the director, Philip Sandblom, who thought that the money could come in handy. Together with the psychological department, Lund University succeeded in part in [=in partically redefining] the purpose of the donation, so that it also included research within the somewhat more accepted field of hypnology, ie research on hypnosis. At the beginning of the 21st century, the last of the two women in the testament had died and the money could eventually be paid to Lund University, where the professors at the psychological department did not see any obstacles to announcing the service [=to inviting applications for the new chair]. So [=This] was done in May 2003.
That it was not any service was pretty clear soon [=That it was not just any chair soon became clear]. Not least for [=to] the dean of the Faculty of Social Sciences, Sune Sunesson, who was able to [=had to] handle Lund University's probably most laborious appointment case ever. "

(Note: This is from Google Translate, as far as possible. I'm a Swedish speaker, and have offered clearer alternatives where I found the machine translation incomprehensible. The whole article, which expresses doubt about letting this kind of chair into Swedish academe, is well worth reading.)

What's my point? Well, it seems strange that his type of named chair, obviously not nearly as respectable as a regular Swedish professorship, can on its own make a person notable. I can't believe that is the intention of WP:PROF. Bishonen | talk 21:07, 2 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]

If this article stays, that's definitely worth discussing in the article. There was also (non-RS) discussion of the Thorsen chair in ScienceBlogs - the chair was empty for decades until Cardena accepted it - David Gerard (talk) 21:34, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ping David Eppstein, who contested the PROD - do you have any good sources on Cardena? - David Gerard (talk) 21:35, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per
WP:GNG). —David Eppstein (talk) 21:47, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
- Even given prima facie notability - we still need the actual RSes for a BLP, and the article doesn't have them. Do you have them? Then they need to be there in practice, not just hypothetically, for the article to be allowed to exist - David Gerard (talk) 23:16, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @
  WP:PROF. You suggest its criterion C1 is satisfied by "16 publications with over 100 citations each on Google Scholar"; I don't agree. C1 goes like this: "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources". The number of publications with 100 citations does not in itself show that. (100 bare citations isn't much.) I don't so far see any reason to believe his research has had a significant impact. But I'm ready to change my mind if you supply the independent reliable sources that say it has. P.S. Is it my quotes from the interview in Salongk.se, which was offered as a source in our article, that you call "Making fun of someone's research specialty"? The interview was offered as a source, and I tried to describe its character, to assist the non-Swedish-speaking reader, without any intention of making fun. It's actually a better source, being at least secondary, than several of the others.Bishonen | talk 11:15, 3 September 2018 (UTC).[reply
  ]
  - To me this objection reads as "I don't believe in our established notability guidelines so I am going to make up different requirements that articles must also satisfy". We have hundreds of published reliable sources discussing his research, some of them likely in-depth. And C1 was only the third of three notability criteria that I cited him as passing; we only need one. In any case, if you pretend that for reasons GNG should take precedence in this case, [34] and [35] look like reliable in-depth independent sources, certainly enough to source the named professorship criterion of
    WP:PROF. And to respond to previous comments about how "respectable" the chair is: I think the controversy over the chair makes it more notable, not less. And our personal opinions about respectability should be very far from how we decide notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 12:53, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    - This may be prima facie notability - or it may not - but please refrain from making personal attacks on other editors. With the sources to hand, and adding the second source you give (no way the first passes
      WP:RS), this article should be about two paragraphs if it survives - David Gerard (talk) 16:14, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
      ]

Keep. In addition to what User:David Eppstein writes above, Etzel Cardeña is – for good or bad – a piece of Swedish modern research history. He – and his chair, but he as a person was not irrelevant – it was controversial already in 2005, of course, but wasn't just a piece of news back then. It was the focus of a nation-wide debate in 2012. It started, if I remember correctly, with Pseudovetenskap sprids okritiskt in Svenska Dagbladet and continued in a good number of newspapers. He's been the focus of a number of portraits in respectable newspapers, like the longish "Tio år i gränslandet" in Sydsvenskan (the major newspaper in southern Sweden). I can't find the article online, but it's available through w:sv:Mediearkivet. Another example, a portrait in w:sv:Forskning & Framsteg, one of the major (respectable) Swedish popular science newspapers. /Julle (talk) 17:34, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- If we can get this stuff into the article, I'll be delighted to change my !vote - sounds like he'd pass
  WP:FRINGEBLP - David Gerard (talk) 17:52, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  - AfD is not for cleanup. And notability is based on the information that can be found about the subject, not on the current state of the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:19, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Even if prima facie notability exists - BLPs must have the RSes actually present - you keep pretending you haven't had this pointed out to you - David Gerard (talk) 09:48, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Eppstein and Julle, though I'm not sure if Eppstein is right about Cardena passing
WP:PROF easily. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 17:47, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - per
WP:PROF#C5. Per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 13:00, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —AE (talk • contributions) 14:09, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mindless evoking of checklist is no way to run an encyclopedia. The WP:PROF -- like all notability guidelines -- are intended as a shorthand, not religious dogma. --Calton | Talk 15:02, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep. No evidence of RS that demonstrates notability for a large amount of the content in the article, though some of it is mentioned in some fringe publications. However, the individual themselves is apparently notable even though the article does requires further citation. @
WP:BLPREMOVE. Proving something doesn't exist is an impossible task, insead it is standard practice to remove unsourced content until such a time as RS can be (and has been) provided in text; an admin should know that. Endercase (talk) 17:53, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
- You removed content that has been discussed as sourced in this AfD; in particular his named professorship. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:45, 9 September 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. – Joe (talk) 19:38, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thabo Mosielele

