Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 October 30

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.

1973 San Diego Toreros football team

1973 San Diego Toreros football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The page possibly fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 23:07, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 23:07, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 23:07, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - unremarkable Division III team's season. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:16, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm seeing similar coverage for the 1973
  not inherited. Eagles 24/7 (C) 13:28, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment
  WP:GEOSCOPE are a part of Wikipedia:Notability (events). The article in question is about a team. Additionally, the coverage cited includes feature articles which is far surpasses the routine guideline. And since the team competed nationally at their level, that also places it far outside the "geoscope" guideline.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:50, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• They may have competed nationally, albeit at the lowest possible level governed by the NCAA, but there is no coverage of the team outside of the southern California region. As the coverage is mostly related to routine events the team participated in, those guidelines still apply here. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:00, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Eagles247: I agree with you that unremarkable D3 seasons don't warrant stand-alone articles and that we need standards to limit the proliferation of such articles (otherwise we could eventually be faced with 50,000 sub-stubs on D2, D3, and NAIA football seasons). Compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 Olivet Comets football team. However, the 1973 Toreros are not in that unremarkable category. Further, two game stories in the local small-town Chula Vista newspaper is not remotely comparable to the statewide coverage received by the 1973 Toreros, including articles in the Los Angeles Times and San Francisco Examiner. Cbl62 (talk) 16:03, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those are fair points. How about the 1973 Temple City High School football team? Here, here, here, here, etc. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've yet to allow a season article for a high school football team, but a winning streak from 1969 to 1973 ... that's worthy of coverage somewhere, maybe at Temple City High School#Athletics. My view is that the football projects should make the editorial judgment that we aren't going to have season articles on high school football teams. And college seasons below Division I should be limited to something extraordinary ... like a national championship or perhaps (as in this case) a final four appearance. I do not want to see us opening the flood gates to tens of thousands of stubs on ordinary D2, D3 and NAIA seasons (like 2018 Olivet) that have minimal content and that cannot be effectively monitored by our volunteers to protect from vandalism. Cbl62 (talk) 17:36, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe everyone in this discussion would agree that high school football teams should not have season articles. But the point I'm trying to make is, what's the difference between the 1973 Temple City HS football team and the 1973 San Diego Toreros football team in terms of notability? Both are amateur football clubs in which their players did not receive compensation in the form of athletic scholarships or salaries (Division III athletes do not receive scholarships), and both likely meet your threshold of significant coverage for

WP:GNG. There is no article for the 1973 NCAA Division III football playoffs (or any season's Division III playoffs for that matter), so I'm not sure a presumed notability threshold should be earning a spot in the final four of a playoff series that isn't notable by itself. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:59, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

@

WP:GNG, the football projects have the right and ability to make editorial judgments on which levels of football seasons should and shouldn't be covered by season articles. That's what I would like to see happen. My original thought was that season articles for D3 should be limited to national championship teams -- however, I don't think consensus supports my original view. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 Saint John's Johnnies football team. So, my backup position is to try to build consensus that nothing below the final four in D3 should have season articles. Having consensus even at that slightly looser level would ameliorate the risk of people creating stub articles on thousands of ordinary D3 seasons supported by the kind of highly local, small-town coverage that many high school teams also receive. In my view, some consensus-drive, bright-line cutoff is better than none. Cbl62 (talk) 19:32, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Honestly, I think this is still best left to

WP:HEY the article's prose is mostly sourced to the team's own media guide. I also respect the research that's been put in, I just disagree any sports coverage automatically implies notability in the Wikipedia context (even as a user who has improved a couple sports articles using pretty much exclusively local sources). SportingFlyer T·C 13:35, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete entirely unsourced, no prejudice on recreation if better sources can be found. SportingFlyer T·C 23:36, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: Significant coverage has been added to the article from multiple, reliable sources, including two of the USA's largest newspapers: Los Angeles Times and San Francisco Examiner. Will you now reconsider your "delete" vote? Cbl62 (talk) 11:48, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:05, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I am skeptical about season articles about routine Division III team seasons. However, this one is different for several reasons. First, San Diego is now a Division I team (elevated in 1993) and there is great interest in providing full coverage for Division I teams. Second, the 1973 team made the final four of the D3 playoffs (maybe that's a reasonable cutoff for D3 teams?) Third, and even though archives of The San Diego Union-Tribune for 1973 are not readily available on-line, a quick search turns up a good deal of significant coverage in other reliable sources, sufficient IMO to pass
  WP:GNG. E.g.,this, this, this, this, this. Cbl62 (talk) 00:28, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per Cbl62. @SportingFlyer: as I argued elsewhere, lack of sourcing in an article on its face is not reason to delete. Sourcing can usually be found. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:32, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @
  WP:GNG, but the article's certainly in a much better state than it was. SportingFlyer T·C 03:51, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

@SportingFlyer: I'm aware that you voted delete before the addition of sources and expansion, but your vote's rationale was illegitimate nonetheless. The point is that lack of sourcing in an article—and toward which no one has yet put much effort—says almost nothing about the notability of the subject. What matters is all available sourcing that's out there that could be added to the article. I understand your concern about the specter of creating an article for every single college football team season and your argument about high school football, although I think consistent sourcing in higher status, notable newspapers is going to fall off for most high school programs. One-off AfDs are not the solution. We need have a general discussion about universal standards at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:16, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jweiss11: I am not going to assume a season article without sources for an amateur team which doesn't even play in its top division should be kept because sources might exist. Some of these articles are no more than two or three sentence long game recaps. Most of the notable coverage comes from a very small town which happens to have a university football team and a newspaper which isn't even the main rag for its metro area. Keep in mind I'm a member of an amateur club which gets local and occasionally statewide coverage - the clubhouse is full of article clippings about how the team won the division in such and such a year, or big games the club has played in, and a season article on the club would be justifiably snow deleted - so just because coverage exists doesn't mean it's notable enough for an article. SportingFlyer T·C 10:06, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Cbl62's sources and the improvments made to the article since this AfD was opened. Ejgreen77 (talk) 04:59, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep clear pass of
  WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:28, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep passes
  WP:GNG and the article has been improved. WP:NEXIST. Lightburst (talk) 20:05, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. This article clearly passes
  WP:GNG. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 20:49, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep clearly passes
  WP:GNG . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:54, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Meets GNG with multiple sources of significant coverage from independent source.—Bagumba (talk) 09:29, 5 November 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) 00:09, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Ramsey (artist)

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

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

Doesn't meet notability guidelines Robrobbie2 (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly sourced. Doesn't meet notability requirements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability. Most links don't refer to his art. No references to curated shows or work. No sources for art since 2013. The only major editor is a single user who has only posted edits on this one page - likely the artist himself.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:47, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:47, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This article has already been deleted nominated for deletion three times, and the subject still does not meet notability criteria for WP:NARTIST, nor WP:GNG. The references/sources are mentions (a couple sentences), or dead links or don't mention him at all. The ones with more than two or three sentences are human interest pieces, like how he met his fiancé. None are significant coverage, nor reviews/articles of critical and/or art historical importance. Lastly I'm wondering why the article states who he is "friends" with - notability is not inherited from friends or family. Netherzone (talk) 02:10, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NARTIST fail. Almost all of the creative work is done in service of a brand. They amount to publicity stunts.
  talk) 10:40, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:21, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:21, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per
  significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 20:27, 4 November 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) 21:56, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Richard C. Cook

Richard C. Cook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence of notability; mostly self-sourced, third-party sources have passing or no mention (the only substantial source, before I removed it, was deprecated source globalresearch.ca);

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 21:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 21:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not enough sourcing to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:08, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -Roxy, the dog. Esq. wooF 07:03, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Sourcing and claims are self-published. Bearian (talk) 20:29, 4 November 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.

