Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 July 2

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 1 July	3 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Consensus that the subject fails notability guidelines,in particular

WP:NPOL. Just Chilling (talk) 23:51, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Elishama Rosemary Ideh

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

A tad

WP:TOOSOON I'm afraid, coverage currently appears to be limited to routine campaign-trail coverage that primarily encompasses Ideh's campaign promises, as told by her ([1]), unreliable who's who entries and self-reported biographies ([2], [3]), and an op-ed supporting her candidacy ([4]). Additionally, the claim that she is the only female candidate appears to be outdated. If she gets far enough along in the election to generate significant independent coverage, then we can create an article. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:34, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:34, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:34, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:34, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:34, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:34, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and failing
WP:NPOL Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability,. --Dom from Paris (talk) 09:53, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they have not yet won — the notability test for politicians is holding office, not just running for it. But this makes no claim that she has preexisting notability for other reasons that would have gotten her an article anyway, either. No prejudice against recreation on or after election day if she wins, but just being a candidate is not grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 16:58, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and fails
WP:NPOL. --SalmanZ (talk) 19:42, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete non-notable per above. William2001^(talk) 01:22, 9 July 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. Little here that is encyclopaedic and sources that might satisfy

WP:GNG have not been found. There is a clear consensus to delete. Just Chilling (talk) 23:00, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Joonas Kovalainen

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

Non-notable, possibly a hoax. Google searches bring up little other than the single cited source, which, although it does seem to mention the subject, I can't check fully. Adam9007 (talk) 22:57, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a hoax per se, but if you look at the article on the township in question, you come to realize this is actually only for one community in the township, other parts of it had settlers before Kovalainen. Even at that Kovalainen came 2 years after the first settler in the specific Finnish community he became part of, so not exactly a "first settler". Even at that not all of Cadillac's companions who were the first settlers in Detroit, or every member of the pioneer company with Brigham Young who were the first settlers of Salt Lake City, all coming on the respective July 24ths to their new cities, are notable, even though those are much more important places. So being a first settler does not make one default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:16, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. See also Wikipedia_talk:Do_not_create_hoaxes#What_to_do_with_possible_hoax_articles_and_edits_I_found. Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:36, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:36, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:50, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above. It is not a hoax (see also data at: https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/129608612/elsie-westerberg), but the subject does not seem sufficiently notable to warrant an independent article. Doremo (talk) 06:24, 4 July 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 encyclopaedic material is already in the page

WP:NOTDIRECTORY and should be deleted. Just Chilling (talk) 22:52, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

ShortCutz Amsterdam Film Festival jury members

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

There is already an article ShortCutz Amsterdam, what mentions the jury members. There is no need for the whole list mentioned again, based on a usually unsuitable source IMDb. So, double information based on unsuitable sources. The Banner talk 22:20, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Banner talk 22:20, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Page obliges to wikipedia standards. Why is this nominated?
XfD. [reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:NOTADIRECTORY. This kind of rather trivial info belongs on an organization's own website, WP is not a webhost. This list of jury members should be removed from the main article on the festival, too. --Randykitty (talk) 08:21, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as per Randykitty. The main article could contain a short list of notable jury members though if they are bluelinked. This is
WP:LISTCRUFT. --Dom from Paris (talk) 09:59, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

If they are bluelinked and if there are independent sources commenting on the jury member's participation or the importance for that person of having been a jury member. For moost of these people, being a jury member at a festival like this is just routine and hardly covered at all in RS. --Randykitty (talk) 10:36, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:42, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:24, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – per the above and specifically
WP:NOTDIR. SSSB (talk) 14:44, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Yup, fails
WP:NOTDIRECTORY. William2001^(talk) 21:42, 9 July 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. Unanimity that the subject fails

WP:GNG with additional promotion concerns. Just Chilling (talk) 22:45, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Digsconnect

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

Sources provided do not satisfy notability criteria for

WP:NBUSINESS. Created by an SPA editor who made no edits prior to or following creation of this article and first edit since April was to delete the PROD and advert template. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 21:21, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:18, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:18, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:19, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:19, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nonnotable, and highly promotional. DGG ( talk ) 08:37, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Advert. Szzuk (talk) 07:24, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as a
WP:NCORP failure. Far too many of the sources cited by the article are press-releases or funding announcements, while others are clearly speculative in tone. SamHolt6 (talk) 15:54, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Per
WP:NCORP and it sounds like an advertisement. William2001^(talk) 21:44, 9 July 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:58, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Janine Machin

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

Non-notable TV presenter. Article based on employers bio with no reliable sources. - Funky Snack (Talk) 10:45, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Page inadequate, but regionally well known. Some demand: average of 21 views a day over last 90 days.Bmcln1 (talk) 10:55, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. All the while there are no reliable sources the page is likely to be deleted. A lot of presenters are known "regionally" but this doesn't mean they are automatically entitled to an article. This article currently fails

WP:GNG but can meet the requirements if more RS can be found. The current sources aren't about the subject herself, just a passing comment. - Funky Snack (Talk) 13:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 19:03, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is built around reliable sources, not some general seense of regional knowledge.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:04, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have to agree with the nominator here (my searches bring up BBC website bits mostly with occasional mere mentions), all the sourcing here is purely in passing (#1 is a
Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:20, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 19:16, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as previously argued . I do not know why it was relisted--it seems clear enough. DGG ( talk ) 08:47, 6 July 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 keep. Consensus that article is a legitimate content fork and possesses independent notability

(non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 17:25, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Barbie's careers

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

This lacks sufficient separate noteability from the main Barbie article. The page references just note that particular Barbies existed and do not otherwise show any form of noteability. Jtrainor (talk) 17:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC) Jtrainor (talk) 17:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Should it be merged with the main page? Does it need its own? I'm not sure what to think! MaskedSinger (talk) 18:26, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not seeing a
spinoff from the main article about the topic, like an appendix. As that main article is 67K, that seems fine. There seems to be plenty of academic interest in the topic. For example, this paper identifies computer engineer as the 126th career and this demonstrates the scale of the topic. Andrew D. (talk) 09:08, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep non trivial coverage..the subject passes GNG Lightburst (talk) 03:35, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:21, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - well known in pop culture. Bearian (talk) 16:11, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is in dire need of expansion, but that is not a reason to delete because of
Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:11, 9 July 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:59, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Xiamen University Student Symphony Orchestra

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

Fails

WP:MILL orchestra article. The page also seems to be created by a promotional account using the article as a web host. AmericanAir88^(talk) 16:27, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88^(talk) 16:27, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 10:08, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. This fails
WP:GNG. --Dom from Paris (talk) 10:13, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Nothing to support notability. Barca (talk) 14:01, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:25, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clear fail of
WP:GNG. Just Chilling (talk) 15:48, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Fails
WP:GNG Article creator is a single purpose account and likely has an undeclared conflict of interest. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:47, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as per nom. This fails
WP:GNG. - MA Javadi (talk) 18:59, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
WP:RS. Bearian (talk) 16:09, 8 July 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 keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:59, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Company registration in Ghana