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

An unnotable professional footballer; doesn't meet

WP:NFOOTBALL. The subject hasn't played a single professional Botswanan Premier League match, as per the league's own records, whereas Mosielele's club profile only shows his squad number, nationality, playing position, and date of birth, in that order
Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 14:00, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 16:12, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 16:12, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:31, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:32, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails
WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. The Botswana Premier League is not a
WP:GNG. 21.colinthompson (talk) 16:16, 10 September 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. Has only been recreated once, so I don't think

salting is called for yet. – Joe (talk) 19:30, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Michael Franklin

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet

notability requirements. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Franklin. Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 13:47, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 13:53, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 13:53, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 13:53, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 13:53, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the only thing I found when doing a Google search was a reference on the Internet Movie Database. This has been nominated for deletion before, and I cannot see what he has done since last time which now makes him notable. Vorbee (talk) 14:44, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Second attempt at
talk) 19:09, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete and salt per all other delete votes here. Recommend closing admin blocks the COI editor. Kirbanzo (talk) 20:41, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This guy was a dance partner on an obscure weight loss reality TV show, and is not even mentioned in the article about that show. There is no significant coverage in reliable sources about this person. Everything that I could find was about different people called Michael Franklin. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:04, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another
chatter) 01:43, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Clear case. Rogermx (talk) 20:59, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all other delete votes here. Emily Khine (talk) 20:14, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Definitely fails the
WP:NACTOR. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 20:58, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete and salt to avoid any more recreations. Raymond3023 (talk) 20:17, 11 September 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:36, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blackberry (film)

)

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

no reviews no indepth coverage, nothing found in a

WP:GNG Dom from Paris (talk) 11:58, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:59, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:59, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I am looking through search results at bing.com, and I'm just not seeing what needs to be there to satisfy
WP:MOVIE. Weak delete because I lean on the illusionist side and I am cautious about voting for deletion, but this one doesn't seem to cut the mustard. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 13:33, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

@PCH-NJROTC: Ah I often suspected that the inclusionists were also illusionists now I have the proof!! damn you autocorrect! --Dom from Paris (talk) 15:31, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. To be fair though, you mispelled my username, so I suppose we are even. :-) PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 20:32, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Touché! As they say here in France "un point partout, balle au centre"! 1 all, kickoff from the middle Dom from Paris (talk) 08:14, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidecne of setisfying either
WP:NFILM. GSS (talk|c|em) 06:27, 9 September 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:36, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Peter Dengel

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

Non-notable U-boat officer. No independent coverage; sole source for biographical data and military career was a piece of (alleged) unpublished archival material, added by

WP:OR too). Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:05, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 12:19, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only thing I can find other than Wikipedia and Wikipedia mirrors is this, which is behind a paywall so I can only see the first few sentences. But it just looks like it names him as one of the crew of U-96, and I doubt it confers notability. If he really was the inspiration for a character in Das Boot then it's possible that could creep into notability, but in the absence of any source to support it we certainly can't accept the word of someone banned for chronic fabrication of content and sources. (I've removed the mention of him from Das Boot as being unsourced.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:54, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, the individual attributions of characters in Das Boot being based on crew members of the real U-96 were all added by OberRanks, totally unsourced. This article comes closest to comparing the inspiration of the book and film, but it says nothing about the individual characters or real-life crew members. I can find no other sources making such connections, so I suspect it's all just OR/fabrication, and I've removed it from Das Boot. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:09, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not shown for stand alone stub. Kierzek (talk) 14:38, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found a single source on ProQuest for this person (Article title: Die Schleusen der Erinnerung, Google Translate says this is German for "The locks of memory"). The first sentence in the ProQuest abstract Google Translates into the following: "Regularly planned for this enemy trip was the transfer of the technical responsibility of the Chief Engineer Grade to his successor, Lieutenant (Ing.) Hans-Peter Dengel." Later in the article it says (again according to Google Translate): "Grade introduces the new crew members right at the start: "In addition to Dengel, there is a picture and word reporter, Lieutenant M. A. Buchheim, who is always there, where things are going and where to gather impressions."" The "Grade" here appears to be a person named Friedrich Grade: "Friedrich Grade is the last living crew member of U 96. The centenarian was the second man on board from the commissioning of the boat in the summer of 1940 until the end of 1941, Senior Engineer. In the movie "Das Boot" he was played by Klaus Wennemann. In his training as a technical officer Friedrich Grade had learned from 1935 to keep a diary." Further, it appears from this article that Grade, not Dengel, was the actual inspiration behind the Chief Engineer/Leitender Ingenieur/LI character in Das Boot (the movie), played by Klaus Wennemann. So the part in the article now saying Dengel was the inspiration behind this character seems to be completely false. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 00:02, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Didn't we go through this with Band of Brothers? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:56, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any links? (If it's related to the same editor, it could be relevant). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:47, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We did go through this with many AfDs regarding bit parts in Band of Brothers, but I don't believe OberRanks was involved. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:20, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, OK, thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:28, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet GNG, and definitely doesn't meet SOLDIER. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:20, 8 September 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. – Joe (talk) 19:35, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kausik Bhaduri

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

Deletion requested by article subject via OTRS #2018083010004454 and also on-wiki. Rationale provided: I am the subject article of this page. I am not a public figure. I write occasionally and purely on armature basis. also I do not consider myself notable. hereby I request Wiki administrator to kindly delete the page. thank you. No opinion from me either way; I'm just opening the discussion for them. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:34, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per subject's request. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:10, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability--Farahpoems (talk) 10:21, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per
WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE and ~~individual seems of marginal notability~~ no evidence of setisfying either WP:AUTHOR or general notability guideline. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:50, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

I struck out a part of my comment above as it sounds like I was incorrect in my judgement, and, thanks to WBoG for pointing it out. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:29, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-This is sort of A7 stuff.
very-specific notability guideline for authors.I will also offer my thanks to the subject, for making us aware about the existence of this article.∯WBG^converse 14:11, 11 September 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 snow keep. There was no community support for this AfD. Nominator: please remain civil and nominate wisely.