TuxWordSmith

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

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

Unremarkable software with no evidence of SIGCOV. Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Zanhe (talk) 21:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:55, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:55, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:55, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:58, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete entirely non notable spin off Scrabble fails
  WP:GNG. Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 20:39, 6 November 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. Sandstein 20:45, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TuxMathScrabble

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

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

Unremarkable software with no evidence of SIGCOV. Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Zanhe (talk) 21:10, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Zanhe (talk) 21:10, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:57, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete entirely non notable spin off
  WP:GNG.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 20:37, 6 November 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) 22:00, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Realms of Trinity

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

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

This was, effectively, a heavily modded online server for Neverwinter Nights 2 online play. It received considerable coverage and acclaim within the NWN2 modding community, but that doesn't constitute independent coverage in reliable sources. There are a lot of references provided, but they're universally self-published, podcasts, or otherwise non-independent and non-reliable. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:57, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:57, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, doesn't seem to have much significance outside the Neverwinter Nights community. The sources in the article don't look reliable, and the topic of the article is unlikely to ever gain much coverage in secondary sources.
  talk) 09:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete spinout non-notable article which is just
  WP:GNG.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 20:44, 6 November 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) 21:58, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Known Lands

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

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

This was, effectively, a heavily modded online server for Neverwinter Nights 2 online play. It received considerable coverage and acclaim within the NWN2 modding community, but that doesn't constitute independent coverage in reliable sources. The IGN links provided in the references here are to a hosted wiki, rather than actual IGN-authored reporting, and so do cannot contribute toward notability. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, doesn't seem to have any significance outside the Neverwinter Nights community. The term "known lands" is also vague and might refer to several other things.
  talk) 08:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete spinout non-notable article which is just
  WP:GNG.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 20:45, 6 November 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) 21:59, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dasaria

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

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

This was, effectively, a heavily modded online server for Neverwinter Nights and Neverwinter Nights 2 online play. It received considerable coverage and acclaim within the NWN/NWN2 modding community, but that doesn't constitute independent coverage in reliable sources. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:52, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:52, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, doesn't seem to have any significance outside the Neverwinter Nights community.
  talk) 08:05, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete spinout non-notable article which is just
  WP:GNG.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 20:45, 6 November 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.

Aaron Hawkins

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

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

Stub article with a single reference fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:04, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep He's an IEEE fellow, so meets
  WP:NPROF C1. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:29, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Firm pass of
  WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC).[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:02, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow keep. Pass of
  WP:PROF#C1 for heavily-cited publications, double pass of #C3 for the IEEE Fellowship and Fellow of the Optical Society of America, and pass of #C8 for being editor-in-chief of IEEE Journal of Quantum Electronics. Maybe speedy because the nomination didn't even consider our academic notability guidelines, but in any case I doubt anyone taking those guidelines seriously is likely to choose deletion. And the poor state of our article is not a valid reason for deletion: AfD is not for cleanup. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:34, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Snow keep, per all of the above comments. The subject passes several criteria of
  WP:PROF#C1. Nsk92 (talk) 11:49, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Snow keep for unambiguously passing
  WP:PROF on multiple counts. XOR'easter (talk) 15:29, 31 October 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.

Patrick O'Shenanigan Memorial Scholarship Endowment Fund (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats

)

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

Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 18:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 18:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 18:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Quick delete Obviously no notability, no independent coverage. Reywas92^Talk 18:37, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: After conducting a search and noting the merge tag, I intended to vote for a merge. However, on
  reliable, indedependent, secondary sources (Facebook? really?) this article fails GNG. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 16:41, 31 October 2019 (UTC) Struck prvious !vote. Persuaded to change to:[reply
  ]
• Redirect per DannyS712 below. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 21:17, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to University of Tulsa per discussion above - there may be no support for a merge, but redirecting to the related topic would be okay --DannyS712 (talk) 05:05, 1 November 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) 17:06, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Artyom Alimchev

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

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

Article about footballer who made four appearances in the Russian regionalized third-tier league. The online English- and Russian-language sources covering this person are limited to a handful of match reports and database entries. It's unclear whether the Russian third-tier is a fully-professional league (I'm skeptical that it is), but in any case this is a comprehensive failure of

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:08, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, fails GNG which is more important than squeezing by on NFOOTBALL. I agree that Russian third division is likely not fully pro. GiantSnowman 09:02, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:37, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no sources, no article – Levivich 03:43, 5 November 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) 17:09, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greenfield Girls' Primary School

Greenfield Girls' Primary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable primary school. Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:02, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:06, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nothing makes this primary school stand out, lack of notability. Reywas92^Talk 18:42, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete sub-secondry schools need actual claims to notability, which is totally lacking here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:55, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -
  run of the mill school and sources. Bearian (talk) 20:33, 4 November 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) 17:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Habito

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

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

Not notable--refs are PR or notices of initial funding; the articles shows clear cos, and probably paid editing. DGG ( talk ) 20:21, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:58, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:58, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per
  WP:TOOSOON. The only substantial independent articles that I could find are about investors; such as this: [1].4meter4 (talk) 19:12, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment: There's a profile on the founder, at the BBC, which includes some info and criticism of the company. I'll keep looking for
  WP:SIGCOV - ChrisWar666 (talk) 21:24, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete per
  WP:NCORP. Its services might have garnered some coverage, but the corporation itself is privately held and has zero coverage. Bearian (talk) 20:39, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete I am unable to locate any
  HighKing⁺⁺ 17:26, 5 November 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 trending towards keep. Stifle (talk) 14:12, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Scowsill

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

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

Another five years on from the previous discussion, the subject does still not appear notable per

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SmartSE (talk) 23:21, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:44, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:44, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I agree the
  WP:SIGCOV isn't established. In the sources available, he is mostly mentioned briefly or that source in question is a press release. Not notable. Gargleafg (talk) 01:36, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep - The subject seems adequately referenced in the media. There is a significant discussion of him in multiple reliable sources, including Forbes, Reuters (a few times), The New York Times (a few times), The Seattle Times, Washington Times, The National, El Pais, and others. The Wikimedia Commons contains dozens of images of the subject speaking at the global events, which as well signifies of decent notability.--WikedRohutirts (talk) 01:47, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - There are many sources in the article, but none of them establish notability. The claim above that there is "significant discussion of him in multiple reliable sources" is not the case. Many of the sources are just are him being quoted for something about the travel industry, and are not about him. Others are routine business announcements about executive hirings. None of the references in the article represent significant coverage from independent reliable sources. My own search turns up more of the same. Also the existence of photographs pf somebody at Commons does not indicate notability, it indicates somebody uploaded freely licensed photos of him.- Whpq (talk) 13:04, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. He's a widely cited authority on the travel industry and is a ubiquitously interviewed commentator across the media in major and minor publications. There are many Q and A type interviews with him in the media where he is the main subject (or rather his opinions on topics). I did find some other sources through my university database, including quotes of him in peer reviewed journal articles and some articles where he is the main subject. Appologies for not having urls because my university search tool is internal and I don't have any to give by the means I am using to access the material. See these:

1. "World Travel and Tourism Council taps Scowsill as next CEO: resume includes stints with AA, Hilton, Opodo.(NEWS)(David Scowsill)"; Weissmann, Arnie; Travel Weekly, Oct 11, 2010, Vol.69(41), p.23 (main subject)
2. "Q&A with WTTC president, CEO David Scowsill.(World Travel and Tourism Council)(Interview)"; Scowsill, David; Travel Weekly, May 16, 2011, Vol.70(20), p.19
3. "Interview: WTFC's David Scowsill.(Interview); Baker, Michael B.; Business Travel News, Oct 10, 2011, Vol.28(14), p.6(1)
4. "BOOKS: The book that shook David Scowsill, chief executive of Opodo"; Management Today, Sept 15, 2003, p.44
5. "David Scowsill is Interviewed on Bloomberg Surveillance"; CEO Wire, Mar 13, 2014
6. "David Scowsill Talks About the Global Travel Industry and What Individual Nations Can Do to Help It Grow.(Travel Desk)(Q&A)(Industry overview)"; Christiansen, Kenan; The New York Times, March 30, 2014, p.3(L)
7. "Scowsill calls for unity"; Travel & Tourism News Middle East : TTN, Jul 1, 2011
8. "International Sustainable Tourism Policy"; Edgell, David; The Brown Journal of World Affairs, Fall 2015, Vol.22(1), pp.25-36 (cited in this peer reviewed journal article)
9. "2050 Scenarios for Long-Haul Tourism in the Evolving Global Climate Change Regime"; Vorster, Shaun ; Ungerer, Marius ; Volschenk, Jako; Sustainability, 2013, Vol.5(1), pp.1-51 (cited in this peer reviewed journal article)
10. "Job satisfaction and employee turnover determinants in high contact services: Insights from Employees’Online reviews"; Stamolampros, Panagiotis ; Korfiatis, Nikolaos ; Chalvatzis, Konstantinos ; Buhalis, Dimitrios; Tourism Management, December 2019, Vol.75, pp.130-147 (cited in this peer reviewed journal article.

