Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 January 5

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) 01:34, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Kachejian

Brian Kachejian (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)

Autobiography of an "award-winning" person but short on independent evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:03, 5 January 2019 (UTC) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:03, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 20:26, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 20:26, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Evidence of independent notability has been provided by adding links to newspaper articles confirming any claims of merit. The claim of award winning person was justified by Brian Kachejian's first place award at the Stony Brook University URECA History conference. Proof of that award has been added to the page. Stony Brook University is a leading institution in the field of academia. However, the article is not just about an academic award it is about an artist who has contributed to the arts for over 40 years.These contributions have been referenced in independent multiple newspaper articles that have been cited in the article.Various website references that pointed to the artists albums and performances have also been cited.Wikipedia guidelines state clearly that notability is not based on a person's popularity but on secondary sources confirming the written material in the article.The claim of of "short on independent evidence of notability," seems to be based more on a subjective opinion of an editor rather than a evidential look at the pages citations that clearly provide ample evidence of notability Than You. Brian KachejianBrianKachejian (talk) 20:44, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unambiguous
  talk) 21:28, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete I had read the article first, then this long AfD comment and then returned to trawl through the refs looking for notability. Plenty of mentions, plenty of advertisments, several minor achievements but nothing close to notability. A search revealed nothing better. I am sure he is a perfectly competent musician, but that just isn't enough on Wikipedia.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   21:33, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The page Brian Kachejian utilizes newspaper articles as sources.The multiple newspaper articles feature multiple full page stories on Brian Kachejian.These are full page stories not just mentions, that are not autobiographical but written from journalists as newspaper stories about the topic Brian Kachejian.These newspaper articles also contain interviews with other people in the music business about the work of the artist. Evidence of independent notability has been provided by adding links to newspaper articles confirming any claims of merit. The claim of award winning person was justified by Brian Kachejian's first place award at the Stony Brook University URECA History conference. Proof of that award has been added to the page. Stony Brook University is a leading institution in the field of academia. However, the article is not just about an academic award it is about an artist who has contributed to the arts for over 40 years..Various website references that pointed to the artists albums and performances have also been cited as proof of album existence.Wikipedia guidelines state clearly that notability is not based on a person's popularity but on secondary sources confirming the written material in the article.The claim of of "short on independent evidence of notability," seems to be based more on a subjective opinion of an editor rather than a evidential look at the pages citations that clearly provide ample evidence of notability Thank You. Brian KachejianBrianKachejian (talk) 22:32, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Wholesale puffery. And how the hell do you win "the 2006 URECA History Conference at Stony Brook University"? --Calton | Talk 06:35, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this was supposed to be a forum where editors look at the sources provided in the article and decide if the article meets wikipedia guidelines or not.Instead the forum is being utilized to throw insults at me. Asking "And how the hell do you win "the 2006 URECA History Conference at Stony Brook University"? is a demeaning insult written about me by user Calton. Are you implying that because I am a musician I do not have the capability of excelling in the fields of academia? Are you questioning that because of my age I could not have won an award in 2006? If so, than you did not read through the article which explains all of that. In the end, it does not matter because the insult is completely unwarranted and unprofessional.Calling my work puffery is also insulting. This was an article about a musician, a recording artist and an educator. A human being who has worked hard to contribute to society in a positive and professional manner through his skills as a composer,performer and an educator. Every sentence in the article is true and backed up with over 26 citations of secondary sources and primary sources.If you feel the article or person is not worthy of wikipedia or has not met the guidelines,I completely accept that. However, at least be professional about it. Brian Kachejian BrianKachejian (talk) 12:33, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

...is a demeaning insult written about me by user Calton

Here, let me quote the text:

Winner of the 2006 URECA History Conference at Stony Brook University, New York for the work entitled "Liberation of the Soul."

So, to repeat the question, how the hell do you win "the 2006 URECA History Conference at Stony Brook University"?

Are you questioning that because of my age I could not have won an award in 2006?

I said no such thing nor could that be possibly read into what I wrote. But as long as you brought it up, it's an undergraduate student award given at a single university's undergraduate conference, received when you were 45. Using this to claim you are "award-winning" or that this demonstrates any form of notability is TEXTBOOK puffery.

Just about every sentence in the article is similarly inflated, and it's not worth the effort to detail even a fraction of it all.

If you feel the article or person is not worthy of wikipedia or has not met the guidelines,I completely accept that.

Yes, that's why you've been badgering the editors discussing this on this page. --Calton | Talk 14:26, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Brian Kachejian Wikipedia page has been updated to further meet Wikipedia guidelines. Any issues that have been brought up in this forum have been professionally addressed on the page. Thank You Brian Kachejian BrianKachejian (talk) 12:28, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - you must have a very poor opinion of the critical faculties of most Wikipedia editors if you really believe that is going to work. May I reiterate that what is required is indpendent and reliable sources. I.e not sales outlets or sites that my PC security won't let me go near because the site is harmful. This hole is just being dug deeper.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   22:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• You've got to be joking: store.cdbaby? Deep Discount? And "Mood Avenue" is YOUR 4-week-old web site. And what the hell is "professionally addressed"? --Calton | Talk 04:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Looks like the subject has done some great work, but the sources in the article do not meet the
  general notability guide. — sparklism ^hey! 12:13, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The Wikipedia guidelines state that the creator of a webpage can look to improve the webpage proposed for deleted in order to defend its merits. When I notified this forum that changes were made to the Wikipedia page, one of the editors “Calton,” who has insulted me repeatedly went to the Brian Kachejian Wikipedia page and deleted an entire section of improvements meant to defend the page and prove notability. This has hurt my defense of the page and it seems criminal that a Wikipedia editor who is casting a vote as a judge would change a page that is being defended by its creator. I do not want to read any more insults thrown at me so this is my last view of this page. Brian Kachejian BrianKachejian (talk) 12:31, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