(non-admin closure) gidonb (talk) 00:32, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

List of tourist attractions in Budapest

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

Wikipedia is not a

travel guide. » Shadowowl | talk 10:15, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:46, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:46, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tourist attractions in Helsinki. --Doncram (talk) 22:10, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.
wp:NOTTRAVEL
does not apply. It is about inclusion of telephone numbers and recommendations/ratings and other minutiae relevant only for travellers, which seems not encyclopedic. ("An article on Paris should mention landmarks, such as the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre, but not the telephone number or street address of the "best" restaurants, nor the current price of a café au lait on the Champs-Élysées. Wikipedia is not the place to recreate content more suited to entries in hotel or culinary guides, travelogues, and the like.") This is a serious list-article on the major historic sites and other, yes, tourist attractions. I think all have articles and hence have been deemed wikipedia-notable individually. It is fine for a list-article to group them together and provide guidance to readers. I found my way just now to interesting article about shoes monument on the riverbank.

I hope this is not the beginning or middle of an uninformed, kneejerk campaign to attempt to rid Wikipedia of all tourist attractions, or lists of them. If there are more AFDs like this already they should be linked. If more are opened then an administrative proceeding to stop the deletion nominator wasting our time and wp:CIR should be considered. --Doncram (talk) 18:28, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It even includes how to get there by tram. That is a travel guide. There are no more afd's than this, but I will nominate articles that fail
WP:NOT. And shut up with your I dont like this so you should be getting a block. And not all tourist attraction articles are bad, List_of_tourist_attractions_in_Amsterdam only names the attraction and a description no longer than 1 sentence. No how-to-get-here things. » Shadowowl | talk 20:35, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Passes
WP:LISTN. Andrew D. (talk) 21:13, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep If
talk) 00:14, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per all the above. No valid reason to delete. --Michig (talk) 07:26, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The list itself isn't a travel guide, it's a completely valid list of important landmarks in the city. However the columns about closest metro station or tram line is a travel guide and should be removed from the article. Ajf773 (talk) 11:30, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In fact this nomination should have been closed with "Speedy Keep" as the nomination does not supply a reason. I voted "Keep" also at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tourist attractions in Helsinki. --Doncram (talk) 22:10, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you blind?
talk) 22:14, 8 September 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 Withdrawn by nom ,thanks to @

(non-admin closure) » Shadowowl | talk 15:28, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

List of shipwrecks before Anno Domini

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

List with 1 entry » Shadowowl | talk 10:14, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:47, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I added ten shipwrecks. I believe there are around 250 known wrecks from this period. Theres another 31 here and 22 here for anyone else interested. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 11:18, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – it is part of the series of articles on shipwrecks to the present day. Jowaninpensans (talk) 13:29, 7 September 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. Withdrawn by nominator.

(non-admin closure) rchard2scout (talk) 12:04, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Bhuvan Bam

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

~~Non-notable YouTube personality. Only a few reliable references, most of them mention about "Top 10" Youtubers etc. Fails~~

~~WP:GNG. Knightrises10 (talk) 10:11, 7 September 2018 (UTC)~~[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:48, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:48, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:48, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with 9 million subscribers and 1.25 billion views he is one of the most popular youtube personalities in India and also has coverage in reliable sources press coverage passing
WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 11:25, 7 September 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. Renames are beyond AfD, but people can move it on their own discretion or create an RM. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of ship launches in 1627

)

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

List with 1 entry » Shadowowl | talk 10:04, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:49, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete far to precise to be useful. The Vasa is the only other ship that I can find that could be included. There could utility in making a new list called List of ship launches in the 1600s. And then merging this article and List of ship launches in 1668, List of ship launches in 1665, List of ship launches in 1666, List of ship launches in 1667 into it. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 11:32, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

ping me) 19:42, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

ping me) 19:42, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

ping me) 19:42, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Rename to List of ship launches in the 1620s per Peterkingiron below. James500 (talk) 17:15, 8 September 2018 (UTC) ~~Merge~~ this and the other pages mentioned by Frayae to List of ship launches in the 17th century, or to something like that, per ATD, PRESERVE and R. James500 (talk) 02:12, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would be 17th century. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 10:23, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected the typo in my comment above. "Jane's Fighting Ships of World War II" gives a table of the dates on which ship names were first "adopted" by the Royal Navy, which contains many seventeenth century entries. This has launch dates. There are other sources for this period. James500 (talk) 12:58, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to List of ship launches in 1620s. So far we only have one, but there will be more. The 1660s is well-populated, but with a lot of redlinks. A single list of the 1660s would be appropriate for the moment. The annual articles can be reinstated if the articles are created. There is scope of a 1650s article as the English Commonwealth built a number of warships so that it could fight the First Dutch War. For the 1670s, there was a 30 ships programme in 1678, though only about 25 were built; and there was another 30 ships programme in the 1690s. That only refers to England. No doubt France, Holland, Venice, etc launched ships too. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:45, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per Peterkingiron. As it stands, this is way too overspecific to be useful. If it turns out that the entire 1620s decade can't be populated, consider further expanding to the first half of the 17th century. Reyk _YO! 14:10, 12 September 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.

WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 13:03, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

List of men killed by women

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

What is this? It is far too broad and it only includes 3 people, so it is also incomplete.

