Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 April 29

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< 28 April 30 April >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:03, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Femisplaining

edit
Femisplaining (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)

Per WP:DEL5 and WP:DEL6 as well as WP:GNG. This appears to be a fork of a neologism that is not supported by reliable sources. The sources in the article, save one, appear unreliable. There's no indication this term or idea is widely reported on, used, or accepted. Rather, it appears to be a backlash to mansplaining and, if so, would belong as a section on that page. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:08, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I must question the double standards displayed here. How Mansplaining is a legit page, despite the fact that on it's wikipedia page it states it's a "neologism". Furthermore, mansplaining's usage is satirical as it's only used by journalists and those that published books... In other words, those that are heavily opinionated. I deliberately made the article in a similar style to the mansplaining one for the exact reason that I believed that it wasn't a far cry for someone to take the article in the wrong way. Also, I feel that the opinions above (and the one below) are outdated as the article has had a major updated since. SU-35s Super Flanker (talk) 10:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your sources are terrible, and still seek to take a minor, unknown neologism and make t into a thing. This is a lesson for the 21st-century Wikipedia editor; just because someone tweets about a thing or blogs about a thing, doesn't make the thing notable. My call to delete is hereby affirmed. TheValeyard (talk) 13:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was founded on the same principles as mansplaining. Just because the author of a book or a few people blog about it, doesn't make it notable. Thereby your call is not affirmed, but instead is rather hypocritical. SU-35s Super Flanker (talk) 13:28, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • at least you actually validated your argument with something constructive. Searching Womansplaining does return hundreds of results as well. Perhaps it's too late to go back and change the title from "femisplaining" to "womansplaining" as that would seem to be the core issue of this article. Unfortunately, I'm not entirely sure how to go about doing that, or even if it is possible. Regarding references, I'm slowly working on updating the article when and where I can. Unfortunately, as a university student, it can be difficult to put the time and effort into these things. Which I suppose begs the question as to why I created the article in the first place. Simply put, I'm pointing out a hypocrisy in society, whereby words against men seem to go viral, while those that are against women seem to fall short and disappear, which is a clear sign that there's a problem in society. In removing the article, wikipedia would be adding fuel to the fire and becoming part of the problem. I guess I was interested as to how bad the problem was. As for general notability, Womansplaining does fall aptly into that category. As I said before there is a lot of information on the subject if you would take the time to look, but again, I suspect it's a problem with the main title which you are referring to. SU-35s Super Flanker (talk) 14:20, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not the place to point out society's flaws - Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, with articles based purely on what appears in reliable, independent sources. Yes, this can mean that Wikipedia reflects some sort of systemic bias that may exist within the wider world, but that's not the fault of Wikipedia's editors and it is not our place to put our own spin on things. I recently !voted "keep" for an article about someone who I wouldn't spit on if they were on fire - our personal opinions are not meant to be apparent from our editing, so take a step back and have a thorough, dispassionate read through of your article. Exemplo347 (talk) 14:26, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be greatly appreciated if you could point out the downfalls of the article. I understand that there is a need to point out flaws generally in an article, but it's not helpful to those who need specifics in order to improve it. I personally feel like it's the equivalent of saying "look out!" and then not pointing out where the danger is. SU-35s Super Flanker (talk) 14:41, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's been pointed out repeatedly - the main issue is notability, and it's one that you're not going to be able to fix because I've looked and the sources just aren't out there. The General Notability Guideline is quite clear about the level of coverage that is an essential requirement and that coverage simply does not exist. No amount of discussion can magically change that situation. The other issue that I flagged up was the lack of a neutral point of view, because your personal views are immediately obvious to anyone who reads the article. That issue requires such an extensive rewrite that I'm not sure it'd be worth your time to do it, especially because the article may not survive this discussion. Exemplo347 (talk) 14:44, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing will be fixed with an attitude like that. The articles are out there for Womansplaining, not so much for femisplaining as it's often mixed up with the former, but as I mentioned before, I clearly made a mistake with regards to making Femisplaining the main topic instead of womensplaining. Apparently, there is a way to change the title of a piece by moving the article. Although, given that this topic is clearly too controversial, it makes me wonder if it's even worth the effort, especially given how unhelpful the criticism has been thus far. I appreciate you're trying to help and that it's probably quite irritating watching this progress/regress the way it has, but the criticism given thus far has been of no use whatsoever. SU-35s Super Flanker (talk) 15:16, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • A title change would be like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Mansplaining is a notable topic, as evidenced by the number of quality sources that meet the Wikipedia guidelines for what is a good, reliable source. You approached this topic with a "well if that exists then this must exist too to balance it!". The problem there is that the "this", i.e. woman/femisplaining, does not exist as a thing outside of alt-right blogs and twitter feeds, or the occasional passing mention in a real source ridiculing the attempts by the alt-right to make woman/femisplaining into a thing. TheValeyard (talk) 16:38, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted, as per the below request of the author RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:20, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Ghys

edit
Ian Ghys (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 indication of notability. Google search does not confirm notability. WP:BLPPROD tag removed without addition of reliable source (only of IMDB, which is not a reliable source). Robert McClenon (talk) 23:03, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why is IMDB not a reliable source?RoaringLiger (talk) 23:19, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi, IMDB is not a reliable source because a significant portion of it is created by its users, with minimal editorial oversight. A person or film's IMDB page can certainly be linked from a Wikipedia article (in fact, a great many are), but IMDB pages cannot be the only sources on an article. For more information please see the Wikipedia policy on reliable sources as well as this essay on citing IMDB. Thanks. —KuyaBriBriTalk 00:07, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 05:56, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no reliable sources. Another problem with IMDb is it literally tries to be a databse listing everyone ever involved in film production. Wikipedia is meant to have articles on only people with coverage in secondary sources. This is a higher bar, so having a listing in IMBd is not at all a way to add towards notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:17, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. You can delete the page as I understand why.RoaringLiger (talk) 12:49, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. – Juliancolton | Talk 02:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of kosher restaurants

edit
List of kosher restaurants (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)

There are literally thousands of kosher restaurants over the whole world, including a few thousand in Israel. I see no reason to single out 24 of them. None of them in Israel. Not to mention that the list contains 2 closed establishments. Deletion was suggested on the talkpage as well, see Talk:List of kosher restaurants. Debresser (talk) 21:45, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:32, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing in WP:LISTPURP and WP:CLN that indicates value of this list. All it says is that lists and categories are not mutually exclusive. That doesn't make a point for the article yet. In this case, the category would be enough. This article doesn't add anything to the category. Debresser (talk) 02:59, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If they are closed, then they are no longer a kosher restaurant. This is not the category for former kosher restaurants... Debresser (talk) 03:48, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
After some editing, there are only 17 entries left, of which 3 only have some kosher branches, 2 are chains that carry some or mostly kosher products, and 3 are closed. I think the chains with only some kosher branches or products, don't really belong in this list. Per my argument above, closed restaurants also don't. I really don't think we should have this list for the remaining 9 kosher restaurants, or even for 17, for that matter. The category is more than enough for that. Debresser (talk) 03:48, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Companies no longer in business are not automatically deemed non-notable, as per WP:NTEMP. See also WP:OUTOFBUSINESS. North America1000 09:17, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have an argument that being now closed means it shouldn't be listed, any more than that the dead should be deleted from lists of people. That status can be noted in the list's "description" field. And such annotations, as well as the sortability of the list's table, are what this list provides above and beyond the category (not that this is even necessary to justify keeping the list as well as the category, per WP:NOTDUP). postdlf (talk) 14:06, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:51, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Obviously passes WP:LISTN and WP:CLN. The nomination complains that some of the entries are closed. This is not a reason to delete because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and so has a historical focus. I'm sad to find that the famous Bloom's has closed before I got around to eating there. In its honour I shall start an article about its proprietor. He's dead now but that's not a reason to delete either. "Mitzvah goreret mitzvah". Andrew D. (talk) 09:51, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:54, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:54, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is exactly how lists work in Wikipedia. Category:Lists of restaurants includes 94 different articles, including the directly overlapping article for Lists of restaurants, which includes lists that aren't in the category. This list under discussion is a well-defined, encyclopedic, properly sourced list of notable kosher restaurants that would benefit tremendously from expansion, not deletion. Per WP:CLN, the list and the corresponding category should co-exist and be used to expand each other synergistically. Once the literally thousands of kosher restaurants over the whole world, including a few thousand in Israel, all have Wikipedia articles and included on this list, we can consider splitting it up by country. Alansohn (talk) 03:11, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:CLN and Category:Kosher restaurants. While Wikipedia is of course not a directory of restaurants, as Northamerica1000 states normal editing can ensure that this doesn't become some sort of runaway listing. Also, the nomination statement "Not to mention that the list contains 2 closed establishments" shows a surprising lack of understanding that notability is not temporary, from a veteran editor. If we have target links and valid articles, it doesn't matter that the restaurant is closed -- though the target article and list should reflect that. But again none of this a valid reason to delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:25, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per NOTYELLOW. There is an inestimable number of kosher restaurants that can be included in such a list, and it's no problem to write stubby articles for them so they'll be "notable". I don't see what use this list serves to the encyclopedia other than self-promotion. Yoninah (talk) 13:53, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – The article is not intended to be a complete listing of every kosher restaurant in the world, it's just for notable ones. Also, the article does not contain "Contact information such as phone numbers, fax numbers and e-mail addresses", which is what would be an actual violation of WP:NOTYELLOW. North America1000 14:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with most of the removals. I actually proposed them, as I stated above. However, the museum and community center operate a restaurant, so they should be in the article. After all, there is a restaurant there! I restored them. Debresser (talk) 16:59, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Would you put those articles in Category:Kosher restaurants? postdlf (talk) 18:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they are. They have been. And for some time.... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:53, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Generally a list and corresponding category should have the same inclusion criteria, such that if an article belongs in a category it also belongs in a list organized around the same topic. Though if anything lists can afford to be broader in inclusion than categories, because lists can annotate more borderline cases or group them separately under headers noting a disputed status or whatever. postdlf (talk) 20:21, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to delete: a museum or community center with a non-notable eatery inside doesn't make it a "restaurant." Without a serious pruning, the list runs into precisely the sort of indiscriminate criteria that critics of this list have been pointing out. CLN is not a carte blanche and I want no part in keeping a list that now seems to include every Jewish institution with a lunch counter. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:08, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, hold on, I do not agree with the nominator's right to include these two non-restaurant establishments as a kind of strawman argument. He's arguing for deletion of the list -- with a lack of understanding that notability is not temporary, and now, trying to force the inclusion of two indiscriminate entries in a list that he wants to see nuked. Very odd. Not quite sure what's going on here, but no, we're not going to include indiscriminate crap at the behest of someone who wants the list deleted. If he well and truly wanted to clean it up or tweak inclusion criteria -- he shouldn't have brought it to Afd in the first place. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:27, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Sir Joseph's and Debresser's rationales in particular. --Khajidha (talk) 17:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... and he's reverted to adding these two non-restaurant entities, with no response to the issues I've raised above. This is bull. The nominator should not get to shape the very list he wants to delete, particularly when his preferred version pushes the list to WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Revert to strong keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:36, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment As Debresser points out, this doesn't include any restaurants in Israel, where most restaurants have Rabbanut certification, the most basic form of kashrut certification. We could easily add to this list all the entries under List of restaurants in Israel. Yoninah (talk) 18:50, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure if I'm going to vote in this Afd, but no you can not add List of restaurants in Israel - only about roughly 50% of restaurants have Rabbanut certification - many of the existing entries in List of restaurants in Israel don't (or didn't when they existed) have kashrut. This is due to a variety of reasons - ranging from being intrinsically un-kosher (meat and diary, or serving treif - pork or seafood), due to opening on Shabbat), or even nominally Kosher restaurants that don't want Rabbanut inspections which can involve various hassles.Icewhiz (talk) 14:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Shawn in Montreal How is this not a reply? Debresser (talk) 18:53, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there are also List of Chinese restaurants and List of Italian restaurants. There are posts on each talk page asking about the validity of the list. I would support a general eradication of such lists per the rationales mentioned here. --Khajidha (talk) 18:40, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also List of Thai restaurants. --Khajidha (talk) 18:42, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, looking at the "lists of restaurants" navbox, I would advise doing away with virtually everything in the "by cuisine" and "by ethnicity" sections. --Khajidha (talk) 18:46, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So also deleting Category:Restaurants by type or Category:Ethnic restaurants and all of their subcategories? If so, by what criteria would we then index our articles on restaurants? postdlf (talk) 22:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I said nothing about categories, only lists.--Khajidha (talk) 22:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I asked you about how the principle you're advocating would affect the categories that correspond to these lists. postdlf (talk) 22:19, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
this is a list of notable kosher restaurants per Wikipedia's standards, and is not a general list of all kosher restaurants in any region or in the world, nor is it intended to be. It's unclear why people in this discussion keep stating that the article is improper because of the existence of many non-notable kosher restaurants in the world. The list is not meant to list non-notable restaurants. North America1000 23:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's a pretty clear sign that they have not read the whole discussion before commenting, nor are they familiar with our guidelines and practices regarding lists of articles. postdlf (talk) 01:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Or perhaps they disagree with you, like at least another two editors here. Please assume good faith. Debresser (talk) 05:31, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me that this list (and others like it) fail on "readers over editors" grounds. It does not give any real information, but is only a readout of the state of Wikipedia articles on kosher restaurants at this time. --Khajidha (talk) 14:10, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Debresser: "Assume good faith" does not mean "assume there's a good argument". Commenters do not demonstrate that they have a good argument, or that they have meaningfully considered and participated in the discussion, when they repeat a premise already explained to be incorrect, or they raise a point that has already been rebutted, without presenting a counterargument or even acknowledging that a rebuttal had been made. Unelaborated "disagreement" is then woefully inadequate to fall back upon. postdlf (talk) 15:05, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Khajidha: Please do read WP:LISTPURP (on "navigation" specifically), and WP:CLN, which were cited to in the very first comment in this discussion and are directly on point as to your claim. And look again at the annotations in the list. postdlf (talk) 15:05, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I did read those, the LISTPURP is what clarified for me what the problem I'm seeing with this list is. --Khajidha (talk) 15:42, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yet you haven't even mentioned its navigational function as a list "of Wikipedia articles on kosher restaurants at this time"; you've instead appeared to express the opinion that we shouldn't have such things, contra LISTPURP and CLN. postdlf (talk) 00:04, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't much to navigate with a "list" of some 10 out of the hundreds or even thousands of kosher restaurants that exist. The article should be called "A very partial, embarrassing so, not usable for anything practical, list of a few kosher establishments". Debresser (talk) 06:38, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Which could be handled by adding "For articles on individual kosher restaurants, see: Category:Kosher restaurants" to the kosher restaurant article, with the added benefit of avoiding the implication (inherent in the simple title "list of kosher restaurants") that this list is comprehensive rather than just a list of those few restaurants that we happen to have articles on.--Khajidha (talk) 11:31, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All of which is just to say you disagree with existing consensus and guidelines regarding the navigational use of such indexes of articles (and yes, it is about navigating our articles) as having value and being complementary to categories. Which is an opinion that is not specific to this list. postdlf (talk) 14:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You feeling the need to reply to everybody who disagrees with your point of view, including repeating the same thing over and over, is becoming a bit stifling for the discussion. Debresser (talk) 15:34, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. We all do that some times. Please don't remove your vote just because of that. Even though you disagree with me, but I value your input. Debresser (talk) 13:41, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're very kind. No, I honestly don't know what's best in this case. I'm a big proponent of CLN here yet the fact that virtually every restaurant in Israel -- save, I guess, for those catering to Arab Israelis who are halal? -- would have some form of kosher designation, apparently, gives me pause. BTW, if this list goes, one of us should nominate the category for deletion, for as we know, the criteria for "definingness" on a category is even higher than a list. Postdlf sort of alluded to that above and I can't see a category without this list. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One way it seems to be handled in other lists of "national" or "ethnic" cuisine restaurants is to limit them to restaurants featuring that cuisine outside the country of origin: for example List of Chinese restaurants, per definition at Chinese restaurant that it's "an establishment that serves Chinese cuisine outside China." Otherwise the designation is not meaningful; a restaurant in China that serves Chinese cuisine is just a restaurant in China. Whether that treatment is appropriate for kosher food and restaurants in Israel is not a question we need to resolve here, and again it should be resolved the same way for the category as well as the list. postdlf (talk) 15:11, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:58, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And since the status of restaurants in the Jewish homeland has been raised above in what seems to me to be a relevant point, I've added it to the above deletion sorting page, too. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:00, 4 May 2017 (UTC) [reply]
  • Keep - if there is a list of Japanese restaurants (or any other cuisine class), there should be a list of Jewish Kosher restaurants. This is a cuisine class unto to itself - regardless of the religious origins (which in and of themselves make this improtant to diners) Kashrut involves many constraints that make this class unique - just like List of vegetarian restaurants.Icewhiz (talk) 14:10, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the list is small now, but over time, new notable kosher restaurants will be added to the category. When they are added, they deserve to have a list as much as any other notable category items. Benji the Pen (talk) 16:47, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Lists of restaurants are fine so long as each list entry is notable in its own right and does not appear to be written as a business directory or a restaurant guide, that can be dealt with by a cleanup. Ajf773 (talk) 20:40, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a list of notable kosher restaurants rather than a list of all kosher restaurants. Its main purpose seems to be helping readers find articles on various kosher restaurants. This is compliant with WP:LISTPURP, so I don't think a deletion is warranted. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:24, 6 May 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 00:04, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SubGlobal