...deleted an entire section of improvements meant to defend the page and prove notability

Your "improvements" were nothing of the sort and demonstrated nothing about notability. Store.cdbaby? Deep Discount? And "Mood Avenue" is YOUR 4-week-old web site. And to quote above, "May I reiterate that what is required is independent and reliable sources. I.e not sales outlets or sites that my PC security won't let me go near because the site is harmful". --Calton | Talk 13:40, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There is essentially no substantial coverage of this subject by independent, reliable sources to indicate notability, offered or to be found. Fails
  WP:MUSICBIO. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 18:06, 12 January 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) 01:35, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Sandford McGlothin

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

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

BLP with no real claim to notability apart from references to his own publications. Rathfelder (talk) 19:43, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 20:25, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 20:25, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 20:25, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 20:25, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete: notability per
  self-published sources and thus fails the independent requirement. SITH (talk) 20:46, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep notable as per
  WP:AUTHOR. --PATH SLOPU ^(Talk) 06:44, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete advocate of extreme calorie restriction diets does get mentioned , quoted in a handful of old news articles, but fails
  WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:03, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom. There's no evidence of
  significant coverage in multiple sources. Bearian (talk) 23:13, 11 January 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. czar 19:15, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Murders of Heather Whitbread and Michelle Savage

Murders of Heather Whitbread and Michelle Savage (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)

Tragic but ultimately insignificant crime with no inherent notability or lasting consequences that falls afoul of the principle of

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 20:20, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 20:20, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete per
  WP:CRIME. Awful as crimes of this nature are, this one has no lasting significance. This is Paul (talk) 20:35, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Horrific crime: estranged husband murders wife child. However, the horror of what this man did noes not make his crime notable. Fails
  WP:NCRIME.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:06, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete fails NCRIME and NOTNEWS. buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 00:12, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  Capitals00 (talk) 15:39, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - has coverage, but shouldn't be included per
  WP:NOTNEWS --DannyS712 (talk) 08:19, 8 January 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. No prejudice against redirection as a viable search term, but the fictional food currently isn't mentioned in the Babylon 5 potential target article. czar 18:27, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spoo

Spoo (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)

None-notable food from a TV show. Article should be redirected to the main Babylon 5 article. Jtrainor (talk) 18:22, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 19:32, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 19:32, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 19:32, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 19:32, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete Not convinced from the previous discussions that this article is notable. It may have been fulfilling notability criteria back when it was first created, but not in the modern day. "Keep" arguments that it was mentioned in several books but said books appear to be
  WP:PRIMARY sources rather than secondary ones. A clear example of something that belongs on Wikia rather than Wikipedia._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:53, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete or Redirect to
  WP:PRIMARY. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 23:34, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete or redirect to Babylon 5 given the above discussion. I do not believe there are enough secondary sources to support this article's notability, though it could still be a viable search term so a redirect may be helpful. Aoba47 (talk) 23:27, 10 January 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. Randykitty (talk) 05:47, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Killing of Lee Pomeroy

Killing of Lee Pomeroy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article about a fatal stabbing that occurred on a train in South East England on 4 January 2019. The incident has received some news coverage and is currently the subject of a criminal investigation. As horrific and tragic as this event is,

• Note: A user identifying themselves as a relative of the deceased has requested this article be deleted. This is Paul (talk) 18:12, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Just to clarify, I opened this discussion because a speedy deletion tag added by another user was removed. I feel though this is a case of
  WP:SPEEDY. This is Paul (talk) 19:29, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Which of the speedy delete criteria do you claim that this article meets? Jim Michael (talk) 04:21, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Try A7 – No indication of importance. This is Paul (talk) 10:18, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A7 applies to an article about a "real person, individual animal, commercial or non-commercial organization, web content, or organized event". This was not an organized event, see the note at A7. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:53, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I had in mind the person element of it, since if kept this article would no doubt eventually contain biographical information about the victim and the perpetrator, as other crime articles do. Let's instead try this one, and in particular point 5 that says: "Notability. Articles that seem to have obviously non-notable subjects are eligible for speedy deletion only if the article does not give a credible indication of why the subject might be important or significant." There is no indication this incident has notability, and nothing in the article to suggest it will. If we don't have a speedy deletion criteria that covers these particular kinds of issues then sadly we are willfully lacking. This is Paul (talk) 11:03, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a crime, not a person. It has a small amount of biographical info about the victim, as many crime articles do, but that doesn't make it an article about a person. It's about an event, but not an organised one, hence it isn't eligible for A7. Jim Michael (talk) 11:53, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do hope you read the rest of my post, because the event still isn't notable, and notability is a criteria for speedy deletion. Anyway I'm guessing a speedy deletion won't happen, which was largely why I opened this debate. As I've said elsewhere in this discussion articles like this help nobody. They're created far too soon after the event, and they lack any substance because we simply don't know enough about the incident at this stage. It may be several months before we do. This is Paul (talk) 13:25, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not a criterion for speedy deletion. You are not alone in being confused about that, so you ought to read the criteria at