WP:LISTCRUFT 3, 6 and 11. » Shadowowl | talk 09:55, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

It is an article about men who were killed by women, as the title suggests... I don't find it broad, I was actually having a hard time finding things to add to the list. Obliviously it is incomplete, most lists are.--Go-Chlodio (talk) 10:58, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. » Shadowowl | talk 10:48, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

ping me) 11:28, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

ping me) 11:28, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

ping me) 11:28, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

ping me) 11:28, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

ping me) 11:28, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

ping me) 11:29, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

ping me) 11:29, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete. Wildly over-broad list. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:58, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For now. Recreate at a later time if more info is available.BabbaQ (talk) 12:53, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Shadowowl and the other editors. --
ping me) 13:32, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. As per above and for being an impossible list. ☕ Antiqueight ^chatter 13:43, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Piling on. Many reasons including the above. Will elaborate if necessary. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:26, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not an encylopedic topic on its own, and seems to have some sort of agenda, looking at the links to matricide and the entries so far. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 21:11, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete per everyone. Ajf773 (talk) 21:37, 7 September 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. – Joe (talk) 19:35, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

York Conservative Association

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

Article is not notable and we wouldn't have an article for every Conservative Association. The York City Council members can be listed under YCC or its elections pages as appropriate. Crookesmoor (talk) 09:45, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:51, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:51, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:51, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. - A constituency or local association of any UK political party is not in itself notable and the article seems to be sourced mostly from the York Conservative Association's own webpage. As an aside the information would seem to be 7 years out of date.

Delete It would be very rare for a local constituency party to meet the standards of notability for a stand-alone article, and this article clearly fails. There are virtually zero secondary sources available. Some of the Google results produced are for the York-Simcoe Conservative Association in Canada. AusLondonder (talk) 02:37, 11 September 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

(non-admin closure) SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 13:52, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

1007 in philosophy

)

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

List with 1 entry » Shadowowl | talk 09:42, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:52, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above, and therefore not notable enough to warrant its own article. Merge A better option than simply deleting and the destination article exists now anyways. Rosalina2427 ^{(talk to me)} 19:25, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:POKEMON, WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE and WP:R this page and any other similar stub pages for 10XX in philosophy should be combined into 11th century in philosophy, which is certainly notable. James500 (talk) 01:34, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. James500 made a good point in previous AfDs, that there are likely some books, such as this one, covering philosophy during time period. No opinion on whether the most appropriate merge is to a century article or an even larger time period though. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:14, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Alpha3031: In terms of a larger time period, I could suggest Medieval philosophy and Renaissance philosophy, unless there's one that would fit better. Rosalina2427 ^{(talk to me)} 03:10, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus at the previous AfDs was for centuries. There is enough coverage to make an article for the eleventh century. James500 (talk) 13:30, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:01, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:01, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to
talk) 15:05, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge to 11th century in philosophy, or perhaps simply delete as the birth of a person who became a philosopher is hardly a notable event of 1007. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:26, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Our timeline articles have always included births and this reflects the practice of professionally published chronologies. James500 (talk) 17:05, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 11th century in philosophy. No need for sparse single event entries, but one for the century makes sense.Icewhiz (talk) 18:21, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 11th century in philosophy as per everybody else. Ajf773 (talk) 20:10, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per everyone, as I've just
1499 in philosophy. No need to drag this out. rchard2scout (talk) 13:15, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge to 11th century in philosophy as per everyone else and all the same logic we used at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1700 in philosophy. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:57, 14 September 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 Withdrawn by nom. Thanks to

(non-admin closure) » Shadowowl | talk 15:06, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

12th century in philosophy

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

List with 1 entry. » Shadowowl | talk 09:35, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:52, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I do see the point of some other recent AfDs concerning individual years where nothing of note can be located. However, an entire century seems entirely another matter. This was a century when
Alan of Lille. The article has a reference to a Cambridge University Press History of Twelfth-Century Western Philosophy. See also Ch.13 of Alasdair Macintyre's After Virtue, on the reconsideration of Greek and Roman philosophy by these and other writers: "When therefore in the twelfth century the question of the relationship of pagan to Christian virtues is explicitly posed by theologians and philosophers, it is much more than a theoretical question", etc . This article clearly needs expansion, but not deletion. AllyD (talk) 16:29, 7 September 2018 (UTC) (The lifespan of the Neo-Confucian Zhu Xi also falls within this century. AllyD (talk) 16:49, 7 September 2018 (UTC))[reply
]

Comment: This page was a rename and merge target from the discussion and decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1142 in philosophy on 28 August. AllyD (talk) 16:49, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. Satisfies GNG and LISTN by a very wide margin: [37]. James500 (talk) 01:19, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:59, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:59, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above. I've started expanding it, and
talk) 15:00, 8 September 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. – Joe (talk) 19:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saurabh Goyal

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

~~Doesn't meet~~

~~WP:GNG. SkillsM674 (talk) 09:12, 7 September 2018 (UTC)~~ confirmed, blocked sockpuppet Atlantic306 (talk) 16:31, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:55, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:55, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:55, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails
WP:NACTOR Cabayi (talk) 14:11, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - I have not found any sources to show that
WP:NACTOR either. The article is written in a promotional tone, and the fact that there is an identical draft at Draft:Saurabh Goyal, created by a different user whose name coincides with the name of the actor, shows that there is also a COI issue. --bonadea contributions talk 14:34, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Fails
WP:NACTOR. GSS (talk|c|em) 06:38, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete-Fails
WP:NACTOR by a mile or so.∯WBG^converse 13:28, 12 September 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 Draftified by request of creator. Black Kite (talk) 09:34, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfavorable Semicircle

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

The article seems to rely entirely on original research or primary sources. I found very little coverage of this channel in independent sources. Therefore, I think it fails

WP:GNG funplussmart (talk) 12:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:17, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep [38] [39] [40]. wumbolo ^^^ 09:21, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:58, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Wumbolo. The article needs some improvement, but the subject is surely notable. Knightrises10 (talk) 09:40, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps instead of deletion, we should instead turn the article into a draft in order for it to be improved. funplussmart (talk) 11:55, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Articles are draftified if sources might exist. Sources definitely exist, and that's enough for an article to be kept. If you agree that the sources provided by me pass