edit
SubGlobal (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't see any obvious way of sourcing this article, a search brings up pretty much nothing relevant to improve it. The article was previously tagged CSD A7 but then reverted, so I'm bringing discussion here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:41, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:34, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:34, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:34, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:02, 30 April 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 00:04, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Progress World Championship

edit
Progress World Championship (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 article was deleted just a few days ago as part of a bundle at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Progress World Cup. Speedy deletion requested but denied. Championship still doesn't meet WP:GNG, no more than it did a few days ago. Nikki♥311 21:21, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 21:21, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 21:21, 29 April 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 00:04, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kamanitha

edit
Kamanitha (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 book from non-notable author. Blackguard 21:18, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:04, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:20, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at times like these you wish there was a speedy criteria for books. Appears to be a book someone wrote in their spare time, sourced to what looks like a personal blog. Granted I can't read Malayalam, so a deficiency of potential sources there is possible, but going by the grammatical errors, peacocky language and lack of reliable sources in this and the author's article (this nom could've been bundled with that AFD) I'm going to say this doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. Actually, I'll go a bit further and say it fails WP:V since it also doesn't have any common identifiers, like an ISBN or OCLC number. Fuebaey (talk) 03:05, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not even a claim on notability, and no evidence of it found. --Finngall talk 13:38, 5 May 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 00:04, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chitral Vision

edit
AfDs for this article:
Chitral Vision (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a "newspaper" that has been flagged as a hoax, and has no sources other than their own (now defunct) website, their own Facebookpage and their own page at Linked.in. The article is related to a Rehmat Aziz Chitrali (article now deleted at AfD, again...), and like all other articles related to that person created by and mostly edited by socks of indeffed sockpuppeteer Akbaralighazi, and intended to promote Chitrali (who was very prominently mentioned in this article too before it was pruned a bit). - Tom | Thomas.W talk 21:13, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:18, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:18, 30 April 2017 (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. I'm afraid the "delete" arguments have this one by a wide margin. – Juliancolton | Talk 02:53, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of things considered foul smelling

edit
List of things considered foul smelling (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 put this unpatrollled article up for PROD, subsequently removed from that list so taking it to AFD. I contend that this is an entirely subjective, uncompletable, and unencyclopedic subject. "Foul" is in the nose of the beholder and a list of stinky things is little more than an amusement, serving no rational WP navigational purpose. Carrite (talk) 19:02, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:06, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  1. In bad odour
  2. Biomarkers of good and bad food
  3. Handbook of Odors featuring the wonderful "Nasal Ranger"
  4. The Science Behind Revulsion
  5. Breath Odors: Origin, Diagnosis and Management
  6. THe Foul and the Fragrant
  7. Food Taints and Off-Flavours
  8. The Neuropsychology of Smell and Taste
These demonstrate that the nomination's claim that the study and classification of smells has no rational purpose is blatantly false. Andrew D. (talk) 20:19, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with the others above. Very subjective. Exactly who considers these things foul smelling. I know people that like Durian. MB 03:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So then, might I ask, is it banned on public transit in Southeast Asia is it's not generally considered foul smelling? Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 20:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic. The unspoken truth is that it is socially unacceptable for an encyclopedia to have an article listing bad smelling things even if some scientific way could be used to determine this matter. Which brings me to my next point - too subjective. For example, cod lutefisk is a dish so odorous that is probably wouldn't exist in some cultures. But it is an actual dish in some Nordic countries because many people in those cultures are used to fishy smells. Knox490 (talk) 06:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.

    The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists, which says, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." I will show below that "foul smelling sources" have been treated as a "a group or set by independent reliable sources".

    Sources

    1. The sources listed by Andrew Davidson demonstrate "the study and classification of smells" is a serious topic of research so supports the argument that this list is worthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia.
    2. Sterer, Nir; Rosenberg, Mel (2011). Breath Odors: Origin, Diagnosis, and Management. Heidelberg: Springer Science Business Media. p. 19. ISBN 3642193129. Retrieved 2017-04-22.

      The book notes:

      In a larger context, bacteria are responsible for many of the foul odors that we encounter in everyday lives (e.g., sewage, animal waste, garbage and spoiled food, contaminated water, body odor, etc.)

      Bacteria may produce a wide variety of foul odors depending on the substrates being degraded, and the metabolic pathways involved. It is possible that through our evolution, we have learned to detest these types of odor components as a health hazard warning.

    3. Delaney, Carol (1991). The Seed and the Soil: Gender and Cosmology in Turkish Village Society. Berkeley: University of California Press. p. 79. ISBN 0520911598. Retrieved 2017-04-22.

      The book notes:

      Smell plays an important part in Turkish social life. Smells can be characterized along two axes, foul-pleasant and impersonal-personal. In general, foul smells seem to be organic, that is, the result of some kind of organic transformation. Impersonal foul odors are those arising from the putrefaction of garbage, from animal wastes, and from cooking, especially fish and garlic, whereas personal foul odors are the result of metabolic processes—feces, urine, sweat, and menstrual blood. All foul odors seems to point to the susceptibility of physical matter to corruption and decay, which is a primary attribute of this world (dünyda). The other world (öbür dünya) not surprisingly is a complete reversal of this one; it is characterized as clean and sweet-smelling, and by the absence of both foul smells and metabolic processes. In the other world there is food and drink of an ambrosial sort, but as more than one villager said, "There is no shit, no piss, and no sweat." There is sex but no issue, no child. Sex in the other world is recreational; sex in this world is for the purpose of procreation, which is ultimately what this world is all about.

      All foul odors are considered pis (dirty), and the notion of "dirt as matter out of place" (Douglas 1966: 35) is apposite here.

    4. Douglas, Ian (2013). Cities: An Environmental History. London: I.B. Tauris. p. 206. ISBN 1845117964. Retrieved 2017-04-22.

      The book notes:

      CITIES

      Coping with odours in the USA

      Between 1840 and 1860, the complaints about industrial odours that the US courts dealt with in terms of nuisance were essentially those of the 'traditional' industries associated with processing agricultural products, the breweries and distilleries, slaughterhouses, bone-boiling and fat-melting establishments, soap-and candle-making concerns and tanneries. The foul smells that led American citizens to regard them as material nuisances resulted from the decay of animal urine, manure, offal, blood, spent distillery grains, the foul smoke and vapours emitted into the air when bones, fats, and offal were boiled, melted, or otherwise processed into soap, neat's-foot oil, glue, and other products, and the odiferous chemicals used to tan animal hides into leather.

    5. Dobson, Mary J. (2003). Contours of Death and Disease in Early Modern England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 16. ISBN 0521892880. Retrieved 2017-04-22.

      The book notes:

      The idea of 'bad airs', noxious vapours and polluted waterways took on a very special meaning in the context of certain places or spaces. In urban settings, writers shifted their attention away from the natural environment – elements of altitude, soils, terrain, exposure, wind direction – and focused, instead, on the foul smells of the human environment. Densely packed twons, alleyways, markets, overcrowded houses, gaols, hospitals, ships, workhouses, barracks – the confined and congested places of the poor, the sick and the institutionalized – were often viewed as places of 'a thousand stinks' (Figures 1.1 and 1.2). Streams of effluvia and noxious vapours were believed to arise from open sewers, churchyards, slaughter houses, butches' shops and lanes, dead flesh, burial grounds, cesspools and from every other sort of putrefaction, excrement, decay, human and animal filth. The odious, offensive and notorious fountains of stench corrupted the air, created terror amongst the inhabitants, and made the people sick and faint as they passed by. The filthy channel of the Fleet ditch in London was described as 'a nauceious and abominable sink of nastiness' into which the tripe dressers, sausage makers and catgut spinners flung their offal. The townsfolk of Chelmsford in Essex made constant complaints about those who their their 'blude, garbage and guttes' into the river courses 'greatly endangering the health' of residents. Fumes of sea-coal, pollution and waste products, generated by industries, added to the list of noxious smells wafting through the presentments and complaints of many town records in this period. In Norwood in south London, one poet concluded 'you may well smell, but never see your way'.