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

There is no need for the article. No other country has this and it is just a

WP:DICTIONARY violation. AmericanAir88^(talk) 15:56, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 17:54, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 17:54, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For an example of an article about company registration law in another jurisdiction, see Delaware General Corporation Law or Canada Business Corporations Act. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:14, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does it warrant its own article though? No other country has an article like this and the article can easily be incorporated into another article. AmericanAir88^(talk) 13:41, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:26, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely! Just because in your view other countries do not have an article "like this" does not warrant deletion. This is not a dictionary, but an article which should and can be expanded.

we cannot redirect/merge it to a parent/relevant article that does not exist yet.Tamsier (talk

)

Keep passes
WP:OTHER cannot be used as rationale for deletion. Having said, that, maybe the article can be renamed to something like Company formation in Ghana. There are plenty of sources under that name.Tamsier (talk) 06:01, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - This is an encyclopedic topic that meets
WP:GNG. Additionally, the article is succinct and well referenced. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:30, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep this perfectly valid law stub. Bearian (talk) 16:08, 8 July 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:59, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Julianne Benzel

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

This appears to be a case of

WP:NPROF. Peacock (talk) 14:45, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Peacock (talk) 14:45, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 15:01, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 15:01, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 15:01, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have to open with saying I totally agree with Benzel's views, feel that RUSD clearly violated the 1st amendment and good pedogogy by suspending a student for calling into question their biased and one sided support of disruptive behaiiors only for favored causes, and would certainly vote for Benzel in the election. This being California they have a jungle primary, and even if it was a traditional party primary, we are about a year away from it, so no one at this point is a nominee, and being a recognized nominee in a congressional race does not make one notable, so we have nothing showingnotability. Not every educator put on administrative leave in violation of the 1st amendment is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:23, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wouldn't even qualify as 15 seconds of fame. Fails notability. MaskedSinger (talk) 18:27, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Currently does not pass
WP:NPOL as a candidate. No prejudice against recreation if the subject is victorious in 2020. --Enos733 (talk) 22:32, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I agree, does not yet meet
WP:NPOL. --SalmanZ (talk) 22:48, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Notability all stems from one minor, at least in my view, event. No objections to the article being recreated if she's elected to Congress in 2020. Papaursa (talk) 21:04, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clear case of
WP:BLP1E. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:49, 7 July 2019 (UTC).[reply
]

Delete. Although the political candidacy cannot yet save her from BIO1E and
WP:NOTNEWS, I thought maybe the published memoir could. But I couldn't find any published reviews of it, so notability that way also seems out of reach. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:02, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
past long consensus, educators are not notable, even if they get into the news over an extended time. I'd cite an example, but I've gotten into trouble here for arguing otherwise. Bearian (talk) 16:06, 8 July 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. As to whether to keep or merge. But there's consensus to not delete. Sandstein 18:16, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pia Klemp

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

Notable for only one event. Slatersteven (talk) 14:09, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Jugend Rettet for the moment. There's not much room to expand the article just yet. -- Luk ^talk 14:16, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yep seems a good option.Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is quite a lot to add about her, some of which can be translated from the articles in the other Wikipedias, but there are also many other sources. She has received major and ongoing coverage in the media, even films have been produced about her, and she has received awards. Notability criteria for an article about her, not only about the main event or the organization, are clearly given per

WP:BASIC

.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 20:08, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but why? Is she more special than the 20 other people that are in the same situation? I have the idea that she is the best suited for public relations and therefo pushed forward in a media offensive now the crew members really can be convicted for human trafficking. In all that information about Pia Klemp there actually is no new data about the trial that has been going on since 2017.--AntonHogervorst (talk) 21:54, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are making many assumptions we really should not make - "pushed forward"? "media offensive"? This sounds way too much of a conspiration theory to me.

Trying to answer your question, I don't know if there are 20 other people in the same situation, but it is a strawman argument, anyway - we don't have 20 other articles about those other people, and even if we had, this is irrelevant in a deletion discussion. The only argument that counts is notability - which can be either demonstrated by a fulfilled catalog of criteria or not. If we want an article about Pia Klemp, but she does not meet our notability criteria, we won't have an article. Likewise, if someone does not want an article about her, but she meets the notability criteria, we will have an article about her no matter what (given that someone will write one).

And if there would be 20 other people meeting our notability criteria, we can have 20 articles about them. The number of articles is don't care, because

WP:NOTPAPER. What counts is notability. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 08:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 08:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Matthiaspaul: I read the german wikipedia entry and there's not much more, most of it revolves around the incident. I didn't check the other languages so maybe I missed something. -- Luk ^talk 13:17, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking the German Wikipedia, something that everyone should have done before casting a vote in this discussion, but unfortunately very few actually did.

Although I did not plan to work on the article and have no time for it right now, I have meanwhile added some stuff from the German WP to clearly demonstrate notability per

WP:ANYBIO

(awards, feature-length films). There would be a lot more to add to the actual biography, but this will have to wait until later.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 08:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Like: "On 4 April 2019 Westdeutscher Rundfunk broadcast an 8-minute documentary about Klemp." WDR is a regional German channel, 8 minutes documentary. That is one of the most notable things about her? -- AntonHogervorst (talk) 17:56, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

North-Rhine-Westphalia

. WDR is among Germany's top sources for independent quality journalism. To get their time is a clear sign of a huge public interest in the topic indicating notability. Also, this is only one out of several broadcasts I listed after searching for a few minutes, there are more...

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 00:40, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 14:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 14:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 14:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as creator of the English version of the article; saving the lives of a thousand people and being arrested and tried for it is more than one event. Whether she ends up being convicted or not will be yet another event, so this AfD seems quite overeager -- Kendrick7^talk 15:31, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with
WP:BLP1E. SportingFlyer T·C 17:42, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Would you care to explain why this isn't multiple events? -- Kendrick7^talk 01:51, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kendrick7: How am I supposed to make that argument when I have no idea what the second event even is? SportingFlyer T·C 02:26, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They do above, they are saying that committing a crime, being caught for the crime, being tried for the crime, and being sentenced for the crime are all separate events. Rather then being part of the same event (in effect),

WP:PERP may be worth a read.Slatersteven (talk) 08:50, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't believe saving people from drowning is a crime. Is that not plain on its face? -- Kendrick7 talk 15:44, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And if that is ALL she did that might be a valid point. But her "notability" all stems form the same incident, her recuse of those people, her bringing them to Italy, her arrest her trail are all the same event, not separate ones.Slatersteven (talk) 15:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of her until coming across this AfD, but

WP:BLP1E doesn't hinge on whether something's a crime - she performed an action and was charged for that action, which would make the crime and trial part of the same event, even if the crime isn't a crime. SportingFlyer T·C 16:23, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Very true, but as the original claim included such things as being arrested and charged it seemed it was best to address the issue as a crime. I could of course just as easily described wining a race or writing a book.Slatersteven (talk) 16:29, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While it might be true that you didn't hear about her until this AfD (nobody can be aware of everything), she has been (and still is!) in the news since 2013 (that is, even long before the Iuventa event in 2017). There are hundreds of top reliable sources showing an ongoing and lasting public interest clearly indicating notability per

