Knowledge (XXG)

:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 October 18 - Knowledge (XXG)

Source 📝

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. J04n(talk page) 15:41, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Swenson Technology (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:COMPANY. Significant coverage not found. GeoffreyT2000 23:10, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America 08:52, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
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. postdlf (talk) 12:26, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

List of defunct Pennsylvania sports teams (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 list was original research when it was first published in 2008. The only reference is Knowledge (XXG), an unreliable source. The article fails WP:GNG. Rhadow (talk) 23:01, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:28, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:28, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:28, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:28, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
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. J04n(talk page) 15:43, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

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

subject fails WP:COMPOSER and WP:GNG. The award nomination is probably a hoax. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:08, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:09, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:11, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
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. The arguments made here go beyond this individual page, a proposal was made here to re-evaluate the criteria of WP:CRIN. I would recommend the conversation be added WP:RfC for broader input. J04n(talk page) 16:02, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Subject meets WP:NCRIC, but fails WP:BLP1E and no general press coverage to meet WP:GNG. See discussion at Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/List of lesser-known Sri Lankan cricketers Rhadow (talk) 21:51, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

  • POINT OF ORDER. It does NOT fail WP:BLP1E because NSPORTS subjects are expressly outside its scope as the nominator might realise if he actually takes the trouble to READ the guideline. Is this incompetence or is he pursuing some kind of agenda? As for "general press coverage", see below for how this subject is covered by WP:NEXIST re Sinhalese sources. This AfD, like the others of its kind being raised by this individual and his sidekicks is completely out of order and is disruptive. Jack | 21:09, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - not making a big deal about this but really, what is the point of me and others having put all this work in to put articles onto Knowledge (XXG) which you know full well meet WP:CRIN, when they're just going to get deleted by WP:GNG, a woolly, contradictory, nonsense guideline? I'm fairly certain List of lesser-known Sri Lankan cricketers is going to be deleted but I feel frustrated that all this work we've put in over the years is just being destroyed and that makes me sad. (Incidentally, comparing a randomly cobbled together, indefinable article containing the text of articles we've decided we don't like, with articles which we know meet WP:CRIN, is like comparing apples to Ferrari F40s)... If all these articles are being deleted which clearly meet WP:CRIN, we really need to be discussing new guidelines rather than sending hundreds of articles for deletion... In fact, Jack has set up a topic on WT:CRIC about this matter if you (or others who are planning to participate in this AfD) wish to contribute. Bobo. 23:15, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - and, as a sidenote, List of lesser-known Sri Lankan cricketers was "under construction" for a suspiciously long time without any actual construction taking place... Bobo. 23:19, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge into a list of Colts Cricket Club players, if there is a suitable list article of that type. Otherwise delete. Reyk YO! 08:15, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Reyk YO! 12:21, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Reyk YO! 12:21, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

*Keep it and we have to put a stop to such nominations. This article easily passes WP:CRIN and for time being its fine. I don't think we need any lists as per above mentioned discussion or need to merge to any list. If you think there is any problem with WP:CRIN then start a discussion and build a consensus first. Greenbörg (talk) 15:03, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