      Putrid exhalations might also arise and be contained in such closed spaces as cellars, garrets, cells, common lodging houses, tenements, courts, alleys and alehouses. These were the pestilential black spots, the 'pest-houses of concentrated contagion', 'the foul and loathsome places' where 'the air is much corrupted and infected', 'the sinister abscesses' of towns, the 'close, dirty stinking and infected' places, the 'noisome corners' haunted by plaugues and fevers. These were the urban spaces where 'darkness, dirt and stagnant air combine to augment all the evils resulting from the situation.

    6. Godish, Thad; Fu, Joshua S. (2003). Air Quality, Fourth Edition. Boca Raton: CRC Press. p. 213. ISBN 1466582693. Retrieved 2017-04-22.

      The book notes:

      6.5.2 Odor Problems

      It is likely that maladors from nearby sources are responsible for more complaints to regulatory agencies than any other form of air pollution. Particularly notable sources of maladors (and, in many instances, citizen complaints) are rendering plants; soap-making facilities; petrochemical plants; refineries; pulp and kraft paper mills; fish-processing plants; diesel exhaust; sewage treatment plants; and agricultural operations, including feedlots, poultry houses, and hog confinements. Maldors associated with such sources include a variety of amines, sulfur gases (such as H2S, methyl and ethyl mercaptan, and carbon disulfide (CS2)), phenol, NH3, aldehydes, fatty acids, etc.

    7. McDonald, Megan; Reynolds, Peter (2009). Stink-o-pedia: Super Stink-y Stuff from A to Zzzzz. Somerville, Massachusetts: Candlewick Press. ISBN 076363963X. Retrieved 2017-04-22.


    The list is not indiscriminate.

    Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information says Wikipedia articles should not be: "Summary-only descriptions of works", "Lyrics databases", "Excessive listings of unexplained statistics", and "Exhaustive logs of software updates". This article is none of these, so it is not indiscriminate.

    The list is not subjective. The inclusion criteria is clear and compliant with the list guideline.

    The nominator wrote that "this is an entirely subjective, uncompletable, and unencyclopedic subject". I disagree that the list is subjective. The inclusion criterion is that an entry should be added only when a reliable source says it is or can be a source of foul smells. This can be made more clear by renaming the article to "List of sources of foul smells" or "List of foul smell sources".

    An editor wrote, "Very subjective. Exactly who considers these things foul smelling. I know people that like Durian." If a reliable source said that durian is or can be a source of foul smells, the list's inclusion criteria would say that durian should be included in the article even if some people don't consider durians foul smelling.

    The list might never be complete, which is fine.

    It is fine for the list never to be complete per Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists#Incomplete lists:

    Because of Wikipedia's role as an almanac as well as an encyclopedia, it contains a large number of lists. Some lists, such as the list of U.S. state birds, are typically complete and unlikely to change for a long time.

    Some lists, however, cannot be considered complete, or even representative of the class of items being listed; such lists should be immediately preceded by the {{Expand list}} template, or one of the topic-specific variations that can be found at Category:Hatnote templates for lists. Other lists, such as List of numbers, may never be fully complete, or may require constant updates to remain current – these are known as "dynamic lists", and should be preceded by the {{Dynamic list}} template.

    For example, List of Italians likely never will be complete. It was discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Italians in March 2016, where there was a strong consensus for retention.

    The AfD close for List of unusual deaths

    Here are the first two paragraphs of the 2013 AfD close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unusual deaths (7th nomination), which was upheld at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 November 3:

    The result was keep. I can find no way that this list violates WP:IINFO and/or WP:LIST, per the criteria. Furthermore, the list is not automatically WP:TRIVIA just because all of its entries don't have independent articles. Therefore, that argument is invalid. On the other side, the article being mentioned in Time magazine has absolutely no impact on our decision making here, and thereby that is a completely irrelevant argument for keeping this list. The same goes for the amount of page views this article has had, even if that puts the "want" for the information in perspective.

    To the point that this list is subjective OR: It isn't, as long as the items in the list are referenced to sources calling the deaths unusual. If there are items in the list where this is not the case, they should be fixed if possible and removed if not. But, improper items on the list is not a good argument for the deletion of the article as a whole. Calling the article "crap", and or stating that there isn't a good enough inclusion criteria yet are also terrible reasons for deletion. The article can always be improved, (this isn't a BLP1E type situation here). And the inclusion criteria can and should be drafted by a community discussion on it, not by deleting the article. If editors feel that this still hasn't been hammered out properly, an RFC should be started and the results of that RFC should be drafted into a firm policy on the matter.

    I quote this here to emphasize that 1) the list is not subjective original research and 2) the inclusion criteria can be discussed on the talk page if editors disagree with the current inclusion criteria.

    General notability guideline

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

    Cunard (talk) 10:00, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as author, I was careful to choose the title correctly with "considered". This isn't a "list of things that definitive smell bad to everyone" it's the consensus of the majority of our population. Not to WP:OSE, but there's List of music considered the worst List of automobiles considered the worst, I bring them up because they too had debates around them and the consensus was simple: if multiple independent sources discuss it, it meets GNG along with WP:SALAT, since the list itself is being spoken about not simply it's items, it should stay. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 22:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Foul odor is an encyclopedic topic (as the above references and many more tell), and isn't covered much elsewhere on WP as far as I can tell (not in odor or pungency) - and it's certainly not all subjective. It's possible it might be better to have an article on foul odor or even a lengthy section in another article, but that's not grounds for deletion, and requires more thought than is likely in an AfD discussion. Colapeninsula (talk) 10:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Odour is certanily a topic, and is not subjective, but what is is saying this smells bad and this does not. That is an interpretation and what this article is doing. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 18:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 21:03, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The whole article is completely WP:SUBJECTIVE, let alone a specific part. This is not independent at all, nor is able to be. Therefore, it fails the WP:NPOV. I strongly dislike the smell of ketchup, finding it foul and intolerable, yet many of my peers love it. This example illustrates how subjective as a topic this is. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 18:06, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If one source says it is foul. That is totally subjective, I can (again) say that there is one smell that I don't like and state it in a book. Others can say they love the smell, publish this and we have a conflict! Unusual deaths is less subjective, insofar as it is less common for comment on non-unusual deaths, few sources list usual deaths in any detail so you do not get this sort of dispute. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 12:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you wrote a book and referenced it, that would be WP:OR. We're talking about widespread consensus by multiple peer-reviewed outlets. Are there ketchup outliers? Absolutely. Can you reference independent significant sources to support that? It's only subjective in that you experience it. Again, it's not about what you find foul smelling it's about the widespread consensus of the general population backed by sources. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 19:35, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still feel that it misses the point, if one were to write a paper saying that X chemical is foul smelling, and then another saying that X is not, there is a conflict. The ides of smell can't be objectively measured. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 10:55, 6 May 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 01:41, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Starr (artist)

edit
AfDs for this article:
Matt Starr (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)

Resubmit after apparent previous nominations. Fails WP:ARTIST. Weak references don't support that these works have been particularly well-known, but merely received a scant amount of media attention in some online magazines. Doesn't not appear to be widely considered important or noted by peers, not particularly well-known for innovating any specific significant technique, etc. It also has an entirely unsourced Early life section, as well as a large amount of unsourced material in Life and work. Ultimately seems much more like a self-promoting resume on a personal website than a biography of a notable person. Ampersandbrown (talk) 02:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sources currently linked may or may not establish WP:NARTIST qualification, but they certainly do establish WP:GNG qualification, which supersedes. Multiple, significant, independent mentions in WP:RS. The Unlimited, Dazed, and Opening Ceremony may be entirely online but they are RS within the New York metro art scene. That doesn't even count the Buzzfeed article. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable artist. References point to a 2014 event, and several are blogs, bad links, etc. No significant museum exhibitions or collections. Netherzone (talk) 23:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 20:50, 29 April 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 00:05, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophy of Ghost in the Shell

edit
Philosophy of Ghost in the Shell (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-encyclopedic content; a personal essay, a hotchpotch of fan speculation and original research. Orange Mike | Talk 20:26, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:52, 2 May 2017 (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 procedural close. Article was nominated twice. An active debate is open at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mia Malkova (2nd nomination). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert in articles of deletion but it appears this article was under consideration. I'm submitting this again under 2nd nomination. Since there are clearly not many reliable sources and only one major award given. The AVN, XRCO, and XBIZ awards were not one of the major categories of awards given. Only one separte award from AVN meets the standard of a major award, which was the Best New Starlet award. For Reference number 4, there is no clickable entry to verify this reference. Reference 2 and 5 is debatable as to whether a Twistys award or mention of an award, is worthy of inclusion. Reference 6 is clearly written from a blog, not as reliable as the Adult DVD Talk interview, or even as credible. The Adult DVD Talk has interviewed a multitude of adult performers for many years, on a near weekly basis. It is coming from a very reliable and credible adult talk site.[1] The blog indicated in Reference 6 looks like a minor, opinionated and unverified source clearly from a blog, as stated. Written in extremely simplified terms, with photographs attached, from a blog that usually does not write about adult performers. In fact, if you read the article up to near the end, it is jokingly insinuated that it looks like a porn production. The photographs could be for a video, for all we know. There is also no certificate of authenticity to verify what was going on in the photographs. Just someone who writes a blog that does not usually involve adult performers. It also lists a twitter account as proof, but who is to know whether that is real. It may have been created just for this blog site.[2] The name mentioned as her friend, under the career section, is also unverified. Finally, when you click on Reference 8, you are lead to an error page, with no verifiable information provided. I'm a fan of Mia Malkova, but seriously wonder if one major AVN Award under the Best New Starlet award category, deserves an article or profile on wikipedia. There is also a lack of personal information in regard to her profile. Understandable, perhaps, given the industry she is in. Mentioning a Twisty award of the month or Twisty award of the year, is questionable since this is not a major award or may be debatable as such. Whether it deserves even a mention in her article page, with only one verifiable reliable source, is also questionable at best. I do not want a deletion, but if someone may provide more information, references, etc. and more awards, rather than just one major award, then please add that information. Otherwise, consideration for deletion may be possible. This article does not meet established guidelines of WP:PORNBIO If it does meet it, then it is meeting only one established guideline. Scenicview1 (talk) 19:24, 29 April 2017 (UTC)Scenicview1[reply]

References

  1. ^ Jack, Captain. "Pornstar Interviews by Captain Jack". Adult DVD Talk.
  2. ^ Covucci, David. "People Who Do It on Camera For Money Can Find Love". Bro Blog.

Mia Malkova

edit
Mia Malkova (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 "may" not meet the guidelines for notability. Scenicview1 (talk) 19:24, 29 April 2017 (UTC)Scenicview1[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:59, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:01, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:02, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:02, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:29, 29 April 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 00:07, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Trebbau López

edit
Pedro Trebbau López (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 article was created along with other also related by an editor that seems to be on the side of a person that sued this and other officials of a company. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francisco D'Agostino (3rd nomination)is an example of a very similar article created by him that was already deleted. I think the same argument that was given by Xymmax: "The article is essentially the story of ambassador Reich's attempts to sue the subject and other people in the United States for allegedly illegal business practices in Venezuela. There are other sources that have shown up in the article from time to time, but the all center around this. When stripped out, as they are currently, there is little to support notability. Thus, we a have ONEEVENT/BLPCRIME case that properly should be deleted" applies here too. Jflainez (talk) 18:56, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I agree with Jflainez. I checked the references in the article: Some are broken, two are press releases. Some just mention his name as director of the company or as been a part to the two lawsuits and some don't even cite him. I searched in Google for in depth coverage on Trebbau but I could not find any. Only just some mentions of his name. According to what I found, both lawsuits have been dismissed and both are currently being appealed and the investigation was also dropped according to the WSJ. Most of these new sources I found just talk about the suits and the investigation and don't even cite his name. He fails both WP:BIO and WP:GNG and should be deleted per WP:CRIME. --Rogerx2 (talk) 21:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:04, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:04, 5 May 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 00:07, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Raman sidhu

edit
Raman sidhu (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)

Businessman with a nice career but there's no sign of significant, reliable coverage in third-party sources (only current reference is LinkedIn). Fails the requirements of both WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Pichpich (talk) 18:46, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:06, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:03, 5 May 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 00:07, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of highly-decorated German pilots of ground attack aircraft

edit
List of highly-decorated German pilots of ground attack aircraft (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)

An unnecessary cross-categorisation. Most of the subjects included are redirects to another list for lack of individual notability. Per the outcome of the discussion: Redirect proposal for Knight's Cross winners, certain recipients were deemed non notable and WP:SOLDIER has been modified accordingly: diff. These articles have been redirected to alphabetical lists.