WP:ANYBIO

.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 08:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC) (updated after having found even more evidence of a much earlier news coverage.)[reply]

Merge with Jugend Rettet and if there are this many references on her page, add more text to it! MaskedSinger (talk) 18:29, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unfortunately, the nominator now also nominated this article for deletion without waiting for (and possibly learn from) the outcome of the ongoing AfD of the closely related
WP:BEFORE
nominating articles about notable subjects for deletion, as otherwise the time and energy of contributing editors is unnecessarily bound into avoidable discussions.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 20:08, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be ridiculous, this is a clear

WP:BLP1E. SportingFlyer T·C 20:20, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't think it is a case of

WP:BIO1E, but with the given media coverage deep and lasting, the subject is relevant for our encyclopedia to have an article about her. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 08:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

wp:other is only an essay, but does reflect the fact that many do not think that because one article is notable that means that all similar topics must be notable. The Atlantic is water, so is my pond, but only one is notable.Slatersteven (talk) 08:09, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

You must be getting me all wrong. I never said that we should have an article about her because we have an article about Carola Rackete, but because the topic Pia Klemp meets our notability criteria.

Also, I was not complaining about you nominating two unrelated articles in a row in general, but that you nominated two closely related articles in succession in a way indicating that you were not aware of the Pia Klemp article before and therefore would not have raised the AfD on the Pia Klemp article if I would not have added a link to that article to the Carola Rackete article. While this is not "forbidden" per se, it is bad style to do so before waiting for the outcome of your first AfD nomination, and because your had already been advised to do your homework

WP:BEFORE

. That behaviour is typical for agenda-driven people who just want to get rid of articles on certain topics as soon as possible instead of being interested in other opinions, learn a few bits every time, and work collaboratively on building an encyclopedia.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 08:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And this is the last time I am going to reply to you, if you are just going to resort to emotive arguments about agendas and bias then I am not going to bother to respond. I do not think this person (or the other) are notable, end of story.Slatersteven (talk) 15:41, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that our opinions are irrelevant in an AfD for as long as they are not based on guidelines. The question is not if you (or I) think the subject is notable, but if the criteria for notability in the guideline are fulfilled or not.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 10:17, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Matthiaspaul I am not saying these things don't happen. But the funny thing here is, Jugend Rettet was on AfD a few years ago. Would consider that political too?--AntonHogervorst (talk) 07:47, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, this happens and this causes huge damage to the project - not only wasting time in otherwise unnecessary discussions which could better be spent on article work (guess what, I was working on various other topics, but now am here to "keep" an article about a notable topic from being accidently deleted because of ignorance), but also in the destruction of the work of other editors, causing them to burn out, and many other editors seeing this never even trying to contribute substantially to the project. Yes, we do need to weed out junk topics, but we also must be careful to not delete notable topics.

Regarding your question, I haven't checked that old Jugend Rettet AfD being politically motivated or not. If it was and if that can be proved, the nominator should be sanctioned for it, because we must maintain a neutral point of view when working on the project.

However, I don't think that old nomination is related to these two nominations, so it is don't care here.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 08:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I wrote Jugend Rettet by the way. My objection against the Pia Klemp article was more that the original text was not neutral. To use an ugly word: fan based. My humble opinion. I am having the same discussion in the German WP. To me it seems that people that do not like Salvini are now writing articles on ship captains that are in the news as a political statement. Soon you will have a proliferation of articles of any person getting in the news because someone wants to endorse the defiance of the NGOs against Salvini. Where does it stop? Nevertheless against a neutral lemma about Pia Klemp I would not have any objections.--AntonHogervorst (talk) 21:34, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, AntonHogervorst, I wrote this article and have no idea who Salvini is. I wrote it to reflect the sources I had at hand; feel free to add others reflecting your point of view. The more the merrier I say. -- Kendrick7^talk 01:49, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. I believe you! Okay, if you only look at the information Pia Klemp is giving herself in interviews, you probably would get to something like that. I am following this issue for a few years. And to me it seems that the NGO now has started a media offensive. It makes a good head line too: captain being convicted for 20 years for saving drowning persons. But that is not the whole story. The investigations started in 2016 (well before Salvini actually) and the lawsuit in 2017. The actual conviction is getting closer, and now in 2019 NGO presents one example as their spokes person. But that spokes person is not that important (About 20 other people in the same situation), and the Italian side of the story is missed. By the way, there is one funny thing here. The lemma Jugend Rettet was actually on AfD two years ago.--AntonHogervorst (talk) 07:41, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted and I appreciate you lending your knowledge here. Are you saying Klemp wasn't actually the captain of the ship at the time the ship was seized? Or that there are 20 other ship's captains involved in the same trial? Or just that her whole crew is also on trial? Maybe there should be one main article about this, but none of my sources went into enough depth to make that obvious. I didn't even know who Carola Rackete, another captain caught up in apparently the same sweep, was until yesterday and I doubt there are 18 more articles out there. These two seem to be the notable individuals on trial so far, and I think they both stand fine alone without needed to be merged into articles about their respective employers. -- Kendrick7^talk 15:58, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kendrick7 Sorry for the late answer. I was preparing a job interview and helping my daughter with her study et cetera. The information is unfortunately for you in a few non English sources in the Jugend Rettet lemma. Basically it is like this that in juli/august 2018 about 20 people were informed that the Italians were starting procedures that would eventually lead to a trial. These are members of Jugend Rettet, but also members of other organizations.(Save the Children and Médecins Sans Frontières.) At the moment of the source they were 20. The sources are presently number 14, 15 and 16 in the lemma: "Migranti: Juventa, 20 avvisi di garanzia - Sicilia", "Mittelmeer: Italien ermittelt gegen Flüchtlingsretter" and "Italië stelt strafrechtelijk onderzoek in naar bemanning Duits reddingsschip". I am Dutch, I am fluent in English, German and Spanish. And because of the latter I can also easily read Italian. -- AntonHogervorst (talk) 17:49, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this really sounds too much of a conspiration theory to me. There are kind of "waves" in media coverage, but that's just normal.

However, if you think the "Italian side" is missing, feel free to add it. The way the German WP covers the various views on Carola Rackete might give you some clues how to do it and still maintain a neutral point of view - and thereby doing a service to our readers. We may like it or not, but their view should be described as well, so that our readers can draw their own opinion by comparing the different views. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 08:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with
WP:BLP1E. --SalmanZ (talk) 21:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Stop trying to cast aspersions as an argument to keep or delete. It is irrelevant what you think the political motivation of any opinion is.Slatersteven (talk) 13:35, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Valid arguments must be based on our notability guidelines

WP:BIO

. However, agenda-driven editing is not allowed, therefore a possible political motivation is not irrelevant to know when the offered opinions or behaviour are not backed up by guidelines, as they should.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 08:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We also have

wp:agf. As many have said, we did not even hear about her until this (or in my case another) AFD, and have no views on the politics.Slatersteven (talk) 11:35, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

If I would not assume good faith (in the sense that I believe you think you are doing the right thing), I would not have reminded you of

WP:BEFORE

.