In addition to these, there are close to 400 other print articles in which he is interviewed. Theres just enough RS to pass

WP:GNG in my opinion.4meter4 (talk) 14:58, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

@4meter4: This just looks like more of the same - none of them appear to provide substantial coverage of the subject and a million mentions, quotes and book reviews(!) cannot substitute for 2-3 sources providing substantial coverage. SmartSE (talk) 20:22, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - he seems to be the mainstream media go-to guy for comments on travel and tourism crises. Bearian (talk) 15:53, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Bearian: I don't dispute that, apart from the should be a, but how does that translate into meeting any criteria for inclusion? SmartSE (talk) 20:22, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • People considered experts in major fields tend to have articles. Bearian (talk) 19:14, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. Sympathy with the nom, but the subject is interviewed in too many high-quality RS. His database of video appearances (CNN, CNBC, BBC etc.) is even more impressive ([2]). WP:BASIC says If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability; these are not trivial references, the subject gives material interviews to major RS on the industry. Britishfinance (talk) 11:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per
  WP:RS appears to be SIGCOV and so gng is met. Wm335td (talk) 22:41, 7 November 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.

Anna Genovese

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

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

Still no

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 14:31, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 14:31, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep Jessica Bendinger a notable writer researched the subject for 4-5 years for the podcast she co-presents which is therefore a reliable source with a dozen or more episodes, also coverage in historic newspapers and LA Times already in the article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:20, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the LA Times article, there's only blog-based folklore. This is not enough to satisfy

WP:INHERITWEB. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 20:36, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

If the podcast is researched and written by a respected notable writer then it has strong claims to be a reliable source and there is also historic newspaper coverage,imv Atlantic306 (talk)

Still not enough to convey its notability per INHERITWEB - very little coverage on the podcast to show supposed notability. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 02:14, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INHERITWEB discusses the notability of a source on the web. That is not relevant here. What matters is whether the source is, in this case, sufficiently reliable. A reliable source need not be notable. Thincat (talk) 08:41, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

It is relevant when you're trying to make the argument that she is notable just because she is in some podcast by a notable person that has very little coverage. Further, that LA Times article, the only reliable source in the article, is talking more about the podcast than it is about Anna, neither of which have enough coverage to have a stand alone article. This article along with the newspaper clipping that takes up a small portion of the paper do not provide sufficient evidence, or substance, that would warrant its own article outside the two sentences that could be written at Vito's, per BASIC. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 14:54, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A reliable source does not have to be popular or notable it only has to be reliable, for example an article in a scientific journal by a professor may not be popular or notable but it's still reliable Atlantic306 (talk) 19:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. And what I'm saying is, is that there are not enough reliable sources that prove to verify substantial info (BASIC) beyond the fact that she has testified once or twice against her husband and was a hostess at a gay bar (non notable) - all of which can be said in two lines at Vito Genovese (as I have already merged the small amount of verifiable information to his page). Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 19:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a podcast about a person is not a book, and thus does not create automatic notability, and there is no other notability criteria covered. The fact we lack a birth year to me argues against the reliability of the article and that she is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:35, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As Atlantic306, there is coverage in contemporary newspapers - over 800 results on Newspapers.com. It will take a while to go through them and add sources to the article - but it is clearly quite incorrect to say that there is only a podcast and an LA Times article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:31, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Newspapers.com requires a paid subscription and there is no indication if those sources are substantially about her, or just mention her in passing while talking about other things that are the main topics. Still not enough to meet BASIC or PERP. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 13:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have a paid subscription to Newspapers.com (although actually it is possible to get one through Wikipedia). The sources can be clipped so that non-subscribers can view them. What I meant by "It will take a while to go through them and add sources to the article" is that I will read the newspaper articles, find the ones that are substantially about her, and add them to the article. You cannot say yet that it is not enough to meet any notability guideline, as the sources are not yet there to assess. Note that I did not !vote, I just commented about the existence of newspaper articles. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:24, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a lot of work - are you willing to do it - is anyone willing to do it? If the articles are hard to access for the general public or wikipedians, it will be difficult to verify the info. These articles are from the 50s - the clippings I've read that are accessible so far barely mention her involvement in the gay bars (or mention that she is waitress, not a supposed owner - which is not notable). Other than that we have the event where she testified against Vito. A single event. Barely notable - if at all. Perhaps the article may be better suited for the

WP:DRAFTSPACE until it shows that it can meet notability guidelines (which I still really don't think it can). Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 13:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I frequently do it for articles brought to AfD, to check whether and then show that the subjects are notable. The sources are not hard to access once clipped, and even if they were, per

WP:SOURCEACCESS, "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access." RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Ok, that would be good if you could find sources to make it meet guidelines - however, until then, if it would take you a while, this article should really be moved to the draft space until it is ready, if it does not get deleted that is, as it is in shambles right now with regards to its writing style and sourcing. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 14:02, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you have brought it to AfD, it should not be moved anywhere until there is a result here. If consensus is to draftify, then it will be moved to draftspace after the AfD ends. I hope that this will be relisted, as it has been listed for only one week so far, with one Keep !vote - there is certainly not consensus to delete. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:20, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - if it does not get deleted (which I still think it should for the record) - it should be moved to draft until it can be demonstrated it actually is a notable subject (which I still don't think it will be after scouring your news articles for the reasons I stated two posts above). Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 14:25, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I meant. It will be up to editors who participate in this discussion to give an opinion about whether the article meets notability guidelines and should be kept; does not meet notability guidelines and should be deleted, or merged, or redirected; or has potential but is not ready for mainspace and should be moved to draft. Then the closing editors will assess the consensus. If consensus is to keep, it will be kept. Until the AfD is closed, it needs to stay where it is. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:52, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, however, if the consensus here is not to delete, the appropriate move would be to draft it until it meets guidelines - as is something that is done when the topic may have the potential to be notable, we just don’t know yet or it will take a while to get it there in terms of time. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 15:16, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:DRAFTIFY, "The aim of moving an article to draft is to allow time and space for the draft's improvement until it is ready for mainspace. It is not intended as a backdoor route to deletion." If this article is really notable according to the potential sources you have seen, the amount of time you or someone else will need to get this article to meet the notability standards may take some time. That would be the intention of moving this to draft if it is kept, definitely not as a 'backdoor deletion', let me make that clear. I would be happy to have this article around if it was written properly and had the appropriate sources to meet notability criteria. A look at Caterpillar84's talk page shows this alternative route has also been taken by other editors for Caterpillar84's other recent creations: Draft:Don't Sweat the Small Stuff for Teens, Draft:Hey, Look At Me! I Can Be. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 20:15, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Weak keep - there's some reliable sources that she owned the Stonewall and other legendary LGBT nightclubs in NYC. Is that enough? Bearian (talk) 15:57, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. She played an important role in LGBTQ history and has a close association with Stonewall, a national monument. Here are some additional sources of significance:

1. "THUG'S WIFE TESTIFIES; Mrs. Genovese Tells Pier Board of Gambling and Kickbacks". The New York Times. May 19, 1955.
2. Phoebe Letts (October 5, 2019). "The Latest Audio Buffet.(The Arts/Cultural Desk)". The New York Times. p. C4. (here her importance to the history of the Stonewall riots and the history of the Gay Rights Movement is highlighted)

In my opinion she passes

WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 16:20, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

None of those sources discuss Anna's role in the gay community or owning a gay bar or the details of the court hearing - all it ever is is a one sentence mention of her. Then you show another source that mentions the new podcast. This is an oral account - speculation not supported by sources that substantially demonstrate her notability beyond the occasional mention. Is this really what makes someone notable now? A mere mention in a few articles and a non notable podcast? What really is her "importance to the history of the

WP:NEWSBLOG. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 18:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

