Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 September 11

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:12, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tools of trade

Tools of trade (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)

Lacks any citations, orphaned and likely fails WP:Notability. I have also some concerns that this article is simply a copy-paste job. With the text taken from another website. Theprussian (talk) 14:04, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:08, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I don't think it's copied from another website (rather, wikiscrapers have copied this article), but as it stands this article is nothing more than a
  bankruptcy law but there's no reason at all for this to be a stand-alone article. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 14:24, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. [now Neutral, see below.] The "tools of trade" bankruptcy exemption is real, but it's only one of many exemptions in the US bankruptcy act, and I would expect the same in the bankruptcy laws of other countries.

In the US it's in 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(1)(B)(ii): "implements, professional books, or tools, of the trade of the debtor or the trade of a dependent of the debtor". The fact that it's buried as part of a sub-sub-sub-sub-section is perhaps indicative of how deep in the details this is.

A quick search shows the subject mentioned in a significant number of law journals, but I found only one article (Craig Kendall, Bankruptcy: Debtor's Tools of the Trade are Defined by the Use Test, 30 Washburn L.J. 127 (1990)) that specifically discussed it -- and that was only because the article is a summary of the not-particularly-notable case In re Heape, 886 F.2d 280 (10th Cir. 1989), where the term figured. The subject was not written about because "tools of trade" was itself worth discussing; but only because the definition of the term as an issue in the case being explained.

As May His Shadow Fall Upon You suggests, it may be worth including in Bankruptcy#Debts_and_exemptions, but that's about it. TJRC (talk) 20:19, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - in addition to usage in Bankruptcy law (whihc is not just in the USA), the term is also used in taxation law for the purpose of assessing equipment used for carrying out their work to produce assessable income. It's more than a dictionary definition. Bookscale (talk) 10:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really? To me, it just really feels like just banking terminology.Theprussian (talk) 15:48, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's used for one purpose in bankruptcy, and another way in tax, then they're two different concepts -- one a bankruptcy exemption and one a... assessment criterion? In which case they would be in two different articles, not shoehorned into one. The only reason to cover multiple uses in one article would be to provide multiple definitions... and you're basically arguing it's a
    WP:DICDEF. TJRC (talk) 03:11, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Comment - tools of the trade are a concept used across many jobs and professions; for examples, construction workers buy their own wrenches and some teachers buy their own school supplies. Tool of the Trade is a SF book that is probably not notable. Not sure what we should do here. Bearian (talk) 18:43, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:HEYMANN (and further expansion is possible) and the fact the topic satisfies GNG. The article is not a dictionary definition now. The exemption is not confined to bankruptcy as it applies, for example, to any High Court writ of execution and certain other powers of seizure in England. That said I think the article should possibly be moved and expanded to cover the related exemptions, especially the exemption for items needed for domestic purposes. James500 (talk) 08:00, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not convinced it should be kept, but the changes made have made me less adamant, and I've revised my not-vote to "neutral" above.

I don't have access to the newly-cited sources, but from the titles, none of them sound like they are particularly about the subject matter of the article; they're about bankruptcy, and, as expected, "tools of the trade" will get some small treatment in any significant discussion of bankruptcy exceptions.

But now, although it probably still shouldn't be kept, it's

mostly harmless, and its retention doesn't particularly bother me. (My internal metric for an article like this is more like PROD-level; if someone objects to its removal, as here, I won't push for it.) TJRC (talk) 23:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep obviously notable.
  b} 12:50, 12 September 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.

Beverley Thompson

Beverley Thompson (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 (former) regional TV presenter. No RS. - Funky Snack (Talk) 13:04, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

- talk 13:36, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

- talk 13:36, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

- talk 13:36, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

- talk 13:36, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Bet this can be improved. Hyperbolick (talk) 13:43, 28 August 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. There was no support for the arguments of notability put forward by IacobusViridis and the policy explanations of delete voters establishes a consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:51, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Irkutsk Ice Truckers

Irkutsk Ice Truckers (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)

I can find no evidence of notability. I see that their book is "independently published". Doug Weller talk 18:17, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Doug Weller talk 18:17, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not notable - all the sources except one are related to the website and not independent, while the one is a blog - not reliable. Searches find nothing significant to show notability. It’s the electronic equivalent of a student magazine, of little importance outside of the college. Neiltonks (talk) 22:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that Irkutsk Ice Truckers News is quite small and locally focused, it has a national readership with many unaffiliated with the school in New York, Connecticut, and Indiana anecdotally reading it, for example. The website in question Irkutsk Ice Truckers already has more content than the similarly satirical long-running and much more known Eye of the Tiber.