AGF works both ways. You stated that you did not know anything about the topic before you nominated the article for deletion. There is nothing wrong with not knowing anything about her, but there is a lot wrong with filing an article for AfD without knowing anything about it! It is mandantory to research a topic before nominating it. You even have been kindly reminded before the second nomination. But instead of being interested in the outcome of the first nomination (after all, your judgement could have been wrong, and it turned out that it actually was) and the opinions of the other editors, you somehow felt that you had a better judgement on notability than those working on the article (and knowing something about the topic) and so you filed the second AfD. Not a critical question on the talk page, not a notability/refimprove/merge tag, but you went straight to AfD. Did you put any trust in the integrity, competence and judgement of those who contributed to the article?

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 10:17, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable enough now. --Yann (talk) 16:53, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I came here from Google after seeing the petition circulated on social media to research the situation before signing the petition. It doesn't mention Jugend Rettet, the petition, signed by 345,000+ people, talks about Pia. I was surprised to see the page flagged for deletion and feel it should be kept and where possible expanded. - Victoria, anon user, 4/7/2019

Merge to Jugend Rettet. BLP1E seems to apply right now with arrest/one mission, and I don't put much weight on the prizes counting for notability - as one is primary (non-independent) source and the other in passing. Widefox; talk 19:25, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a strawman - we are discussing the notability of Pia Klemp, not that of potential articles about the awards she received. The provided sources just prove the fact that she did receive these awards, and for this purpose, primary sources are perfectly fine as are passing mentionings (per

WP:BASIC

).

Further, providing nice sources is something for a normal article improvement process, not something to establish or deny notability at AfD. This is explicitly ruled out in

WP:NEXIST

, both part of the relevant notability guideline.

In either case, the sources were just taken from the German WP (where they are found to be good enough). There are more sources, including secondary or even tertiary ones, which can be used to prove that information as well.

Now, having verified that she received these awards, what is relevant for our discussion here is

WP:BASIC

, which already establish notability, anyway.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 10:17, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a courtesy I spent five minutes of my weekend to search for and add a bunch of additional secondary and tertiary sources discussing her awards. I just wonder why you did not find these sources...

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 00:40, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Matthiaspaul even your own words ..even films have been produced about her, and she has received awards "films" aren't in the article so that's factually incorrect, primary sources don't count for notability per policy, and the awards seem minor. 1E dominates, so I stand by my !vote. You should be mindful of

WP:BLUDGEON and let others comment. Widefox; talk 01:56, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I hope you don't mind if I reply still - this is really meant as a constructive exchange of arguments based on our guidelines and the weighting of the various criteria at hands.

Although over here "films" are not restricted to movies but include TV productions, thanks for improving my wording, I really appreciate it.

You are also right about primary sources and notability, but the notability of Pia Klemp does not depend on the notability of awards she received, and primary sources are fine to prove simple facts. The sources do have an influence on the weight we can put on

WP:ANYBIO

, though. I take your point that it is debatable how "huge" these awards are - this is ultimately up to individual interpretation. At least I have meanwhile found and added secondary sources describing these awards as "renowned" and "famous", but there are certainly more important awards.

I cannot, however, at all agree with you regarding 1E and have added a bunch of sources demonstrating her media coverage since 2013 (when she was still working for Sea Shepherd), that is, long before the Iuventa event in 2017. There is also media coverage of her various missions with Sea-Watch 3 in 2018, and some other activities. The original article stub did not include all these details, but that's exactly why we are required to research a topic before voting at AfD because of

WP:NEXIST

. To me, this evidence makes it impossible to see this as a 1E bio and I can't follow you there, but I will accept that you have a different opinion. Thanks.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 20:34, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely missing my point - being interviewed on TV or radio are primary (non-independent) sources, the assertion of notability comes from recent news hence why and how this fails WP:N per BLP1E as several !votes state. Eliminate what doesn't count and that's it BLP1E. it fails to meet any of

WP:ANYBIO 1. awards not "well-known and significant" 2. "enduring historical record" not obvious, more NOTNEWS 3. No. Widefox; talk 23:07, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep - I had never heard of this person until a link to the article was added to a navbox that I watch. The article could do with some cleanup to make it more neutral and could be expanded with other content, but AfD is not for cleanup. A look through the 22 references in the article convinces me that she does meet
WP:GNG and that BLP1E does not apply. This is not about one event, it is about a series of events that have all come to a head and appears to be an issue that will go on for some time. The delete/merge comments above don't convince me that either of those options is applicable so I believe the article should be kept and hopefully improved. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:15, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge with Jugend Rettet. She is notable but for her participation in that organization. Rowan Forest (talk) 17:26, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have brought forward most of my argumentation further above already, so I will only summarize it here:

We have seen major coverage of Pia Klemp in hundreds of secondary (sometimes even tertiary)

WP:BIO1E

.

In addition, she has written two novels, has been featured as sole or major participant in at least four TV productions, she received two human rights awards, a song was written about her, a petition was started (with more than 350,000 participants), and more. I therefore also see several criteria of

WP:ANYBIO

fulfilled. Finally, Wikipedians in other languages have created articles about here as well - while the different language entities have slightly different rules, this might still give us another clue on her encyclopedic relevance.

The original stub article did not reveal all this and therefore might have (although should not have) misled some earlier voters to see this as a 1E bio to be merged into another topic. To me, this is an obvious case for having a full blown article about her, and the more I research the topic the more evidence I find supporting this.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 20:34, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which criteria of ANYBIO are fulfilled? all 1. 2. 3. are not by my judgement above, so can you reason per policy, especially as you've asserted it several times and asserted others have not linked their !vote to policy, which I don't believe you've reasoned per your own dismissal of others, which I find unconvincing. You've said above ANYBIO 1. is not obviously fulfilled. Widefox; talk 23:07, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANYBIO

reads People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards, and in there #1 reads The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times, which I see as being fulfilled. I agree that neither of these awards is in the Nobel price region, but there's more between heaven and earth than 0 and 1, and what can be regarded as "well-known" and "significant" is ultimately a matter of perspective. One clue on significance is that the German WP has an article on one of these awards. Another clue can be descriptions in secondary sources describing them as "renowned" or "famous". Also, Klemp received two awards, not only one. Summing this all up, I see the criterium more than fulfilled as a whole.

WP:ANYBIO

#2 reads The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. If you think about what could be a "widely recognized contribution" or "enduring record" in the field of sea rescueing, having saved thousands of lifes is quite an achievement I would think (well, even regardless of field). We have an abundant amount of sources discussing this, so it is obviously widely recognized and also seen as important by many. Therefore, I see this criterium fulfilled as well.

WP:ANYBIO

to be fulfilled in general (any of, not all of).

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 00:38, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1. n not well known awards are not "a well-known and significant award or honor" . It really is that simple, especially when n=2.

2. "enduring historical record" - how exactly can that be asserted as it's current news?! See

WP:10YT. Widefox; talk 19:30, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Ad 1) The guideline is clearly meant in a cumulative way, otherwise there would be no point to allow counting award nominations (that is, not even received awards) as well. Also per guideline, if the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. Further, as already discussed, perceived importance of awards is relative - there are people who know them well enough to write articles (outside and inside of WP) about them, and who do find them significant as well. So, applying a multiplicative zero here rather than a cumulative sum is trying to make a point by interpreting the guideline by letter with force, not by its spirit.