WP:CSD. Notability is of course a point which can be discussed at AFD, but the criteria for CSD are not the same as the criteria for AFD. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:30, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes that does look a bit confusing, but as I don't often bring stuff to AFD I'm sure I can be excused. I'm tempted to say there's no credible claim of significance but maybe that's also a point of confusion for many. At present the article documents the incident and subsequent investigation, and doesn't suggest it will be covered beyond the usual news cycle. Anyway, I brought it to AFD, which is what I thought would need to be done, and we're having the discussion. This is Paul (talk) 13:47, Today (UTC+0)

As was pointed out above, the "no credible claim of significance" criterion (

A7) applies only to an article about a "real person, individual animal, commercial or non-commercial organization, web content, or organized event", and A7 says specifically that it is "... a lower standard than notability". --David Biddulph (talk) 13:56, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Ah yes...not quite sure what I was doing there. As it's Sunday I'm probably not fully awake yet. Seriously though, I'm quite surprised we don't have criteria to cover something like this, as articles like this frequently appear, and we keep having these debates. This is Paul (talk) 14:04, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is too soon to post content on Wikipedia when it is not known of the level of notability of what happened or even the outcome of this tragic event. The majority of the article is a copy and paste of the relevant news pages, which makes this page unnecessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurenb97x (talk • contribs) 18:27, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which news articles are you claiming that this article copies & pastes from? Jim Michael (talk) 04:21, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:41, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:42, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There are far too many of these reactionary articles now appearing on this site that are - as someone else has noted - just rolling copy pastes from news articles. The death of Lee Pomeroy is a tragedy (and a day, I believe, before his 52nd birthday too) but the question that should be asked about all crime stories is - will this be notable in 12 months time? The sad answer will be no because between here and 5 January 2020 there will be a lot more tragic deaths. This article is just another variation of Missing white woman syndrome. A middle aged White Guy is killed so the middle class British media goes into a frenzy - contrast to two dozen black kids fatally stabbed in London. Barely gets a meurrrrgh! At best this is a two-line entry on the article about Clandon. It's not worth an article just because it's a slow news day.81.159.167.71 (talk) 18:49, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• (
  as early news reports are often inaccurate, I've marked the page as unreviewed so it won't show up in search engines. Whichever user it is who you are referring to, I extend my condolences for their loss. SITH (talk) 18:51, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

)

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

Clearly

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
  Talk to my owner:Online 17:13, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - Clear
  WP:CFORK. I raised the issues at the talk page and was greeted with silence as the response. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:40, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Keep - Supporting

WP:WEIGHT as well as expatriate communities. India should have central prominence as dictated by history. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:43, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. DannyS712 (talk) 20:00, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. DannyS712 (talk) 20:00, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. DannyS712 (talk) 20:00, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Definitely passes
  WP:GNG
  . Scholarship treats Islam in South Asia as a stand alone subject. I see that the article author has also made use of excellent academic sources which treat the Islam in South Asia subject independently:
  • Metcalf, Barbara D. (8 September 2009), Islam in South Asia in Practice, Princeton University Press,
    ISBN 1-4008-3138-5
  • Kugle, Scott A. (2004), "Islam in South Asia", in Richard C. Martin (ed.), Encyclopedia of Islam and the Muslim World: M-Z, index, Macmillan Reference USA, pp. 634–641,
    ISBN 978-0-02-865605-2
  • Robinson, Francis (4 November 2010), "South Asia to 1919", The New Cambridge History of Islam, vol. 5, The Islamic World in the Age of Western Dominance, Cambridge University Press, pp. 212–239,
    ISBN 978-1-316-17578-1 Code16 (talk) 22:56, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

The issue is not about notability, but rather about duplication of content. Can you explain what this page will cover which is not covered in the Islam in India page (and Islam in Pakistan and Islam in Bangladesh as well)? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:17, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I agree that Islam in Southeast Asia has a number of significant differences from Islam elsewhere in the world. Because the academic sources cited in the article are about that specific topic, I would think that notability as a specific topic is sufficient. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 00:49, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete massively duplicates
  WP:CFORK created contrary to the established consensus. Expand the main articles in place of developing duplicate articles. Accesscrawl (talk) 08:51, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete or heavily condense Notability is not the question here (of course the topic is notable), but everything covered here is already treated at comparabble or greater detail in the more specialized articles linked above. This kind of duplication is not only unnecessary but actively detrimental, since changes to overlapping pages will desynchronize over time (that is one of the main reasons we try to avoid content duplication). A case could be made for a larger-scale hub page here that provides concise summaries of the regional pages but otherwise just links on. That would mean condensing it down substantially. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:57, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Elmidae, have you seen the arguments below about the inadequacy of Islam in India as the article where most of this information is covered? Vanamonde (talk) 12:53, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. By now this seems to have moved into more specialist arguments than I'm conversant with, some quite convincing, and I can't really consider this an informed !vote anymore. Striking for now; I suspect there are now better contributions in this discussion on which to base a conclusion. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:21, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Those using the "its a duplication" argument are not making much sense. Content in many articles will overlap, for example
  Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 and Bangladesh Liberation War
  (same subject but different facets, as is the case here).