There is a discussion going on about WP:CRIN which is here. Greenbörg (talk) 15:16, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
If this were any other project, footy, American football, baseball, yadda yadda, these debates wouldn't even be happening, and the nominators would probably be being castigated for disrupting the project. Likely those who did so twice or more would be indef-blocked for disruption... As I've said below, we either have to choose one rule and stick to it, completely change the rule we've currently got working, which has served us fine for the last 13 years, or get the people (who generally speaking know nothing about cricket or Knowledge (XXG)) who nominate articles or vote delete, to come up with new, universally applicable, neutral, brightline criteria. I don't see that happening, somehow. We're going to keep being bombarded with these debates and we're going to have to accept them because of the IDONTLIKEIT brigade. Bobo. 17:00, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Request procedural close while the discussions at WP:CRIN and WP:Articles for deletion/List of lesser-known Sri Lankan cricketers are ongoing, it's impossible for a discussion here to reasonably decide to delete this article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:44, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Unsure - probable redirect as Reyk - on the one hand we have more information here - a full name and a date and place of birth. Those might enable us to find more information in suitable sources - depending somewhat on what the state of coverage of cricket at this level was in Sri Lankan newspapers in the late 90s. On the other hand, his CricketArchive profile only lists this single match. There is no reference to any play in any other competition - that tends, in my experience, to mean that it's less likely we're going to find sources. The lack of obvious sources on the subject - having done all of the required checks nothing appears at all (the chap who's the director of several companies is 7 years older so it's presumably not him) and there's nothing at all on the club website. On the whole then I feel it's very unlikely that we'll find substantive sources that will allow us to have anything more than a statistical driven entry for the bloke. Given that I think redirect is probably the best strategy, although if there's a chance sources exists then I'd be entirely happy to either wait a few months for them to be found or for the article to be recreated. I am sending out feelers to check if such sources might exist.
On a related note, does anyone know if the Saravanamuttu Trophy and its descendants are (or were) fully professional affairs? Or have they ended up involving a number of enthusiastic amateurs? Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:42, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Does it matter? This shows that some games were labelled first class, some were not. The cricketers who took part in the first-class games are notable. The ones who didn't, were not. If we're working to any criteria other than this then we are working against the aims of a comprehensively compiled encyclopedia. As I've said before, we either choose one rule and stick to it, or continue having these arguments based on completely inapplicable, contradictory, nonsense criteria. Bobo. 16:54, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
It could matter, yes. In general there's often a subtle difference between the ways that notability might be judged for amateurs versus professionals. In FOOTY, for example, I think a player appearing in a league which is not fully professional would rarely be judged as notable - certainly in the modern game. I'd be interested in whether this might be worth considering in cricket terms. If not all match in the competition was FC then, to be honest, I'd be more likely to move towards delete. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:30, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Not when we have brightline criteria. First-class/List A = notable. Not first-class/List A = not notable. Why are people refusing to see this as an easy to understand guideline - and the only way by which we can neturally judge biographical articles? How many more times will articles like this, which even the people who send these articles for deletion know meet guidelines, have to go for deletion before the people who care about the cricket Wikiproject simply give up? Bobo. 17:36, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Agree that a procedural close needs to happen while we're busy discussing things which affect the entire project. Once again, it's unfair to single out articles like this, Tom Cranston, and heaven knows how many others, while conversations are going on. We are going to end up having dozens of articles as either redlinks or unjustifiable redirects thanks to the WP:IDONTLIKEIT crowd showing their faces after 13 years. We can't just go on having redlinks like Cranston willy-nilly, we need to be coming up with proper solutions instead of having people who, frankly, have no interest in the cricket Wikiproject, dictating what articles we must and must not keep without any knowledge or care for incredibly basic, universally applicable guidelines. Bobo. 16:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:32, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong delete one website that compiles records alone and provides no indpeth biogrpahical coverage cannot stand as the lone source for a BLP. The default on BLP articles is to delete unless they clearly meet notability requirements, which this article clearly does not meet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:26, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
As has been repeatedly stated on other AfD's, anyone who knows anything about cricket knows when and where to add a second from. Bobo. 03:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
The WP:ONESOURCE complaint has now been dealt with, rendering John Pack Lambert's complaint obsolete, as this was his only logical complaint about this article I suggest it is passed over. It is not true that this article "clearly does not" meet notability criteria, as has been suggested infinitely through other AfD debates. May I suggest in the future that instead of wasting a delete !vote on the argument of WP:ONESOURCE, this is simply brought to the attention of someone else and the second source is added when necessary? Bobo. 03:29, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete fails WP:BLP1E - notable for only one event, based on two scorecards/database entries. This brings us to WP:SPORTBASIC which plainly states that database entries are not sufficient for establishing notability. Databases or score cards such as these are considered trivial coverage. These can be used to support content in the article, when notability has been otherwise established. Significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources is still necessary. Hence, fails WP:SPORTBASIC and GNG.