Ad 2) By looking at the past. What is recorded as historically enduring differs somewhat between cultures and times, but not fundamentally. Acts of saving lifes, if public, are (and have been) remembered in most any civilization. Sometimes it takes a while to be recognized, like in the Paul Grüninger case, sometimes it is recognized immediately. Either way, most of the events are at least a year old from 2018, with some even going back to 2013. Even though there are also some new "news", as a whole this is not "breaking news" any more - we meanwhile even have tertiary sources discussing other sources or putting past events into context and perspective of time as well. This is obviously lasting relevance. If we couldn't start writing about such topics now, we couldn't address most recent events in Wikipedia at all.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 11:05, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Many more details and source added (from primary to tertiary). It turned out there are many more TV and radio features than originally assumed (and even one true cinema film, although this one is Iuventa-centered only). There are meanwhile also books devoting paragraphs or chapters to Klemp.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 11:05, 9 July 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:15, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interactive Forum on Indian Economy

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

Fails

WP:CORPDEPTH Kleuske (talk) 13:16, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Kleuske (talk) 13:16, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kleuske (talk) 13:16, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Comes nowhere near meeting
Champions of Change (award) claimed that it was organised by IFIE but none of the sources mentionned this organisation either. I have removed the mention of IFIE from this article. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:02, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, barring additional coverage in local languages this does not met GNG. Willing to reconsider though.
talk) 15:49, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Deletenot even close to
WP:NORG. MaskedSinger (talk) 18:33, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The current references do not show the significance. DGG ( talk ) 16:08, 3 July 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:05, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eleanor Silliman Belknap Humphrey

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

This seems to be a bit of somebody's family history. There's really no indication here at all of notability by our standards. Most of the material is unsourced, and most of the rest of it is not supported by the sources cited – she is not mentioned in either this source or this one, for example. She appears to have been born, to have married, and to have died – but neither her date of birth nor her date of death is sourced; there's no source even for the name used as the page title. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:53, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:53, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:53, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing in the article really suggests rising to more than temporary, local significance. A search for sources reveals almost nothing beyond a passing mention in a book about art. Hugsyrup (talk) 13:04, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find plenty of coverage on Newspapers.com - of social occasions, holidays, returns from holidays, weddings, etc. There are sources which confirm that she donated works to the Speed Museum, and one mention of an exhibition of her own art works - in the social section, not a review of the art. There is also an obituary - "Old Post Editor's Widow, 88, Dies". None of this coverage establishes notability, though. If she were notable, then such sources could confirm her date of death, parents, places of residence, that she was a graduate of Vassar, etc - but I don't see any evidence that she meets any
WP:COI in its creation (and the same person created the articles Edward William Cornelius Humphrey, Humphrey-McMeekin House, Lewis Craig Humphrey, William Richardson Belknap, Belknap Hardware and Manufacturing Company, W. B. Belknap, Morris Burke Belknap (the elder), Morris B. Belknap, Edward Porter Humphrey, Alexander Pope Humphrey - possibly all are notable, possibly not). RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:09, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete (
routine newspaper clippings, like the announcement of a wedding. Mitzi's Smithsonian source seems to be a donated portrait, which Mitzi has used to prop up an entire section of three paragraphs glowing about her relative. The only reason Mitzi hasn't been banned from Wikipedia for CoI editing is that she isn't writing for a business. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Created almost 4 years ago, the page has fought the good fight but it's time for it to go.

WP:BASIC MaskedSinger (talk) 18:32, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Merge/Delete Perhaps a summary of this information can be merged into the Humphrey-McMeekin House article. Its inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places is significant, and the article is stub/start class. Also, Louise Mead Tricard's book American Women's Track and Field may be a good reference for improving Women in sports articles, but Eleanor may not be notable enough to mention. Tea and crumpets (talk) 00:29, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Member of the community at that time but not really much else. Address is there. scope_creep^Talk 22:28, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:04, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability in one's community is not enough to pass Wikipedia's notability standards. There are other, more appropriate, places to publish one's family history. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:17, 8 July 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. Well, first off I see this deletion discussion has attracted a number of single-purpose editors who voted !keep, raising concerns about canvassing which are reinforced by a sockpuppet investigation and an ANI investigation on the matter (both linked below). Normally in case of canvassing or sockpuppetry the best way to minimize their distorting impact on the consensus-finding process is to pay particular attention to the arguments provided rather than the raw headcount, as canvassing/socking can effectively sway the latter without having much impact on the arguments provided. Thus I'll take particular notice of the arguments offered.

On the delete side, we have a (somewhat vague) argument that GNG is not met and somewhat better argued points about this being a minor event without any lasting impact (yet) that thus might fail

WP:POV

-pushing platform for ethnic, religious or political disputes.

On balance of arguments, this seems like it has a delete consensus: The key arguments are that while this topic may have ephemeral coverage that might satisfy

WP:NOTNEWS

policy - which stresses the importance of enduring notability rather than ephemera - aren't satisfied. Especially the NOTNEWS policy is important as policies have precedence over the notability guidelines during decision making processes.

I see some proposals to salt the title, but IMO there hasn't been enough discussion on that point to declare it the consensus outcome; if people still desire salting they should ask at

WP:DRV discussion and there is no consensus here that draftification would be preferred to outright deletion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:14, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

2019 Hauz Qazi clash

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected

spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp

|username}}.

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

Single fairly minor event which is unlikely to attract

WP:GNG either. Hugsyrup (talk) 10:24, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 11:29, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 11:29, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 11:29, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 11:29, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 11:29, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

The page I made on the Wikipedia met the guidelines of the Wikipedia very well such as
talk) 11:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Why this page is considering for deletion, wikipedia need to check the fact it's true incident and it should be available on wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vivekku3 (talk • contribs)
This is not a minor event. This is the main issue being discussed on india media since last 2 days^[1]. After the incident people living in fear in the Chandni Chowk area of old Delhi. One 17 year old boy is also abducted by violent Mobs. Mother of the boy named mona, demanding the release and asking help from the government in a video. Violent Mob of 100 people vandalizing, attacking, abducting people on the street of a National Capital city is not a minor event. JohnDSil (talk) 11:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC) — JohnDSil (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

References

^ Mamtany, Sidhant (1 July 2019). "100-year-old Chandni Chowk temple vandalised; What we know so far". www.indiatvnews.com.

The event happened and is of considerable importance to Delhi, rather India's changing social fabric. Acceptance of a middling doesn’t shade away the damage it has already caused.