The article relies on a single, less than RS source. Obermaier (1989) (originally published in the 1960s) is a questionable source; see discussion at de.wiki on an attempted promotion of a list covering Luftwaffe fighter pilots to a Featured List: link. The nomination failed mostly because of the source, which was described as weak and dated. One of the comments was: The author is not to be criticized for the fact that no scientific literature has been used, because there are none. (...) According to WP:Q, the lack of scientific literature points to a lack of relevance.

Created under the POV title List of German World War II ground attack aces in 2007, when Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion were more lax. (Specifically, such "aces" do not exist; for a comparative concept, pls see "Panzer ace" in popular culture). Such lists do not exist for the Allied "ground attack aces".

For the reasons above, the list lacks encyclopedic relevance and I recommend deleting it. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:40, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:41, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:41, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:42, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:43, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't know whether it's amusing or evidence of tendentious editing that the nominator claims at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erich Handke, that "Being an "ace" may get you on a list, but if there are insufficient sources to write a balanced biography, such article should be deleted or redirected to a list", and here that "Most of the subjects included are redirects to another list for lack of individual notability", as part of his evidence for deleting this list. Parsecboy (talk) 18:48, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was part of a discussion on whether a radar operator (Erich Handke) should be considered a flying ace. Since he participated in the pilot's victories, some have argued for it, but I don't think this idea gained traction. The AfD closed as delete for lack of notability.
Specific to this discussion, my contention is that Radar operator aces and Ground attack aces do not exist. Grouping them into a list serves no encyclopedic purpose and is WP:LISTCRUFT, similar to comparative lists that appear on the Template:Footer Knight's Cross recipients. As I've pointed above, such lists of the Allied "ground attack aces" do not exist.K.e.coffman (talk) 18:55, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for not addressing my point in the slightest. Parsecboy (talk) 19:19, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please help me understand your point. As I mentioned, a list of flying aces, such as List of German World War II jet aces, is useful, since a flying ace is a recognised concept. But not for any other "aces". The article on "Submarine aces" has been likewise deleted / redirected; see AfD: Submarine ace. There are multiple reasons to delete this article. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:38, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At the Handke AfD, you argued, in part, that flying aces are not prima facie notable, and that in the event that they are not individually notable, they belong in a list of aces. In this AfD, you are arguing, in part, that since the individuals on the list are not all independently notable, the list should be deleted. Clear now?
As to your other, substantive points:
  • Use of the word "ace" is not POV.
  • On subject of submarine ace: WP:OTHERSTUFF.
  • Criticism of Obermaier: what a random, anonymous editor on de.wiki thinks about a given source is irrelevant. Also, WP:SOFIXIT, WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, etc.
  • And the idea that since no one has used the term "ace" to describe very successful pilots of ground attack aircraft means we can't have a list of said pilots is, frankly, ridiculous in the purest sense of the word. Parsecboy (talk) 20:24, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:28, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - While I believe a list of ground-attack aircraft sorted by tank-kills (or other target metric) is notable if backed up by verifiable RS... The current article seems to be solely based on Obermaier (and also might be missing quite a few pilots) - which is, as per K.e.coffman, a questionable source - and in this case a single source. If the article were to be improved in sourcing, I would change my vote.Icewhiz (talk) 04:07, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. there are insufficient sources to show that even their notability even as a group is accepted DGG ( talk ) 15:44, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • DElete -- There is no obvious boundary at which to draw the line, so that inclusion is a POV issue. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:50, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. List article lacks clear selection criteria (define "highly-decorated"). Content could possibly be useful elsewhere. Ajf773 (talk) 22:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The criteria are muddled beyond repair. How did aces get mixed into "highly-decorated" (no hyphen BTW)? There's no such thing as a ground-attack ace. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am not sure what this list is about. It's certainly not a list of "combat aircraft aces". It seems to be simply a list of KC recipients among German ground attack aircraft personnel. Or is there another reason why gunners and radio operators are also included? It's been sorted by combat missions and for quite a many of these pilots, we don't know much about their "successes". "Tank claims" and "aerial claims" are not criteria which can fully account for the "successes" of ground attacks. The Ju 87, for example, became an antitank weapon only during the war. What about attacks on targets like bridges, fortifications, ships, troops, or cities? --Assayer (talk) 01:56, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:01, 5 May 2017 (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.

Hayden Szeto

edit
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. (non-admin closure) Jax 0677 (talk) 20:16, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hayden Szeto (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)

Was recreated after being deleted through prodding. Working, but non-notable actor. Searches did not turn up enough to show they pass WP:GNG, and their resume does not show that they meet WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 TT me 18:32, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It is a very short article and should be improved. Here are two more sources that could be used:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/markhughes/2017/04/28/the-top-5-best-actors-to-play-nightwing-in-a-batman-spinoff-movie/#121c0e964e06
https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/movies/2016/11/24/edge-seventeen-breakout-star-hayden-szeto/94056254/
--Rogerx2 (talk) 21:18, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:07, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:59, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:59, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Iraqi Civil War (2014–present). If edit-warring over the redirect continues, it may be prudential to ask for page protection. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 04:02, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Iraqi Kurdish-Islamic State War

edit
Iraqi Kurdish-Islamic State War (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)

Content fork (possibly POV fork) of Iraqi Civil War (2014-present); redirect undone by IP which may or may not be article creator. Previous creations by this author have been deleted and/or redirected on the same grounds. ansh666 18:14, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ansh666 18:16, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. ansh666 18:16, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. ansh666 18:16, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ansh666 18:16, 29 April 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 00:08, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tatiana Platt

edit
Tatiana Platt (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)

Platt just does not rise to the level of notability. The Forbes article has one paragraph in a much longer article that mentions her. It does not rise to the level of significant coverage. The New York Observer is a dead link, but looks to be about her campnay and not her, notability is not inherited. The sources from her own websites just cant be used. The last source is from Dan's Papers which does not look to be a reliable source. to begin with it is a local Hampton's publication covering more the Platt home than the Platt's. Secondly, its editing is shoddy and has perpetrated hoaxes. Actually some have been intentional, but others seem to have just been a result of horrible editorial oversight. There are a few other sources that name check Platt, but only because a friend of her then 19-year-old stepson allegedly raped someone on the roof of their penthouse during a party said stepson had while his dad and stepmom were away. None of this is the stuff of encylopedic notability, but it is the stuff of tabloids. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:02, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:08, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:18, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Concur with nom. Fails GNG. I did find this [1], which since it has a big VOTE HERE at the bottom, is probably not neutral. It does nevertheless indicate what she has done, which is not enough to make her notable, further evidenced by the lack of coverage. MB 02:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:56, 5 May 2017 (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 merge to A Stitch in Time (novel). – Juliancolton | Talk 02:50, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Palandine

edit
Palandine (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 fictional Star Trek character does not appear to be independently notable. Reliable sources independent of the subject have not discussed this character in sufficient detail for an article to be warranted. I am also nominating the following related articles for the same reason:

Bamarren Institute for State Intelligence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Pythas Lok (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Barkan Lokar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) VQuakr (talk) 17:19, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:08, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:08, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:08, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wow, and I thought I was finding the most un-notable Star Trek articles - you beat me by a long shot here. This is nothing but in-universe plot. Delete. (Heck, usually group nominations are problematic, but I doubt we will see a single keep vote here...). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:23, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Naah, just kidding Merge all to the DS9 novel in which they appear. No RS found, not suitable to merge to a list of characters--those are intentionally limited to characters appearing more than in one fictional work. Jclemens (talk) 05:38, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:55, 5 May 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 00:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Torgov

edit
Sarah Torgov (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)

Delete: as insufficiently notable actress. Quis separabit? 17:17, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:13, 30 April 2017 (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. A few WP:ITSNOTABLE comments do not address the fact, pointed out by others, that there is no reliable in-depth sourcing in this BLP. If anyone would like a go at rescuing it, let me know and I'll move the content back to Draft. Black Kite (talk) 20:56, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rehmat Aziz Chitrali

edit
AfDs for this article:
Rehmat Aziz Chitrali (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 the notability criteria set out on. Contained unreliable and questionable sourced which have been removed since they cannot be used as citations. Blatant promotion written by a by socks of indefinitely blocked sock puppeteer Akbaralighazi. Saqib (talk) 10:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 10:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Have we decide to keep the bio, lets curate it as per reliable sources available on web. I have created the Draft:Rehmat Aziz Chitrali. The bio can be further expanded using this source which mentions that he have recieved many awards but I'm sure not sure if those awards not noteworthy enough ? --Saqib (talk) 14:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cold stop. Those are not reliable sources.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that in the news sources that Mar4d has cited above that both The Dardistan Times and The Express Tribune are being controlled by the sockmaster and his meatpuppets and are COI fluff pieces themselves. This and this are written by blocked meats (check the authorship) and the Dardistan Times may now be sent to RSN as unreliable. Likewise, this piece was authored by a blocked meat and the article subject who supplied the photo. <== The Express Tribune is therefore unreliable and the listing for The International News doesn't have any attribution and looks suspect as unreliable. And the BBC source and two others in your list do not mention him at all. That list is a brilliant argument to Delete.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't consider the Express Tribune as unreliable source, though we can question the accuracy of reporting. The subject may have approached the journalists for press coverage. I didn't liked the fluff piece by Daily Pakistan which reads "He is a freelance contributor and pioneer of Khowar Wikipedia and writes in Khowar language articles for Wikimedia foundation." Seriously, is he pioneer of Wikipedia? Anyways Per BLP1E "Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article." --Saqib (talk) 14:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for failing WP:GNG and everything else. There's not a single reliable source, independent of the subject, providing in-depth coverage of the subject, let alone the multiple such reliable sources that would be required. I can add that before I cleaned/pruned it, it was the worst self-promotional puffery piece, bordering on hagiography, that I have ever seen here on en-WP... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 17:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks for your critique on the sources, though I do not agree with your assessment that The Express Tribune is unreliable. ET is one of the two largest English dailies in Pakistan (the other being Dawn) and is a very prominent mainstream source. The subject is covered in detail in the following article also: Khowar language: Keys of preservation. Furthermore, a basic search of the subject's name in Urdu yields some of the following results: Deutsche Welle [2], UrduPoint [3], ARY News [4], Geo Urdu [5] [6], Chitral [7], News Tribe [8] etc. Just putting these forward per WP:SYSTEMICBIAS to avoid over-reliance on English sources. I do agree however that the article should be cleansed from anything self-promotional or hagiographic in tone. Mar4d (talk) 03:17, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Express Tribune failed verification of sources on this article. Note the posted comment in 2014 where sources were requested..."Great work. Is there any source to verify the claims? No doubt it is a great piece of work but we live in a country where water-run car made to TV and print media. I failed to get an authentic verification of a reliable source. Someone?". I'm not judging them for all matters here on WP but for this they fail. Since the article cites The Dardistan Times then there is no reason to treat that as a RS. No comment on the others...yet.
       — Berean Hunter (talk) 07:04, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Mar4d: I am surprised you citing "geourdu.com" , "timesofchitral.com", and "thenewstribe.com" as a source. I consider all of them as unreliable. By the way, "geourdu.com" and Geo TV are not related to each other. Also, I would never cite "urdupoint.com" as a source on BLP's. On a different note, I hope you are aware that recently the community has banned the usage of the Daily Mail as unreliable source. --Saqib (talk) 12:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. As I clarified above, the links I added were extracted from a basic search as a starting point. I will need to take another look regarding the reliability of the Geo and News Tribe etc. links, as (at first glance) they just appear to be normal Urdu articles covering the subject. Also, I am pretty sure Daily Mail wasn't in the discussion. Actually, DM doesn't even have an Urdu version (unless I'm mistaken). Maybe you are confusing it with Deutsche Welle. Mar4d (talk) 14:41, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My point of referring to the Daily Mail ban here is to indicate that we should be cautious about citing any other news website as a source, in particularly on BLP's. --Saqib (talk) 15:13, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 TT me 22:42, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional article. Thus, delete. Also, the sources aren't independant/reliable.Burning Pillar (talk) 22:47, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong| babble _ 17:10, 29 April 2017 (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.