The NYT blog is one of the most reliable news blogs around and this isn't an opinion piece and the podcast double series is by a notable writer who spent five years researching the topic Atlantic306 (talk) 20:48, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough about the blog itself, however it also offers little to no info about the contributors to the podcast - ie it does not mention the backgrounds of these authors or that they "spent five years researching the topic". Again, this is INHERITWEB. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 21:09, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I took another look at the LA times source, and see that's where you are getting that info about the years researching the topic - although the number of years isn't super clear since all it really says is "five years ago found a cache of letters while cleaning out the storage unit of a recently deceased older friend." This is the only research they discuss. Notable? You can research any topic you like, that doesn't make it notable. They also write, "researching gay nightlife of the 1950s that Bendiger and Seligman first stumbled onto the story of Anna Genovese". The nightlife is the subject here, not Anna. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 15:14, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quit wikilawyering Vaselineeeeeeee. Look at who the author of the blog is and the authority lent to the blog by virtue of who is sponsoring it. Further, the first source was just to show significant coverage in another part of her life. I didn't' say the first source was to support her activity in LGBTQ rights.4meter4 (talk) 18:51, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit that that wasn't a great use of NEWSBLOG (scratched) - I had looked at who the author was and couldn't find any info on the person, although knowing NY Times is a good source, I assumed their blog would probably be alright, but still not the best source out there as it does not provide any substantial or useful info related to Anna Genovese anyway. Other than that, I wouldn't say "being a stickler about Wikipedia policies/guidelines" is wikilawyering. The point is, is that she is known, relatively, for one event that involved testifying against her husband (where neither are notable enough for its own article outside of Vito's article), I disagree with you that the sources demonstrate

event that is notable not her. Don't try to make her sound more important than she really was. Keep in mind, I do not have paid versions for these sites, so I am going off of what is barely legible in the newspaper clippings and sources I can find in books and through Internet Archive. If you provide any other sources that can address some of the concerns I made above, please provide the quotes. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 19:07, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment

WP:BLUDGEON? RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:31, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

@

WP:BASIC, in that showing this subject is notable beyond the couple notable sources provided that do not substantiate any aspects of her collective life (can't ignore evidence that is not available). So when people bring up sources that still do not convey evidence to warrant this subject an own article, I'm not going to not comment on it, and when people reply to me, I'm not going to not reply back. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 14:55, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep
  WP:NEXIST meets GNG with RSs. Lightburst (talk) 21:53, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep The New York Times believes the pod cast about her is notable enough to write a review about it [3] as are others [4]. The LA Times gives her significant coverage [5]. She seems to have played a notable role in a historic event. Dream Focus 22:42, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - passes WP:GNG per sourcing. Per third party reliable sources. Plenty of coverage.BabbaQ (talk) 22:46, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Ugh, this is disappointing. Per
  WP:PERP "a person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person". The only thing that makes her remotely notable is her involvement in one trial - her testimony against Vito. This can, and is, easily incorporated into Vito's article. A trial of a woman divorcing her husband or being a waitress at a couple gay bars, mixed with speculations about her sexuality, does not make her notable. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 01:50, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Running gay bars on behalf of a gangster Atlantic306 (talk) 20:29, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Running vs being a waitress is disputed in sources, none of which really matters anyway because so have hundreds others, all of which are not notable. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 20:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @
      WP:GNG: ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material" (also see follow up example about Martin Walker). Tell me how GNG is passed? Being mentioned as a bar worker, in a divorce case, a mother, living lush and being a neighbour of Roosevelt and being on Ancestry (not reliable [[6]]) classifies a notable person now—but hey they're mentions in a couple reliable sources, so she's notable. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 20:57, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
      ]

•  Note:@Vaselineeeeeeee: pity the closer who has to weed through this bludgeoned AfD. Apologies. Lightburst (talk) 22:49, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
•  Note:I'm trying to have a discussion, which you seem to be against. Note Lightburst's inability and/or unwillingness to defend/discuss his simple, unsubstantiated claim. WP:NEXIST is not satisfied per outside existing sources found that still do not substantiate this person's notability beyond mere mentions and non-notable events per GNG, BASIC and PERP. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 23:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Sigh. Look at this record on this AfD and tell me a casual observer wouldn't consider your involvement
  WP:BLUDGEONING at this point. I suggest you take a step back and let the editors state their opinions. Lightburst (talk) 23:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• This is a case of whether Anna Genovese meets notability guidelines. Perhaps I've commented too much, (pointing to the history is unfair and unrepresentative though as much of those edits are stylistic) however, when editors such as yourself unsubstantially claim they meet notability guidelines, are we not to show reasons, quoting the guide, of how they do not? Are we not to respond to fellow editors who respond back? At a RfA, are votes not taken seriously when they are not backed up and are called upon by other editors to expand on their vote? Lightburst, I am not trying to get you to change your vote, once again, I am simply trying to understand why you are not willing and/or able to defend/discuss your simple, unsubstantiated claim if this article actually meets the guidelines you have mentioned, when the sources mentioned here and researched by other editors and Rebecca do not appear to do so as I have shown above. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 23:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 23:59, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment
  WP:OR, apart from the fact that census returns are primary sources and may not refer to the same person. What they do give me, and the reason why I search on websites like Ancestry, is more information to use in searches of secondary sources. Searching any database, whether it's digitised newspapers or Google, does not immediately bring up all possible results - in digitised sources, sometimes the OCR fails, and in Google, perhaps it's their algorithms, I don't know. Providing more information in the source, or using other search terms, can find results that are otherwise missed. Please do not use links I have saved in work in progress to argue about a subject's notability - there is a reason that I have not (yet) added them to the article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:41, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. At a WP:COMMONSENSE level,
  WP:RS/P. In addition, RebeccaGreen's, and other, references also support broader WP:GNG. There is certainly no consensus to delete this BLP (I was almost tempted to close it myself on that basis), however, there is also a clear consensus that it passes WP:BASIC as a Keep. Meeting WP:BASIC is not a legal concept, it is the consensus of a collection of Wikipedians following guidelines (not rules), as to what constitutes sufficient RS that can support a subject's GNG. I know that Vaselineeeeeeee has worked hard on this AfD, but they should listen to what other experienced Wikipedian's are saying – I have been there myself (many times); you go in with one view, and it gets completely turned, but that is what makes it interesting. Britishfinance (talk) 00:54, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

@Britishfinance: I'm still not convinced SIGCOV is satisfied because the 'significant coverage' are mostly non-substantial mentions, mainly for one event, mixed in with speculation about her sexuality and running a gay bar, which are non-notable, but I do respect your response and view. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 03:14, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:20, 6 November 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.

Kal Hourd

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

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

We seem to have another non-notable obscure Canadian country singer here.

• This article mentions that an astronaut was taking his music into space. The biggest coverage by far is that he was one of several musicians whose albums were taken into space by an astronaut -- which says more about the astronaut than it does about the musicians.

• His name shows up several times in the Regina Leader-Post, but nearly all of them are just directory listings of concerts, or fluff pieces like the above that have little to say other than "Kal saw his own album at Walmart". For instance, this is just a fluff piece about him performing at a local bar, larded with a bunch of name-dropping and non-notable awards (Saskatchewan Country Music Awards do not seem to be a major third-party award that would meet
  WP:NMUSIC
  #8) to make him seem more accomplished than he really is in a "local boy makes good" way. No newspaper other than the Leader-Post has given him even the faintest of mentions, and he doesn't seem to have ever performed significantly outside of SK except at one non-notable festival.

• His only album turns up absolutely zero reviews, despite having a fairly unique title which is unlikely to be conducive to false positives or difficulty in finding proper sources.

• Zero results on americanradiohistory.com, a site that archives many multi-national music publications, including Canadian ones.

• His name is so obscure that Google keeps trying to autocorrect it to "Kal Hours".

While he does meet

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:30, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep So, as well as having a charting single, he won a rising star award at the 2007 Saskatchewan Country Music Association Awards [7], and three awards at the 2010 Saskatchewan Country Music Association Awards (single of the year; album of the year; song of the year) [8]; and song of the year award in 2012 [9]. There's a review of the album in the Star-Phoenix [10] (a newspaper other than the Leader-Post) (that's what should be in the article, but it had a url for a completely different newspaper article). More coverage of his album going into space in the Star-Phoenix [11]. His song When Pink Is Just a Color Again was the
  Pink Ribbon International official song in 2009 [12]. I have clipped the "Kal saw his own album at Walmart" article and will add it to this article - it says a bit more than that, actually. I'll add these sources and information to the article, and anything else I find. (I don't think "autotext knows the name" is a criterion of any notability guidelines.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:47, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• @
  WP:NMUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:00, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep as enough sources have been identified above to show a pass of
  WP:NMUSIC criteria 2 and as the article is being improved there is no longer a requirement for deletion, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:58, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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.