WP:GNG, feel free to withdraw your AfD. wumbolo ^^^ 13:04, 7 September 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 Yeast extract. Apparently, there is not enough material for a standalone article in the sources. Discussion about article creation processes or the usefulness (or lack thereof) of stubs is not really pertinent. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:25, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vitam-R

)

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

No references. No indication of

product notability. Google search indicates that it exists,that this Wikipedia article exists, and that it is marketed. There is no independent coverage. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:54, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep. It's a minutes-old stub, for heaven's sake. -ProhibitOnions ^(T)

Not sure exactley what you are trying to say. But if the article is not complete than maybe it should remain as a draft and published once completed. Freetheangels (talk) 07:37, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT Correct me if I am wrong but even an article which is a stub must be notable. Not notable, significance not established. Is there even an article here. Freetheangels (talk) 07:36, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:02, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:03, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I see that, twelve hours after the nomination, the stub is still an unsourced stub. The real purpose of the stub had already been fulfilled, which was
search engine optimization spam, and not to build a real article. So I stand by my nomination. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:40, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Wow, that's a stunning comment - bordering on

WP:AGF? As for why I began this stub, there are a handful of products of this type around the world, and this is the only one that didn't have an article. After I split the Marmite article to create Marmite (New Zealand) I saw someone had put in a redlink for this one. It's a well-enough known product in Germany, so it seemed reasonable enough for it to have an article too. -ProhibitOnions ^(T) 08:35, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment - There is a widely held belief among contributors that one should be allowed to throw a stub in while one is building the article. This belief is not consistent with
policies and guidelines, which are to "build" the article in user space or draft space. As long as stubs are indexed within a few minutes, stubs should be subject to AFD within a few minutes. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:40, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge to
WP:ATD-M. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:55, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Selective merge to
WP:NCORP
. I looked at the machine translation of the bio-markt.info, it strikes me as a passing mention. I couldn't get a translation of Künstliche Kost book (non-English sources are fine, but my inability to read German makes reviewing them more difficult).

As for the fact that this is a brand-new stub, my thought is that stubs have outlived their usefulness. In the old days, they were a good way to generate a place holder for a future article. Now that we have draft space, I think that's an obsolete concept. Along those lines, draftify would be a reasonable
WP:ATD. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:57, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge. The refs aren't strong enough for a standalone article, Google returning nothing better. Szzuk (talk) 23:40, 15 September 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
United States Senate election in Delaware, 2018. – Joe (talk) 19:25, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Kerri Evelyn Harris

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

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

Has been twice redirected, but the creator reverted the redirects. Failed election candidates do not have automatic notability, and I do not see anything in the article which asserts notability, Ymblanter (talk) 06:39, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as one of the editors that originally requested a redirect. There's enough coverage to merit connecting the subject to the main article for the
United States Senate election in Delaware, 2018 Rosguill^talk 06:49, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:04, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:04, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:04, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, at least until she does something more notable than losing a primary. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:07, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
United States Senate election in Delaware, 2018, no notability outside failed candidacy.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:10, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect per above - fails
WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 06:18, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect There is a difference between being the candidate of a major party, and the losing primary contestant. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 22:20, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, no evidence of notability outside of the primary. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 16:34, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and then recreate a redirect after the edit history has been rendered unrevertable by deletion. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being unsuccessful candidates in political party primaries, but this makes no credible claim that she has preexisting notability for other reasons independently of her unsuccessful candidacy. Bearcat (talk) 16:54, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. The candidacy was notable, as part of the election, but the subject does not have notability outside of the one campaign. -LtNOWIS (talk) 18:07, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for now. If she becomes more notable and runs in future elections, then I would say she can have a standalone article. Dough4872 22:28, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect This should now close per
WP:SNOW due to overwhelming consensus. AmericanAir88^(talk) 01:48, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete or Redirect to
WP:NPOL. Bkissin (talk) 14:46, 14 September 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 and redirect to Moors. Based on all the comments here, there is no indication of substantial reliable sources or anything by which to justify a separate article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:18, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Afro-Moors

Afro-Moors (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)

Unsourced, almost no Google search results, and those give no clear definition. Possibly a POV-pushing hoax, possibly just a new name for an ethnic group with a different article.
π, ν) 17:42, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:00, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Definetly Not a Hoax, The Name “Afro-Moors” is the problem, Afro-Moors meaning Black Moors who are of Sub-Saharan African and Moorish (Arab-Berber) descent. A miss wording is all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moroccansoldier (talk • contribs) 19:31, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@
π, ν) 19:36, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Yes Haratins are almost the same thing, but they are not Oasis dwellers. According to Mauritanias ethnic groups, it’s 40% Mixed Black/Moorish, That’s where “Afro-Moors” came into play. Titles used instead could be, Black Moors, Moors of Partial Sub-Saharan Descent, or Moors of Sub-Saharan Descent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moroccansoldier (talk • contribs) 19:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/mauritania-population/
Preferably Black Moors rather then “Afro-Moor” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moroccansoldier (talk • contribs) 20:01, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:36, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not completely sure, but there could be topic overlap with Moors. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 17:27, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
Afro-Arab, which refers primarily to people from East Africa. Absent any sources demonstrating usage of the term "Afro-Moor" in academic contexts (or at all, for that matter), I'm of the opinion that this article is likely a racialization of Muslims from Northwest Africa, historically referred to by Europeans as "Moors", which is itself an archaic term which according to Encyclopedia Brittanica "has no ethnological value"^[1], making it troubling that this article for "Afro-Moors" purports to provide population counts for this group in several countries. _signed,Rosguill^talk 21:28, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I was unable to find any
WP:RS. The only things I found that looked reasonable (i.e. weren't pintrest, or some blog, or a wikipedia mirror) were Julio Benitez's thesis and one book that cites that thesis. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:46, 15 September 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 Samoan literature. (The redirect typically occurs after the merge has occurred). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:13, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Important Publications in Samoan