Hussein Kanji

edit
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. (non-admin closure) Jax 0677 (talk) 20:05, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hussein Kanji (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)

An unremarkable venture capitalist. I'm not able to locate coverage that discusses the subject directly and in detail. The coverage is either PR driven or contains commentary by the subject: link. WP:TOOSOON -- the subject is not yet notable per encyclopedia standards. The author (Special:Contributions/Misterpottery) appears to have created articles on several marginally-notable businesspeople in the past; see for example: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Trost (entrepreneur). K.e.coffman (talk) 23:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:27, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep He has coverage dating back to 2011 or so [9] [10] (Milo Yiannopoulos - tagged him at #1 in a list in 2011). He is regularly interviewed - in major euro-zone publications (BBC, Economist, FT, etc.). around 200 Google-news hits - many of them good sources. Most of the coverage is passing, though some is in-depth. The article itself is a short stub and not overly promotional.Icewhiz (talk) 06:47, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As one of the Keeps is by the article creator, I think relisting this is best.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 00:22, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nom's comment -- "regularly interviewed" does not count towards GNG; it just means that the subject is effective at generating publicity. We'd need substantial commentary either about the subject or his work to substantiate the claim of significance. I don't see this yet. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:23, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong| talk _ 17:00, 29 April 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 00:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ghezaal Enayat

edit
Ghezaal Enayat (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)

Promo, no reliable sources given The Banner talk 16:36, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:12, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:12, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:12, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:12, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:12, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • With the benefit of Google Translate, I see that the BBC Persian ref does seem to be a reliable source -- brief as it is. She may very meet WP:ARTIST, in terms of claims made for her notability in her country of birth. But I can't find enough solid evidence. Gnews, in English, yields nothing at all. Not a good sign. And the refs on the article are not going to meet GNG. This may be a case where an editor might be better off creating an article in the Persian wiki. Delete per nom. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:22, 29 April 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 00:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ottawa Independent Writers

edit
Ottawa Independent Writers (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)

Essentially a rerun of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Prose_in_the_Park_Literary_Festival - same local news cites, same obvious COI, same minimal notability. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:59, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's have a conversation. What is the difference between this page for the Ottawa Independent Writers and existing wiki pages like Quebec Writers Federation and Crime Writers of Canada? Is there a bias against writers' organization in the Ottawa area? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Literary Muse (talk • contribs) 16:26, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but one obvious reason is that you have a blindingly obvious COI. Your account is only used to promote this festival and people associated with it. Those existing pages may have disinterested editors working on them. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:20, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the articles are inadequate as written, it's known that the depth of reliable source coverage about both the QWF and CWC does exist to get them over WP:GNG — so while the articles do need to be improved, the basic notability is there because we know that the required depth and breadth of media coverage does exist. But the required depth of coverage has not been shown in this case. Also, both of those other organizations serve a much wider area than just one single city — QWF is provincewide and CWC is nationwide, while OIW is merely local. Not that local things can't necessarily get into Wikipedia too, but they have to be sourced significantly better than national or provincewide things do given that their level of notability isn't as inherently obvious. Saying that the OIW has to have an article because the CWC has one is kind of like saying that the mayor of Chelsea, Quebec has to have an article if Justin Trudeau has one: not a solid argument, because they aren't on the same basic level of notability in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 17:12, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA (talk) 17:19, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree totally. None of those pages were created by completely disinterested editors. I know most of them. Only people interested in the literary arts take the time to create wikipedia pages like this. Of course, I am a writer and promote my fellow writers. Isn't Wikipedia about the spreading of culture? You are doing Wikipedia a huge disservice by objecting to the sharing of information about culture in Canada.Literary Muse (talk) 18:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Disinterested" is not in the sense of "having no interest whatsoever in the subject area" — obviously people primarily work on Wikipedia articles about subject areas that interest them — but in the sense of not having a direct conflict of interest. Wikipedia is not a free publicity platform on which any person or thing is entitled to have an article for public relations purposes just because they exist; we keep articles about things that can be properly demonstrated to pass WP:GNG on the basis of being the subject of coverage in reliable sources, not about everything that exists. Bearcat (talk) 17:12, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:27, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:27, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:27, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Literary Muse, we do see some mentions in the Ottawa Citizen in Gnews and I'm sure it's a very worthy group. It's just that as WP:CLUB explains, we have rather specific standards that organizations must meet, which the group in question doesn't seem to meet, at this time. Again, it's not a reflection on the merits of the group -- simply a certain set of agreed-upon requirements for notability that we have here. Delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This page is a service to the community. There are many writers and people who wish to become writers in the Ottawa area, and greater awareness is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Susantaylormeehan (talk • contribs) 20:34, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This does not contain the depth or breadth of reliable sourcing needed to demonstrate that the organization passes WP:GNG, and there's no claim of notability strong enough to earn it a presumption of notability in the absence of enough quality sourcing to pass GNG. Again, we are not a free publicity platform on which any organization or person is entitled to have an article just because they exist — if there are writers and people who wish to become writers in the Ottawa area, then the organization can publish its own website for that purpose, but Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia on which the grounds for an article is whether there's a credible reason why the entire world, not just Ottawa, would need the information. Bearcat (talk) 17:12, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:35, 1 May 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 00:12, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kuala (disambiguation)

edit
Kuala (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:10, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:10, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:10, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:PTM: "Do not add a link that merely contains part of the page title, or a link that includes the page title in a longer proper name, where there is no significant risk of confusion or reference". No article says that the place is known as simply "Kuala", and I don't believe they would be (they'd be more likely to be called K.L., for example). I think it might be helpful if Kuala was moved to Kuala, Indonesia. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:21, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The issue of moving Kuala is independent of this AfD. As there doesn't appear to be a rival for the primarytopic, there's no need for a move for disambiguation. A move for article title reasons is also separate, both are offtopic at this AfD. Widefox; talk 20:05, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please seek username change, suggest Humourfiend. Thanks, made me chuckle. But seriously, I added a {{confused}} Koala .Widefox; talk 11:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep in some form. I agree with the above that the page is rather thin on proper dab entries, but if it gets deleted then Cuala will have to include {{distinguish}} hatnotes to Koala, CoalaCuala, Quala and possibly Orang Kuala (the last one might not be properly known as just "Kuala", but it's very plausible as a search term given that orang means "people"), and that's going to be too cluttered. – Uanfala (talk) 11:38, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Currently it's only linked from Kuala [11]. A new need at, say, Cuala (disambiguation) is separate, and not obvious to me. Widefox; talk 16:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, now corrected. – Uanfala (talk) 16:17, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I realise now I might not have been very clear. My point was that links to all the pages I've listed ought to be included in the See also of Kuala (disambiguation). If it gets deleted, then these links will instead have to be listed in a hatnote at Kuala. I was arguing that this hatnote would be a bit too big. – Uanfala (talk) 16:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cuala now has a hatnote to the new dab Cuala (disambiguation). There was a need for it. Is that a good place to put those in the see also? Widefox; talk 19:08, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
they're added, not that I think they're crucial.   Done Widefox; talk 19:28, 1 May 2017 (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.

Yung Simmie

edit

The result was No consensus. After being relisted more than twice, the discussion contained a mixed collection of reasons for keeping and deleting the article, whose artist has multiple charting tunes. (non-admin closure) --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yung Simmie (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 WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. No awards. Billboard charts are deprecated, per WP:BADCHARTS. Sources cited in article are primary sources (interviews) or trivial, paragraph-long mentions in industry or fansite publications. Unable to locate a significant secondary source. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:55, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ronz: Since your assuming and acussing me of only creating this account to save this article You should take a little look here WP:DNB, also you should read this Who not to tag (SPA tagging guidelines) , pretty much your tagging us to intentionally take away the relevance of my and :@32zel: "keep" requests. Kakashi123456789 (talk) 16:18, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also i would like to ask what is that "single-purpose" your acussing my account of being part of?Kakashi123456789 (talk) 16:18, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not doing any of those things. You have a total of 64 edits, starting March 2, 2017. At a glance, they all look to be in the area of very similar music. That's a SPA from my perspective.
The issue here on this page is to determine whether or not the Yung Simmie article should be deleted. You believe there are reasons for a "strong keep", but haven't offered anything that remotely supports such a position. I've offered basic approaches to solving this. They've been ignored by everyone arguing "keep". As a result, I've decided the article would be better deleted, but offered yet more ways we could resolve this differently. You've responded by taking this as a personal attack. --Ronz (talk) 23:38, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:11, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:20, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The first and third source listed are interviews, which are primary sources. The second article is a short bio and a track listing. These sources hardly support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:09, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Those were only some examples, as you can see in the article there is still many more of reliable sources such as XXL Magazine, Complex, The Source [4][5][6], the artist is notable and certainly deserves a wikipedia article.Kakashi123456789 (talk) 03:47, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The fourth is another interview. The fifth is a short profile that might, with other similar or better sources, together demonstrate substantial coverage. The sixth is an announcement from three years back.
Basically, there's one source here that might demonstrate notability if there were more like it. --Ronz (talk) 15:35, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yung simmie has shown multiple news coverage for a considerable time , here evidence of past and present articles, still there is more articles that i could present but i think this is enough to show the artists notability .[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19] Kakashi123456789 (talk) 19:11, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I looked at each sources cited and it is a cacophony of primary source interviews, one sentence-long intros to a video, and vacuous paragraph-long bios. A more obvious example of WP:E=N and WP:SOUNDCLOUDBAND would be difficult to find, but consensus seems to have spoken. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:02, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What @Magnolia677: is assuming isnt correct, the notability that Yung Simmie has shown over the years proves that he needs a ARTICLE. Kakashi123456789 (talk) 00:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Danielle Bregoli brings back 150,000 more articles on Google. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are you trying to troll or something? Please dont try to change the sentence and try to keep the mature ambient that the discussion once had until you brought up your joke. Kakashi123456789 (talk) 00:35, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Kakashi123456789, you wrote "the notability that Yung Simmie has shown over the years proves that he needs a ARTICLE." If Wikipedia articles were based on notability "over the years", whatever that means, the "cash me outside" girl would also have an article, but it was deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danielle Bregoli (personality)), just as this one should be. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note The discussion isnt about comparing how much existing articles a certain artist or personality has. 32zel (talk) 00:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT First of all the comparison is out of place since Yung simmie and Bregoli dont have nothing in comon.Kakashi123456789 (talk) 01:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Magnolia677: Just to let you know Magnolia677 that you wanted the Danielle Bregoli article deleted, because you nominated it. Bloomdoom2 (talk) 04:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - Agreeing with Bloomdoom and 32zel on this. He is notable enough to have an article. LilNumerator (talk) 01:19, 6 April 2017 (UTC) strike comments from confirmed sock.[reply]

  • Request Rather than spamming this discussion with a long list of poor references, could someone identify sources that are equal of better than the fifth listed below, http://www.xxlmag.com/news/2016/10/florida-rappers/ ? If none exist, which seems to be the case, then the article should be stubbed or deleted. --Ronz (talk) 18:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I’m not seeing anything of significance among the references provided. Most are 1st person, user submitted (such as hotnewhiphop) or trivial. While sources such as Complex, The Source, XXL, can indeed reveal secondary evidence of wikipedia notability, the coverage they have given this subject isn’t. It’s worth noting that in today’s digital media age—where websites are hungry for constant, easy content—any artist with just the smallest amount of effort is going to get the kind of coverage evidenced here: interviews, announcements of releases, inclusions on lists, credits lists, etc. This does not represent true "third party" coverage. Many of these kinds of magazines/websites, in fact, give directions to whom/and how to submit content to get the desired press. The existences of such coverage is just that: existence. Every industry has it’s unique press arm, but that doesn’t mean any thing that gets press is notable. Were that the case then, for example, every realtor in Miami would merit a wikipedia page by pointing to their trade industry profiles, listings, etc. That is precisely why the guidelines for WP:MUSIC specify that meeting criteria may be—not is—indication of notabiity. It’s not automatic without being subjected to the kind of analysis provided here.
Having said that, I am willing to give the editors arguing “keep” a chance to get me to change my ivote. While I’m reasonably well-versed in publishing and music marketing, I’ll admit I know nothing of the Miami underground hip hop scene. Looking over the edit history of these “keep” editors it appears they have a common interest and/or connection to the scene. And although a few of their histories reveal a rare or/no participation in prior AFD discussions (a tell-tale sign of their presence here being the result of possible WP:CANVASING) I’m willing to give them the benefit of doubt and hear their arguments why the Miami hip-hop scene (and it’s key proponents) are encyclopedia-worthy. It will certainly need more than what has been shown so far. The only decent reference, as pointed out by user Ronz, is the article in XXL. But if that’s it—just one—then, no, it does not represent significant coverage, and neither is being one-out-of-fifteen people listed in an article enough to merit a stand alone wikipedia entry. ShelbyMarion (talk) 23:12, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal attack removed)