Although Irkutsk Ice Truckers News (IIT), again may be locally focused, its humor is similarly applicable far outside of the region of where many of its editors happen to reside. The site is in fact shared among many other similar schools including Thomas Aquinas College (California/Massachusetts), Christendom College, and Northeast Catholic College. Irkutsk Ice Truckers carries news relating to these schools, in fact and has writers on staff from even outside of these circles.

Irkutsk Ice Truckers and its staff have been made mention of within the official Wyoming Catholic College curriculum with Everett Polinski, its founder, in particular, being the study of a dialogue written by professor and former dean of the college, Dr. Jeremy Holmes that is part of the Freshman Theology sequence.

Again, Irkutsk Ice Truckers is small and would not merit a page in a printed encyclopedia obviously. But its strong and growing in readership, news coverage, and quality as its staff continues to grow. On a free and expansive platform like Wikipedia, however, where there are no constraints like those with printed encyclopedias, there is space, I believe for the sharing of brief factual explanation. IIT's open lampooning of the absurdities often present within Catholic liberal arts colleges and their broader universe of related thought will only continue to get more popular as it is the only full-blown site in this niche.

Thanks for the shot at least, IacobusViridis (talk) 22:51, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm afraid I don't see any substantial reliable secondary sources on a website that's less than a year old. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:17, 16 September 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.

Kevin Cavenaugh

Kevin Cavenaugh (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 outside of his company, promotional content, lacks

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. J947 ^(c), at 04:50, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. J947 ^(c), at 04:50, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Disclaimer: Stub creator. I say keep or move to Guerrilla Development because there should be an article for at least one of these subjects. Searching "Kevin Cavenaugh" at Google yields 14,000+ returns and 680 news sources. He and his company are associated with many architecture projects, and some sources describe his personal biography. Here are just a few to consider after a quick Google search:
  • https://www.pdxmonthly.com/articles/2016/9/21/maverick-portland-developer-kevin-cavenaugh-builds-diamonds-of-design-in-the-urban-rough
  • https://www.bizjournals.com/portland/news/2018/10/25/how-developer-kevin-cavenaugh-is-building.html
  • https://www.wweek.com/culture/2018/02/14/our-developers-are-privatizing-socialism/
  • https://www.sunset.com/food-wine/design-ideas-that-matter-qa-with-kevin-cavenaugh
  • https://www.minnpost.com/politics-policy/2018/03/one-crazy-idea-developing-better-projects-minneapolis-build-smaller/
  • http://djcoregon.com/news/2011/12/27/kevin-cavenaugh-is-back-with-a-new-idea-for-food-carts/
  • https://www.portlandmercury.com/the-design-issue-2016/2016/04/13/17874598/kevin-cavenaughs-art-of-risk
  • https://pdx.eater.com/2017/12/15/16779022/pub-at-the-end-of-the-universe-new-owner-pdx-portland
  • https://www.theringer.com/2018/8/16/17692852/han-oak-restaurant-peter-cho-portland
  • https://www.koin.com/news/business/portland-boss-takes-cut-to-make-equal-pay-a-reality/1389594534
  • https://www.koin.com/local/multnomah-county/guerrilla-developments-bold-plan-to-end-homelessness/
  • https://www.oregonlive.com/frontporch/2010/02/kevin_cavenaugh_sued_over_loan.html
  • https://www.architectmagazine.com/awards/residential-architect-design-awards/box-one-lofts-portland-ore_o
  • https://www.camaspostrecord.com/news/2019/jan/24/rig-a-hut-opens-in-downtown-washougal/
• There are many others, so I could see an overview of architectural and other projects. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:40, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I am not quite sure but the subject seems to be notable enough. There are several sources that mention him but none of them gives much elaboration on his activities. @
  Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:08, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep or create a page for the company, theres something notable here.
  Horse Eye Jack (talk) 05:01, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Draftify - I agree that it is likely that there is a notable page that is itching to get out. The problem with the article is that much of the sourcing is very local and doesn't yet meet
  WP:BIO. The Portland Mercury is always likely to write about one of its own, for example. I don't think that we are in a position to referee whether an article on Cavenaugh or Guerrilla Development is the better way forward. Best, I think, to draftify to enable further development. 2A02:C7F:4481:8300:90DC:E235:5074:54B0 (talk) 18:35, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom. The current "article" tells us nothing of note about this guy of why he might be notable, and sourcing is borderline. If a decent encyclopedic draft is created with solid sourcing, then perhaps it could be recreated, but for now I'm not seeing enough for
  WP:NBIO.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:22, 20 September 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. While some editors advocated a merge, that would not be possible unless sources conclusively indicate that these are in fact the same individual. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:54, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Balbhadra Singh