List of Important Publications in Samoan (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 sense of why these publications are "important"; infeasible to have a list of all publications in a language.
π, ν) 19:47, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:10, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Indiscriminate list, mostly important to the authors personal point of view. Ajf773 (talk) 20:59, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to
Stuartyeates (talk) 10:40, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge and redirect to Samoan literature per the above. St Anselm (talk) 19:11, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:15, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Samoan literature without the verbiage "important publications". – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:44, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to
WP:HASTY deletion tagging only 17 minutes after the article was created. Sam Sailor 23:53, 13 September 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. Reading the discussion here, there's no doubt the basic information contained here should be in the encyclopedia, it's just a matter of how it should be organized into the various articles, and there's no real agreement on that. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:16, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of M*A*S*H cast members

List of M*A*S*H cast members (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)

Unsourced list of cast members and "one-episode guest appearances" on television program.
There's no debate that actors with wikilinks meet
WP:LISTCRUFT
.
Main cast and characters already covered in
AldezD (talk) 11:50, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment – I'm unsure about how notable the article is by itself, but there appears to be a lot of information that isn't useful regardless of deletion or not. Does Wikipedia really need that list of actors on a specific TV show that died? Besides, they should list who played who in order to try and stop this from being deleted.
6 9 12:35, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment—Characters and actors portraying them is already listed in
AldezD (talk) 14:22, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Redirect?
6 9 14:21, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:38, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:39, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:39, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sole viable questions I see here are whether this is a proper
WP:LISTPURP as an index of notable actors. postdlf (talk) 23:20, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. The main cast and actors portraying recurring characters are already in List of M*A*S*H characters and shouldn't be duplicated in another list. Whether there should be a List of M*A*S*H guest stars is a separate question. (I split off just such a list just to get it out of its main article - List of The Andy Griffith Show guest stars - and I'd be very interested in seeing what the consensus is.) Clarityfiend (talk) 08:04, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Answer to whether there should be a separate guest stars article:
AldezD (talk) 12:02, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
A question that I often think of in such AFDs is, you may not see the value in it, and you may or may not be correct in that view, but why invest time in discussing and deleting it instead of just ignoring it? Maybe that's a
WP:HARMLESS question, and once an AFD is started I know it's not going to win the day, but seriously, why is this content so problematic that it's worth going out of our way to delete it? postdlf (talk) 14:19, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

List of The Andy Griffith Show guest stars was nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Andy Griffith Show guest stars. Cunard (talk) 04:59, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:56, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in
stand-alone list
." I will show below that "M*A*S*H cast members" has been treated as a "a group or set by independent reliable sources".

Sources

Sherman, Dale (2016). M.A.S.H. FAQ: Everything Left to Know About the Best Care Anywhere. Milwaukee, Wisconsin:
ISBN 978-1-49506-379-4
. Retrieved 2018-09-04.
Chapter 16 of the book is titled "We Tried to Get Pat O'Brien: The Main Cast Over the Years".
The book notes:

As mentioned in chapter 15, a series dealing with a military medical camp during a war that runs eleven seasons is bound to cast a lot of actors over that period. Hundreds. The list on the Internet Movie Database (imdb.com) goes on for more than seven hundred lines, each describing another actor who played at least one role (sometimes more) on the program. Some characters would be introduced early on that eventually vanished without fanfare; others would manage to stick around for many years and be given a line or two. In some cases, certain actors who appeared on MASH would go on to further fame (or at least in one case, to renewed popularity). Actors who fall into these categories will be covered in subsequent chapters. Instead here, the focus is on the original six regular characters, then a seventh, an eighth, and subsequently, replacements for three of the originals.
The book provides pages of coverage about the biographies of each of the original cast members and their replacements and how they became cast members on the show.

ISBN 0-7864-1701-3
. Retrieved 2018-09-04.
The book's episode guide beginning on page 161 discusses the cast and crew for each season as well as information about every show.

Solomonson, Ed; O'Neill, Mark (2015). TV's M*A*S*H: The Ultimate Guide Book. Albany, Georgia: BearManor Media. p. 277.
ISBN 978-1-59393-501-6. Retrieved 2018-09-04.
The book notes:

Not all episodes of the series featured each member of the main cast — only Alan Alda would appear in every episode of M*A*S*H. What follows is a list of the episodes in which cast members did not appear.
The book on page 277 lists and discusses these cast members:
Alan Alda
Wayne Rogers
McLean Stevenson
Loretta Swit
Larry Linville
Gary Burghoff
Pages 278 and 279 (which likely discuss more cast members) are not visible in the Google Books view.

Nguyen, Vi-An (2018-02-28). "The Cast of M*A*S*H: Then and Now". Parade. Archived from the original on 2018-09-04. Retrieved 2018-09-04.
The article discusses who 10 actors portrayed on the show as well as what the actors did after the show:
Loretta Swit
Alan Alda
Jamie Farr
William Christopher
Harry Morgan
Mike Farrell
Kellye Nakahara
Gary Burghoff
David Ogden Stiers
Larry Linville

Manwaring, Kurt (2018-07-23). "Actress Loretta Swit says "M*A*S*H" cast still 'family' 35 years after its record-breaking finale". Deseret News. Archived from the original on 2018-09-04. Retrieved 2018-09-04.
The article notes:

Swit’s “family” includes familiar names such as Alan Alda, Harry Morgan and Mike Farrell, with whom she is especially close.