@ShelbyMarion: HotNewHipHop is not a user submitted site, they have their own editors, so I don't know where you got that idea from. Some more sources featuring Yung Simmie here, here and here. Bloomdoom2 (talk) 04:23, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sources featuring Yung Simmie here here here 32zel (talk) 04:52, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
References
  1. ^ http://www.complex.com/music/2017/03/yung-simmie-tawks-fancy-iggy-azalea-grand-theft-auto-go90
  2. ^ http://www.xxlmag.com/news/2016/10/yung-simmie-its-simmie-season-2-mixtape/
  3. ^ http://www.xxlmag.com/rap-music/the-break/2014/07/the-break-presents-yung-simmie/
  4. ^ http://thesource.com/2014/04/02/yung-simmie-talks-new-album-raider-klan-more-in-miami/
  5. ^ http://www.xxlmag.com/news/2016/10/florida-rappers/
  6. ^ http://thesource.com/2014/03/04/yung-simmie-delivers-his-latest-lyrical-exercise/
  7. ^ http://therapfest.com/new-hot-hip-hop-exclusives/premieres/rapfest-premiere-9th-wonders-mentee-mark-steele-drops-new-single-wave-2/
  8. ^ http://www.themaskedgorilla.com/new-music-yung-simmie-full-metal-2/
  9. ^ http://www.themaskedgorilla.com/new-music-yung-simmie-dead-beat/
  10. ^ http://www.hotnewhiphop.com/yung-simmie-underground-king-prod-by-purp-dogg-new-song.1971835.html
  11. ^ http://www.hotnewhiphop.com/yung-simmie-simmie-season-2-new-mixtape.116623.html
  12. ^ http://www.hotnewhiphop.com/stream-yung-simmies-new-mixtape-its-simmie-season-news.22609.html?
  13. ^ http://www.hotnewhiphop.com/yung-simmie-basement-music-3-new-mixtape.116081.html
  14. ^ http://www.hotnewhiphop.com/yung-simmie-fantastic-video-new-video.36362.html
  15. ^ http://thesource.com/2014/02/20/check-out-yung-simmies-new-visual-for-strap-in-my-lap/
  16. ^ http://thesource.com/2014/03/25/yung-simmie-reveals-full-metal-freestyle/
  17. ^ http://www.hotnewhiphop.com/yung-simmie-shoot-da-3-feat-denzel-curry-new-song.1970452.html
  18. ^ http://www.clashmusic.com/news/listen-yung-simmie-acrobat-freestyle
  19. ^ http://thesource.com/2014/07/02/yung-simmie-spaceghostpurrp-link-up-for-thankful/
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 20:37, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947(c) 22:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No other comments after the last 2 relists.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong| gossip _ 15:50, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While Billboard's Twitter charts (where the artist reached #8) are deprecated, the subject is listed at #4 on Billboard's Next Big Sound charts.[12] This, combined with decent profile reviews by sources like Movement Magazine and the subject being "placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network." (WP:NMUSIC#7) by channels like BBC,[13][14][15] make this subject tend towards a Keep rather than a Delete, irrespective of the issue of sock keep !votes above. Lourdes 16:49, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lourdes (talk) I respectfully disagree with your assessment of the sources given here. Billboard’s Next Big Sound chart is not a significant chart, it merely charts an aggregate of content downloaded on social music share sites such as Pandora, Last.fm, iheart, etc.. While tracking this info may have some value to industry professionals, for Wikipedia purposes it—like all social media aggregates—amounts to nothing when determining a subject’s notability.
Movement Magazine is local coverage of the Jacksonville, Florida music scene, and while perhaps a major third party profile therein might account for something, the example cited here does not appear to be a "decent profile review," rather it is merely an announcement of an upcoming release, the kind of standard trivial coverage that is called out in WP:NMUSIC#1 as precisely what is not an indicator of notability. Look at the link at the bottom of the page that allows one to directly submit news of events or announcements; this type of promotional content is consistent with the the vast majority of coverage this subject has gathered, very little of it representing true, independent, third party coverage.
Finally, the BBC links are not indicative of an artist being in significant rotation as cited in WP:MUSIC#7. You’ve provided archived links to 3 specific shows from the past (From Sep 10, 2012, Jan 24, 2013 and Nov. 3 2013) on the BBC 1XTRA’s Player Radio digital site, a targeted Urban-centic sub-catagory where 37 DJ’s curate playlists based on their personal preferences. For DJ’s to include a track by this artist in their lineup on four occasions over the past 5 years (I found another one from Sep 26, 2014) is a separate debate of notability; it emphatically is not the same as being on rotation on BBC1 (or any of their other main stations).
I still stand by my delete vote registered April 7. I’ve followed the comments here—as I wrote that I would—with a good-faith view to have my mind changed. Although googling his name returns tons of hits, none of them are beyond trivial, self-promotional, social media, or being including among a list. Considering his first proper release is coming later this year (per his social media comments) this is, at best, WP:TOOSOON. ShelbyMarion (talk) 09:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I appreciate and respect your viewpoint on the Billboard charts and BBC links. While various Billboard charts have been deprecated, the Billboard chart I have given is explicitly not deprecated. While I respect your view, unless consensus exists that this chart that I have quoted cannot be used, charting on this chart provides NMUSIC support to the subject. Additionally, my view is the same with BBC. I'll request you to search and find out the listings where BBC provides national playlists. A national radio channel has presenters/DJs who select songs based on their popularity. And the subject being selected by multiple DJs on BBC over a significant time period is evidence of WP:NMUSIC#7 being achieved. Let me reiterate, I appreciate your viewpoints and see them as a logical perspective and interpretation too. Thanks. Lourdes 01:37, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair points. Thanks, Lourdes (talk) . BTW, where are these discussions that determine policy? I’ve asked before but didn’t get much direction. I feel the insight from my background in music marketing can benefit the wikipedia community. IMO, some of the criteria could use more clarity, even hardline definition. Billboard’s Next Big Sound Chart needs assessing. It’s true that it is not among those listed as deprecated, but I couldn’t find it listed among those that are acceptable, either. It may simply be so unimportant that it’s never been given consideration. I find it curious that Billboard Twitter charts have been discounted, but their Next Big Sound Chart—a tracking of online social activity regardless of context—hasn’t. (See: https://help.nextbigsound.com/customer/en/portal/articles/2547277-what-is-next-big-sound ) While I believe social media numbers can, in fact, reveal helpful information, they are susceptible to having their numbers corrupted by those savvy enough to know how to do it. And if this subject—Yung Simmie—has convinced me of anything it’s that he (or someone or an agency working on his behalf) knows all too well how to use the internet as a tool for promotion. ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:14, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Yes, you are right about the promotional part. As SmokeyJoe has mentioned, we can bring this article down to a stub in case the article is kept. Lourdes 02:39, 3 May 2017 (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 already speedily deleted by User:Nyttend. Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:52, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bank Shot (Drinking Game)

edit
Bank Shot (Drinking Game) (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 drinking game with no coverage that meets the GNG. Sources in the article are about beer pong, images in the article are about beer pong. Article creator's name suggests they invented this game. Speedy (A11) declined. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:19, 29 April 2017 (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 Snow keep. The debate is currently whether it should be keep or merge, and I do not see any consensus on the question, but I see strong consensus against delete. The merge discussion should be opened, please continue there, and I close this one.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:46, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 block of Wikipedia in Turkey

edit
2017 block of Wikipedia in Turkey (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)

Per NOTNEWS, RECENTISM and NAVEL. Subject fails the WP:10YT. This might warrant a line or two in Media freedom in Turkey. Ad Orientem (talk) 15:02, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Add to Nominating statement) Various countries block major websites all the time. Such actions rarely justify individual articles. There is a raft of articles dealing with censorship by country. To the extent that this warrants any mention in the encyclopedia it belongs in the above linked article unless something much more significant comes of this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:12, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not necessarily WP:NAVEL, Wikipedia is one of the websites with highest traffic in Turkey and similar blocks would be notable for other high-traffic websites (Turkish Wikipedia has a detailed article on the YouTube ban). But it is too early for this article IMHO, so the NOTNEWS argument holds at the moment. There hasn't even been an official reaction from the opposition party to the incident. --GGT (talk) 15:07, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:16, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:16, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:16, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move it all to Government censorship of Wikipedia. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 15:24, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear: I have !voted below, in a somewhat different way than my above comment. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:25, 29 April 2017 (UTC) [reply]
Have you read any of the above comments or the nominating statement? Numerous guidelines and policies have been cited. If you have a policy/guideline argument for keeping this, I'm sure we would all like to read it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:34, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) No action against A140 motorist who drove into car head on is currently on the front page of BBC News. Do you think we should have an article on that as well? Wikipedia isn't a news ticker; for a subject to warrant an article on Wikipedia you need to demonstrate that it complies with Wikipedia policy, not that you personally find it interesting. ‑ Iridescent 16:37, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as suggested above. Without any comment from Turkey's gov't for why they did this, this is just another action to note in the above lists (eg it meets WP:V to be incldued on at least two existing topics), but a separate article clearly runs afoul of RECENTISM and NEVENT. --MASEM (t) 16:49, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or at worst, merge with either of the two articles above. It's clearly a significant, notable event. Aiken D 16:54, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Internet regulation in Turkey and Government censorship of Wikipedia, and Redirect to the former. Insufficient indication of lasting significance. That it's covered in the news right now is not sufficient reason to keep (WP:NOTNEWS, WP:N). Especially given there are several other articles in which this can be covered, it doesn't seem like there's call for a stand-alone article. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:11, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per WP:10YT will censorship still be relevant in 10 years? Unfortunately the answer will likely be yes. WP:NOTNEWS says "editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events" so that supports inclusion aswell. This is not original reporting but based on high quality sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:17, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Doc James: But nobody is arguing against "censorship still [being] relevant in 10 years". The question is whether this particular incident of censorship is not only notable but notable enough beyond the subjects government censorship of Wikipedia and Internet regulation in Turkey such that it demands its own article (i.e. WP:NOPAGE). Nobody (save, in part, the nominator) has argued to delete (i.e. it's clear there's consensus this should exist somewhere in Wikipedia), but what I'm not seeing (and I'm replying to you but talking to everyone) is a strong argument for this article being kept rather than the subject being kept. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:21, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong merge with Government censorship of Wikipedia and Censorship in Turkey per WP:NOTNEWS - especially per "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events". Individual country, albeit a large one, blocking Wikipedia should be a section in the relevant article. Should this develop to a major, enduring state of affairs that has major effect on the millions of Turkish Internet users, it might eventually merit its own article but it will take time for such state of affairs to develop. At this point, the block might as well be reversed the next week. And anyway, in semi-suppressive regimes like Turkey the technical know-how to circumvent blocks usually comes rights on the heels of such "administrative measures", so I am on the whole quite sceptical if it will have any enduring effect on most Turk Internet users' everyday life; Turkey has blocked social media sites etc. before. As such, rising this one block above many others as standalone article seems WP:NAVEL'y, as at this point its enduring notability is undemonstrable and wholly speculative. --hydrox (talk) 18:11, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a note that I've currently added a link to this article as a 2nd See also at Government_censorship_of_Wikipedia#Turkey for the time being at least. It seems to me there's some crystal-ball-gazing on all sides on what this will or won't amount to. The Guardian has just published this article. I will repeat that the rush to delete is a mistake. On that basis alone I will cast a bolded !vote not to delete, for now. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:16, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:18, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
*That article link is an example of a better place to split. Instead of having a standalone for Wikipedia, have a standalone article for "Internet censorship in Turkey" that is independent of Censorship in Turkey (which is, alas, an increasingly broad topic area) and also I think Internet regulation in Turkey, which is more about the bureaucrats and possibly describes a greater range of actions. The goal here is to chop up the main topic area into convenient chunks, without losing any pieces. Wnt (talk) 00:43, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly; WP:NOTNEWS. Laurdecl talk 07:45, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a fact and not opinion and will remain a fact. It should be a living document showing the history of this event for all to see FOREVER. People should realize history records actions and we shouldn't stop or prevent this recording now or ever. ---Bmoshier (talk) 23:12, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:20, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This rant has nothing to do with what we're talking about. Laurdecl talk 01:51, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore! task a senior wikipedia staffer/editor with dealing directly with the Turkish authorities to lift the ban and also instruct that wikipedia staffer/editor to blog their efforts daily in this article until the ban is fully lifted and an assurance is delivered from their Presidents office that it will not be reapplied Wikimucker (talk) 23:58, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly you do not understand what Wikipedia is. I suggest taking a look at WP:RGW. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:02, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly you require a read of WP:TE before you go off on another one. Wikimucker (talk) 00:41, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So pointing out that we are not here to right great wrongs is now tendentious editing? I missed that memo. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:51, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pointing it out in here is WP:TE the way you are going about it. Your opinion is not worth any more than any other editors opinion at this moment in time. If the block continues then it will become a major worldwide news story in its own right and the development of this news story deserves an article. Wikimucker (talk) 11:33, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So you want this article to be kept and used as a political advocacy tool by a WMF employee? Do you actually have a policy-based reason for your view? Laurdecl talk 01:51, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I will rephrase a tad for clarity. I believe that a senior editor (or 2) should be tasked with editing this article from now on (meaning it is otherwise locked to anonymous editing and editing by non designated editors) and that they should be aware of all efforts made from the WMF side to get this ban lifted and that they should keep the article abreast of these efforts. I have not contributed to the article under discussion and will not do so in future. Wikimucker (talk) 11:33, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but consider merging. It is clear that no admin-mediated deletion is required here, but a proposed merge (or even an ad hoc merge, if done correctly) is likely to succeed. The article is simply about a very narrow topic that could fit into another article without trouble. Don't crush it down like a junk car in a press, just give it a section wherever it goes and keep working on it. Wnt (talk) 00:37, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, consider future merging once the initial dust has settled. This nomination is much too soon, as it seems quite likely that this event will receive significant global media coverage. Once some time has passed, we will be in a better position to properly assess whether this should be a standalone article, or merged into an existing article. Murph9500 (talk) 03:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Receiving media coverage does not exempt a topic from AfD. Quite the opposite actually, per WP:NOTNEWS. Internet censorship occurs in authoritarian countries all the time. Laurdecl talk 07:45, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And yet we don't have an article on their blocking of YouTube, more popular, or Facebook, more popular. Censorship is routine in such countries. WP:NAVEL. Laurdecl talk 07:45, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per TheValeyard; moreover, since Wikipedia does not accept to censor unliked information (this is not an oversight case), it is not an easily resolvable issue, I doubt that it will suddenly be under the carpet in a few days... —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 04:32, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't "censoring", the information will be kept if merged. The issue is whether this article meets WP:SUSTAINED. Laurdecl talk 07:45, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Laurdecl: My comment was about the Turkey government wishes for Wikipedia to censor information they don't like, I did not mean that deleting this article would be censorship. My comment may have been unclear, sorry about that. I meant that we/Wikipedia are not about to censor information they don't like, so the issue is not likely to be over very soon. Thanks, —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 08:01, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ok. I thought you meant that merging this article would be censorship; my apologies. I agree with you. Laurdecl talk 08:08, 30 April 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 00:12, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2nd Milestone