Balbhadra Singh (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 person is most likely the same as

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Dee03 10:27, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Dee03 10:27, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Dee03 10:27, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dee03 10:27, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Sure. Cheers for looking at those - like I say there are others I guess you'll bundle together. (I assume you've not done it already, I haven't checked...) Bobo. 10:46, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean bundle duplicate articles, I haven't found any other. I do have a feeling Roop Singh (cricketer) could be Roop Singh, but there is not much to connect the two other than the fact that they both are from Gwalior. Dee03 10:50, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no - I meant as a single AfD discussion. Bobo. 10:51, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and redirect to the article about the politician. Although it is likely that they are the same person, we can't rule out that they are two different people with similar names. Therefore retaining the edit history could be potentially misleading. Reyk _YO! 12:42, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is highly unlikely that there was another Raja (king) with the same name in the same place at the same time. But yeah, we don't know that for sure. Dee03 15:46, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take your word for it :). Reyk _YO! 20:17, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge or Redirect (see below). This is slightly complex. If they can be shown to be the same person - and I do think we're close to being able to do that - then the articles should be merged with Balbhadra Singh as the article name - as main subject. Dee03 is clearly in a better position to determine that: I think it's likely from what's been laid out here.

If that can't be shown then I'd, ideally, like the article to redirect to

Gwalior cricket team - I don't think there's a need to have a separate article for a team which played precisely one first-class match. But that article currently redirects to Madhya Pradesh cricket team - which appears to have absorbed it at some point. So, as he's already on the list, redirect to List of Madhya Pradesh cricketers seems the better option. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:49, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

It would be easier to make an article called List of Gwalior cricketers for the individuals we're unclear of. I would bash some stats in there but I'm disheartened by all this as you know. Bobo. 08:56, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable cricket player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:31, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Based upon what other than your own opinion, exactly? At least cite some kind of guideline or justification... this may be entirely the wrong article to make this argument about anyway, if it can be established that the two individuals noted are the same. Bobo. 22:43, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unfortunately, despite all the circumstantial evidence we don't have
  reliable source confirmation that the cricket player and the politician were definitively the same person, so I can't recommend a merge, but the problem with the cricket player's article is that there are no reliable or notability-supporting sources present in it to establish his notability with. People are not exempted from having to have any solid sources just because the article claims something that sounds like it should be notable; hoax articles have been created on Wikipedia which made notability claims the subject didn't really have in reality (musicians claiming chart hits they didn't really have, writers claiming award nominations they didn't really have, etc.), so the notability test is not what the article says, but how well it references the things it says to reliable sources which properly verify the things it says as true. So no matter what notability claim is being made, we still can't keep articles without sources, and we can't just assume that the cricket player and the politician were the same person until we can find a source which confirms it either. Bearcat (talk) 15:58, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. He played two first class matches. [6] Per
  WP:NCRICKET usually we keep anyone who has played first class cricket. I have looked to see if he is the same as the politician and I don't think he is, but I'm not certain. There are 17 people with this name on LinkedIn alone. Szzuk (talk) 09:50, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The CricketArchive source for the cricketer mentions his full name as "Raja Balbhadra Singh" with the title

Balbhadra Singh (politician). In the unlikely case of these two being different people, the cricketer would fail GNG as Bearcat has pointed out. Dee03 11:58, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Merge. Yes I can see the logic and I think they are the same person. In that case I think we should merge the politician article to the cricket article. I see no need to have (politician) in the article title, it is unnecessary. Szzuk (talk) 12:29, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Bearcat: I added the requested ref to the article. Szzuk (talk) 10:07, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Have you? The only new source I'm seeing in the article is a directory entry, not a notability-making source — and what I actually asked for was not a source that verified his existence as a cricketer, but a source which definitively verified the circumstantial but unconfirmed evidence that the cricketer and the politician are the same person. Bearcat (talk) 17:31, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That ref does satisfy ncricket. It is a directory listing that proves he played first class cricket. Anyway, it isn't worth arguing about. Szzuk (talk) 18:17, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral I'm 99% sure these two are the same, but I can't prove it. SportingFlyer T·C 08:19, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Books about early Indian cricket may contain some information on how Gwalior team entered the Ranji Trophy and if he is the same Raja. History books on Raghogarh/Gwalior State might be able to shed some light too. Since nobody has been able to present any concrete evidence yet, I believe "delete" on GNG grounds makes more sense at this point. If such proof is found later we can add a sentence or two in the politician's article about his cricket career. Dee03 17:54, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm fine with this. If this is deleted, I would kindly ask either you or the closer to put information about his potential cricket career on the politician's talk page. SportingFlyer T·C 07:50, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure. I've kept a backup of the cricketer's article on my computer. Dee03 12:35, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. These two are almost certainly the same person, just be
  be bold and merge the two. StickyWicket (talk) 11:32, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Wikipedia does not make assertions like this on the basis of what's "almost certainly" likely to maybe be possibly true given the circumstantial evidence; we don't make such assertions at all until they're incontrovertibly

