Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 February 17

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at Punjab Cricket Association IS Bindra Stadium

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at Punjab Cricket Association IS Bindra Stadium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is classical

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 22:45, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 22:45, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 22:45, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Complete the list or redirect if no-one's willing to do that. I could 15 Test and 2 ODI five wicket hauls at this stadium in a reasonable number of matches. The list shows three of these. The numbers are reasonable for a standalone list, but only if someone's willing to actually complete it. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and complete - I'll complete this list now. Absolutely ludicrous to suggest that this is listcruft when other such articles exist. 10 items is usually the threshold for a content fork to legitimately exist and this one meets that requirement, they just haven't bothered to fill in the table. –
  Jay 19:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Withdrawn by nominator - Thanks to

PeeJay2K3 for completing the list. The issue is solved. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 17:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at Lancaster Park

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at Lancaster Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is classical

Withdrawn by nominator.

WT:CRICKET. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 18:04, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 22:45, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 22:45, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 22:45, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment this page may be instructive Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at Basin Reserve. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 22:48, 17 February 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

• That will push us to the same loophole. I would look at it freshly. If other reviews really count, have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at M. A. Aziz Stadium, which actually reached consensus. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 22:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair enough, let each page stand or fall on its own merit. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 23:11, 17 February 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per
  WP:NOTSTATS. This information is already available through the external link to the ESPNCricinfo StatsGuru. Although 49 instances of 5WI were recorded, the article mentions just five. Ajf773 (talk) 02:40, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep A discussion was started on
  WT:CRIC about these lists, but fell away when the nominator was blocked. I think that is a better forum to discuss what criteria should be used to keep / delete these lists, rather than starting individual AfDs. Spike 'em (talk) 09:15, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I assume you referred to this one. It didn't fell because I was blocked, no consensus was reached anyways. It's quite difficult to discuss there. Members accused me of

  WP:POINT and claimed that "AFD "episode 2"" and I quote one of them, "there was no good reason shown at the AFD to delete and there's absolutely no good reason to "merge by country".". Most of them were furious because I did MULTIAFD. Some suggested to AFD individually instead of MULTIAFD, and here am I. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 17:05, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Keep and complete the list. There are absolutely tonnes (like, >50) of Test match five wicket hauls but whoever decided to create the article was, frankly, too lazy to bother with them. If no-one's willing to add them then by all means redirect to the ground where a prose summary might be written. A note might be placed on the article creator's talk page suggesting that they might want to actually bother to do things properly in future - this is not the only case lists have been created partially. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The stats are given context therefore passes WP:NOTSTATS and it has been shown that these can be improved to be featured lists one day. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 10:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

Notability is not determined by content. For context, the lead only summarizes the stats. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 17:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep per Spike and BST. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. Can I also raise an objection to the fact that separate nominations were created for
  Jay 19:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • In fairness to the nominator they were dragged over the coals for a collective nomination, his could be seen (with a bit of imagination) as a logical next step. However, I hope they one day find a less taxing way to address their problem with these pages. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 20:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)).[reply]
    • Ideally, I would suggest they should have tested the water by nominating just one of the smaller ones first and then gone for a bulk nomination once they found out what the community's general feeling was. –
      Jay 21:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Dushan Jugum: There is a huge difference between nominating all 100+ articles of this sort to make a point, and doing a multi AfD for the current batch under consideration.
      • PeeJay2K3: To be fair to IW, there is a precedent to delete some of these articles, which started this all off. Spike 'em (talk) 09:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
        ]
• I've updated the article with the 46 Test match fwh on the ground and dealt with some of the other issues been discussed. This could now use closing. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:48, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While the good faith of the nominator is not in question, the rapid restarting of the discussion followed by more of the same (unanimous keeps) lends itself towards being speedy kept again. Primefac (talk) 02:18, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of most-subscribed YouTube channels

List of most-subscribed YouTube channels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Trivial, not encyclopedic, arbitrary, listcruft, promotional, mirror of other sources and

• Keep. It seems that the nominator has not completed
  WP:SNOW speedy keep. The reasons for keeping the article still stand, and have not changed in the past four days. (see previous discussion here). MarkZusab (talk) 19:12, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy keep. Rapid renomination of an article which was closed as a speedy keep borders on
  WP:DISRUPT. Ifnord (talk) 19:17, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Nominator comments: Just to clarify, I wasn't aware that it was previously nominated, so no disruption or making a point. Let's hope for valid reasoning and civil discussion. I stumbled upon Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most-followed Instagram accounts (2nd nomination) and decided to start this as well. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 19:23, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you are aware, perhaps you would consider withdrawing the nomination? Ifnord (talk) 19:30, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's up to an admin. I would prefer fresh comments though. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 19:35, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - we have already had a discussion on this topic, my original arguments still stand. Skirts⁸⁹ 19:53, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per
  WP:SNOW Keep. Vivexdino (talk) 01:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy keep It may be that no disruption was intended, but nonetheless, the article should be kept as only four days have passed since the previous discussion resulted in keep. Novusuna ^talk 01:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:12, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvester Renner

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

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

Subject fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:49, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:49, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete neither do I. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 18:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: totally relies on
  BIO. SITH (talk) 20:12, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy delete non-notable (no independent sources) --DannyS712 (talk) 02:38, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep article was updated, now it contains at least 5 independent sources including Amazon, Digital Journal, Google Books, etc. FrantisekKorbel (talk) 14:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Amazon links and the Google Books link do nothing but demonstrate that he has written a number of self-published books. The books have received no non-

UGC reviews as far as I can tell, and so this does not demonstrate notability. The digital journal site is literally a press release about a project he is involved in - it is neither independent nor reliable. None of this contributes towards notability. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:56, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. No independent, reliable sourcing to substantiate notability, offered or to be found.
  WP:NOTPROMO --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 19:05, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unincorporated Top End Region

Unincorporated Top End Region (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats

)