This page MUST NOT be deleted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.90.69.212 (talk • contribs) — 103.90.69.212 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

It is important to have a record of this event. This is an important event and should not be brushed under carpet. Moreover it will bring out the facts to everyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.182.207.132 (talk) 12:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC) — 122.182.207.13 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

It is important to have a record of this event.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkd18 (talk • contribs) — Jkd18 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep Has received significant independent reliable media coverage, enough for GNG and EVENTCRIT. --qedk (t 桜 c) 12:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's not a minor incident, it's a major incident that involved a job of 150+ people who vandalized a 100 year old significant cultural and religiously important public property. It'd be a biased decision to remove this article and suppress the truth. 157.50.111.140 (talk) 22:16, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Personally it's difficult to say which events should have articles, and which shouldn't. I'm not sure the policies on this matter work since we often see exceptions to the policies granted. Personally I suspect the article meets the general notability guideline. As for the event notability, it's too early to see lasting effects, as it often is with many events IMO. GEOSCOPE could be applicable as it involves two notable religious groups. We will have to see if the incident continues to receive coverage in Indian news, or even world news. Sephiroth storm (talk) 13:01, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe this attack is notable according to Wikipedia guidelines, since many similar attacks have their own articles, but based on the little research I've done so far, news reports are still coming in and the accounts vary wildly (for example, the article currently states the temple was attacked by 20-25 people while some reports are saying as many as 400). The article itself contains major omissions, lacking even the name of the temple (Durga Mata Mandir) and using uncited info that is at variance with the few facts presently known. In short: recommending keeping the article, but protecting it until the story becomes more clear. Someone with admin powers should go in and clean it up to meet Wikipedia writing standards.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:940:c000:4147:8103:70b5:2fb2:7b30 (talk • contribs) — 2601:940:c000:4147:8103:70b5:2fb2:7b30 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
keep In my view we should keep this page. This page will give the information on such a big attack on a ancient temple By one particular community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2401:4900:2EE4:69C:7EBB:11A8:C025:4D16 (talk) 13:08, 2 July 2019 (UTC) — 2401:4900:2EE4:69C:7EBB:11A8:C025:4D16 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
keep This article needs to be kept alive. It is a disaster of mass proportion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Prabhavp (talk • contribs) — Prabhavp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
This page should not be deleted. This is describing an event which has happened yesterday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raazankeet (talk • contribs) 13:24, 2 July 2019 (UTC) — Raazankeet (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

There is no need to delete this article.

And this article should be protected from Vandalism too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:205:422C:D2FB:BA96:FB23:CC4D:6055 (talk) 13:29, 2 July 2019 (UTC) — 2405:205:422C:D2FB:BA96:FB23:CC4D:6055 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Significant event to let world know about growing intolerance in india— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.198.10.143 (talk • contribs) — 67.198.10.143 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

DO NOT DELETE. The details are factual and meet Wiki Guidelines like
WP:DEPTH and others mentioned. Chandni Chowk (where this incident happened) is one of the most famous places of India and generated almost prima facie '200K related tweets on twitter and still counting. Renewbo (talk) 14:08, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

DO NOT DELETE. The dispute was for parking between two person. But the 200+ strong jihadi mob of Muslims Vandalised and desecrated a Hindu mandir, Kidnapped a Hindu Boy, Broke into the home of Hindus and terrorised them with Jihadi war cries of allahu-akbar and nara-e-takbeer. It was all planned by jihadi terrorist elements. Huge number of clear video evidences and also from CCTV Cameras are also there. A parking dispute between two persons does not lead to this. If 200+ strong mob would have broken and vandalised a Mosque or Church and kidnapped their children and terrorised their families, will that not count as an attack worth logging? Would that not be termed as some BS-Phobia! It was a planned terrorist attack on Hindus and must be presented in truth and correct manner. Supporting jihadi elements who try to discredit the lives of Hindus is NOT a good thing, Although I will not be surprised if it happens as what type of things happen here at Wiki. --Emysyme (talk) 03:22, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This nomination appears to have been heavily infested with sockpuppets; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Harshil169. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim mob attacked and vandalized a 100 year old Hindu temple in Delhi, India Peter.aremone (talk) 15:13, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment
  WP:AIV caknuck _° needs to be running more often 16:48, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Use of sockpuppets by radical islamic elements to suppress the oppression of non-muslims is the prime contributor to this deletion nomination. This article documents a fact, an important fact, and deserves a place on Wikipedia.

Muslim mob attacked place of worship of non-muslims
The attack happened in an area inhabited mostly by non-muslims (which is a major setback to the manufactured narrative of media tycoons that muslims are under threat, while the contrary appears to be the case, and thus the deletion nomination to suppress facts)
A minor child was kidnapped by the attacking muslim mob. It has been more than 24 hours, the child has not been found. His mother suffers from Tuberculosis
Minister of Central Govt. and member of parliament has had to visit the place to take stock of the situation
Social media tycoons are having a busy time on Twitter trying to hide, suppress, or plainly deny the incident, and nominating the article for deletion is one of those attempts

isoham (talk) 16:05, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Draftify. There's a lot of moving parts here, but
there's no deadline. I feel that is the most acceptable solution here in light of the canvassing concerns. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:38, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - It needs some improvement, but is better than requiring draftifying and meets notability. ~~StudiesWorld (talk) 20:24, 2 July 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]

Moving to delete. StudiesWorld (talk) 14:39, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is the definition of
WP:RAPID. The article was created today, and given its currency, it's receiving a lot of attention. In future, give current news events about a week before assessing for deletion. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:25, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

@Harshil169:, please read above comment. -Nizil (talk) 05:52, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Clearly meets notability guidelines as an event covered in nearly all the major newspapers, with people across India's political spectrum covering it. It appeared to be the #1 news story this week.Pectore^talk 03:43, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a blatant violation of
WP:PROPAGANDA purposes such as these. All these are strong enough reasons to delete. I will request the admin to ignore the sock votes and the keep votes should be discounted in weight since they are based on the false premise of natability based on news report hits. --DBig Xrayᗙ 12:36, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete or Draftify - Per DbX and RdNdute. Typical flux of right-wing !voters. ∯WBG^converse 14:03, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete (see extended rationale below) not notable event.
WP:NOTNEWS. note should be taken of off wiki canvassing. Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:11, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Furthermore DO NOT draftify. Instead, Delete and salt original title. Just one of many religio-ethnic clashes in the
~~WP:IPA~~ ARBIPA world. The original title should probably be deleted as an attack page. Once the propagandistic hate rhetoric has been removed, there is just nothing there. Certainly, and unfortunately, there is nothing notable about this event. Things like this happen far too often. It has served as a vehicle for nationalistic hate speech and such can not be allowed in Wikipedia's name. Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:44, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Agree with
WP:REFUND. And yes please also salt the original title as suggested.--DBig Xrayᗙ 04:22, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Dlohcierekim, I don't believe that a guide to the International Phonetic Alphabet is very relevant here :-) I'll add a hatnote. Nyttend (talk) 22:08, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I initially misunderstood the severity of the event. I agree that this is
WP:NOTNEWS. If it later becomes more important, an article can be created. StudiesWorld (talk) 14:39, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - per WP.NOTNEWS Roxy, the dog. wooF 15:40, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with recreation potential. Just from looking at the article, I can already tell that it fails both GNG and NOTNEWS. While it is true that such events receive eventual news coverage, this is about as notable as the fact that "vaccine exemption requests are increasing in a small area in the southern United States", a random article I found recently with only a relatively regionwide scope and little if any significant impact, just like with this article. ToThAc (talk) 18:18, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable event. It's a small argument that got out of hand and involved some property damage and a lot of people. However that doesn't make it significant. Things like this happen worldwide on a daily basis, but we don't make articles everytime some parking argument in Walmart gets out of hand, or if some people vandalised something during a large celebration or commiseration of their sports teams. Reads like someone is trying to promote it as a sectarian religious bigotry thing, when it's just an incident that isn't notable. Oh highly local interest only. Canterbury Tail talk 19:24, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed discussion that has nothing to do with the AFD

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

Shall we decide now what to do with the content. There are many people still arguing sayimg there are videos, byt let me tell you a lot of videos are being morphed and made viral on social media just for the sake of propaganda. So we camt decide how reliable a video is or not. Next the other allegations about political involvement is BS too as I can provide the links for that.