reliable sources as cold hard fact. Bearcat (talk) 22:10, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Merge but explain in the post-merge page that it is not entirely clear that these are the same person. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:08, 20 September 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.

View AfD · Stats

)

There is not one scientific secondary source confirming the existence of this branch of Christianity (needn't church sites, marginal articles by theologians and opinions of participants).

The article is either

• Keep but rename. The phenomenon is real and has been written about, although not necessarily extensively. See, e.g., Fernández Rodríguez, José Manuel. "Iglesias orientales protestantes y reformadas: 'una ojeada histórica y ecuménica'". Theologica Xaveriana 182 (2016): 345-369. http://dx.doi.org/10.11l44/javeriana.tx66-182.ioproh Rename, rescope, split: all are better than delete. Srnec (talk) 02:46, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So its a Keep then? If you wanted the page to existed? Chad The Goatman (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Srnec:, Kindly do tag your above comments, with a 'Keep' or a 'Delete'.Macinderum (talk) 14:08, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This source neither general, nor reliable. Just an article by some confessional theologian. DayakSibiriak (talk) 05:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's published by a university press and is reliable. Srnec (talk) 00:19, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not the reality of the existence or hoax of the Eastern Reformation. The problem is that the article doesnt rely on secondary academic sources (such as Encyclopeadia of Religions, 16 vols, ed. by M. Eliade, NY, 1987, or Melton, J. Gordon (2005). Encyclopedia of Protestantism. NY.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) or others) and there is no info about this branch. The wiki authors independently introduce a new notion of denomination based in part on primary sources or with no anything.

Note. The real reformation in the East, as I understand it, is the Iconoclastic movement in antiquity or the umbrella Russian Spiritual Christianity preserved to this day, etc. original eastern movements. But the article under discussion is about Protestants in the East (Anglicans, Lutherans, Evangelics) or about independent groups of Oriental Orthodoxy. DayakSibiriak (talk) 05:33, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• [Questionably] Comment and also Keep for now–, until more sources are for their page are defined. As these Churches are not entirely compared to the other Mainstream or not
  Protestant
  Churches, except few lesser known Western Christian denominations does do the opposite while they don't have communion with the mainstream Christian denominations like Catholicism or Anglicanism as examples.