Withlocals

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

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

Company ad-like entry, most of references are blogs, press releases and primary. A few mentions in passing. Some usual startup trivial coverage related to fundraising. There is a piece about it in

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:22, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:22, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (Note, I'm article's author).

I have gone through google-scholar today and added 6 academic references to the lead paragraph (tightening that section up in the process). I acknowledge that these academic articles only refer to Withlocals in order to illustrate their wider points but I believe they collectively help demonstrate that the organisation is sufficiently notable to be seen as representative of trends about the 'sharing economy' and 'gastronomic tourism' - particularly in southeast asia, the market where the company focused initially. I would also argue that the "horizon 2020" - from the European Commission grant makes it notable on the basis that they've won a government-funded support 'prize'.

As a side point, given that you took the time to check the edit history you will have noticed that the article had been being expanded daily - I hadn't abandoned it. I'd have appreciated if you would have brought your concerns about the notability of the article to me directly (e.g. pinging me on its talkpage) rather than going straight for the deletion nomination which starts a ticking-clock. Late last week I also asked the organisation itself if they had any other press-clippings they had collected, and if they could provide some free-licensed multimedia, to supplement the article - so that might come in soon too. As you state yourself Piotrus, you know and trust me so you're not claiming this is drive-by spam: my motivation for creating the article is that I recently signed-up to be a local guide on this platform in my home city, and was doing research about it in the process. Wittylama 10:58, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was probably a bit too hasty. The odds are good that this will be kept, but I'd appreciate a third party looking at this before I consider withdrawing my vote. AfD, in the end, are the only place we can count on attracting more editors to comment on such issues. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:25, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There seems to be enough independent coverage to meet
  WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 16:37, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent
  reliable sources
  .
  1. Coldwell, Will (2016-10-17). "Regional know-how: the best websites for contacting local guides". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2019-11-04. Retrieved 2019-11-04.
  2. Carter, Jamie (2018-08-01). "Three apps and websites that offer travellers a local experience, and make sure money you spend benefits people on the ground". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2019-11-04. Retrieved 2019-11-04.
  3. Marcela, Ana (2016-01-19). "Withlocals chega a Lisboa e Porto" [Withlocals arrives in Lisbon and Porto]. pt:Dinheiro Vivo (jornal) (in Portuguese). Archived from the original on 2019-11-04. Retrieved 2019-11-04.
  4. Verstegen, Gert-Jan (2017-10-11). "Eindhovense startup Withlocals haalt 3,5 miljoen euro op" [Eindhoven startup Withlocals raises 3.5 million euros] (in Dutch). RTL Nieuws. Archived from the original on 2019-11-04. Retrieved 2019-11-04.
  5. O'Hear, Steve (2013-09-16). "Withlocals Raises $500K For Its Local Travel Experiences Marketplace Targeting Southeast Asia". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 2019-11-04. Retrieved 2019-11-04.

  Sources with quotes

  Coldwell, Will (2016-10-17). "Regional know-how: the best websites for contacting local guides". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2019-11-04. Retrieved 2019-11-04. The article notes: With Locals More intimate travel experiences can be found through the With Locals site. While Trip4Real is still predominantely focused on Western Europe, With Locals has a big spread in Asia, with activities and tours (mainly food/dining related) to book everywhere from Indonesia to Sri Lanka, Thailand to the Philippines. These include an organic home-cooked meal in a bamboo house in Bali, tea-tasting in Old Bangkok and a riverside picnic in Saigon. Carter, Jamie (2018-08-01). "Three apps and websites that offer travellers a local experience, and make sure money you spend benefits people on the ground". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2019-11-04. Retrieved 2019-11-04. The article notes: WithLocals Much like social dining app EatWith, this distinctly Airbnb-style app includes food tours run by local people, but also quirky walking tours and other guided experiences. Examples include “The Only Authentic Cu Chi Tunnels Tour With a Local” in Ho Chi Minh City, “Gordon Ramsay’s Favourite Thai Food Tour” in Bangkok, and “Magical Harry Potter Walking Tour With a True Fan” in London. For each tour there are extensive descriptions, detailed itineraries, photos and plenty of reviews, and everything can be booked and arranged via the app. What makes this different to EatWith is that for each experience you get a choice of hosts; each provides a short video introduction, and you can even start an online chat with them. WithLocals offers more than 1,200 experiences in 50 cities in 22 countries, but it lacks a map of the world with its activities plotted, which would avoid the inevitable disappointment of searching for a destination that is not yet covered. Marcela, Ana (2016-01-19). "Withlocals chega a Lisboa e Porto" [Withlocals arrives in Lisbon and Porto]. pt:Dinheiro Vivo (jornal) (in Portuguese). Archived from the original on 2019-11-04. Retrieved 2019-11-04. From Google Translate: Learning to make tiles or getting to know Lisbon on a Vespa are two of the offers that the Withlocals network is offering to tourists who want to know Lisbon and Porto, but with a different twist: the experiences are with and organized with the locals. The international network starts in the Portuguese market from this Tuesday. Portugal is the fifth European country to host Withlocals, being the 15th country in the network founded in 2013 in Asia by two Dutch. ”Portugal was in our expansion plans since we launched in Europe and we have been monitoring how things have evolved in the world. says Madalina Buzdugan, communication manager of Withlocals a Vivo. “With Porto being voted Europe's hidden treasure several years in a row and Lisbon being recommended for its great value and authenticity, it was only natural that it was one of Withlocals' next destinations,” he adds. ... It all started when Marijn Maas and Willem Maas traveled to Asia. The experiences were different. Honeymooners Marijn Maas made the usual five-star hotel circuit, but the best memories were gathered at a meal at a local family's home, and the stories shared around a table. Willem Maas, after traveling 6 months around the region using local guides, concluded that in this relationship it was the travel agencies, not the guides, who made the most profits. Verstegen, Gert-Jan (2017-10-11). "Eindhovense startup Withlocals haalt 3,5 miljoen euro op" [Eindhoven startup Withlocals raises 3.5 million euros] (in Dutch). RTL Nieuws. Archived from the original on 2019-11-04. Retrieved 2019-11-04. The article notes: The Eindhoven-based company Withlocals, which links travelers to locals, has received an investment of 3.5 million euros. The startup acts as an online marketplace for private tours and activities on holiday. ... Now Withlocals is active in 24 cities. With the raised investment, 40 cities must be added, including New York and Hong Kong. "We need about three weeks for a new city. We search for guides on Facebook. We have a Skype conversation with those people. Anyone who remains is then looked up, and with that we do a demo tour," Keij tells RTL Z. ... Withlocals already has strong competition. Airbnb has been offering Airbnb Experiences for a while now. There too you can book activities directly with local residents. The difference lies in the way tours can be personalized. O'Hear, Steve (2013-09-16). "Withlocals Raises $500K For Its Local Travel Experiences Marketplace Targeting Southeast Asia". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 2019-11-04. Retrieved 2019-11-04. The article notes: Withlocals, a peer-to-peer marketplace for locals to offer travellers various experiences, such as tours, home dining, and other local activities, has raised $500,000 in funding from startup builder and backer Greenhouse Group. The Netherlands-founded startup will use the investment to launch out of beta this fall and, curiously, target Southeast Asia — a move it says differentiates itself from U.S. competitor Vayable. One way to think of Withlocals is as an Airbnb for travel experiences (in fact, rival Vayable has partnered with Airbnb). It enables locals to sell travel experiences within three categories: — “EAT Withlocals,” “TOURS Withlocals,” and “ACTIVITIES Withlocals” — the idea being to enable a more authentic travel experience for tourists while enabling locals to make money through the platform.