Imstead of relying on false and fake news which were being used to make the page, can we decide what to do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edward Zigma (talk • contribs) 04:44, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user with the name "Edward Zigma" has said that the videos "Lot of Videos" are morphed! How does the user came to such a conclusion. Are they based on any evidence or just 'let me tell you' part is enough and the user enjoy some special privileges. Or the conclusion to lot of images are morphed based on some bias or some other tendency. I am looking for a reason to say such world and I quote what Edward Zigma wrote above "byt let me tell you a lot of videos are being morphed and made viral on social media just for the sake of propaganda". Also want to know if anyone's personal hallucinations considered as valid reasons in Wiki debates? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emysyme (talk • contribs) 04:54, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Its not personal hallucinations. It reality. A lot of fake videos went viral in this time. And you cant tell audio is true or not. Even media is such fool to make news on that without checking the truth. I am just saying why cant we rely on the articles from reliable sources instead of morphed videos, fake news and messages and fake viral messages.Edward Zigma (talk) 05:15, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, this is not the place to discuss what happened at this event. As far as deciding what to do with the content, the only question we are answering here is whether we keep or delete it, and that will happen in due time when the discussion has run its course - there's no point trying to hurry it along. Any other debates about content should be taken to the article talk page, although I'd caution you both that since you seem to feel very strongly about this event, it may be best to step away from the article and let more dispassionate editors work on it for the time being. Hugsyrup (talk) 08:41, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - @Hugsyrup:

I vote to delete. But as you said me and some people are very strong about this event. So i preferred to back a bit. But I will discuss if I have any issues in the talk section of the page. Edward Zigma (talk) 08:50, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I had reorganised and improved the article significantly but mostly agree with the points made by Mr rnddude. I am OK with delete now because the event did not escalate and make it a significant event luckily.-Nizil (talk) 15:06, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, along with all other recent-event articles that couldn't previously be predicted (e.g. as opposed to solar eclipses or sporting championships). News reports are primary sources by definition (ask anyone else with a graduate degree in history if you don't believe me), and there's no way for reliable secondary sources to have been created and published yet. Nyttend (talk) 22:05, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A classic example of
Wikipedia is not a newspaper with no evidence of historical significance, enduring notability or encyclopedic value. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:35, 6 July 2019 (UTC)°[reply
]

Delete per
WP:NOTNEWS ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:36, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

KEEP Recent investigations revealed that the intent of the mob was not just to desecrate the 100 year old temple (with historical significance) but to also enter houses of residents and 'terrorize' them [1] (reference from open source 'Times Of India'). Total arrests have now gone up to 17. Further the Union Home Minister of India summoned the top police cop (Commissioner of Police, Delhi) to ensure terrorism is not spread and culprits are rounded off the streets ^[2] (reference from open source Outlook India). 125.17.166.115 (talk) 08:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)— 125.17.166.115 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:02, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
comment on content Looks like the kinda ethnic propaganda we are trying not to have. Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:00, 9 July 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 What Became of the Likely Lads. ST47 (talk) 10:25, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What Became of the Likely Lads (EP)

)

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

the page is more of a copy of the What Became of the Likely Lads single Twistandshout28 (talk) 10:14, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 11:31, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 11:31, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 11:31, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Redirect to What Became of the Likely Lads - it's just a different format of that single -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:57, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to
WP:ATD. Hugsyrup (talk) 13:44, 2 July 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. ST47 (talk) 10:24, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of games using hardware transform and lighting

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

Too many games require hardware transform and lighting, thus, this list is hopelessly incomplete; since most relevant CPUs (including mobile CPUs) have built-in support for hardware transform and lighting, this is no longer a distinct feature. Martin Kraus (talk) 09:19, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Martin Kraus (talk) 09:27, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:GAMECRUFT. Sergecross73 msg me 09:42, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete No merit be page in Wikipedia mainspace as per
talk) 11:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:57, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This was notable when relatively few games fell into the category, and therefore it is probably still notable on the basis of "once notable, always notanle". Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:57, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nominator and
WP:INDISCRIMINATE. This game requirement is most definitely not a notable attribute. Ajf773 (talk) 18:03, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as a non-notable list of semi-
WP:CFORK from the parent article, because it would simply appear as an unsourced example list. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 08:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - per
WP:CFORK. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 08:57, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Is this page really necessary for Wikipedia because I certainly don't think it should be. HawkAussie (talk) 05:54, 5 July 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.

WP:G7'd at user's request. Please let me know if you want the original text emailed or posted to your userspace. Pete AU aka Shirt58 (talk) 09:44, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

David Wang (footballer)

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

PROD contested by the article creator on the basis that this player "is expected to join, and receive more game time at, a notable European club" and that "I am requesting that the article not be deleted until after the current transfer window, should Wang fail to make a significant transfer". This is pure

WP:NFOOTBALL and there is no indication he will be notable any time soon. Giant Snowman 08:40, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 08:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 08:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:58, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if the only reason for keeping the article is what he might do in the future, then that says it all. Fails
WP:NFOOTBALL. Hugsyrup (talk) 13:14, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Thanks for the explanation and information regarding why the article should be deleted - after reading
WP:NFOOTBALL more closely, I must admit that I cannot justify the continuation of the article. Domersr (talk) 13:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

@

WP:CSDG7? Giant Snowman 14:48, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete - if and when becomes more notable - re add. Not ready now MaskedSinger (talk) 18:34, 2 July 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:33, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Mitani

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

This article is about an author and editor who apparently has an Emmy, but has very little to back up these claims. I cannot find any proof that he, the show or the network named has actually ever won an Emmy. His Job as an author seems to not meet the minimum of

WP:GNG nor does his time as a editor of the magazine. I have found a few mentions of him as an opinion but nothing in depth on him. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 06:24, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 06:24, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 06:24, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 06:24, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 06:24, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 06:24, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:40, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete By virtue of not having a single reference, shouldn't be here. Case Closed MaskedSinger (talk) 18:35, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one reference does not add up to notability. This article is an extreme in figuring out a way to make everyone seem notable as a first, first significant role of an Asian American as an automotive journalist. That is a bridge too far.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:21, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom McMatter talk - MA Javadi (talk) 16:49, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails [WP:AUTHOR]] for lack of sources found in my searches.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:06, 8 July 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 keep. RL0919 (talk) 04:47, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of wax figures displayed at Madame Tussauds museums