Also I feel this sudden demand of deleting this page that too early right now as its on temporary lock mode, right just after I demanded to lock this page and the Mar Thoma Syrian Church's page days ago, over a ludicrous edit war with likely the same guy/gal with few identities (either User or anonymous), with the main classification; as their website does has reformation page as 'Heritage', and the page itself mentioned Anglican missionaries has accidentally transformed their Church. And I wanted to know if you had any connections to it or not? Chad The Goatman (talk) 02:49, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - - this phenomenon is real, and the article has references. Vorbee (talk) 06:22, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I invite the attention of all participants to the discussion which led to the consensual unopposed change of this article's title, archived in
  Talk:Reformed Eastern Christianity. I believe that it is the prelude to this deletion nomination. It clearly explains how misleading and factually incorrect it is, to call these denominations which sprang up from the mid-nineteenth century as "Orthodox", while they possess none of the key distinguishing common characteristics of Eastern/Oriental/Independent Orthodoxy. The authentic primary sources by these churches themselves lays bare their common characteristics; first of all their reformed nature and secondly, to the extent their reformed faiths and theologies can accommodate, the maintenance of some eastern traditions. It is clear from the primary sources itself that most of these denominations came into being due to existing Protestant Churches adopting reformed variants of Orthodox liturgy and worship. The rest from reformations of Orthodox beliefs and practices, inspired by the teachings of Western Protestant missionaries. In either case, the end result was essentially the same. Even secondary sources that mentions these denominations defines them as reformed and eastern, but not Orthodox. For example, check how the Mar Thoma Church in full communion with Anglicans, is defined by the official website of the Anglican Communion (https://www.anglicancommunion.org/ecumenism/churches-in-communion.aspx). The consensual new title 'Reformed Eastern Christianity' has been replicated to the respective Wikipedia pages of these churches, as their new classification. They have largely remained unopposed and stable to this day. Only in the Mar Thoma Church page, indisputably well sourced changes were disrupted by several anons and new user id's (all possibly the same person). This page is now locked up pending dispute resolution. It is here that I seriously share Chad The Goatman's suspicion that this deletion nomination may have something to do with it. Reformed Eastern Christianity is an existing reality, though not widely noticed or written extensively about. And perhaps justifiably so, as they remain for most part, outside of other major global Christian Communions.Macinderum (talk) 13:54, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep but tidy up. This article would be much better with a short introduction (much as now) followed by a list of relevant denominations. This will enable it to identify and discuss the phenomenon. Some are evangelical movements within ancient churches; one apparently of occidental origin; some may be the result of the impact of Protestant missionaries on ancient Eastern churches. The detail about each church should be split out into a separate article, unless there already is one. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:52, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Peterkingiron: Thanks for the suggestion. Starting work in that direction. However not splitting out the details on the Marthoma Church, even though a separate page exits. It may cause distracting edit wars. Will do it after this discussion gets over. Macinderum (talk) 06:12, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• From where the original list of reformed denominations which can see at Preamble of the article? who is author? and why, for example, there are not Eastern Spiritual Christianity or Tolstoyan movement of Leo Tolstoy? DayakSibiriak (talk) 05:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The term is "Reformed", not "reformed". This is about Protestant movements. The title should be clearer. Srnec (talk) 00:19, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• It means, "Indian Brethren" fit. ? DayakSibiriak (talk) 04:11, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, needless to say that you may discreetly add more denominations/movements to the article, if you think they're in-scope and belongs there. However that is absolutely no valid reason for a deletion nomination; such things should be the settled in the article's talk page. Macinderum (talk) 03:14, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is no such classification else where. Prosper of title change is the creator of the concept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chandy of Pakalomattom (talk • contribs) 09:56, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The creator of the article has been gone since 2007. Srnec (talk) 00:19, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I was thinking the article might just need to be moved to something with reference to Protestantism rather than Reformed Protestantism, but I think I agree with others that no reliable sources have been brought forward to show the existence of a branch or "range" of denominations that fit the definition in the lead. Indeed, the citations in the lead are all about specific denominations, showing that they are in some ways Protestant and Eastern or Orthodox, but not that "Protestant Eastern Christianity" exists. So anything in the article stating the existence of "Protestant Eastern Christianity" is
  WP:SYNTH. --JFH (talk) 00:18, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Verifiable source 'Protestant and Reformed Eastern Churches: "A Historical and Ecumenical Glance"', dealing with the subject, has been added to the article. It is published by a university press and based on sound bibliography. Due to origins outside of the Occident and existence outside of major global Christian communions, REC may not have been extensively written about. This Wiki article like many others is a continuous 'work in progress' and more sources will have to be added as and when they become available. Nevertheless, there are enough sources enabling the article to explain the phenomenon and makes the content verifiable. So its worth keeping. Macinderum (talk) 09:52, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still confused about the scope of the article. If it's Protestant churches in "the East", then obviously there are lots of Protestant churches in Asia and the rest of the Eastern world. There are probably more Protestants in Asia than in the West, depending on how you count them, and we have them covered in Protestantism in China, Protestantism in India, Protestantism in Russia, etc. But why would we have another article on Protestantism in the superset of "the East"? If there are sources out there saying there is something to say about Protestant churches in the East, maybe there is a case for the present article, but so far we just have one (Spanish-language) article talking about it.