We already have a precedent of articles covering Islam by region i.e. Islam in Europe, Islam in Central Asia and Islam in Southeast Asia despite also having articles on Islam in these regions' individual countries i.e. Islam in Bosnia and Herzegovinia, Islam in Tajikistan and Islam in Thailand etc. So content overlaps will be inevitable.

The political history of the Islam in India article is mainly empty[25]], so the claim of duplication is baseless.

Compare the difference between the sections on Mughal rule in both articles,[26][27], on its disintegration and the post-Mughal political history,[28][29] and the Delhi Sultanate[30][31]. Clearly, the new article is much better than the old one.

The rest of the

WP:RS

.

It is also not suitable to write about Islamic facts & history of Pakistan and Bangladesh into the Islam in India article. For example it would be difficult to cover Richard Eaton's authoritative cross-South Asia scholarship on conversions in Punjab and Bengal (where most of the subcontinent's Muslims have always lived) in the Islam in India article because most Punjabi and Bengali Muslims today are no longer Indian, they are Pakistani and Bangladeshi. This article's section on Conversions solves this problem.

In short this South Asia article enables editors to write about the regional Islam (in all 3 nations together, both pre-1947 and post-1947). This is how several encyclopaedic articles in normal paper and online encyclopaedias already cover Islam in South Asia. i.e. [32] FreeKashmiri (talk) 12:22, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:OSE
  is never a good argument in deletion discussions.
• If the Islam in India article is poor in some respects, please by all means improve it. That is a not a reason to go and create a new article.
• What is being called "South Asia" (barring Afghanistan and Sri Lanka) was called "India" till 1947. And, all its history will be necessarily covered in Islam in India article. This weakens your argument that this new article is needed to cover all 3 nations together. They are covered together till 1947. If you need such an article for post-1947, please provide sources cover the topic in such a manner. Also, please explain how South Asia is made of "3 nations". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:48, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually
  WP:OSE
  can't be dismissed as an argument here.
• I am glad you have accepted that the Islam in India article is in a shabby state. Since that is the case the question of "duplication" does not arise because there is no duplicated content to begin with. So please do not use the duplication argument any more.
• Sorry, I should have said 7 nations, not the 3 main ones, which are still the scholars' focus. Scholarship has produced numerous works on Islam in South Asia (indeed academia around the world now even favours "South Asia" over "India" anyway[33]). To represent academia, we must allow for a regional coverage.

In short, everyone here agrees on the notability of the subject. Still, I would be interested to know how you plan to bypass all the academic material which covers Islam and its political history regionally? The only other argument against this article has been about duplication, but that issue has been shown to be non-existent with the content-free status of other articles. The end result is that we are left with no valid objection to this article's existence (nationalist objections based on "South Asia is India" are invalid reasons). FreeKashmiri (talk) 23:45, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per
  WP:CFORK It is ideal not to create articles that are already noted in other separate articles. No attempt has made to gain consensus as well. Capankajsmilyo^{(Talk | Infobox assistance)} 00:15, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Notability is not a concern here but if we actually need the article per
  WP:CFORK such as this has should not be given any different treatment. Orientls (talk) 05:19, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. I'm in the unusual position of disagreeing with Kautilya3: the entirety of south Asia has not been called "India" for very long, relative to the history examined in this article: Afghanistan, in particular, is crucial to the understanding of the history of Islam in the subcontinent, as that is where multiple Muslim invasions have come through, and that is a region that was part of multiple Islamic empires based in the subcontinent. As it stands, the page might well be a CFORK, but conceptually, it isn't. South Asia has nearly a quarter of the world's people, one third of the world's Muslims, and a history of Islam that is nearly 1300 years old; far older than any of the nation-states that constitute the region today. The broad sweep of this history is far better suited to a regional article than to Islam in India; indeed, because much of the history of Islam in south Asia has to do with territory that is divided between countries today, duplication will actually be reduced, and neutrality will be better served, if this material is covered in a framing article such as this one, and Islam in India is instead reframed to examine the history of Islam in independent India (as Islam in Pakistan does). Notability isn't really in question here. In sum; the article might be in bad shape now, but it actually allows for better framing of content than we currently have. Vanamonde (talk) 12:24, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde93, your input is made up of multiple fallacies:

• First of all, in CFORK-based AfD's, the content of the existing article is relevant. That content is clearly dealing with the Indian subcontinent, not the broader South Asia. There is a section on the Muslim conquest of Sindh, but no section on the Muslim conquest of Afghanisan. The After independence section covers India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, no other countries.
• You make the point that Afghanistan is "crucial" to understanding the history of Islam in the subcontinent. Yet, the much-touted Metcalf (2009) harvp error: no target: CITEREFMetcalf2009 (help) volume that has been cited here, has 34 contributed articles, but not a single one of them on Afghanistan. On the contrary, the book says "For all these reasons, the Indian Subcontinent should be thought of, not as a periphery of Islam and Muslim life, but as a center. (p. xvii) The so-called Afghans themselves are called "Persianized Turks" in the volume (p. 6). So, the influences on Indian Islam appear to be Persian and Turkic, rather than Afghan. The Robinson (2010) harvp error: no target: CITEREFRobinson2010 (help) article, despite being titled "South Asia to 1919", really covers the Indian subcontinent. There is a separate article on "Afghanistan to 1919".
• You state that the history of Islam is nearly 1300 years old, far older than the modern nation-states. But throughout these 1300 years, the subcontinent was known in the entire Islamic literature as
  Al-Hind, the Persian and Arabic equivalents of "India". The term "India" itself is at least a 1000 years older than Islam, almost from the time of Alexander the Great. Why anybody should have a problem with an article called Islam in India
  is beyond me.
• You claim that Islam in South Asia allows for better framing of the content. I don't see why. The Muslim political centres and the Muslim religious centres in South Asia have always been in modern day India, and continue to be so. The so-called denominations listed in the article, Deobandi, Barelvi, and Ahl-i-Hadith, were all founded in modern day India. So were the other modernist movements such as Ahmadiyya. This shunning of the "India" label seems to be an instance of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:35, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Kautilya3, you know better than to suggest I'm doing this to eliminate labels, regardless of what the intent of others here may be. The question here is whether "Islam in India" is broad enough to cover everything that could fall under "Islam in South Asia"; and I still maintain that it isn't. The Metcalf volume you cite contains a number of references to Islam in the larger region, that would be covered by the latter title but not the former; religion in the Mughal empire is the best example. There's references to locations in Afghanistan as those of significance to the history of Islam in the subcontinent (including Samarqand, and Kabul). Most importantly, there's references to the Ghaznavid empire, whose atrocities are of course given prominence whenever the history of Islam in South Asia is discussed, but whose empire was based in Afghanistan, which by your own admission was never a part of the region known as India. So what if they are Turkic in origin? So were the Mughals (with some Mongol blood thrown in for good measure). I have a "problem" with "Islam in India" only in so far as the sources have a problem with it, and the sources are clearly referring to a larger region than has every been referred to as "India". Vanamonde (talk) 05:51, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete seems like a textbook case of content forking. Since "South Asia" has been referred to as "India" in both historical and pre-modern times, it just doesn't seem possible to write something different here than what already exists at the Islam in India article; and this is why the issue of duplication of content immediately comes to the fore. In any case content forking is not a solution. Bharatiya29 17:42, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  What evidence do you have to suggest that south Asia has been known as "India" in historical times? Or even in the period that this article discusses? Vanamonde (talk) 17:51, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the terms 'India' and 'South Asia' in the context of pre-1947 period are very often used as interchangeable terms by reliable sources (for starters, [34][35][36]) Studies concerning the region before 1947 refer Pakistan, Bangladesh, and sometimes Afghanistan as "India" when they are discussing about ancient to pre-modern times. This is why most of the Islam in South Asia can never be different than Islam in India. Bharatiya29 19:32, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, "India" (or translations thereof) have been used for the region of the subcontinent beyond the Indus river, from which the name is derived. The sources used here are explicitly examining a larger region. Vanamonde (talk) 05:51, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't change goalposts now that your original point stands refuted: You asked for evidence, which I provided to you in the form of reliable academic sources. The origin of a word does not necessarily define its meaning. Terms like "India" and "South Asia" have been often used as interchangeable terms whenever the pre-1947 period is specified, like the sources indicate, and that is the main reason why the article will largely remain same as Islam in India. Bharatiya29 14:57, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete , good example of
  WP:NPOV. India is not Asia, and seems the timeline conveniently switches to highlight politically motivated dateline. Devopam (talk) 19:14, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  "India is not Asia" Indeed it isn't. It isn't South Asia either. Which is a good argument to keep, not delete. Also, it isn't plagiarism to copy text within Wikipedia, when proper attribution is given. What evidence do you have that copyright was violated here? Vanamonde (talk) 05:51, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could not understand your interest in taking the pain to go after almost each comment above ? I don't subscribe to your ideas above for obvious reasons stated already. Devopam (talk) 07:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but rename to Islam in South Asia. This is a valid topic, but broader than Islam in India (the title of which is ambiguous as to whether it means pre-partition India, albeit even that is narrower than South Asia, or the current state of India). I realise this potentially duplicates the existing Islam in India article, but one solution is to make that article focused on post-1947, with only a brief overview of the pre-1947 history, and move detailed coverage of the pre-1947 history to this article. SJK (talk) 04:05, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Clear
  WP:CFORK. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 04:14, 3 January 2019 (UTC))[reply
  ]
• Keep There are many reasons to disallow continued use of "India" to mean South Asia. (a) South Asia includes countries such as the Maldives, which have a majority (98%) Muslim population, or
  Baha-ud-din Zakariya of Multan (12th century) or Lal Shahbaz Qalandar of Sind (13th century) whose spiritual dominion extended from present-day Afghanistan to present-day Bangladesh (see for example, Eaton's Islam and the Bengal Frontier? (d) In which pre-existing article does on include discussion of Islam in a disputed region such as Kashmir, which from the 13th century onward, has been a part of shifting political realms, which under the Mughals, or Durrani Afghan, extended to beyond Kabul and Qandahar? (e) the claim that "India" (in Greek or Latin) has stood for the "Indian subcontinent" much longer than there has been Islam in the region (7th century CE), does not hold, as the Hellenistic Greek or Byzantine notions of "India" referred to an indistinct land east of the Indus. It was a large part of southern Asia to be sure, but nowhere was there awareness of an Assam (with a sizeable present-day Muslim population) or of the then densely forested regions of Central India. In how many early Western-, or even Persian, notions of India was Balochistan included? There is good reason that the former Indology departments of major western universities have been renamed "South Asian studies" departments. It is best to trim the pre-existing articles to mainly post-1947 histories, and to put most of the pre-1947 histories in this article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:23, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Fowler&fowler (talk · contribs) Maldives and Sri Lanka are part of the Indian subcontinent. Vast majority of literature point to it. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 13:53, 3 January 2019 (UTC))[reply]