"'M*A*S*H': Where are they now?". CNN. 2016-01-01. Archived from the original on 2018-09-04. Retrieved 2018-09-04.
The article discusses these cast members:
Alan Alda
Wayne Rogers
Loretta Swit
McLean Stevenson
Jamie Farr
William Christopher
Harry Morgan
Mike Farrell
David Ogden Stiers
Gary Burghoff

Abbey, Jennifer (2013-02-28). "M*A*S*H: Where Are They Now?". American Broadcasting Company. Archived from the original on 2018-09-04. Retrieved 2018-09-04.
The article discusses these cast members:
Alan Alda
Loretta Swit
Harry Morgan
Jamie Farr
Mike Farrell
David Ogden Stiers
There is sufficient coverage in
reliable sources to allow the subject to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 04:59, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Regarding the argument that
Hal Leonard Corporation book M.A.S.H. FAQ: Everything Left to Know About the Best Care Anywhere that could be included in the cast members article:
It was while making The Glass House that Alda got the script for the MASH pilot. Alda was hesitant, even though he felt the script was excellent. He had been married for a few years by this point, with his wife and daughters living in New Jersey; a series would mean possibly uprooting the family to California or him being separated from his family during filming (Alda would go with the second choice, commuting every weekend to his family in New Jersey). He was also worried that a pilot script could only convey the pilot and not the series. Alda asked to meet with Gene Reynolds and Larry Gelbart at the Beverly Wilshire Hotel coffee shop the night before rehearsals were to begin to discuss the show. "What Alda was saying was," Reynolds remembered in the book They'll Never Put That on Air, "I don't want to do McHale's Navy. I don't want it to be one of these jerkoff things. The pilot is very good, but are you gonna stick with it? What's it going to be?" After talking for hours, all three agreed that the show needed to avoid falling into the standards of the military comedies that had come before it, even though some of them were classics in their own way. It had to be about people facing the ugliness of war and struggling to stay sane.
By the time they were finished Alda agreed to sign on. …
Cunard (talk) 04:59, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as meets
WP:NLIST as clearly shown above with much coverage in reliable sources and it is also a very valid split from the main article to assist loading and navigation, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 19:16, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:14, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Neutral: notability is
not inherited from either M*A*S*H or the notable actors. The sources above discuss only the main cast, not every actor who ever appeared on the show. The list as it stands is merely a long list of names, with no context, and I fail how to see how it could be developed into anything more without becoming a duplicate of List of M*A*S*H characters. The Simpsons is quite a different case, because there actors are playing multiple roles. Awards belong at List of awards and nominations received by M*A*S*H (TV series). Discussion of what impact M*A*S*H had on someone's career belongs at their bio and discussion about things like actors agreeing to sign onto a show belong at the main page, at the character list, or at season or episode articles. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 23:50, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
The editor below me makes some good points. I didn't realise M*A*S*H had multiple characters to an actor and vice versa, and though this is not something that happens to the extent it does on The Simpsons, it counts for something. The first source given below does indeed cover guest actors on the show, though the second is more a directory of episode details that would belong on season or episode pages, if anywhere. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 09:35, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to review my comments and reevaluate your position. I appreciate it. Cunard (talk) 06:21, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is incorrect that "The Simpsons is quite a different case, because there actors are playing multiple roles." Although self-published, this article is a good summary of how different actors played different characters and sometimes the same characters were played by different characters:
As every M*A*S*H fan knows, Harry Morgan played two different characters on the series. In the Season Three episode “The General Flipped at Dawn” he played the eccentric Maj. Gen. Bartford Hamilton Steele, a role he won an Emmy for. But he is better known as Colonel Potter, who took over as commander of the 4077th in the Season Four premiere. Other actors who played more than one character — not counting the many actresses who were credited as more than one nurse — include Clyde Kusatsu, John Orchard and Jerry Fujikawa.
What about the other way around? Characters who were played by more than one actor or actress? The most famous is probably Father Mulcahy. George Morgan appeared as Father Mulcahy in “M*A*S*H – The Pilot” but beginning with the third episode of the series, “Requiem For A Lightweight,” the role was played by William Christopher.
[Discussion about other characters who were played by more than one actor]
This article from The Independent and this article in The New York Times verify the information in the self-published source about George Morgan playing two characters in M*A*S*H.
I maintain that an expanded and polished List of M*A*S*H cast members article would be similar to the featured list List of The Simpsons cast members in presenting background information about the cast, what characters they played, and the cast's awards and nominations.
Cunard (talk) 07:37, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Regarding "The sources above discuss only the main cast, not every actor who ever appeared on the show", you are correct. I did not present any sources about people who were not part of the main cast. Here are two such sources now:
Sherman, Dale (2016). M.A.S.H. FAQ: Everything Left to Know About the Best Care Anywhere. Milwaukee, Wisconsin:
choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles.
Since there are a large number of guest actors, editors may choose to omit those that are not notable from this list. Or editors can decide by consensus to reverse the decision of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of M*A*S*H guest stars and move information about guest actors to a new article at List of M*A*S*H guest stars. This can be discussed outside of AfD and is not a policy-based reason for deletion of this list.
Cunard (talk) 07:37, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. It is easily justified as a navigation aid. It is complementary to
WP:WAF issues with that page. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:14, 12 September 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.
(non-admin closure) KCVelaga (talk) 00:23, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Huang Mulan