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

The article is one of many mass-produced stubs, and appears to be a simple misreading. "Unincorporated Top End Region" appears on a map to indicate that the area is unincorporated, not that it is incorporated with the word "Unincorporated" at the beginning of its title Imaginatorium (talk) 17:16, 17 February 2019 (UTC) (Followup comment by proposer) Note that I added a comment to Top End to the effect that much/most of it is unincorporated. This is probably, I submit, all that needs to be said about the local government (non-)arrangements in this region. Imaginatorium (talk) 03:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Author Comment I already explained Imaginatorium about this. Look like he is not paying much attention and recommending articles to delete. This is completely wasting my time and others and also others also explained him about this. Please refer this too: https://regional.gov.au/local/publications/reports/2014_2015/National_LGA_15.pdf. Reference one is clearly noted "Finniss-Mary is part of Unincorporated Top End Region" as it is mentioned in the articles. I also informed him the cousil structure in England is differed from the administration structure in Australia by informing him "administration structures are differed from country to country" based on his reply.Shevonsilva (talk) 17:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He is also recommending to delete a 2nd level administrative division of the world 6th largest country. 17:43, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not familiar with the general practices for these stubs, but it seems like what can be said about Unincorporated Top End Region can be covered in Northern Territory. I found this explanation on a gov't pdf: The Unincorporated Top End Region contains those areas in the NT that are not part of an incorporated local government council area and therefore no local government consents or licenses are anticipated to be required for the development of the CBC and BMC. Schazjmd (talk) 17:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Yes, it is a part of it and administration structure is well different. Shevonsilva (talk) 17:43, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Since you seem to claim to be an expert on this, can you explain what exactly is the "administration structure" of the part of NT which is unincorporated in the "Top End" region? Can you say anything which might convince me that you understand what "unincorporated" means? Imaginatorium (talk) 17:46, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. The nearest interpretation i found is unincorporated = Unlike many other countries, Australia has only one level of local government immediately beneath state and territorial governments. A local government area (LGA) often contains several towns and even entire cities. Thus, aside from very sparsely populated areas and a few other special cases, almost all of Australia is part of an LGA. Unincorporated areas are often in remote locations, cover vast areas or have very small populations. Postal addresses in unincorporated areas, as in other parts of Australia, normally use the suburb or locality names gazetted by the relevant state or territorial government. Thus, there is rarely any ambiguity regarding addresses in unincorporated areas. and the above interpretation is also covering idea of administrative structures related to unincorporated regions. Shevonsilva (talk) 01:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• By its very definition, the unincorporated Top End region is not incorporated and therefore not part of any LGA. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:43, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. If that is so, we have to modify Local government areas of the Northern Territory too in order to make consistency. Shevonsilva (talk) 02:16, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The current stub says less than the entry in the table
  Darwin Rates Act Area (I will have to check more), it would be much more useful to have the LGA named in the Port Darwin article than have a separate stub. I'm not sure about the Unincorporated Top End Region, which has in brackets 'Finnis-Mary' (presumably meant to be Finniss-Mary). I think it may be the LGA for two geographically separated areas, around the Finniss River southwest of Darwin, and the Mary River east of Darwin. I'll check for more information and think about where it would most usefully be included. RebeccaGreen (talk) 23:19, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Thanks.
  Darwin Rates Act Area, depending on the electorial year, for example. Port Darwin is only a port which area mainly covering the area around the port. Shevonsilva (talk) 02:16, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I'm assuming "LGA" is "Local Government Area", which surely means an area having a local government entity. But this is (part of) the majority unincorporated area of Northern Territories, and has no local government. It is therefore not an "LGA". User:Imaginatorium (talk) 03:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply No, the majority of the Top End is not unincorporated, as the article Local government areas of the Northern Territory makes clear. Nor is the majority of the NT, again made clear in the same article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 05:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• depending on the consensus, we may or may not have to modify Local government areas of the Northern Territory too. Shevonsilva (talk) 02:16, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I am not well but I will join this soon. Shevonsilva (talk) 00:09, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The idea that the Unincorporated Top End Area is an LGA is oxymoronic, or so it seems: if it's unincorporated, how can it have local government? This isn't the USA, where you have county governments everywhere, and they're generally a mix of municipalities and unincorporated areas. Meanwhile, citation #1 treats unincorporated territory the same way, regardless of whether it's most of the territory (pre-reform) or just occasional bits (post-reform). So I suspect that the contents are entirely wrong, and while it may be reasonable to have an article covering these places, it wouldn't keep any of the current content. Note that {{
  Local Government Areas of the Northern Territory}} gained a link to this title in May 2011, courtesy of ClaretAsh, but that seems like a convenience thing (in the USA, we do this regularly, e.g. the "unorganized territories" section of {{Piscataquis County, Maine}}) so the unincorporated areas wouldn't get left out. Nyttend (talk) 01:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I have modified the content to remove the disambiguity and depending on the consensus, it can be modified again. The exact term "Unincorporated Top End Region" is the general term used and I must be there as I believe. Thanks. Before recommending something to delete, please search about it clearly with regading its own context. Shevonsilva (talk) 02:16, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Before writing articles, please make sure that they're accurate, instead of creating nonsense. If you resume creating pages like this after your hand heals, you will be blocked. Nyttend (talk) 18:06, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep not sure what most of the discussion really shows about understanding some of the more idiosyncratic aspects of governance over land in the Northern Territory, but my position is, if it is indentified as being part of the land of the Northern Territory, however slight the stub might be I see no reason to delete it. JarrahTree 06:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete on the basis of
  WP:TNT, the article being so minimal that it is highly confusing and hence misleading. The subject looks like it is just the statistical collation of left over non contiguous areas which are not otherwise incorporated. This either needs to be properly explained, and thence with whatever data is relevant, OR it becomes simply a redirect and merge to a main Northern Territory article where the left over bits can be described. The content of a lot of the good faith but opposing discussion points above I suggest demonstrates the current encyclopedic failings of the article. Aoziwe (talk) 10:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Did you properly check the article? You can click on hyperlinks if you don't understand any part. Which part is misleading? did you check what we are talking here? Thanks. Shevonsilva (talk) 11:26, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes and yes. I had to read through the references to work out what the article was about. A reader should not have to do that. If a reader cannot get a basic understanding of the subject matter by reading the article, which by definition is why an article exists at all, then the article has a serious problem. For example, the text is an unincorporated area as far as I can tell from the references is simply wrong. As far as I can tell it should read something like is an administrative grouping of unincorporated areas. I suggest if the article was fit for purpose it would not be at AfD at all. If you feel I still have the wrong end of the stick then I suggest it just adds weight to my belief that the article is critically lacking. It should not be too hard for someone who knows a bit about LGAs, etc., in the NT to fix. Regards. Aoziwe (talk) 12:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Aoziwe, it may look from the stub as if it is "the statistical collation of left over non contiguous areas which are not otherwise incorporated", but it's not - it's two areas, which may be contiguous, I'm not sure. (I found a good map yesterday, but can't find it now.) There are other unincorporated regions, including 3 others which could be considered part of the Top End - Alyangula, Nhulunbuy Corporation (does that still apply, now the mine has closed, I wonder??) and "Darwin Rates Act Area". Without any further information, I agree that this stub is highly confusing, and not helpful at all. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• This link, currently reference 4, as far as I can tell names fivefour geographically separate areas making up the Unincorporated Top End Region. Cheers. Aoziwe (talk) 12:28, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, that makes it even more confusing. That is certainly not what the article Local government areas of the Northern Territory indicates, as it lists Nhulunbuy, Alyangula, and the "Darwin Rates Act Area" separately from the "Unincorporated Top End Region". The ABS page definitely includes Yulara, so the population figures don't apply to this article. At the moment, that seems to be all I'm sure about! If I had time, and as I live in the NT, I could maybe ask in the relevant department (surely an NT government department, not the federal Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development which prepared that map???) - but that's unlikely for a few weeks at least. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, the ABS page is for "Unincorporated NT", which is not the same as the unincorporated Top End. The latter forms part of unincorporated NT. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:27, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete I am also going for
  WP:TNT, despite the article having only one sentence, and despite the creator's best intentions. The discussion here shows how confusing that sentence is! The article Local government areas of the Northern Territory may be slightly confusing in including unincorporated areas in the table of LGAs - I think that may be because they are defined in and excluded from the NT Local Government Act, which I have been trying to find online (so far without success). I think the unincorporated areas are more accurately termed Statistical Local Areas [7], which is an Australian Bureau of Statistics term, but it seems that the NT calls them Local Government Areas even though they have no local government. A confusing state of affairs which is not helped by this article, unfortunately. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:26, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep I support the retention for much the same reasons as 'JarrahTree'. For your information, I have edited the article including the replacement of "Category:Local government areas of the Northern Territory" with "Category:Unincorporated areas of the Northern Territory". Also, I have upgraded "Template:Local Government Areas of the Northern Territory" to identified the unincorporated areas existing in the NT. I will continue to add to the article tomorrow as it is late in South Australia. Regards Cowdy001 (talk) 12:45, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I suggest the adding the coords as you have is highly misleading. As far as I can tell, there are four separate areas making up the region, each separated by hundreds of kilometers, at three very different corners of the compass, with large incorporated areas between them. I really do think the article needs a complete reset, and any map and infobox needs to show the four areas as per the current reference 4 does. Aoziwe (talk) 13:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