edit
AfDs for this article:
2nd Milestone (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 place. No substantial content about the place is available. This has been discussed at Talk:List of named corners of the Snaefell Mountain Course#AFDs or otherwise deal with marginal articles on named corners where it was identified as one of the most egregiously non-notable articles in a too-long series of articles about Isle of Man road "landmarks". I voted "Keep" for this article in the 2015 AFD, then judging that drama was not worthwhile. Since then, I and others created List of named corners of the Snaefell Mountain Course to which multiple separate named corner articles have been redirected. For this 2nd Milestone one though, I recommend deletion because there is literally no information to share, and it is not worthy of a row in the list-article. (See also related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keppel Gate, Isle of Man.) doncram 14:48, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:50, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:50, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:50, 5 May 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 00:12, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Casualty (series 32)

edit
Casualty (series 32) (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 to achieve WP:GNG and is only relevant for information on a character returning in that particular series, which is already spoken about at the character's page. Soaper1234 (talk) 14:31, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Soaper1234, the article does not meet WP:GNG. The sources for the episodes are for Series 31, which are of no use for a Series 32 article. The characters have not been referenced; no episodes have aired in Series 32 yet, so how do we know a character won't leave before the end of Series 31 (there is one character leaving before the end of S31 who is in the S32 article, so already there's a mistake there). It would be more appropriate to create the article closer to the start of S32. ElectrodeandtheAnode (talk) 18:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:48, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:48, 5 May 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 00:12, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Department of English, Tejgaon College

edit
Department of English, Tejgaon College (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)

An English Department— with no evidence of notability. Article could be turned into a redirect to the college in which it exists, but the bottom line is that the department is not notable and a redirect is only a polite way to let the namespace remain when the subject actually does not warrant even this. KDS4444 (talk) 13:46, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:46, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:46, 5 May 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 00:13, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Haus (Band)

edit
Haus (Band) (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 M Magazine article is an "interview" that is shorter than this deletion nomination and has no named author. The WhenTheHornBlows reference is a link to a page where you can hear the song. The Music Glue reference is another incredibly short no-author interview. I was able to find one other "interview" on them, for the third time with no named author, on Wonderland Magazine here. Three short "interviews" that could have been written and answered by the band themselves or by their manager and very likely fail to meet WP:I do not constitute a case for notability. KDS4444 (talk) 13:38, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment @KDS4444: This looks like a good opportunity to apply WP:BEFORE element C.2 (If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article.) Given that the article was created just two hours before your nomination. Gab4gab (talk) 15:09, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gab4gab: I understand. This is why I never nominate articles for deletion that are less than 30 minutes old. But I have yet to see any policies or guidelines or essays that specifically state how long an article should be allowed to exist before becoming fair game for a regular deletion nomination other than those which suggest that there should be no grace period at all (WP:NEWARTICLE) and those that say that certain kinds of speedy deletion should not take place within the first 10 or 15 minutes of article creation (WP:NPP, WP:CSD). Two hours seems more than fair to me, but how long would seem fair to you (given that this was done during a "new" page patrol)? KDS4444 (talk) 04:45, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @KDS4444: I agree that it's all very vague and pick your own wait period. Personally I'd tag the article for notability and come back the next day to see if the creator had come back with anything. But I understand that may be considered extreme caution. I usually work new pages from the other end of the queue >>And God bless you for that, I don't have the patience! KDS4444 (talk) 10:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC) << so I don't hit this issue myself. I appreciate you sharing your criteria & I'll dial back my too-soon alarm. Gab4gab (talk) 14:05, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. May become notable enough by the end of the year, but right now they've just released a handful of singles that haven't done much, and there's hardly any substantial coverage of the band. I found this from Clash but it doesn't convince me that an article is justified at this stage - their 'nationwide tour' appears to just be a series of gigs at a few small venues. --Michig (talk) 19:34, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:44, 5 May 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 00:14, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seifuku Densetsu Pretty Fighter

edit
Seifuku Densetsu Pretty Fighter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested WP: PROD. Fails to meet WP: NGAMES. No indication of importance, and the only reference in the article is a primary source. Martin IIIa (talk) 13:15, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Martin IIIa (talk) 22:24, 29 April 2017 (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.

Barry Floyd

edit
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 The Game (U.S. TV series). (non-admin closure) Jax 0677 (talk) 19:45, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Floyd (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)

While he has had a single role in a television role which might be considered significant, that's it. I'd say it would be a case of WP:TOOSOON, but he's been acting for over 10 years. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 TT me 11:51, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete a lone reccuring television role is not enough for notability unless it is a very, very major role in a top popularity show enough to make the person widely known from that one fact. This role does not meet that hurdle, so we need the regular multiple significant roles, which is lacking.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:43, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:11, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:39, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:39, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Kurykh (talk) 00:17, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Brooks (astronomer)

edit
AfDs for this article:
Kate Brooks (astronomer) (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 fails to meet notability requirement for persons. Subject is listed as being of note as an astronomer, subject is neither of note as defined by Wikipedia's notability guidelines for academics[1] or at this time an astronomer having left field in April 2016 [2]. EuryaleGorgon (talk) 10:00, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Notability is not temporary per WP:NTEMP. This [16] google scholar search and this [17] Scopus preview suggest that WP:ACADEMIC may be satisfied. I don't have access to Scopus to dig in further Gab4gab (talk) 14:40, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep scopus has Documents:58; Citations:1522 total citations by 952 documents; h-index: 24. More than enough for me. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:37, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment h-index of 24 is not particularly notable for an astronomer. Kenyon et al. (2012) [3] performed an analysis of h-indices of Australian astronomers (including the subject), listing top Australian Astronomers on the basis of h-index and provide a fit to the relationship between the 10-year citation rate and h-index for Australian astronomers. The subject is not listed in the names of Australian astronomers of note for their publication output in this analysis which covers the years she was primarily active. EuryaleGorgon (talk) 01:29, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:32, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Wikipedia Notability (Academics)". Wikipedia. Wikipedia. Retrieved 29 April 2017.
  2. ^ "Staff Profile for K. Brooks". Murdoch University. Retrieved 29 April 2017.
  3. ^ Kenyon, K.; Paramasivam, A.; Tu, J.; Zhang, A.; Graham, A.W. (January 2012). "Citations to Australian Astronomy: 5- and 10-Year Benchmarks". Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia. 29 (2): 132-140. Retrieved 30 April 2017.
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. Kurykh (talk) 00:17, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yak Misraee Nazm

edit
Yak Misraee Nazm (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)

Self-promotional puffery sourced only to the mentioned poet's, Rehmat Aziz Chitrali, own Wordpress-blog, and like all other articles relating to Chitrali created and edited by blocked sock-puppeteer Akbaralighazi and/or their many confirmed socks. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 10:05, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:07, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:07, 29 April 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 00:17, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kindergarten (video game)

edit
Kindergarten (video game) (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 WP:GNG, sourcing consists almost entirely of a multi-part YouTube walkthrough, other YouTube gameplay, a GameSpot overview page (not an article), and only one single article. Additionally, the articles is written like an advertisement and consists of a lot of trivial content (such as achievement lists). Lordtobi (✉) 09:26, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some sources not included in the article that could be used to prove notability:

Jamesjpk (talk) 18:55, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:10, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Note that most of the sites listed above by Jamesjpk are not reliable for purposes of establishing notability. For example, gamefaqs, indiedb and pcgamingwiki are all user generated. Steamspy is a statistics site that lists all games on Steam (Not indepth coverage). At least eight of remaining sources (Vid95, basegame, gamezdb, gamersofindia, mygames, videogamereviews, Tusjuegosgratis and jollyriffic) are directories that provide little information and are clearly mirrors of each other (Note they all share similar formatting and the URL component "59169"). -- ferret (talk) 23:25, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article creator had, for some reason, removed the above deletion sorting to the Video games AFD discussion page, as well as the categorization of the Afd. These of course are two ways that the broader community can reach a consensus. I've raised the matter with Jamesjpk, and restored the tag and category. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 7:16 pm, Today (UTC−4)
  • Delete Per nom. Unable to find any sourcing using reliable sources at WP:VG/RS. Article's sourcing consists mostly of user generated content from unreliable sources and directory listings. Note comment above about sources listed by creator. Disclosure: I've removed a fair bit of content from the article based on several policies and guidelines. -- ferret (talk) 23:40, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Ferret's analysis of James's source list. Almost all of the sources are unreliable (many, like Gamefaqs, and anything related to a wiki, have an active consensus against their use at WP:VG/S, due to recurring issues with them being unreliable sources.) The remaining source are not significant coverage. For example, the Metacritic page contains zero professional reviews, or really any content at all. Linking to things like that is much more persuasive in proving that it probably doesn't have the reliable source coverage to meet the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 12:44, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Lacks coverage in reliable sources.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable game with no viable third-party citations. Zero of the sources listed above meet notability requirements. sixtynine • speak up • 06:33, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG. Topic lacks significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. Reliable video game source search returned no results with significant coverage. --The1337gamer (talk) 11:45, 6 May 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 00:17, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Lalit Chandigarh

edit
The Lalit Chandigarh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Just another run of the mill hotel with no notability. Borderline promotional tone Ajf773 (talk) 09:19, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:19, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 5 May 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 00:18, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Kingad

edit
Danny Kingad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD (unexpalined). Initial reasonNon notable MMA fighter - not even close to meeting WP:NMMA Peter Rehse (talk) 08:15, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:16, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete. CSD G11 (blatant advertising) Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:07, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Williams (marketer)

edit
Pete Williams (marketer) (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)

Seemingly WP:PROMOTIONAL BP with lack of RS. Independent search finds no better sources. DarjeelingTea (talk) 07:48, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:35, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:35, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— Diondodds (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

as a new user how did you find this AfD? LibStar (talk) 15:50, 4 May 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 00:18, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alaska Society for Technology in Education

edit
Alaska Society for Technology in Education (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)