Huang Mulan (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 person. 3 sources, 1 is a amazon spamlink, and the 2 others are dead links. Fails
WP:GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 20:00, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - The All-China Women's Federation, Vision China Times Yibada and GBTimes have extensive coverage of this person.[41][42][43][44]. The Journal of Modern Chinese History gave an extensive review of her autobiography as well as extensive biographical information.[45] And these are all just English language sources. Most certainly much more exists in Chinese. --Oakshade (talk) 01:41, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:09, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article needs serious improvement, but she's exactly the sort of figure Wikipedia should have articles on. Simonm223 (talk) 18:32, 12 September 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. After two full relistings, no conenseus has formed regarding an outcome for either article. Concerns presented herein can continue to be discussed on the article talk pages, if desired. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:19, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Girls' toys and games

Girls' toys and games (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)

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

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

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

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

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

This page and the associated
burned with fire. Famousdog (woof)(grrr) 12:00, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Boys' toys and games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Famousdog (woof)(grrr) 12:05, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
Talk 16:45, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
Talk 16:45, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. See also: Girls' video games. wumbolo ^^^ 23:07, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both - Certainly these topics meet general notability due to the prevalence in retail, popular culture, personal experiences, and psychological study. Whatever problems the OP thinks happened in the past and any concerns about the present state of the articles is immaterial because they represent opportunities for improvement, not justification for removal. The basis of this nomination seems more like axe-grinding, especially considering the OPs recent tag-spamming sessions (and failure to elaborate in-line or on the talk pages). -- Netoholic @ 03:24, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, @
assume good faith rather than pouncing on me and accusing me of having an axe to grind? The only axe I have to grind is that these articles are an incoherent, and often politicized and/or promotional, mess. The pages were recently renamed and it made the situation as I can see it worse rather than better. Merging the information here to a single discussion of gender aspects of toy design at Toy#Gender as @Izno: suggests, or a new article (not split into boys and girls) would be a far better way to handle this than your suggestion of sitting on your hands waiting for somebody to grasp the "opportunity" to "improve" them. Famousdog (woof)(grrr) 07:55, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
That wouldn't capture the proper scope of these articles. Firstly, it leaves off the "and games" part of this, in that the articles also cover simple games children prefer. But more importantly, these shouldn't be about "toy design" at all, but instead toy preferences. It is of course true that some children (today or throughout history) will create their own toys and games, not always have them "designed" for them or have it be about retail and advertising. You have yet to give any specific example of how these articles are people politicized or used for promotional purposes. You've asserted that, but not given any evidence... and its irrelevant even if true because that would be a fixable problem and nothing to do with the deletion proposal. -- Netoholic @ 10:00, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please, tell us exactly what the "scope" of these articles is or "should" be. Oh, and look what happened literally just this minute: somebody changed a promotional link that was masquerading as research to point to another promotional site. You don't seem to have been involved in the development of these pages at all, so I find it curious that you can have such strong opinions about this? Oh, wait a minute. Your talk page suggests you have an axe to grind about deleting pages. Hypocritical much? Famousdog (woof)(grrr) 10:32, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

it leaves off the "and games" part of this and instead toy preferences Do not make the error of assuming I would not support these as options. I honestly don't care about the exact scope (c.f. gender in toy design or similar emphasis here)--my comment is clearly oriented at "there shouldn't be one for each gender". :) --Izno (talk) 11:36, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Striking !vote and moving to Neutral per rationale presented by
WP:OR and the sources are underwhelming. That said, the topic of gender-specificity in games and toys for girls and boys has received enough coverage (e.g. [46], [47], [48], [49]) to, I think, sustain an article of this type. However, I'm not convinced we need both of these and I'd probably support a merge proposal for a single article on gender marketing of games and toys. Chetsford (talk) 03:45, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

A comment on organization: Currently,
WP:RS coverage (in the articles or otherwise). I think presenting an article on boys and an article on girls probably does our reader a disservice. --Izno (talk) 03:51, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:40, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per
WP:SYNTH. The titles are problematic, and if an article on this topic is created it should be neutral, e.g. the suggested Gender in toy design._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:53, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Famousdog (woof)(grrr) 07:47, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:09, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep
policy is that "Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome." Andrew D. (talk) 08:44, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's
list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew D. (talk) 09:00, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment While I think about this, could the nominator say why, if merging in some form is an acceptable option, they are proposing deletion which precludes merging? Thincat (talk) 09:55, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, @Thincat:. I'm not actually sure that merging to, for example, Toy#Gender would help. I don't see anything here that is more informative than the material already there. This article is a mess, nobody seems to know what its about and I'm not sure that anybody is motivated to improve it, so it's just... there. Like a bad smell. Perhaps @Andrew Davidson: could explain exactly how long poor articles (such as this) are allowed to clutter up Wikipedia before they are unwelcome? Famousdog (woof)(grrr) 12:54, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia doesn't have a
WP:BITE which emphasizes that "nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility". It is biting that is unwelcome. Andrew D. (talk) 07:08, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Plainly satisfies GNG and LISTN. Any other problems are WP:SOFIXIT. James500 (talk) 16:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the list? SportingFlyer talk 06:48, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tough one. This seems like an Almost but not quite
Toys and gender, also pulling from Toy#Gender and in the process Drastically cut them down. There's a lot of problematic content here, but on a fundamental level there's a notable topic (between the two of them -- I definitely don't think we should have both articles) and some of the content seems usable. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:51, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge into
WP:PROMO (particularly the beauty section) or are about toys and gender generally, such as the Tamagotchi article or the Guardian articles. It'll be a difficult merge, but I think the difficulty with this article comes from the fact the topic is generally notable, but this specific article on the topic is not. SportingFlyer talk 06:48, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge. It would be silly to ruin
children's toys by using gender segregation to split it into two articles and then to destroy those two articles. Either keep or merge. Hyacinth (talk) 23:47, 12 September 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.

^ Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Moors" . Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 18 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 812.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2018_September_7&oldid=1142614919"

[1] Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Moors" . Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 18 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 812.

[1]