HI  Aoziwe, I disgree with your statement. The coordinates are NOT misleading; they are representative. The infobox template used on the article only allows for one set of coordinates; I look at a source (i.e. Division of Lingiari map at AEC map) and noticed that the Unincorporated Top End Region includes the Litchfield National Park which is a well-known place if you have lived in the Northern Territory. Regards Cowdy001 (talk) 19:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Where did these coordinates come from? Were they reliably sourced? On Google maps the coordinates are about half wway between Adelaide River and Litchfield while this map shows areas well to the east stretching from the coast in the north to almost as far south as Katherine's latitude. The coords are not representative of this region at all. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, that is misleading, although there are only two areas (Finniss River area, and Mary River area) within this unincorporated area, and they are not separated by hundreds of kilometers! The ABS "Unincorporated NT", now included in a reference in the article, shows ALL the unincorporated areas in the NT, not just the "Unincorporated Top End Region". Zoom in and move around on the map on the ABS link, and you will also see Nhulunbuy in East Arnhem, Alyangula on Groote Eylandt, the "Darwin Rates Act Area" under the letters WIN in Darwin, and Yulara near Uluru in Central Australia. They are all unincorporated areas, but not part of this "Unincorporated Top End Region", which comprises the Finniss region (to the west of Darwin) and the Mary region (to the east of Darwin), and which appears to be separated only by a small stretch of the Stuart Highway. Having any article about the "Unincorporated Top End Region" which does not show a map with those two regions highlighted would be useless (as this discussion here rather shows!) RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• And I meant to add, the population given by the ABS is for all the unincorporated areas, not just for the one this article is about, so that should also be removed from this article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:05, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How many maps and definitions are there of this thing called "Unincorporated Top End Region"? This NTFederal Government link, currently reference 2, defines "Unincorporated Top End Region" as four areas (Finniss, Douglas-Daly, Nhulunby, Alyangula, the latter two being a very long way from the former two). This ABS link seems to define "Unincorporated Top End Region" as only one area (Finniss-Mary) and does not provide any separate data for it, instead using the legacy statistical unit of a very different thing called "Unincorporated NT". From the (sub)area names you have provided there seems to be a third definition? All this just goes to show that the current article is fatally flawed. If we are to have an article called "Unincorporated Top End Region" it must correctly go into this type of detail. Regards. Aoziwe (talk) 23:11, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have also included the sub-areas too, and, coordinates were removed till someone comes up with a better map. Shevonsilva (talk) 22:51, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aoziwe, very good question! I am not at all sure how accurate that first map is (a federal government map, not an NT one) - it shows Douglas-Daly where other maps have the "Mary" part of Finniss-Mary. Douglas-Daly is probably the lower part of that region (see [8]), but I would be very surprised if it was used to refer to the whole of the area extending to the northern coast, as shown on the government map. That's where the Mary River is. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RebeccaGreen. I must have missed it somewhere. Can you provide me with a link to "your" map. Thanks. Aoziwe (talk) 10:57, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean where I found Douglas-Daly? That was just Google Maps, which that #2 is a link to - but if it doesn't work for you, just google Douglas-Daly, and I expect you'll see what I did. I just looked at the website of the NT Dept of Local Government, Housing and Community Development before, and there really is no Local Government Act online - just a review report dated (I think) 2016. There are maps of the local government areas, but none of the areas that don't have local governments. Not very helpful! RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:20, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks RebeccaGreen. I found the google maps version of Douglas-Daly BUT that is different from the "Fed" version. It shows only the southern portion and does not refer to the northeastern portion in the "Fed" version. Just more confusion. Without some expert authority to sort it all out this article, any references I can find are just all contradictory and any article it seems at this point in time is simply unsafe. Aoziwe (talk) 09:12, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Google maps show postal code arrangement withing 0822 NT area. Reference 2 shows statistical area. These area are administratively under the relevant state or territorial governmentShevonsilva (talk) 14:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shevonsilva, in my reply to Aoziwe, I referred to the link to Google maps that I included in my comment above, starting "very good question". It shows the Douglas-Daly region. I was not referring to any references included in the article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The main reason for the deletion for is "The article is one of many mass-produced stubs, and appears to be a simple misreading. "Unincorporated Top End Region" appears on a map to indicate that the area is unincorporated, not that it is incorporated with the word "Unincorporated" at the beginning of its title", and, now it is clear that the reason is not right. I hope we can keep the article. Thank. Shevonsilva (talk) 21:17, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, at the time the article was nominated it said The Unincorporated Top End Region is a