If we are talking about some kind of subbranch of Christianity that's a hybrid of Eastern Christianity and Protestantism, that would be very interesting and worthy of an article, but again, I have not seen a reliable source on that. --JFH (talk) 03:10, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, colleagues. It is forbidden by the wikirules to publish original articles and syntheses, incl. based on marginal theories. And this article introduces a new concept, a new trend in Christianity at the same level with Eastern Orthodoxy or Catholicism. This is forbidden not only in English Wiki, but I believe in African as well. In the reference literature there is no such trend. This is only a variation of either Anglicanism or Lutheranism, etc. DayakSibiriak (talk) 23:46, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. DayakSibiriak (talk) 00:07, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. DayakSibiriak (talk) 00:53, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
  Talk to my owner:Online 02:19, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment - all of these churches exist, but are there any religious scholars who group them under the term "Protestant Eastern Christianity"? - the references deal with individual churches, but only one provides an overview, and that article does not attempt to define a group, merely describe the churches - it seems that what is significant here, and makes the groups distinct, is that these congregations are protestant based on the Eastern Orthodox rite rather than the Roman rite of western European congregations, which is certainly a notable difference - as "Protestant Eastern Christianity" is not a recognized designation, perhaps it would be best to listify the the article as "List of Protestant Eastern Churches" along the lines of List of Christian denominations (some of the churches in the Protestant Eastern Christianity article are included in the List of Christian denominations) - Epinoia (talk) 21:30, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• It’s a good idea that a list of churches can be created. Only then, by analogy with the Eastern Catholic Churches, is it better to call it "Eastern Protestant Churches" (or "Eastern-rite Protestant Churches). But again, where is the criterion, which churches to include there? because there is no such direction in scientific authoritative literature, since all Protestant churches, including Jehovah's Witnesses, in eastern countries will be possible. DayakSibiriak (talk) 00:01, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the criteria would be protestant churches based on the Eastern Orthodox rite rather than the Roman rite of western European congregations - Epinoia (talk) 00:12, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there already, for exemple, the concept of Protestant churches based on the Catholic rite? DayakSibiriak (talk) 01:23, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• All the denominations in this list: List of the largest Protestant denominations appear to be European based - none of the churches in the "Protestant Eastern Christianity" article are listed there - Epinoia (talk) 01:53, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• This is true. I mean that scientists do not use the concept of the Protestants of the Catholic rite in relation to the Anglicans and Lutherans who have preserved elements of the Catholic Mass. So wouldn’t it be nonsense to start talking about the Protestants of the Eastern rite, only because several Anglican and Lutheran churches for mission inserted elements of Eastern liturgies into their service? DayakSibiriak (talk) 04:13, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I have already stated the reasons for my proposition to maintain this article as it is and I still favor it. That said, in contemplation of the various dimensions of the word 'compromise', I find user Epinoia's views rather appealing. Since the creation of this page in 2006 till the consensual page move on 19 July 2019, the content appeared to be an unsubstantiated, subtle and false portrayal of these denominations, as part of the well defined and easily differentiable family of Eastern/Oriental Orthodox churches. That necessitated some work on the article. In any case, it emerges glaringly from this present discussion, that the denominations mentioned in the article are indeed part of Protestantism. That is one thing on which all editors seem to agree upon. "Protestants in the East, maintaining reformed variants of eastern liturgies/worship", is precisely what they are. Besides, even if this article gets converted to a list, the content and sources would be preserved to a significant extent, I guess. Hence, I assume good faith and support user Epinoia's suggestion, as a secondary middle ground option. Macinderum (talk) 09:12, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe a possible consensus on converting, example, to List of Eastern-rite Protestant Churches, will be useful for Wikipedia readers, as Epinoia and later Macinderum have offered. When creating lists, we are less attached to the generalized source in comparison with ordinary articles, if I'm wrong, correct me. But in order to avoid the publication of an original research and a new concept, the following conditions must be observed. 1. In the Preamble, stipulate that this matter is not a separate Christian branch, but only a collection of churches from various Protestant denominations, practicing elements of Eastern rites (this will be so until the time when a concept of such a branch appears in the reference literature). 2. Therefore, it will not be possible to refer to this list in other wiki articles and templates in order to enter a new current at the same level with Eastern Orthodoxy or the Church of the East, and you can put information about this list with, for example, "See also" templates. 3. Of course there will be a reduction of the text, there will be only a brief Preamble with criterion and so on, the List itself with a brief description of each church, and division Referencies. The list can be made normal or in the form of a table such as in article List of new religious movements. And if the churches will be a little then let ace in alphabetically without division according to Anglicanism and other denominations and countries. That is my view of a possible compromise. It is interesting to hear the support of this option, or something is wrong, or opinions that can not be saved as a list too and need to delete. DayakSibiriak (talk) 00:38, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• With the above comments from the user who made this nomination, I believe we can now see our way forward with respect to the actual binary choice (keep or delete), this specific forum is about. It tends towards a keep and I still believe that it would be possible to keep this page as it is, as per WP:content policies, based on current references. The arguments in favor of it has already been raised. However, just in case that becomes absolutely undoable, I'm ok with its conversion to a list. In absolute good faith, I point out that the fine details of such an ideated list should be sorted out in the article's talk page and not here. Taking into account, our unanimous agreement about those denominations as being (Reformed) Eastern rite Protestants and not Eastern/Oriental Orthodox, I do not foresee many seriously conflicting considerations, forthcoming. Macinderum (talk) 09:36, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For clearer consensus. Here is list only by ABC order (info about churches from wiki article Protestant Eastern Cristianity and Eastern-rite Anglicanism and small addition).