Only Google news hits are from local newspapers ("Juneau Empire", "Arctic Sounder"), or are press releases. One trivial mention in a US News & World Report article, no substantive discussion in reliable independent verifiable sources. Article has no references of its own. KDS4444 (talk) 07:34, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 1 May 2017 (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. Not much discussion, and after having been relisted twice, there is currently no consensus about the notability of this subject. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 TT me 01:45, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Art Lord & the Self-Portraits

edit
Art Lord & the Self-Portraits (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 defunct band that appears to have only one significant mention repeated three times (the last three refs) All the remaining refs are drive by tags in articles about a successor group. No evidence of any significant notability. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   19:46, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:46, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:46, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article was originally a re-direction page to Future Islands—the bands successor group— which I've been trying to raise in quality from Start Class. The section on Art Lord & the Self-Portraits developed to such lenght, it was starting to clutter the article. Most of their members are the same, but they are two different bands with different characters: Art Lord & Self Portraits is satirical and for laughter, Future Islands is serious and approaches themes such as suicide. Seemed confusing to have one page of intro on a band with a totally different tone, yet that information needed to exist somewhere to give context to Future Islands.
I thefore created a stub, moving the section on the Future Islands article as it was at the moment. I was still working on both articles when the Art Lord & the Self-Portraits was called for deletion (less than 3hrs later). Regarding the lack of significant mentions, the band was active between 2003-2005 with a reunion in 2013, and since it is difficult to find online articles older than a decade, and the successor group exists for 11 years already, most online still existing interviews about the band were indeed given by Future Islands. Also, I was still in the process of adding and organizing references. I have now developed the article a bit more and should it sill not be considerent sufficient, I am ok with merging it back into Future Islands and make it a redirection page again. Wapunguissa (talk) 06:28, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:43, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:52, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've continued to develop the article and believe the number of references is sufficient to justify a stand-alone article. Since the last relisting, I realiezd Art Lord & the Self-Portraits had were proeminent to the Greenville music scene at the time[19] and should be added to the Musical Groups of North Carolina category, while Future Islands tends to be listed on Musical groups from Baltimore. So by merging the two we are taking away a relevant band from the NC category. Also, the band has a large enough discography—4 albums and 3 compilations—which are cluttering the Future Islands discography: Easy Cure which I used to sustain the merging never released a record. Wapunguissa (talk) 01:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Velella: The article has already been relisted twice with no comments then my own which is discouraging. I believe WP:BEFORE C.2 (If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article.) should have been applied given the fact that the article was nominated only a couple of hours after being created from a redirection. I was thus forced to developed it quickly, though I'm still finding information about the band (and refs) through my research which I haven't had time to bring in it. Wapunguissa (talk) 16:11, 6 May 2017 (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. WP:NPASR – Juliancolton | Talk 02:47, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet Talker Tour

edit
Sweet Talker Tour (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 that this venue listing article has any value or notability. Only two refs one of which is an own web-site and the other an apology for not appearing. Hardly the stuff of notability. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   19:42, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:48, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:48, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:49, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Improve Although the page itself only uses two sources, there are actually quite a few sources that reference the Sweet Talker Tour even with just a cursory search on Google. The page is written poorly and they don't use the requisite sources, but, with improvement, it certainly passes WP:GNG. Gargleafg (talk) 03:37, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:51, 29 April 2017 (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. postdlf (talk) 19:03, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of sister tennis players by nation

edit
List of sister tennis players by nation (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 WP:LISTN, there are no sources that group sister tennis players together that I can find, thus the article is WP:OR. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 17:19, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:11, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:11, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:11, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would also support renaming the article to something like List of tennis players who are sisters - the current title seems off. Hmlarson (talk) 20:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources are not specific to tennis, they support the inclusion of List of professional sports families - not the tennis players. I can't find any sources listing tennis playing sisters, which means that it fails WP:LISTN. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 15:37, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I can and provided two tennis-specific references as examples to get started. Article could use expansion, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 05:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The only source that covered a general overview of siblings was USA Today. This discusses the idea of tennis double siblings, not sisters. WP:LISTN requires for the idea of tennis sisters to be discussed as a set or group, and I can find no examples of this. Further, the one source is not enough. as required by LISTN, to be sources. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 16:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:41, 29 April 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 00:19, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mastiksoul

edit
AfDs for this article:
Mastiksoul (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 musician. Fails WP:GNG, WP:MUSIC - TheMagnificentist 21:32, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:45, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:45, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:38, 29 April 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 00:20, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ademe Cuneo

edit
Ademe Cuneo (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 establish notability meeting the standards set for runners. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NTRACK. JTtheOG (talk) 05:40, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete he is an 18 years old runner, but hasn't accomplished anything notable so far which would warrant a WP article. He has participated in a number of regional running events according to his profiles on various running webpages, but none of those fulfill the criteria outlined in WP:NTRACK and he also never won any of those. He reached the 2nd place in the Athens marathon but thats not enough to pass the threshold. He fails the general criteria as laid out in WP:GNG likewise. There is basicially nothing on him out there in RS. There are some mentions in a handful of non-RS blogs, but thats definitely not enough. Apart from that his name only appears in listings of running event participants. The article should therefore be deleted since it fails WP:NTRACK clearly and also lacks any sources sufficient for WP:GNG. Dead Mary (talk) 16:09, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:10, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:10, 29 April 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 00:20, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cybersecurity CS5L CMM

edit
Cybersecurity CS5L CMM (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)

Delete as yet another recreation of deleted content. This article, with varying names, has been deleted at least four times, but the editor keeps bringing it back.

The article is also sitting at User:Mmalizola/sandbox. StarryGrandma (talk) 05:36, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Additional comment. The editor and author of this concept has this posted all over the web. But the article here is not a copyright violation since it was at Articles for Creation long before it was online anywhere else. StarryGrandma (talk) 06:15, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (Possible CSD G4): A WP:OR article previously deleted after multiple AfD discussions. (I have linked these on the article Talk page, including a 3rd AfD in which I recalled participating.) I see no reason to overturn previous AfD consensus. AllyD (talk) 07:39, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:44, 29 April 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 00:20, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rhian Brewster

edit
Rhian Brewster (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 footballer fails WP:NFOOTBALL as a player that has not played in any WP:FPL (fully proffessional league). Fbgpwns5277 (talk) 04:27, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:42, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:42, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:42, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:29, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. WP:RFD is the correct venue for these discussions. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 07:13, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sevalal

edit
Sevalal (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)

content merged with banjara (article) ... no need for this page India1277 (talk) 04:08, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:43, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:43, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the redirect. When content is merged, the redirect on the merged article must be kept to preserve the content's attribution history per Wikipedia's copyright policy. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. There was not even an assertion of significance. —C.Fred (talk) 03:50, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Massimo Vignali

edit
Massimo Vignali (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 citation India1277 (talk) 03:34, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 03:45, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 03:45, 29 April 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 00:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maryland Doctrine of Exclusion (1638)

edit
Maryland Doctrine of Exclusion (1638) (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 reliable, historical sources for the Doctrine itself. Quote does not sound contemporaneous at all. No mention in History of slavery in Maryland, which says "the first Africans were brought to Maryland in 1642, as 13 slaves at St. Mary's City, the first English settlement in the Province." Qzd (talk) 02:13, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The only source cited in this article is a broken link. The books where I have found the doctrine quoted appear to be from self-publishing companies, not authoritative sources. The language of the doctrine refers to "Blacks" although that would not have been the term likely used in colonial Maryland. In addition, the doctrine is attributed to the "Colony Council", whereas the legislature of Maryland at the time was known as the General Assembly (see [20]). No doubt many white Marylanders of the 17th century and later would have supported excluding black people from the fruits of white society, but I haven't seen a reliable source to confirm that they enacted that idea into a law in 1638. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:43, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
this site and several others have the exact quote. Does this have a genuine basis? I suspect that primary sources on colonial history are published, so that it should be possible to verify whether this is genuine or a hoax. However, I have to say that the terms "black" and "white" so not sound contemprorary. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I, too, have spent some time without finding a reliable source for this doctrine. I also spent some time going through the acts of the Maryland general Assembly in 1638 (which at that time comprised "the governor and council, and a general assembly of all freemen" [21]). I did not find any such act. I did find two acts which dealt with liberties of free Christians, indentured servants and slaves but neither contain language as in the article. An Act for the liberties of the people and An Act Limiting the times of Servants. I'm leaning towards failing WP:V or hoax. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 15:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I am pretty sure the "Act for the liberties of the people" is what is being referred to in this article. Here is a study guide which emphasizes the exclusion of slaves in the bill. George Washington Williams, in 1882, makes a related argument alse here. To add to the results found by IP, I would add the 1664 "An Act Concerning Negroes & other Slaves" which ensures slavery for the children of slave fathers (I didn't find an act to ensure slavery for the children of slave mothers, but if I looked harder, perhaps I would find it) and is considered the act that legalized slavery in Maryland. Any one of these existing laws could make for suitable wikipedia articles, I'm not sure. The proceedings of the colonial Maryland Assembly and a lot of other documents are searchable at the Maryland State Archives, if anyone wants to search further. Oddly, the History of Slavery in Maryland "starts" with the first record of slave arrivals from Africa in 1642, four years after the acts listed by IP. This start date is the date Maryland sources give as well. Perhaps mention of the 1638 acts should be made at History of Slavery in Maryland as the 1664 one already is. In any case, this title is OR and treating this as primarily a bill excluding rights rather than primarily a bill of rights is POV, so on both counts, I think the article should be deleted. I could see the article being renamed and rehabilitated as the article on the 1638 Act for liberties of the people, but my preference would be for a new article on that act. Smmurphy(Talk) 17:07, 1 May 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 00:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AVI Sound International

edit
AfDs for this article:
AVI Sound International (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 don't see it satisfying WP:COMPANY. No real improvement since the first Afd way back when. Even the one review states the company "has flown under the radar of the masses for so long". Clarityfiend (talk) 02:05, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:46, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:46, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:25, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- unsourced corporate spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I removed the unsourced claims and other puffery. Topic fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing 11:42, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The first AFD closed no consensus, and even that was primarily due to low participation rather than any particularly strong evidence of notability — the only keep vote present there was from an SPA who worked only on articles about loudspeaker manufacturers, with a rationale that amounted to pleading for time to strengthen the sourcing without actually showing any concrete evidence that improved sourcing was actually possible. And no improvement took place afterward either, as that participant made only four further edits to Wikipedia after that discussion concluded of which none were to this article. The depth of sourcing needed to make it notable simply is not there, and nothing stated in the article entitles it to a free presumption of notability in the absence of a WP:GNG pass. Bearcat (talk) 13:26, 5 May 2017 (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 merge to ZDT's Amusement Park. Kurykh (talk) 00:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Switchback (rollercoaster)

edit
Switchback (rollercoaster) (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)

Merge into its parent article, ZDT's Amusement Park. Very little published information available, which is not likely to grow at this point (as is the case with roller coasters which get the most press at the time of release). This demonstrates low notability as well. There was a misconception years ago in WP:WikiProject Amusement Parks that every coaster needed to have its own article. That is definitely not the case. GoneIn60 (talk) 10:04, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge [was "Keep, tentatively"]. There is significant information in the largish infobox, which I fear would be lost if a merge was done (the suggested target article has one infobox for the overall park, and I suspect the merger would not add an infobox for this one ride. There is a significant assertion of notability for this ride, as having the world record for steepest wooden roller-coaster. I don't see what would be gained by forcing a merger. A friendly alternative to an AFD would have been to edit at the suggested target article, demonstrating what would be done there, and asking at Talk page(s) about merging, even making a merger proposal. An AFD is by definition unfriendly, is headed towards forcing a change which would destroy the vision that other editor(s) were trying to develop. Here, the topic seems significant and I don't see that a forcing-type judgement by external editors will help development of content. Note, a decision to "Keep" here still allows constructive discussion and perhaps a merger to take place, by discussion at article Talk pages. --doncram 01:46, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:12, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
doncram, I appreciate you taking the time to weigh in with your thoughts. I think as experienced editors, we realize there is often more than one way to approach a situation like this one. I would generally agree that discussion on the talk page of either the article in question or the target article of the merger is a good alternative (or at least a good first step prior to an AfD). In articles dealing with lesser-known topics that generate very little traffic, going that route often results in a fruitless endeavor. Currently, the amusement park article as well as the coaster article average less than 10 views per day over the last 3 months (9 and 6, respectively). Fully aware of this, I chose to take it straight to an AfD. It is a good point, however, and I'm glad you raised it.
As for the concern that significant details in the infobox would be lost in a merger, I should point out that this can be accomplished in as little as two sentences. Here's an example of what can be merged into ZDT's Amusement Park:
On October 17, 2015, the park introduced Switchback, a wooden shuttle roller coaster that features a record-breaking, 87-degree incline. Manufactured by The Gravity Group, the 63-foot-tall (19 m) ride drops riders 58 feet (18 m) and reaches speeds of up to 40 mph (64 km/h).
All significant details would be retained, while the irrelevant specs – capacity, # of trains, etc. – would be dropped. Many roller coaster articles cite RCDB.com for those statistics, and they are rarely reported in other sources. If they are desired after the merge, the amusement park article can be modified by interested editors to include a ride chart with detailed descriptions, such as the tables on display at Kings Island#Areas and attractions.
A good litmus test of when a roller coaster should have its own article is the amount of coverage in the days, weeks, and months leading up to and following its release, particularly outside of its jurisdiction. This is a crucial period of time when editors can glean information about marketing, reaction, and other aspects which help demonstrate a reasonable level of public engagement and anticipation. There just isn't much outside of a general announcement that's regurgitated in a few sources, so future expansion beyond a stub isn't likely. That crucial window of time has come and gone. Unfortunately for coasters in this situation, expansion isn't possible unless an accident or unexpected event that receives national attention occurs on the ride. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:52, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for extensive response, changing !vote to "Merge" above. --doncram 21:19, 29 April 2017 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2017_April_29&oldid=1142620114"