local government area of the Northern Territory, Australia,[9] which is clearly not correct and was indeed "a simple misreading". That there is still confusion over what actually constitutes the region to the point that incorrect population figures and coordinates have been added still does not bode well for the article. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:51, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Confused The NT_LGA_15 map that is used as a reference to the statement that there are two areas shows 4 as it includes "Nhulunby" (I think it means Nhulunbuy) and Alyangula as well. Local government areas of the Northern Territory has a table that includes unincorporated areas including one called "Nhulunbuy Corporation". Is there any government department (at any level) that treats the Unincorporated Top End Region in aggregate, but differently from the rest of the seven unincorporated areas of the NT? If so, I would !vote to keep this article and include that information. if not, then this article has little meaning and needs to be deleted and/or split to each unincorporated area or merged to an article covering them all. The article as it stood when i read it doesn't mean anything. --Scott Davis ^Talk 03:26, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The second reference notes the aggregation with the statement, "Alyangula and Nhulunbuy townships both come under a Special Purpose Lease, East Arm is on Darwin Rates Act Area land, Finniss-Mary is part of Unincorporated Top End Region and Yulara township is currently owned by private interests." Shevonsilva (talk) 00:32, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:14, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kaali Sudheer

Kaali Sudheer (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)

Just co-produced two movies and subject doesn't claims notability. Articles seems like promotional too , Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:36, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:36, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt. Repeatedly recreated. The first AfD ended in deletion, and noted that there were other deleted pages that were related. I also just AfD the associated gallery: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muse Art Gallery (2nd nomination)--Theredproject (talk) 17:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt +
  WP:CREATIVE — they do not get an automatic notability pass just because they exist. GSS (talk|c|em) 05:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:14, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish people in Iran

Turkish people in Iran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is essentially a list of two people who are Turkish and live in Iran. Doesn't appear to meet

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:21, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:21, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:21, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete per nom. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 17:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete:article is created based on OR but I am going to suggest to create article titled list of Turkish people in Iran.Hispring (talk) 20:07, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per nom. Ill-defined WP topic; how do we know these two people are even still in Iran? Do we get to "Notable Turkish people who have ever lived in Iran"? Britishfinance (talk) 21:17, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, the existing reference doesn't run and it requires related sources; with these explanation, it might be regarded as an interesting/appropriate article -- in the case of having sufficient sources/texts. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 08:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I used
  IABOT to fix the broken reference. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:14, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 high participation and rather pronounced trend towards deletion over the last several days of this discussion indicate that relisting is not needed to determine consensus as it now clearly appears. bd2412 T 01:04, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

United States support for ISIS

United States support for ISIS (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)

Addendum -

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Allegations of state support is the sub-section this set of allegations of a POVFORK of in the ISIL page.Icewhiz (talk) 15:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to
  International military intervention against ISIL. Arguably there is enough independent RS coverage to ring the WP:N bell for this topic. But just because something is notable doesn't automatically mean it deserves its own stand alone article. In this case it doesn't. Merge the stuff that is reliably sourced and leave the fringe crap out unless it is backed by solid RS secondary sources. RT and Sputnik are not RS. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:48, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  There's very little here that is salvageable. What is reliably sourced - is already there. Some of supposedly reliably sourced stuff - e.g. "Russia and some Afghan local officials have claimed that US has supplied arms to ISIS fighters in Afghanistan" sourced to this omits the rather significant "There's no evidence to support the allegations, but they are another prime example of Russia's active information warfare campaign against the US.". Icewhiz (talk) 16:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ad Orientem:and leave the fringe crap out unless it is backed by solid RS secondary sources. RT and Sputnik are not RS. This is not the place discuss about that, FYI. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 21:32, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The quality of sources is always an appropriate topic in AfD discussions. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ad Orientem: Apologies, gave out the wrong signal. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 18:27, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Keep or Merge - I don't see it as a POVFORK. ISIS and ISIL are not the same. The title is quite frankly, misleading and could be changed. But this is pretty significant considering the current affairs and should have separate article. This is a sensitive topic and problems with NPOV and COI are likely to arise. That doesn't mean it should be deleted. Could be moved to userspace but this needs much publicity and attention to readers and other editors. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 18:05, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  ISIS and ISIL are not the same.