      List of Eastern-rite Protestant Churches

Preamble ...

List

• Assyrian Evangelical Church (a brief description)
• Assyrian Pentecostal Church
• Believers Eastern Church of India
• Eastern Rite Community in Germany and the Czech Republic
• Evangelical Church of the Augsburg Confession in Slovenia
• Evangelical Orthodox Church
• P'ent'ay movement of Ethiopia and Eritrea
• Russian Evangelical Church
• Society for Eastern Rite Anglicanism
• St. Thomas Evangelical Church of India
• St. Valentine's Fellowship
• Ukrainian Lutheran Church
• Mar Thoma Syrian Church

Referencies ...

Colleagues. In case on convertin the article to the list, to keep or delete too? DayakSibiriak (talk) 12:28, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This grouping is not right. Protestent churches are those churches which got seperated from Roman catholic churches or rather in Western christianity. Clubbing together churches which follow christology and trinity faith based on first three (Oriental Orthodox ) and first seven ( Eastern Orthodox) with churches which donot follow any is not correct. Many of the churches which is mentioned in article is of pentecostal nature and revivalist spirit which donot follow the Episcopalian tradition. Hence the title itself is confusing or artificial. By the way some churches cannot be grouped with any like Church of East of persians, Malankara Marthoma Syrian church of St Thomas Christians etc (Chandy of Pakalomattom (talk) 18:34, 14 September 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Clearly, the compromise option by Epinoia of converting to a list did not find support. Whoever was for the deletion continues to insist on deletion, who was in favor of keeping the article still wishing to keep it in its present form. In this situation, I also think that it is more correct to delete, because there is a risk that the list may also introduce a new original concept. DayakSibiriak (talk) 04:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was redirect to List of Legion of Super-Heroes members. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:39, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tellus (comics)

Tellus (comics) (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 character TTN (talk) 17:58, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:58, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:58, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Legion of Super-Heroes members, which contains a minimum of real-world info on the character Argento Surfer (talk) 16:25, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Legion of Super-Heroes members- Minor character with no reliable sources showing any sort of independent notability. He is already present on that list, so a Redirect is all that is necessary. Rorshacma (talk) 20:20, 17 September 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:39, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pir Azmat Nawaz

Pir Azmat Nawaz (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 subject of this article fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:34, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:34, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Although I am thrilled as this is the first time I am seeing an actual exorcists article on Wikipedia, They seem to be embracing technology fast. The subject though fails
  WP:NOTNEWS category.--DBigXrayᗙ 07:56, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - clear fail of
  WP:BIO. Conceivably, if something comes of the police investigation then there could be a page in the future but we are not there at present. 2A02:C7F:4481:8300:90DC:E235:5074:54B0 (talk) 19:40, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per
  WP:TOOSOON. Bearian (talk) 21:30, 19 September 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.

Edwin H. Land Medal

Edwin H. Land Medal (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)