The OED (Third Edition September 2009 see here, subscription required, has this definition of the subcontinent: "Indian subcontinent n. the part of Asia south of the Himalayas which forms a peninsula extending into the Indian Ocean between the Arabian Sea and the Bay of Bengal, now divided between India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh." It also has a footnote in tiny 6 pt font: "Also used with wider application to include Bhutan, Nepal, Sri Lanka, and the Maldives. The term is roughly equivalent to South Asia, esp. in the wider use, although Indian subcontinent is sometimes considered to be more of a geophysical description, and South Asia more geopolitical." Clearly, we are not dealing with a geophysical description here. The main definition, in any case, does not include Sri Lanka, only India, Pakistan, Bangladesh. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:13, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Geopolitics in this region, the main bulk of it, started after 1947. This article is regarding a religion in a certain geography. Most follow an Indo-Islamic version, which is distinct from Middle Eastern version. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 15:20, 3 January 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Allama Iqbal's Tarana-e-Milli (written 1910) or the Khilafat Movement (1920s) are notable pre-1947 counter-examples. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:54, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Fowler&fowler (talk · contribs) Serious? You used the guy who wrote Sare Jahan se Accha? And loved poetry about his Brahmin ancestry? His later life, should not be the main base of your argument. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 18:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Iqbal wrote Tarana-e-Hindi before he left for higher studies in Europe in 1904. Tarana-e-Hindi, in vastly reduced form, in keeping with the relatively limited knowledge of Urdu in post-1947 India, has been renamed Sare Jahan se Achcha. Very few Indians know its second verse (Ghurbat meiN hoN agar ham ...) or for matter understand that Ghurbat, in this context, means "overseas," and not "poverty." Even fewer Indians know the last couplet (Iqbal koi mahram ... dard-e-nihaN hamara). It was a children's song in any case, written with other children's songs, such as "Parinde ki fariyad," which too outside of Urdu medium schools, no one knows in India. Iqbal wrote Tarana-e-Milli in 1910 when he returned from Europe, and continued to advocate Pan-Islamicist views until his death. In the defensive ideology of modern India, only his youthful effort, all written before the age of 24, is mentioned. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:45, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - In accordance with
  WP:NOPAGE. A stand alone article is not justified since the content has been already added in the multiple articles such as Islam in India, Islam in Pakistan and few others. History of Islam in British Asia makes sense to me for the future. AshLin (talk) 12:49, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - I don't see any solid argument by those arguing that there is a
  WP:CFORK. Actually there is no content on Islam in India which has been duplicated here. Danish Mehraj 13:17, 3 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danish.mehraj26 (talk • contribs
  )
• Note to closer: If this is going to result in a "no consensus" decision, then the article should be redirected back to the
  WP:CFORK; hence the redirect should be preserved congruent with the dictates of the status quo. Bharatiya29 16:13, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

You mean move the article to Islam in South Asia. Of course, that is rather obvious. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:16, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's what Bharatiya29 means, and that's why they're quite wrong. A "no consensus" closure at AFD means an absence of consensus to remove the article. "No consensus" defaults to "keep": there would be no policy-based reason to redirect this. The page should be moved, as Kautilya3 says, in keeping with MOS; that's all. Vanamonde (talk) 17:44, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The above keep arguments carry conviction.  samee  converse  18:26, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with the requirement that
  π, ν) 00:08, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Keep Though I dislike the essay-style of it which obviously needs to be fixed, how is the largest religion in the world, in the largest subcontinent not notable? You all do realize that India is a country, not a synecdoche.Trillfendi (talk) 17:34, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep under the title Islam in South Asia, fixing the capitalization. While this article needs significant improvement, South Asia is a region where there are hundreds of millions of Muslims, and where Islam has had a significant presence for hundreds of years before the modern nation-states in the area were created. The topic is significant and notable enough to justify an article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:02, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (and move to lowercase) I'm not quite sure what this is a cfork from. It's an excellently written 'History of Islam in India' and 'History of Islam in Pakistan' but mostly before either of those were countries, and this does not overlap significantly with either of those articles. This does however need to be wikified, with links to it better integrated from related pages. Reywas92^Talk 21:44, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Much needed article for the shared history and culture among groups that are separated in different states today. Esiymbro (talk) 04:16, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While historical sources will obviously use now-archaic ways of referring to South Asia and the Indian subcontinent, India is most commonly used today to refer to the country of India. This is an appropriate title for the content, although it should be expanded to include all countries/regions that are included in South Asia, and moved to a title with the correct capitalization. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:34, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article has satisfy
  WP:GNG. Islam in South Asia is notable because of there are differences from other parts of world.--PATH SLOPU ^(Talk) 06:26, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep as appears to pass
  Talk: Contribs) 22:03, 7 January 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.