  Our own article on the group would seem to disagree. Novusuna ^talk 20:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Delete Any good sources that aren't already used in the main articles on the conflict should be incorporated into those articles, but we don't need a separate article pushing a point of view contrary to the main articles; that's the definition of a
  WP:POVFORK. Novusuna ^talk 21:05, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• International military intervention against ISIL and this are not POVFORK. They are two separate POV. If necessary they could be merged with a different title. And ISIS/ISIL has become much bigger than Iraq and Syrian war, and spread internationally. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 21:09, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Wizard - you have just defined a POVFORK. We do not need multiple US/ISIS relationship articles each covering the issue from a separate POV - our goal should one article, weighing different POVs per due weight as reflected in RSes.Icewhiz (talk) 21:23, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, yes technically, depending on how you look at it. In that case both are POVFORK to one another. I would copy relevant content from here and merge. A neutral title should be created for that. Because of this bureaucracy, I would rather keep it and then consider a merge. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 21:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment:If it ain't
  International military intervention against ISIL. It is obvious that US position about ISIL is changing. I want to suggest to alter title to Us-ISIL relation included two position, support for some day and vice versa or alleged United States support for ISIS.Saff V. (talk) 07:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom, and it doesn't appear any reliable source uses the terminology used in this article title ("support"). As said above, what's backed up by reliable sources is already included in other related articles. Leviv ich 08:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich:,@Novusuna:,@Icewhiz: such RS, bloomberg,nbc, BCC, aljazeera and [10] lead me to chose "support" for title.It would be great to tell about your suggestion for title based on mentioned sources. Saff V. (talk) 09:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

None of those support "support". BBC for instance covers the US decision to allow an ISIS convery to flee Raqqa - as part of the US-led assault and takeover of Raqqa - this is a common stratagem to avoid a costly fight to the death. If this constituted support, then we could create (not - POVFORK) Syrian regime support of Syrian rebels based on the many (dozens at least) convoys allowed to leave (usually to Idlib) throughout the war - Reuters). Icewhiz (talk) 11:09, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How about alleged support?Saff V. (talk) 11:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propaganda in the Russian Federation and Propaganda in Iran). Icewhiz (talk) 12:59, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I really don't stress on to create article by fringe sources, as I noticed above such RS bloomberg confirmed US has supported ISIS Or a former US top military intelligence director, General Mike Flynn confirmed it, but i am not against to re-title. If your suggested subject is verified by RS, why not to create. Any way I will respect to result of AFD.Saff V. (talk) 13:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@

notability, not the content. Allegations and propaganda are not necessarily fake news. Even if they turn out to be, they should be mentioned. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 16:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

This discussion is actually not about notability. The nom is on

WP:DEL14 in regards to TNT). Icewhiz (talk) 16:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't agree with TNT because the content is quite significant. For DEL5, a redirect is possible, for DEL6 and DEL14, I would argue it is notable hoax at the very least. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 16:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and Rename There are a lot of sources that make this article notable particularly about the US. The US regime has been accused many times of supporting ISIL directly or indirectly with arms and weapons. However, The US has dismissed these claims by saying that the US weapons were transferred to ISIL by "mistakes". Would be more NPOV to put "allegedly" in the title since they US never admitted of doing these mistakes intentionally. Also there are a lot of sources that claim the US has been moving ISIL members to safe places I don't know whether the US has commented on these allegations or not. Thanks--
  talk) 08:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment the topic itself is fine, but the contents are a load of contextless sentences, claims, and synthesis. And the main section makes no distinction between real support and inadvertent or accidental support. Also there is nothing given for the US's side of things, no content is given in the article about the US government trying to defend themselves, quotes, statements, nothing. A good first step for restructuring the article would be to have a section dedicated to "Claims", statements saying the US supports ISIS, including Donald Trump's and the Ayatollah's. And definitely rename the article "Alleged US support of ISIS". Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[ᴛ] 13:17, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Redirect to

  Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Allegations of state support. I've been thinking it over and the entire article boils down to Iranian and Russian claims that the US directly supported ISIS, and then other claims that US incompetence lead to ISIS's growth. This can be summarized in like two paragraphs and added to the "Allegations of state support" section of the main ISIS article. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[ᴛ] 11:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Keep Keep and rename: I think the title merits having a stand alone article per the above/used sources. As for the title, I think it needs to be discussed elsewhere as to whether or not "alleged" should be used or not. That said, I found Brightgalrs's comment fair enough. Keep does not mean the article is good at the moment. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:59, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On the second and though after searching more, I the title needs to change so that it shows there are some allegations. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:28, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per SharabSalam 110.74.199.28 (talk) 15:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: if this article is redirected, it seems to me the best place to redirect it to is the United States section of
  Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Allegations of state support. Leviv ich 17:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep and rename Per ImmortalWizard. In addition merging to nominated article make it too long so it isnot usefule alternative. I agree with renaming based on reliable sources.Hispring (talk) 18:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment:To clarify the issues, I collected several sources addressed the subject:

1. The U.S. watched Islamic State fighters, vehicles and heavy equipment gather on the outskirts of Ramadi...by bloomberg
2. Flynn (National Security Advisor to President Donald Trump) said that conditions in US-controlled Iraqi prisons resulted in radicalization of thousands of young Iraqis, some of whom would later become some of the top ISIS commanders...by Aljazeera
3. Rand Paul, junior U.S. Senator from Kentucky, said that the U.S. government of indirectly supporting ISIL in the Syrian Civil War... by The Hill
4. The founder of ISIS has been introduced American political figures such as Obama or Hillary Clinton ... by CNN AND foxnews
5. According to the Russian Defence Ministry, the US has deliberately slowed the pace of its assault on Isis... by independent
6. US and Saudi Arabia arms significantly enhanced Isis’ military capabilities.... by another report of independent
7. ISIS weapons arsenal included some purchased by U.S. government... by NBC
8. Russia accuses U.S. of training former Islamic State fighters in Syria... by reuters
9. ISIL weapons traced to US and Saudi Arabia...by another report of aljazeera
10. allowed hundreds of ISIS fighters including their most notorious members to secretly evacuate city of Raqqa ... BY BBC Saff V. (talk) 05:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    1. This Bloomberg article says the US "left the fighting to Iraqi troops, who ultimately abandoned their positions...the U.S.-led coalition provided both airstrikes and surveillance to the Iraqi Security Forces in support of the Ramadi defense...The current rules of engagement are intentionally designed to restrict the effectiveness of air power to prevent potential collateral damage...That results in ISIS getting the freedom of action so they can commit genocide against civilians...the rules of engagement for U.S. airstrikes were not the only setback in the battle for Ramadi. The Iraqi military withdrew from its positions in the city..."
    2. Flynn nowhere in this interview says anything about the US supporting ISIS.
    3. "ISIS, an al Qaeda offshoot, has been collaborating with the Syrian rebels whom the Obama administration has been arming in their efforts to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, Paul explained" is not suggesting that the US supports ISIS. Saying "a friend of a friend" isn't the same thing as saying "a friend".
    4. Trump said Obama founded ISIS by leaving Iraq. He didn't say the US supports ISIS. This campaign hyperbole is not taken as a serious accusation by anyone, especially since ISIS was founded in 2003, five years before Obama was elected.
    5. According to the Russians...
    6. This is about a report that found "...most weapons in Isis’ arsenal were captured from the Syrian and Iraqi armies...90 per cent of the weapons and ammunition overall were made in Russia, China and Eastern Europe..."
    7. This is about the same report, but note: "...the U.S. government has supplied weapons to Syrian armed groups, first to fight the Assad regime and then to assist the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) in the fight against the Islamic State. Some of ISIS’ weapons are also thought to have been pilfered from military stockpiles while others were purchased illicitly...In propaganda videos, ISIS frequently showcases the U.S.-made weapons in its arsenal, much of it presumed to have been seized from Iraqi military stockpiles...But in reality, American weapons make up only a minor portion of the small arms documented by CAR. Chinese and Russian arms account for more than 50 percent, with the ubiquitous AK-47 in heavy use. CAR found most of ISIS' weapons were made before 1990, the year Iraq came under an arms embargo."
    8. "The chief of the Russian General Staff has accused the United States of training former Islamic State fighters in Syria to try to destabilize the country."
    9. Same CAR report: "The research said most weapons were looted from the Iraqi and Syrian armies, however, some were originally supplied by other nations involved in the conflict to Syrian opposition groups fighting against President Bashar al-Assad...About 90 percent of weapons and ammunition used by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, also known as ISIS) originated in China, Russia, and Eastern Europe, with Russian-made weapons outnumbering those of any other country."
    10. The deal to let IS fighters escape from Raqqa – de facto capital of their self-declared caliphate – had been arranged by local officials. It came after four months of fighting that left the city obliterated and almost devoid of people. It would spare lives and bring fighting to an end. The lives of the Arab, Kurdish and other fighters opposing IS would be spared. But it also enabled many hundreds of IS fighters to escape from the city. At the time, neither the US and British-led coalition, nor the SDF, which it backs, wanted to admit their part.

    None of these suggest the US supports ISIS in any way. Leviv ich 06:26, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    But by these RS it is undeniable to accuses US. we can't disregard.Saff V. (talk) 06:51, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    No, the reliable sources don’t actually accuse the US of anything (except perhaps incompetence). It is only the Russians and Iranians (and apparently you) who link these disparate events together under the banner of “support”. Blueboar (talk) 22:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Russian and Iranian media have made allegations. Yes. But this is common in conflict - all sorts of allegations are made on the opposing side(s). We already cover the multitude of allegations of state support (basically - everyone accuses everyone else) in

    WP:POVFORK for this specific set of allegations (which are made by sources generally considered to be highly unreliable - to the point they are seen as the information warfare arm of the states operating them). Icewhiz (talk) 07:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

    ]

Just a glance illustrates article is based on US press and non Iranian or Russian! your opinion lead me to re title article. I am sure you believe in some material of article are supported by RS and we have to merge, but suggested articles are too long and after a while we have to split them. why don't we select best title for the new main article that include material belong to US-ISIS relation?Saff V. (talk) 07:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. If anything, this belongs to the page
  Russian propaganda. My very best wishes (talk) 14:52, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  @

  Russian propaganda?Saff V. (talk) 05:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Some American/British RSes don't support "support" (e.g. the convoy allowed to flee Raqqa after a long battle and prior to the final American takeover). Other American sources - e.g. "Russia and some Afghan local officials have claimed that US has supplied arms to ISIS fighters in Afghanistan" sourced to this covers Russian claims - and omits the rather significant "There's no evidence to support the allegations, but they are another prime example of Russia's active information warfare campaign against the US.". Icewhiz (talk) 08:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As above comment. Belongs on Sputnik. Sick. Dan the Plumber (talk) 19:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC) Sockpuppet of banned user. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 15:01, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Dan the Plumber: do you ignore 10 RS be listed above? they reveal US accusation to support ISIS.Saff V. (talk) 05:36, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Besides the outright unreliable sources, there are serious NOR issues. What material is taken from reliable ones is cherry-picked and COATRACKed together to present a narrative and conclusion none of the reliable sources put forth themselves. It is one big WP:SYNTH violation. Bits and pieces might merit inclusion in other articles, but not strung together as they are here. Blueboar (talk) 22:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The content that is from unreliable resources should be ignored in this debate (they should be removed of course, unless they could be proven by other RS). Based on the rest of the content, the article should me deleted, kept or merged, depending on NPOV (UNDUEWEIGHT) and FORK. So far, the mergings suggested to are
  Russian propaganda (I might miss something). I think the article can stand on its own. However, if it is going to be merged, it should be done to each of the suggestions depending on what's relevant. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 22:29, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom.
  WP:OR problems, as well. Kierzek (talk) 22:36, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep I personally agree with Mhhossein. 194.44.246.83 (talk) 23:31, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not one of the reliable sources cited indicate that "United States support for ISIS" is a topic that has received legitimate coverage. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:54, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete POV Fork, many unreliable sources, and the reliable sources there are do not support the statements they are being used to substantiate. Any truly RS material could be added to the respective articles they concern.UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 07:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment In addition to be presented above, It is interesting to review these RS:

1. the US and its allies weren’t only supporting and arming an opposition they knew to be dominated by extreme sectarian groups; they were prepared to countenance the creation of some sort of Islamic state ... by the guardian
2. by a recently declassified secret US intelligence report, which uncannily predicts the prospect of a “Salafist principality” in eastern Syria and an al-Qaida- controlled Islamic state in Syria and Iraq ... by the guardian
3. These included a powerful anti-tank missile launcher bought from a Bulgarian manufacturer by the U.S. Army and wielded by ISIS only weeks later ... by newsweek
4. The state senator referred to plans by the CIA to transfer arms ... supplying all rebels, including specifically ISIS (Daesh) and al-Qaeda. We do it indirectly because it’s unlawful to do it directly ... by presstv
5. Over the years, growing jihadi influence compelled the U.S. to cut CIA support for such groups... by newsweek Saff V. (talk) 08:42, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

   As far as I know, commentisfree is the opinion section of the Guardian, and thus is not a RS for statements of fact, only the opinions of the authors. The Newsweek source does not at all indicate support by the U.S. The sentence immediately before what you quoted says "weapons believed to have been procured by the U.S. and Saudi Arabia, shipped to Syrian rebels and later obtained by ISIS" and earlier in the article "Supplies of materiel into the Syrian conflict from foreign parties—notably the United States and Saudi Arabia—have indirectly allowed IS to obtain substantial quantities of anti-armor ammunition....the U.S. had been supplying arms to insurgents opposed to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad since at least 2012 and, when ISIS began rapidly seizing territory in 2013 and 2014, many U.S.-armed rebel groups were either defeated by the incoming militants or joined them." This is not even an allegation of support, it is explaining how weapons meant for anti-Assad rebels wound up in IS hands. There is no claim that the U.S. intentionally supplied IS with material support. To say so is a misrepresentation of the source. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 09:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

   Really we don't gather here to review sources line by line,in this case I would to notice to the Islamic State militant group (ISIS) got its hands on vast supplies of weapons by taking advantage of U.S. from newsweek, or about weapons and army equipment look at bloomberg, nbcnews, aljazeera. My offer still stands, we can based on suggested sources re title article to allegation at least but not to delete.Saff V. (talk) 10:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

   The Guardian commentisfree section sometimes runs letters from readers - however in this case it ran Corbyn's aide's op-ed - who has a rather particular set of opinions regarding Russia and Syria - see Seumas Milne#On Putin and Russia - definitely not a RS. US weapons (as well as the many more Russian weapons) showing up in ISIS's hands has little to do with support - ISIS pilfered most of these from rival groups, and bought some on the black market - as made clear in the sources cited above. Icewhiz (talk) 12:03, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

   What is your idea about The state senator referred to plans by the CIA to transfer arms ... supplying all rebels, including specifically ISIS (Daesh) and al-Qaeda. We do it indirectly because it’s unlawful to do it directly? Saff V. (talk) 13:57, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

   Or the U.S. continued to train and equip Syrian rebels, using local allies like Jordan and Turkey as intermediaries. In its report, Conflict Armaments Group included dozens of photographs of EU-manufactured weapons believed to have been procured by the U.S. and Saudi Arabia, shipped to Syrian rebels and later obtained by ISIS, which moved them between Iraq and Syria as well as Over the years, growing jihadi influence compelled the U.S. to cut CIA support for such groups'? Saff V. (talk) 14:10, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

   The Newsweek reporting on Conflict Armament Research report does not support "support" (it merely supports the well known factoid that ISIS pilfered arms also from the FSA (which at times was very-very weak - with forces crossing the border dissipating shortly thereafter)). As for Press TV - well - it is Press TV for starters, and the interviewee is Virginia State Senator Dick Black (politician). State senators are not privy to federal matters and in particularly not to foreign affairs. Black is also noted for Dick Black (politician)#Russia Today appearances. I can't quite see how Black would merit inclusion on any Syria related article. Icewhiz (talk) 14:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

   FYI I reverted some of these additions to the article (see my edit summary for reasoning), and posted about the PressTV one at

   WP:RSN#PressTV. Leviv ich 18:00, 20 February 2019 (UTC) [reply

   ]

• Delete per much of the above, especially Lev's point-by-point rebuttal to Saff, whose case as presented reminded me of a typical political entertainment television "investigation", usually (and in this case) by the right. Mis-characterization of sources, lack of perspective or proportion, outright lies, stretching to ascribe illogical motives when common sense dictates otherwise, even the provocative title "United States support for ISIS" (implying intent), etc. – it's all there. I'll go to the political entertainment media for that sort of self-abuse if I want to feel like leaving the planet. It doesn't belong here. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 16:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the comments above. Looks like a POV haven to me. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I didn't read this article but I support
  WP:SPINOFF article). wumbolo ^^^ 22:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Alleged formal (overt or covert) US support for, or private-sector American channels of aid to, or US-originating resources used by ISIL (which are not the same or even related claims and do not all constitute a fused thing that could logically be called "US support", a concept intended to mislead and to push both an anti-American
  WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE boundaries. The "article" under discussion is basically a massive persuasive definition and equivocation fallacy, manufactured around manipulating radically different ways to interpret the string "United States support". PS: I'm not sure why people are proposing a "US intervention against ISIL" page in response to an AfD about the opposite idea. I have no in-theory objection to such an article existing, but it's off-topic for this discussion.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:48, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  There are several RS that accuse US to support (at least), please consider The state senator (Richard Hayden Black) mentioned to plan for transferring CIA arms thought some countries in order to supply all rebels, "including specifically ISIS (Daesh) and al-Qaeda." he declared "We do it indirectly because it’s unlawful to do it directly". I believe in some drawbacks of article as well as I think that solution would be re title article to US allegation in .... rather than delete! Saff V. (talk) 07:09, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Black is a state senator not a US senator, he is not credible, his views are seen as fringe theories.Dkspartan1835 (talk) 10:51, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  And PressTV is hardly reliable. Blueboar (talk) 15:12, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a case of
  WP:SYNTH. feminist (talk) 06:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, or failing that, redirect or merge anything Reliable and legitimate. Severe problems with unreliable sources,
  WP:POVFORK, because a POVFORK would actually require proper sourcing to support the alternate POV. In this case the only POV being presented are things being falsely represented as "support" along with a dash of routine RT-fiction. There's a damn good reason we don't cite RT for anything but Russia's official position and (occasionally) for basic uncontroversial facts. Alsee (talk) 01:02, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete There doesn't seem to be any evidence for actual US support of ISIS in reliable sources. Perhaps the accusations themselves are worth including, but not in an article as misleading as this. Maybe if there were an article "United States-ISIS relations", it could describe the whole relationship and give these accusations of support their proper context. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 02:21, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge whatever can be salvaged from reliable sources (which isn't that much) into
  International military intervention against ISIL. Beyond that, this is a POV/conspiracy-leaning fork. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:21, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom - this is a POV fork Nick-D (talk) 23:06, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom, or move to a more NPOV title (one that contains the word "alleged"). But, even then, the article will need some serious trimming to clear out the WP:OR, like the entire Raqqa and Ramadi section for instance. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 15:14, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