Apparently not notable independently of the sponsoring organisations. The

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:03, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/Merge Not seeing tertiary sources establishing notability or why this one stands out among their many awards, but it could be included in the main article. Reywas92^Talk 18:31, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Being covered in the popular press is not the criteria for notability in scholarly and technical subjects. We have entire categories of awards given by the major scientific and engineering societies. See Category:Awards by scientific societies and in particular Category:Awards of the Optical Society. There is no reason to discriminate against this award or do a mass delete of all the awards in that parent category and subcategories. These subarticles of the society articles include the awardees and would take up too much space in the parent articles. As a result of Wikipedia:Summary style are usually separate. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:27, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:28, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The news stories from GoogleNews count for something and are more than most academic awards get. I have also added a couple of book refs that describe the award itself [9][10]. Overall, I think there is enough here to satisfy
  WP:GNG. Nsk92 (talk) 21:17, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. In addition to the sources that have been added to the article. the Washington Post felt it a significant enough award to mention in an obituary in the same sentence as the National Medal of Science and the IEEE Medal of Honor. Schazjmd (talk) 21:25, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as there are plenty of press mention, overall showing notability. Also it would be excessive having a list of recipients in the Optical Society article, so it makes sense to split this off. Many of the recipients have articles too, so it is not a sea of red. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:03, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I find it odd that this article is marked for deletion. It does not meet the deletion criteria stated! "FIRST", it is becoming very well-sourced from independent outlets. OSA is one of the leading scientific organizations in the world. the Land Medal is one of its notable awards. It is sourced by excellent outlets. PHYSICS TODAY is completely dissociated with the OSA or the Medal. So is SMITHSONIAN. The article was a day old when it was marked, without any attempt at discussion. That in itself is odd. I am sure that many many more sources will be added. Typically medals are the highest honors a scientific society offers. Please note that Land Medal honorees have previously been honored by the Nobel Prize; the National Medical of Science, Primetime Emmy Award; and many others. Point being that this is an extremely luminous group. "SECOND" it is certainly notable. It is marked by many sources and is presented at one of the largest scientific meetings in the world. What "notability" index is being used? GBOOKS? Not relevant. Why are half of OSA medals allowed Wikipedia pages, but this one, a Medal, is not? Wikipedia is loaded with pages for hundreds of others like awards, many less "notable." "THIRD" the article is simple, factual, and neutral. It describes Edwin Land, who was the original Steve Jobs. It lists the winners. It gives sources. Thanks! 136.49.47.230 (talk) 21:23, 11 September 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.62.213.119 (talk)

You might want to read

WP:WALLOFTEXT usually has the opposite effect of what the poster intended. Nsk92 (talk) 16:58, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep I think the sourcing is adequate to establish notability; it's not so big that a merge would be a terrible idea, but it's well-documented enough to stand on its own.
  talk) 20:12, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep I am a little upset that the person who marked this article for deletion seems a bit biased and arbitrary. The Optical Society is the leading organization in its field. It’s awards a regarded as stellar. The recipients are hugely important people. It’s NOT dozens of awards. It’s one of a very few MEDALS. Why the pejorative? I think you have nominated yourself out of being the right person to assess this entry.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.62.83.190 (talk • contribs) FOLLOW-ON: ok I get that I should not comment on other editors. Sorry, I am new to Wikipedia. However, as someone that works in optics I find the comment “It's doubtful whether any one of them is notable in itself” to be pejorative. Our awards and our field is important. Many optics researchers have won Nobel prizes, like Dennis Gabor. And two of the Land Medalists. I think wiki “super-editors” or whatever they are called should exercise better discretion, and should also be accountable. Just MHO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100c:b028:135e:78b6:f7d8:ed19:b479 (talk • contribs)

Should you comment on any other articles for deletion, it's better to just present the arguments for your opinion without attacking other editors. Schazjmd (talk) 21:29, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you feel strongly about this. The question isn't whether the award is important or not, and has nothing to do with whether the recipients are notable. This is a discussion on whether the award itself is notable in the very specific Wikipedia sense (not the common meaning of the term "notable"). The guideline on

notability explains it in some detail, but the short version is: has the topic received significant coverage by reliable, independent sources? That's why you see editors in the discussion talking about what they found for sources, and that's the type of information that you need to support your argument. (Also, please end your comments with four tildes ~~~~ so your signature is included, thanks!) Schazjmd (talk) 22:54, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note to the IP: Please

WP:!VOTEs, like you 'keep' comments above, and don't try to hard-code an an IP address (especially an incorrect one), like you did in this post[11]. Better yet, consider creating an account. Nsk92 (talk) 09:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello I cast only one vote. Why did you write that? And it took me 30 minutes to figure out how. What does hard code an IP address mean? I’m lost. I don’t want an account. I read Wikipedia like 10 times a day but don’t want to learn it’s programming language. Anyway, the only science awards that get in the mainstream news are called Nobel, Fields, Turing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100C:B028:135E:78B6:F7D8:ED19:B479 (talk) 16:03, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See my response at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Edwin H. Land Medal. Nsk92 (talk) 23:31, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

although could also have been a friend/colleague? Coolabahapple (talk) 00:06, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:08, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, meets
  sources that reflects this (thanks to above editors). Coolabahapple (talk) 00:10, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, The subject is notable and has enough coverage to pass
  WP:GNG. Alex-h (talk) 10:08, 15 September 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.