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

This entire list article is essentially nothing more than trivia and will never be able to be properly sourced. I made the list article to declutter the

talk) 04:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 04:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:57, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The selection of particular figures for exhibition, and their originally innovative presentation in guidebooks, has been extensively discussed as a significant element of Madame Tussads' business strategy and cultural impact, for example here, here and here. The subject thus clearly passes
WP:LISTN. There is no reason to have any figure on the page without a RS confirming its presence; if protection is necessary to achieve that it should be applied but that is no reason not to have the list. Triptothecottage (talk) 07:42, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - deleting a perfectly good list because unsourced material keeps getting added is throwing the
WP:BABY out with the bathwater. We can keep this and remove unsourced additions, or protect if needs be. Hugsyrup (talk) 13:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

The problem is that almost all of the entries are unsourced and unsourceable because it seems rare for reliable sources to report on individual models in the museums. Not only is it that unsourced entries are continuously added but the majority of the list was unsourced to begin with. Due to this, the list is completely unverifiable and will continue to be unverifiable as no sources actually comment on the existence of almost every single figure in the list.

talk) 14:56, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I totally see your point, but I am not sure I agree. I regularly see little articles about new (or updated) wax figures. Just as a quick example, check out search result. A lot of those results are poor quality sources, lots of gossip mags and tabloids, but there are some decent sources in amongst there and I think as a very quick exercise it demonstrates that there is potential to find sources for this type of list. Hugsyrup (talk) 15:03, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sure the page needs a lot of work and needs to be sourced but it should definitely stay MaskedSinger (talk) 18:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not a big fan of lists but this is one of the few that I think is of real use and meets
WP:NLIST but the sourcing is a real problem. --Dom from Paris (talk) 12:21, 3 July 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. RL0919 (talk) 04:37, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eye of the Storm Records

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

No significant coverage. Fails

WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 03:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 03:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 03:47, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

(T) 09:01, 02 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete Biggest claim to fame appears to have been being sued by
Converse, which unsurprisingly doesn't get a mention in this promo article. Triptothecottage (talk) 07:48, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete fails
WP:NCORP by a mile. --Dom from Paris (talk) 12:22, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy Delete Article completely lacks third-party sources.TH1980 (talk) 05:08, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- This does not meet any of the speedy deletion criteria. Triptothecottage (talk) 23:00, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails GNG and
HighKing⁺⁺ 13:35, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - A search for reliable, independent sources turned up nothing. Fails of GNG. No notable releases, no notable artists signed, therefore I can't think of any other criteria which would indicate the topic merits inclusion here. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:16, 5 July 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 delete. Hoax. And praise to the AFD participants for the thorough, well-reasoned, and well-informed discussion below. postdlf (talk) 16:35, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nulla poena pro vitium Abyssus

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

I suspect that this article is a hoax, for the following reasons:

The grammar is incorrect. "Nulla poena pro vitio abyssi" would be correct Latin, although still strangely poetical: "no penalty for the fault of the abyss".
I cannot find any sources outside Wikipedia (and copies of Wikipedia) that contain the title, in either correct or incorrect Latin.
Courtney Stanhorpe Kenny's A Selection of Cases Illustrative of English Criminal Law is real, and several editions are available on Google Books, which do record the case Rex v. Huggins, 1730, but this case does not correspond to the one here (it concerns whether a master is criminally liable for his servant's unauthorized acts).
The block quotation has some strange phrasing, even for the time: what does "amongst innate supplicants" mean?
There does not seem to have been a Criminal Justice Act in 1929; see our list. Lesgles (talk) 00:29, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Lesgles (talk) 01:01, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Lesgles (talk) 01:03, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neither the whole phrase, not even substantial parts of the phrase, appear in any of the major legal databases, or in Google Scholar, or in books. The case is not to be found either. I note that the only edits made by the article creator were for the creation of this article. Even if this was created by mistake, there are no sources to support its existence, so it would fail the
WP:GNG. bd2412 T 01:20, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy delete as hoax (
G3). I checked the one source and the relevant page appears to be a discussion about a case on forgeries! The relevant principle seems to be invalid anyway - English Courts do seem to take into account convictions obtained in foreign countries in some circumstances - e.g. R v Ford (1921) 15 Cr App R 176: “It would be entirely against the public interest to exclude convictions outside the jurisdiction of this Court being taken into consideration by a judge when passing sentence.” Bookscale (talk) 10:49, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy delete as a hoax, albeit a moderately imaginative one. In addition to the points made above, the article claims that the principle was abolished by s29 of the Criminal Justice Act 1929, which does not exist. Hugsyrup (talk) 13:51, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delenda est as a dolus. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Checking Wikipedia to see whether there was a Criminal Justice Act of 1929 is not proper verification. So I checked the U.K. government's list. It's not there. Uncle G (talk) 23:29, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for doing that! It's good to know for sure. Lesgles (talk) 01:25, 3 July 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:01, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hotlist

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

Apparently short lived defunct website that lasted all of a couple of years. Given the user name of the original author, the article is basically a COI ad written by one of the company's founders. Not much left in the article after cutting out the worst of it, some click bait garbage really. The sources out there are mostly PR junk you would expect for any tech startup: a few fluff interviews, routine coverage about seed funding, and then darn the luck, turns out this wasn't the next big thing after all, and it seems to have quietly died without so much as a whimper. GMG ^talk 14:51, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:02, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:02, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

(T) 09:41, 02 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 00:03, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly fails
WP:GNG and never made it as such it will probably not get any more coverage...ever--Dom from Paris (talk) 12:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete routine promotionalism in intent. Asfor having ceased, Once notable always notable , but the notability was very borderline to begin with. DGG ( talk ) 08:44, 6 July 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Swami Krishnanand (Mahamandleshwar)

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

Vast majority of the article is about one event (him disappearing, then turning up again after six months - well...). The rest doesn't look particularly notable either, if you're conversant with Indian religion. Black Kite (talk) 18:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:26, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:26, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 00:00, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's more important to be conversant with Indian news. No, the whole nation did not "go to surprise". There was a couple of cycles of news coverage, in the Hindustan Times and a couple of others, none of which actually gave much space to covering this person xyrself, and that's it. This person's life and work are not documented in any kind of depth at all. A Wikipedia biography of this person cannot be written in accord with our content policies. As can be clearly seen. Uncle G (talk) 23:25, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per
WP:TNT. Even if this guy had continuing notability, and wasn't run of the mill, this areticle is not up to middle-school standards of writing. Bearian (talk) 16:05, 8 July 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.

[1] Mamtany, Sidhant (1 July 2019). "100-year-old Chandni Chowk temple vandalised; What we know so far". www.indiatvnews.com.

[2] ttps://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/delhi-five-more-teenagers-involved-in-hauz-qazi-temple-vandalism-arrested/articleshow/70109449.cms

[3] ttps://www.outlookindia.com/newsscroll/vandalised-delhi-temple-to-be-reconsecrated-on-tuesday/1570914

[1]

[2]