  There is sufficient coverage in
  reliable sources to allow Withlocals to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 01:41, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

  ]

Thanks for finding those references Cunard. I've added them in. Wittylama 12:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adding the sources, Wittylama. Thank you for withdrawing the AfD, Piotrus. Cunard (talk) 09:06, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdraw. The consensus seems pretty clear. Thanks for participating in the discussion, hope some further / new sources found can be used to expand this futher. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:09, 4 November 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:18, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Odii

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

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

Article doesn't establish notability. The content and references given are promotional in nature, lacks in-depth coverage from

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:08, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:08, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article have citations and references from credible sources establishing notablility. it was written in an objective and unbiased style and shows no conflict of interest. Keep Kojomo (talk) 14:30, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per
  WP:NOTLINKEDIN, essentially a personal bio that's SEOed out the max as well. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete
  WP:NOTRESUME is also relevant here. The citations offered to attempt to dress this out as an article are either not significant, not reliable, or not independent. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 07:27, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete -
  the coverage is shallow - lists of up-and-coming entrepreneurs under 30 and that ilk. If it is not deleted, I strongly urge a userfication to clean it up. Bearian (talk) 13:42, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• delete, notlinkedin.
  talk) 17:57, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Creator of article & subject of article may be familiar hence obstructing neutrality & causing
  WP:SIGCOV in reliable press to establish notability. Celestina007 (talk) 23:13, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete
  WP:NOTRESUME Wm335td (talk) 22:44, 7 November 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.

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

)

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

Appears to be a non notable fringe topic that has only 1 main proponent. Slatersteven (talk) 14:48, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - there don't appear to be independent sources that even comment about this theory. Clearly non-notable. --mikeu ^talk 14:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or weak delete works for me. The new Vail page seems like a good target. --mikeu ^talk 20:37, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked into this more I'm not sure that redirects like

Annular theory, Vailen theory, etc. add much value. Are these really terms that are widely referenced by modern creationists? I don't mind the redirects but I also don't see a compelling need for them to exist.[14][15] As an aside, Isaac Newton Vail is fascinating. I'm glad to see that this didn't fall through the cracks. --mikeu ^talk 15:20, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. Copying from its talk page: No relevance. The article includes two good references for things not related to Vail's invention, one reference to Vail and one reference to a single article discussing it, both over 100 years old. The Wikipedia article is full of misconceptions, misrepresentations of science and so on. --mfb (talk) 15:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect This is a poor article on one aspect of
  reliable sources such as Armstrong's 1988 'Evolution of Creationism' - yes, there's nutty physics, nutty geology, and creationism all rolled into one sticky ball; Vail is a major figure within Pseudoscience. I've written a short article on Vail and suggest that we Redirect to there. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:05, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Actually there's another possible redirect target at

Canopy theory redirects there. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Re-direct seems OK.Slatersteven (talk) 17:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirecting to Isaac Newton Vail would be OK, as would deleting outright (the page title is a bit too awkward to be a plausible search term). XOR'easter (talk) 20:52, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect as outdated non-notable fringe theory WegianWarrior (talk) 23:15, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Isaac Newton Vail. Flood geology#Canopy theory would be okay too, but there seems to be more support for the former. -Crossroads- (talk) 01:29, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Isaac Newton Vail. The section about the theory there has a “further information” link to the relevant section of the flood geology article, so both are covered. Brunton (talk) 07:55, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Vail article. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:40, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per
  WP:CHEAP. Bearian (talk) 20:40, 4 November 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. Stifle (talk) 14:12, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of members of Municipal Council Sopore

List of members of Municipal Council Sopore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
  Talk to my owner:Online 14:21, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:28, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:28, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:01, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Sopore is not a very large city and does not automatically need a its own article for the council. Merge to that article if you wish. Reywas92^Talk 18:51, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
  Talk to my owner:Online 01:12, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Move to Municipal Council Sopore. ミラP 14:40, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it falls short of
  WP:GNG Kb03 (talk) 15:25, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per
  consensus is unlikely to change soon. A smerger would not be out of the question. Bearian (talk) 13:48, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per Foarp Fails
  WP:SNG pass. Wm335td (talk) 22:33, 7 November 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) 15:32, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Imsk

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

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

Non-notable fictional topic. TTN (talk) 14:18, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:18, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:18, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I can't find anything notable from
  WP:BEFORE, either, and there's almost no content anyway. Doesn't look like it would be a primary topic anyway, although the other acronyms would have different capitalization. A PROD probably would have worked based on the age of the article, the small history of edits, and the number of watchers being <30 people. -2pou (talk) 17:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete I was not able to find any reliable, secondary sources discussing this fictional planet at all. Rorshacma (talk) 19:00, 31 October 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) 15:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

White Triangle

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

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

Non-notable fictional topic. TTN (talk) 14:18, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:18, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:18, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Non-notable._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:03, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I hate to say fancruft, as a fan, but that's what it is. Bearian (talk) 20:41, 4 November 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.

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

)

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

Non-notable fictional topic. TTN (talk) 14:13, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:13, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:13, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Non-notable._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:03, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to
  Legion of Superheroes. While lacking the reliable secondary sources needed to support an independent article, it is a major element of the Legion of Superheroes mythos, and is already discussed on the target page, making it a valid Redirect candidate. My only real concern is that its a pretty vague/generic title. Rorshacma (talk) 18:37, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Updated I was actually getting behind some of these planet deletions in AfD or PROD, but when searching for one of the others, I came across these articles, both of which are directly about "United Planets", so unfortunately, I can't back this one. More so since it showed up so high in my search for a distinct article.  

1. Brian Bendis Bringing the Legion’s United Planets into DC Continuity at Bleeding Cool
2. Legion of Super-Heroes: What You Need to Know About the United Planets at CBR

I don't exactly think it's a good article, but if GNG/Notability is the basis for removal, I don't think those particular arguments hold water. -2pou (talk) 20:14, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Neither of those have anything that can actually be added to the article, so not sure why you think they're particularly relevant. It's just a "here's an in-universe summary of something slightly relevant to recent comic news." TTN (talk) 20:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that they don't add to the article, but that isn't really what I was trying to do. I also don't particularly care if the article is kept or not; I simply don't think that a valid reason for deletion has been presented thus far. I might be able to look for one, but I don't have any interest in doing additional research into reasons for deletion. I'll look at them if presented to me (or abstain), but the ones that are always in my mind are notability and copyright. Notability is the only thing that has been presented thus far.
I find the articles relevant simply in establishing notability. Yes, there is in-universe content in there, but when I read GNG, these are the bullet points to hit:
✓Significant - The topic is definitely directly addressed, and in detail
✓Reliable - Both sites have editors
✓Sources (plural) - There are two
✓Independent - Both sites are not affiliated with DC
I assume that when you bring up in-universe, you are suggesting that this negates the significant coverage piece. That may be true in some cases, but I personally don't think making a hard and fast rule linking those two is valid—it is a case-by-case evaluation. In this particular case, two separate sites have felt the need to publish news about the article in question. In doing so, they use a lot of in-universe material, but it is done in order to establish context and help explain why they felt the need to write an article directly about the topic. I would feel differently if this was an issue recap that simply says these things happened. That's just my take, though. If no-one agrees, that's OK. If not kept, I'd lean towards Rorschacma's redirect suggestion over deletion. -2pou (talk) 21:55, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional topics need to have real world information per

WP:PLOT, so a source that provides no real world information cannot be called significant coverage. You also need to look at those articles in the full context of those sites. Those kind of "what is this obscure topic being brought into relevance by a recent event" articles are a dime a dozen. Similar to how Top X lists deserve less weight than other articles, cookie cutter articles like that are nothing more than a means of catching relevant search results for a niche topical event in that sphere of influence. TTN (talk) 22:05, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you! That is overall a different argument, though I see your link. This was fun. -2pou (talk) 22:28, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per Rorshacma and cheap. -2pou (talk) 22:28, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to
  Legion of Superheroes.4meter4 (talk) 22:20, 6 November 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) 15:37, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ADV Group

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

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

Article doesn't establish notability. The references given are promotional in nature, fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 06:47, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable company.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. I can't see how this marketing company is anything other than
  run of the mill. Bearian (talk) 20:42, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete I am unable to locate any
  HighKing⁺⁺ 17:28, 5 November 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) 15:40, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shree Talakchand Zabakba Visalpur Sarvajanik High School

Shree Talakchand Zabakba Visalpur Sarvajanik High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable. Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the

want to talk? 06:10, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:25, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:25, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. If it actually exists, there's a longstanding consensus that high school articles are generally notable. tedder (talk) 09:32, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

want to talk? 03:37, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

@Tedder: that consensus changed in February 2017 RFC :) —usernamekiran(talk) 10:50, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the mass approval of allowing articles just because they exist without adequate sourcing was a horrible decision and needs to be ended.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:58, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to a lack of available sources with which to meet
  WP:GNG. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:29, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete fails
  WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 13:48, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - it appears to be
  a run of the mill school. Bearian (talk) 20:49, 4 November 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. With respect to "User:DGG, the subject is actually notable to a great extent. ", we generally want evidence of notability, not a mere assertion that it exists. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:54, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Oladipupo

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

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

the references that are not their own publications are a combination of PR and mentions, and do not show notability DGG ( talk ) 06:10, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• User:DGG, the subject is actually notable to a great extent. References deemed PR should be pulled off although they provide information about the subject which I made neutral. Mutiat Mustapha (talk) 19:57, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:24, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:24, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -
  he owns stuff. Bearian (talk) 20:49, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete The sources presented are a combination of promotional PR and passing mentions. Nothing that suggests significant coverage in reliable, independent sources is apparent in the article or in searches. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 07:05, 7 November 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.