Matthew Wilson (politician)

Matthew Wilson (politician) (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)

• @Heatherwhea and GSS: Queried speedy delete as copyvio of http://matthewforgeorgia.com/ . Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:28, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Message copied from my user talk page

• I created the page for Matthew, using content he wanted included on wiki. Should I recreate the page and rewrite the content or can you undelete it and I can rewrite it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heatherwhea (talk • contribs) 15:43, 5 January 2019 (UTC) #[reply]

Continued discussion

• Keep members of houses of representatives and assembly members are notable by default. The situation with copying the website seems to be rectified now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dekalbzombie (talk • contribs) 19:53, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• At 07:38, 5 January 2019‎
  WP:NN). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:28, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep members of houses of representatives are default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but stubify. He's notable per
  WP:BLP. SITH (talk) 17:52, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep as "members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature" are presumed notable under
  talk) 17:58, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

neutral. SITH (talk) 18:01, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep per
  WP:NPOL as holder of a state legislative seat. PohranicniStraze (talk) 18:24, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:47, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:48, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep have stubified and removed the copyright content. I reviewed this page and should have addressed the copyvio issue then (my bad). The article seems acceptable under
  WP:NPOL. FitIndia ^Talk 19:30, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per
  WP:BIO. Definitely passes the notability criteria. The person is a well-known as a politician.--PATH SLOPU ^(Talk) 06:31, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• SPEEDY KEEP. Member of legislature.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:02, 6 January 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) 21:03, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orthodox Syrian Sunday School Association of the East

Orthodox Syrian Sunday School Association of the East (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 fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 15:34, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 15:34, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 15:34, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 15:34, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the subject fails notability criteria
  self published and controlled by the church. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:35, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep satisfies
  WP:ORG--PATH SLOPU ^(Talk) 16:15, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

WP:NORG--DBigXrayᗙ 16:40, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete unless independent sources are identified. buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 19:21, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - can't find anything to suggest notability Spiderone 23:20, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DBigXray:Can we keep the article if we remove the citations which is not independent?--PATH SLOPU ^(Talk) 05:41, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the citations which is against the

WP:ORGIND. There are another journals and books have details about this topic. I think, it had better that add the citations from it. Thank you.--PATH SLOPU ^(Talk) 05:48, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

@DBigXray, Buidhe, and Spiderone:Please see the new citations given by me from an independent publication which have information about this topic.--PATH SLOPU ^(Talk) 06:10, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: PATH SLOPU added four references to the same source, two pages in some sort of print source. I can't evaluate reliability and even if CORPDEPTH is met, we still need multiple independent sources for

WP:NCORP. buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 06:13, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

@Buidhe:I added some more sources have details about the topic which is published by others in their books.--PATH SLOPU ^(Talk) 06:38, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The sources which you cited are published by

WP:RS. Gfosankar (talk) 08:41, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

User:Path slopu I agree with @Buidhe:'s observation. Both the sources you added are from church. For example

1. first was "Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church MOSC Sabhavijnanakosham; meaning "The Fathers who led the Sabha(meeting) Encyclopedia of church ^{corrected see below}" . from enacademic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/11537283 indianchristianity.org"
2. Vaideeka Sangham is from Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, Adoor Kadampanadu Diocese.

So clearly both are

WP:SPS from same Church. If there are sources independent of the church then you can present them here at AfD. regards --DBigXrayᗙ 12:01, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

@DBigXray:Sabhavijnanakosham(meaning:Encyclopedia of church) is Published by Orthodox Theological Seminary, Kottayam.--PATH SLOPU ^(Talk) 12:13, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This work was not published by OSSAE. OSSAE is an independent movement regarding to church. Similarly OTS is an independent institution. So I think that is not

this wikipedia article's older version. Thank you.--PATH SLOPU ^(Talk) 12:28, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

User:Path slopu thanks for clarification, It would be best if you can present sources from Kerala or Indian newspapers, books, magazines such as The Hindu for example. That would really help the notability. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:34, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete pending identification of reliable sources on the topic. Regards. — fr ⁺ 04:34, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:ORGIND. But this new citations are reliable for topic. Finding citations from journals, newspapers, etc are quite difficult. So I depended encyclopedias and books. Thank you.--PATH SLOPU ^(Talk) 14:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I took the source as per the

WP:TERTIARY.--PATH SLOPU ^(Talk) 14:18, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

WP:MAINSTREAM media. regards.--DBigXrayᗙ 14:47, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• If there is not enough coverage of the Association in oits own right then it can be merged into Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church. Rathfelder (talk) 09:54, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DBigXray:@FR30799386 and Buidhe:I have added some source from a reputed newspaper Malayala Manorama in Kerala and from a website not regarding to church. I think this satisfies the reliability and notability. Regards.--PATH SLOPU ^(Talk) 15:47, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DBigXray, FR30799386, and Buidhe:I added the quotations of source in Malayalam in article's talk page. Please check--PATH SLOPU ^(Talk) 11:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. PATH SLOPU ^(Talk) 13:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SIGCOV. so I will continue with my Delete opinion. --DBigXrayᗙ 14:33, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I have added new sources from newspapers like