Shumann Rudolf

Shumann Rudolf (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)

Continually removed g4 by creator and evading title protection see: Rudolf Schumann, however just like the last time, still not notable and it's an attempt to inflate notability yet again. No coverage, no actual notable awards, fails GNG and pretty much any other N. See prior AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rudolf Schumann. Previous titles: Rudolf Schumann, Rudolf Schumann (composer), Praxidicae (talk) 14:48, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:15, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dalton Williams

Dalton Williams (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)

Undistinguished American football player and coach. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:10, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:11, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:11, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm unable to locate an actual professional football career and haven't been able to unearth any coverage from his college play or any other articles that would surpass
  WP:GNG. Cannot find a measure where the subject would pass notability. Would change my mind if it were presented, others might have better research--but based on the article contents and what I can find in my own searches there's nothing of any impact.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:36, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete There isn't enough notability on this guy, which is a violation of
  talk) 00:00, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. He was the starting QB of the 2012 Akron Zips football team, a Mid-American Conference team that went 0–8 in MAC play and finished in last place. While he received some borderline significant coverage in the Akron Beacon Journal (e.g., here and here/here), even these articles are not focused on Williams. Not finding the type of significant coverage in multiple, reliable, and independent sources needed to push him over the GNG hurdle. Cbl62 (talk) 12:46, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 FC Podillya Khmelnytskyi#Stadium. Fenix down (talk) 18:22, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sport Complex Podillya

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

)

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

This article has been orphaned long enough. This article doesn't cite any sources and has very small amount of information. This article also doesn't has any sections. I think deleting this would be a better idea as was created very long ago and not improved.
Sincerely,

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:56, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:56, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:56, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Orphaned? A number of pages link to it, I see a number of possible Ukrainian-language sources, and the Ukrainian page has a lot of information. SportingFlyer T·C 08:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I meant was this English article has lack of words and information, only in the lead and external links. Only a very few editors have tried to improve it. Regardless what Ukrainian page has, it is still not like a article. Please try to improve it or delete it.

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:56, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - cannot see any independent notability. GiantSnowman 14:59, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect to FC Podillya Khmelnytskyi. Govvy (talk) 00:32, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:16, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Cornbleet

Jennifer Cornbleet (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 cookbook author. article has been tagged for references since 2010. valereee (talk) 12:20, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:58, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:58, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:58, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. valereee (talk) 13:14, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless anyone can find more coverage of her or her books. I found one review of her 2005 book, in an Associated Press cookbook review column that was published in many papers - but that is the only review I could find. Apart from that, there were a couple of mentions of the 'don't bother' type. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:14, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Note SPA creation of this and related articles by User talk:Ekelly7 and User talk:Edeubel valereee (talk) 14:34, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails
  WP:GNG. Skirts⁸⁹ 19:54, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Fails
  WP:SIGCOV. Secondary sources are notably lacking and don't seem to be available. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 18:39, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete clearly fails
  WP:GNG and found nothing reliable sources.Hninthuzar (talk) 12:33, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

They Call Him Sasquatch

They Call Him Sasquatch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No significant coverage per

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 01:19, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:04, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

Reactions to the 2019 Pulwama attack

Reactions to the 2019 Pulwama attack (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)

Unneeded spin-off from the main article (2019 Pulwama attack), don't see any reason for a separate article for now. Gotitbro (talk) 10:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, Reactions section was larger than the article. The real solution is to stop making long Reactions sections, and to stop abusing flagicons by putting them in Reactions sections. Abductive (reasoning) 10:43, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From what I know "reaction" articles have been created for only highly covered international events and I don't see this being the case right now (

WP:TOOSOON). The article is about an ongoing event some discrepancies are going to be there such as the reaction being too long. I don't see the notability of a separate reaction article for now. Gotitbro (talk) 10:52, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

"Highly covered" Do you want me to cite tons of international news sources that covered this? 119.82.70.109 (talk) 10:56, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• What about Reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks, Reactions to the September 11 attacks 119.82.70.109 (talk) 10:45, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Neither of the Keep !votes offered a WP:PAG based rational. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:23, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spoka

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

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

Contested

Keep - needs improvement but can be kept with very little work. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 19:48, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'll add newspapers articles as referencies as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solonese (talk • contribs) 19:57, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've reworked some of the prose to make it less promotional. All that might need to be done is to add more information with respective sources. –

talk 20:57, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:08, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:08, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep per Icewhiz - no valid grounds for deletion have been presented. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:06, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep Nom may be related to
  chatter) 18:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Snow keep Opencooper (talk) 22:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:30, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Chang

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

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

• Note I have also nominated Kingman Group for deletion which has even less claim to notability. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:38, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:52, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:52, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Arthur Chang is very clearly notable, founder of Kingman Group, Spyder Paintball, Kingman Training, Raven USA and Java Gear. Produced three movies (two have wiki pages) under his own banner Kingman Films International. Looks like nominator doesn't have an idea if there are not enough sources still a person can be notable. 157.47.139.29 (talk) 08:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC) — 157.47.139.29 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]