Hise Model A

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

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

A company which only developed one aircraft, of which they only built a prototype. The only book that has given it any attention is this, a highly specialized 127 page book that spends 4 lines on this plane. If even the source where you could expect to find most information on this, only has so little to say about it (and no other sources could be found[16]), then it seems to lack the required

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Fram (talk) 12:37, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Fram (talk) 12:37, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. I can find virtually nothing (beyond the brief mention in that single source) about Fred Hise, his company (was it actually even a company?), or this plane. Effectively, all that we can say is "A guy built a slightly distinctive plane in Michigan in the 1920s" and ... that's not enough to clear the notability bar absent additional sources. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:02, 30 October 2019 (UTC) Yeah, okay, so my source searching on this was clearly wasn't up to my usual standards. That said, I think we're best off with a Move here, to Hise Aircraft Corporation as nearly all the sources are more directly about the company than their prototype plane. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 23:36, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• A brief mention here on p507 of a report in the US journal Aviation on the 1929 Cleveland airshow, where it was exhibited, together with specifications here (p508) and a mention of a revised version [17] (registration required I'm afraid) - not a huge amount, but can fill out the article a little.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:47, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the sources and detail that User:RecycledPixels added demonstrate that SGNG is met, so Keep.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:10, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Found some additional sources, and even a photograph from the Smithsonian (maybe). The company received an order for 5 aircraft valued at $100,000 ($1,500,000 today) but the airline purchasing the planes had its authorization to sell stock yanked because it spent all of its money on the planes, leaving nothing for operations. I only have Google snippet view of the "Orders and Opinions of the Michigan Public Service Commission" source, but that may provide additional information if someone has better access to it. I haven't spent a ton of time digging around this, but I suspect the cancelled order plus the onset of the Great Depression led to the demise of the company. So it's not really about a guy who built one airplane and flew it once. RecycledPixels (talk) 20:57, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  The image that I found and uploaded was apparently put on Flickr by a user on the Commons blacklist who is known for misrepresenting the copyright status of their images. So it might not be usable. RecycledPixels (talk) 00:14, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn, thanks for all the improvements and finding sources which were not easily accessible.
  Fram (talk) 06:49, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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.

Rebecca Campbell (educator)

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

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

Subject, Rebecca Campbell, would like article removed Feeneyh (talk) 14:26, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 14:29, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 14:29, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 14:29, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 20:00, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Is this a genuine request by a 1 edit Spa? If not, its a slam-dunk Keep (to use a sports metaphor, hopefully correctly). Xxanthippe (talk) 21:32, 22 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. 32 publications with over 100 cites each and an h-index of 55 [18] is an easy pass of
  WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, but only with stronger evidence that the request actually comes from the subject, and even then I think she's too prominent for that to work. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:01, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment. No evidence has been supplied that the deletion request is genuine. I suggest that AfD nominations should not be allowed, except through an admin, until a user is
  WP:extended confirmed. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:43, 25 October 2019 (UTC).[reply
  ]
• Comment - regarding the level of evidence needed to indicate that the subject would like deletion is interesting. We frequently accept users who take a username indicating the person more directly as indication - despite no more evidence on them (e.g. the recent Mark Lindquist AfD).
  OTRS is the more preferred route, though obviously the subject has to agree to have their confirmation made public. This comment is not a commentary on the notability (or lack) of the subject Nosebagbear (talk) 19:22, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - full professor at a large research university with significant research (and
  a marginal case or a minor (e.g. child actor). I've reached out via email to the subject. Bearian (talk) 20:09, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep No evidence that the subject wants deletion, no reason given for proposed deletion, article complies with policy. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 12:36, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - After I emailed the subject, I received a reply email from her requesting deletion due to emailed threats on her work email, connected from an external link on the article. It seems that disturbed persons are finding her email address via a link from her Wikipedia page, and emailing her weekly threats of a serious and credible nature. In lieu of deletion, I also requested long-term semi-protection on WP:RFPP. Bearian (talk) 13:09, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ymblanter protected for 1 week, which I've increased to 2 to cover the potential length of the AfD. If the page isn't deleted, a further discussion can be had as to long-term protection Nosebagbear (talk) 13:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Subject easily passes
  notability requirements. --Darth Mike^(talk) 14:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete I have reconsidered my !vote in the light of Bearian's further information, and now I tip over to the "delete" side. XOR'easter (talk) 14:50, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pinging Xxanthippe, David Eppstein, and Roxy, the dog who referred to the lack of confirmation. XOR'easter (talk) 14:58, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, very sadly, on account of Bearian's remarks and with thanks for his initiative. Removing a link is, in my view, insufficient. Thincat (talk) 14:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• comment we appear to be being asked to delete our encyclopaedic article because the subjects email address is on the subjects workplace website? Roxy, the dog. wooF 15:34, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. So we are to have no coverage on researchers of sexual violence because the crazies will seek them out and harass them? That seems like an inappropriate outcome. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:13, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This is a significant and difficult issue. I can appreciate arguments on either side. In this particular case the abused email address is of msu origin. I note that many institutions do not make public the email addresses of their staff (which makes it harder for both ill wishers and well wishers to contact the staff). The problem is with the msu website, not with Wikipedia. Perhaps the best solution would be for msu to change her work email and remove it from public view rather than delete the Wikipedia BLP. My earlier keep is maintained as the reported reason for deletion is not sufficient. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:18, 30 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]

The problem arose from lax security of the subject's web site. Wikipedia was not to blame. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:57, 31 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]

• I guess the best argument for "keep" that I could make is that it's on MSU to implement some basic #@%&#!-ing precautions, and perhaps it's too late for anything we do to make a real difference. I mulled that over, failed to be satisfied by any course of action, and ended up less unsatisfied with "delete" than with "keep". XOR'easter (talk) 02:25, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, to give my take on this after !voting delete. I think we should delete the article because the subject asked us to, not specifically because of links or email addresses, not because of the nature of her research. I don't think WP would be significantly harmed in this particular instance though I do realise that deletion might be seen as the start of an undesirable trend. In balancing encyclopedic comprehensiveness against reducing personal risk (or fear of risk), on the whole, I think the latter is more important. Thincat (talk) 08:41, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since everybody is commenting, I just spent a trivially easy two minutes finding her email and phone number, in numerous places. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 08:52, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Delete per Thincat. It’s unfortunate that it has come to this, but I can’t on good conscience say that we should ignore the subject’s request on something like this especially given the ongoing harassment which may be linked to our page. Michepman (talk) 15:30, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The harassment is not linked to Wikipedia, which does not give her email address. Her email address (and telephone number) are on her own public web site and many other places on the web, the former also on her

Google scholar profile, but not on Wikipedia. Any connection of the harassment to Wikipedia is unproven. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:44, 1 November 2019 (UTC).[reply

]

• Comment. E-mails on her WP BLP cannot be the source of the problem as her details are easily searchable online. In such cases I would be suspicious that there is some unfavourable content in the BLP that the subject does not like, however, in this case, I don't think any such unfavourable content exists? It is possible that her work leads her to give testimony in court cases, for which she can be harassed by defendants etc. However, I am still not sure that deleting her WP BLP would give her much additional anonymity in regard to this, given it is just a collection of public sources? Perhaps a follow-up e-mail could be sent to the subject outlining these points (which are also made above by other editors), so she could clarify her rationale? Britishfinance (talk) 10:41, 6 November 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, but start move discussion. OK, from reading this discussion it seems like the concerns are less with the existence of the article and more about the title it currently resides under as it's not clear that it should be called a "conspiracy theory". What little discussion on the first point there is does not clearly indicate a consensus for either deletion or keeping, so no consensus. On the name question it seems like there is a consensus that the current name is inappropriate, but AFD isn't the correct venue for discussing article renames. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:14, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