WP:ORGIND. Regards.--PATH SLOPU ^(Talk) 15:19, 10 January 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. Randykitty (talk) 13:07, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ResetEra

ResetEra (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)

Aside from notes detailing that the site is an offshoot of NeoGAF, I don't see how this meets any of the Notibility guidelines such as WP:GNG. At least one of the references isn't valid (coming from their own official twitter account). Either a deletion or a redirect and information to be moved to the NeoGAF article would be more appropriate. Jamesbuc (talk) 10:37, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - there are four independent sources, three of them of reasonable length, which amounts to
  significant coverage, and since the sources explicitly state that it is not the same forum as NeoGAF it would make sense to redirect the title there. --bonadea contributions talk 10:46, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • My only concern is more that the articles seem to be more about NeoGaf and the controversy on that site, rather than ResetEra outside of 'This is now a thing' which in turn fails
    significant coverage on ResetEra's part and fits more alongside NeoGafs coverage. Jamesbuc (talk) 10:51, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • I quickly doublechecked the sources. Polygon's article is almost entirely about NeoGAF as is GameRevolution. Gamechup's article is minor and isn't notable enough and USgamer's article again alternates between NeoGAF news and a twitter press release. None of which fits
      significant coverage. Jamesbuc (talk) 10:59, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Delete The sources do not discuss the subject in sufficient detail to constitute significant coverage.
  WP:WHYN explains that signifcant coverage is coverage that enables more than a few sentences to be written.--Pontificalibus 11:01, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Very reluctant delete. The article needs improvement. I agree with
  ResetEra. So, I think the underlying entity itself is more noteworthy than NeoGAF. I think, if we leave this article alone, in a year or two, it may develop enough content to stand on its own right. However, this vote is for the article as it stands today, hence my vote to delete. A really paranoid android (talk) 16:33, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:04, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:04, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - There is just not enough sources covering the website itself to have it reach standards here. GamerPro64 04:13, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per Jamesbuc. Outside of those sources, I do not expect much else. Plus, forums are not as popular as they use to be. « Ryūkotsusei » 16:25, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per A really paranoid android. While this article has the potential to become more notable, sadly it currently just doesn't seem to clearly pass
  WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 04:16, 11 January 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. Randykitty (talk) 13:11, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PayPerPost

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

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

Promotional article about a non-notable company. Jehochman ^Talk 00:59, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 02:03, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• worked on existing citations — I've templated the citations in the article, including rescuing deadlinks using archive sites. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:42, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep has coverage in reliable sources such as The Los Angeles Times. Does the nominator have a COI of working for rival companies ? Im asking due to the information on his userpage. Atlantic306 (talk) 20:36, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response The test for notabilty is not "coverage in reliable sources". It is in-depth independent coverage with original analysis/opinion (at least 2 references). None of the references (including the LA Times) meets this test. The LA Times reference consists of a series of mentions-in-passing with information provided by the company or their "posties".
    HighKing⁺⁺ 15:23, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Are you using VPN to read that as its not available in Europe? and have you looked for additional sources ? Atlantic306 (talk) 20:16, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, not using a VPN, available on archive.org and I am unable to locate any additional sources that meet the criteria for establishing notability.
        HighKing⁺⁺ 15:50, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
        ]
  • LOL. No, but nice try at the ad homienem. There are thousands of tiny marketing agencies and websites like this one. None of them are notable. Getting a few mentions in the press doesn’t establish notability. Jehochman ^Talk 20:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:10, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:11, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:12, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability, most are mentions-in-passing or unreliable blogs or routine announcements, topic fails
  HighKing⁺⁺ 15:23, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: Does not meet
  WP:SPIP. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:35, 5 January 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. Randykitty (talk) 13:13, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Geronco

Geronco (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)

Originally PROD'd in 2008 just after creation, but de-PROD'd by creator immediately, so ineligible for any further PROD.

Non-notable surname. No sources located to substantiate any claim to notability. Not suitable as redirect as no article titles contain the name. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:42, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: even names have to conform to
  GNG and there's no evidence to suggest this one does. SITH (talk) 12:25, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:53, 5 January 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.

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 character is not independently notable from Red Dead Redemption. Video game characters usually require some real world association (such as Pikachu, or Sonic), however this character only appears in one game series, so is not any more notable than any other character. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:06, 28 December 2018 (UTC) Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:06, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:07, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Easily identifiable as
  ✉) 20:27, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, notability not inherited from his parent game. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:34, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:09, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Red Dead Redemption and merge any relevant details that don't already exist there. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 03:29, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While the other RDR character was a problem, There a good deal of sourced development info and on character reception to make this one independently nktable. The bio has to be trimmed significantly. --Masem (t) 13:00, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: There's plenty of sources covering this character, many of whom are present in the article itself. The Optimistic One (talk) 13:32, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm going to have to say keep on this one as well. Unlike the other Red Dead character article, which is pure
  significant coverage from reliable sources. Here are a few: Kotaku, Game Informer, Polygon, Digital Spy, Engadget, and more you can find in Google. JOEBRO64 00:59, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect to
  WP:NOTINHERITED applies both for the game and for the actor I'm afraid. wumbolo ^^^ 16:32, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. There are demonstrably quite a few RSes that have dedicated coverage to Marston. Phediuk (talk) 01:00, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]