War against Islam conspiracy theory

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

)

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

This started as a redirect. User:Bless sins removed the redirect in May 2006 but left the title - the lead started "War on Islam is a term used by some Muslims and westerners alike to describe military actions taken against Muslims by Western powers, prior to and after 9/11." and the text didn't mention a conspiracy theory. The lead later called it a neologism - the phrase "conspiracy theory" was only added in July 2016, without source.[21] Even today the only use of the phrase is in the lead where it's used twice. and much if not most of it doesn't seem based on sources talking about a conspiracy theory but about the "English-language political neologism of "War on Islam" which the article says was only popularized as a conspiracy theory after 2001 - although the source, pp. 559 and 560 of this book[22] seems to be referring to 9/11 conspiracy theories.[23] So no sources that I've checked so far call it a conspiracy theory. Doug Weller talk 11:58, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Doug Weller talk 11:58, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 12:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 12:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• There appear to be a number of sourced uses of the term, or of language consistent with the idea of organized western hostility against the Islamic world, in the article. Having said that, the organization of the article is not great, and there is some questionable material. For instance, the article cites the billion bibles website, which appears to be beyond "fringe." There may be some value in trying to clean up the article. EastTN (talk) 20:08, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• @EastTN: what sources use the phrase "conspiracy theory" to describe a war on Islam? Doug Weller talk 13:50, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Doug Weller: Sorry, I didn't catch that the use of the term "conspiracy theory" was your core concern. That's my mistake - I should have read more carefully. While I personally think it has many of the hallmarks of a conspiracy theory, I wouldn't be opposed to changing the article title to something more neutral. Perhaps we could just delete the word "conspiracy" and make it "War Against Islam theory"? EastTN (talk) 15:21, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @EastTN: maybe, see the descriptions at War as metaphor and Anti-Islam for that title. Let's see what others say, and in any case it's a bit of a mess. Doug Weller talk 16:24, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @
        Christmas Controversies". Could we do something similar and go with something like "War against Islam Controversy"? EastTN (talk) 17:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
        ]

But, it is not a coordinated effort as is claimed by the three aforementioned Muslim leaders. Yet, going back to the 1980s and the time of Ayatollah Khomeini, the west was indeed involved in a proxy war against the Islamic state known as Iran. The Unites States was allied with Saddam Hussein's Iraq, which was at war with Iran. Millions did die on both sides. From the intro in the Wikipedia article entitled Iran–Iraq War, it says -- "The United States, Britain, the Soviet Union, France, and most Arab countries provided political and logistic support for Iraq, while Iran was largely isolated."

So, from the Muslim perspective, millions have been killed with support form the West. Anyway, whatever is here, is not really a conspiracy theory. Also, saying "conspiracy theory" in this context seems to disregard any validity that Islam is denigrated by other people and other groups. Then there is the "racial" or "ethnic" memory of the Crusades, where Christianity was involved. I'm going to keep reviewing this. At this moment I am agreeing "theory" would be a much better than conspiracy theory, due to its neutral wording. But, is "War against Islam" a real thing?

There is no declared war against Islam on the planet. The only perceived War on Islam (in the West), that I can recall at the moment is the several Crusades. Other than that I am not sure we can include that in the title. Wikipedia reports what reliable secondary sources say. Was the war between Iraq and Iran a War on Islam? I don't know how to answer that. I can say from the West's perspective, it was a war for disputed territory between to countries - but is that the accurate perspective? Sorry, for such a long post. ---Steve Quinn (talk)

• "...it is not a coordinated effort as is claimed by the three aforementioned Muslim leaders." My sense is that the article was originally intended to discuss the claims made by Muslim leaders such as these that there is a widespread, coordinated effort by the West to attack the Islamic world as a whole. If so, the challenge is figuring out what to call that claim. Language like "War on Islam" and "War against Islam" has been used to describe the idea. But we need to avoid implicitly endorsing the idea that there is such a coordinated effort, given that many Westerners deny that it exists. We also need to be careful that we don't confuse the idea with other concepts, such as wars fought for territorial reasons or to suppress terrorism. EastTN (talk) 22:59, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• OK I see what you're saying. I think it is worth it to find a title because their rhetoric has been heard by many and resonated with many. The rhetoric seems to have historical impact looking to the past and for the implications for the future. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 00:45, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I haven't had time to look this over as in-depth as I would like. But so far, from what I have read, I think "War on Islam" as part of the title is not a bad idea. It's as much a hyperbole as the other article titles mentioned and it speaks to what we have been discussing. Perhaps one of the following would work: "War on Islam theory"; "Concept of War on Islam"; "War on Islam concept"; "War on Islam ideology"; "...philosophy"; "...position"; "...premise"; "...system"; "...rationale"; and so on. I prefer not to use "theory" because I think it will appear to be a made up topic. The others seem equally OK. I will have to mull them over. In any case, how do these proposed titles come across to others?---Steve Quinn (talk) 13:07, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not too hung up on the specific word we use. Of the options you threw out, I like "Concept of War on Islam", "War of Islam theory" and "War of Islam concept" in declining order of preference. But honestly, I think any of them would be better than what we have, so I'm not inclined to arm-wrestle over which one we use. EastTN (talk) 15:07, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• No time right now, but I hate the overuse of "theory" - it's often not appropriate and I don't think it is here. "Charges of/there there is" or something similar? Doug Weller talk 16:09, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm fine with not using the word "theory". I could live with "Charges of..." I also like "Concept of War against Islam" or "War against Islam Controversy". EastTN (talk) 16:27, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm glad we have a few people involved in this discussion. It seems we can throw around some good ideas. Let's give more time for Doug to chime in again. It seems he wants to say more.

So, this is good. "Charges of War on Islam" is accurate, Concept of War On Islam is good. "War Against Islam controversy" is OK, but I'm not sure it is a controversy. Taken from the view of the Muslim leaders I don't see an actual controversy. What they are saying is straightforward and I don't see anyone debating them. I don't see corruption emanating from their organizations. I don't see anyone challenging them in the domain they occupy.

To give a little contrast, even though I am guessing we all know this - there are moderate political forces in Iran, sometimes the pendulum swings their way, but they still answer to or are beholden to the more conservative domains - seemingly without controversy. Hopefully, this make sense. If it doesn't please feel free to chime in. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:29, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I completely agree with waiting for Doug to weigh in again. And I would be comfortable with any of those three titles. As an aside, I don't think "controversy" is unfair. There may be broad agreement within the Islamic world. However, we have documented sources for prominent Western leaders such as Obama and Bush denying the existence of the kind of coordinated "war" that Qutb, Khomeini and bin Laden allege. Salman Rushdie's comments seem relevant here too. So if we look beyond the Islamic world, it does seem to me that there's a real and significant disagreement about whether this "War on Islam" exists, and if it does, what the nature of it is. That's why I would be comfortable with "controversy" as well as "Charges" or "Concept".

(Just for the record, I think we've both waffled between "War against Islam" and "War on Islam". The two seem equivalent to me, and I'd be comfortable with either one.) EastTN (talk) 23:47, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch on "War on Islam". I missed that. That is an error on my part - I meant to stick with "War Against Islam." Yet, I agree the two seem equivalent to me as well. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:48, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you make a good point that this can be construed as a controversy, when looking at the bigger picture. Thanks. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:50, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Doug Weller: Doug, do you have any additional thoughts, or are you comfortable with the direction we're headed in? Thanks. EastTN (talk) 20:04, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks! That works for me. Steve, does that work for you? EastTN (talk) 21:24, 4 November 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.

I've history merged it into the (declined) draft at Draft:Shikha Chhabra. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shikha Chhabra

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

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

Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Andrew Base (talk) 11:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:01, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:21, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:21, 30 October 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) 16:26, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2017–18 Burgos CF season

2017–18 Burgos CF season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not meet

2016–17 Burgos CF season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 12:14, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 12:14, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:15, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG and NSEASONS. Can't fail
  WP:NFOOTBALL as that applies to biographies. GiantSnowman 09:16, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - Fails
  WP:GNG HawkAussie (talk) 21:45, 4 November 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.

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

)

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