Additonally, NSPORTS#Applicable policies and guidelines says meeting GNG is a requirement and biographies must meet BLP standards, which this does not. The article was created in 2009, so more than enough time has passed to add reliable sources and improve the article. WP:CRIN does not supercede NSPORTS, GNG, and BLP. Knowledge (XXG) is not a website for indiscriminate collections of information. Steve Quinn (talk) 23:18, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Although these obsessive anti-CRIN individuals will not admit it, there are in existence significant Sri Lankan sources as we were able to establish in the case of Suresh Perera (Old Cambrians cricketer). A contact in Sri Lanka was willing to check a highly reputable Sinhalese newspaper, Dinamina, for a specific match report and found additional information about that player. While we obviously cannot expect anyone in Sri Lanka to perform short-term checks of Dinamina for every single first-class player, the match report she did check proves not only that Sinhalese sources exist but also that their cricket coverage effectively matches that of newspapers in the English-speaking countries. The fact of this level of coverage by Dinamina and other Sinhalese publications meets the terms of WP:NEXIST. These nominations are disruptive. Jack | 10:33, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Inline citations. There are now inline citations from THREE independent sources in the article, all of them meeting WP:RS and, by means of a footnote, an explanation of how the article meets the terms of WP:NEXIST. I suggest that this AfD is closed immediately as a complete waste of everybody's time. Jack | 11:23, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Comment - Jack, sadly, judging by the deletionist cabal's recent exuberant joy at the ability to criticize subjects of which they know nothing, and their ability to widely apply the accepted guideline of WP:NEVERHEARDOFIT, sadly this issue will not be dropped nor will these articles be saved. We will end up yawning our way through another three DRVs and get absolutely nowhere, and our cricket project, thanks to a group of editors who have no interest in working to patronizingly easy to understand guidelines, and contradictory inclusion criteria, will continue to be fully discredited. Our project is beyond saving.
With all that said, WP:ONESOURCE has now been addressed, rendering these complaints obsolete. Sadly the comments about whether GNG and SNG work side-by-side will never be solved as the two direct "rules" pages distinctly contradict each other, each rendering the other worthless. Bobo. 13:51, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. No explanation needed. The two basic "notability guidelines" completely contradict each other, each rendering the other completely worthless. If people want to start deleting articles for which it is insultingly obvious they meet criteria, they need to work constructively with the community, including members of WP:CRIC and every other sporting Wikiproject (which runs to exactly the same rules of a single top-level appearance) to create new guidelines. I doubt they'll be successful, but it's worth a try for the sake of being collaborative, right?
The WP:ONESOURCE criterion has now been comprehensively dealt with and as such the votes which centre around this point can be fairly disregarded. Bobo. 14:07, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Sadly the deletionist cabal get their way dangerously often, proving a net drain to the encyclopedia, as well as violating the most basic Wikipeida guideline we learn on the first day we come to this site, NPOV. In any case, comparing this article with a randomly cobbled together list of articles is deceptive. Bobo. 22:33, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete it as this is established by previous AfDs that bios of these players should not be all stats. I don't think we will ever have coverage from which we can write enough biography for him. Not discussed in detail by multiple sources so we can write enough without WP:OR. Name-checked only by match records in different sources which only verify him per WP:V but this still fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 09:52, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
As stated elsewhere, this article is not "all stats". An "all stats" article would actually have a table of stats... which this one doesn't. As for "not having enough material to write about him", this is clearly untrue and simply requires more research into other areas which we are as yet unable to find. Bobo. 15:19, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Furthermore, per DGG at Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/L. Dinaparna, "the correct interpretation of presumed in WP is the same as in the real world – it will be considered to be the case unless there is evidence to show otherwise" and so it follows that "presumed notability means the subject meeting the presumption is notable unless it can be demonstrated that it is not". No one has demonstrated non-notability and the subject clearly complies with its subject specific criteria.
Finally, per I JethroBT when closing the directly relevant Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/S. Perera (Old Cambrians cricketer) (2nd nomination) with a keep result, "there's no dispute that the individual played cricket professionally, and we generally keep articles on professional players". He went on to confirm that "the article has been improved and new sources have been added both before and after this AfD, which is consistent with the notion that coverage of this individual may be available, even if it is hard to access (as evidenced by notes in the discussion) and not present in the article at this time (as a result of which) some early recommendations to delete (were) re-evaluated in that light". The additional information came from a Sinhalese newspaper proving WP:NEXIST, as is the case with any Sri Lankan first-class cricketer. Jack | 15:16, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
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. --Ixfd64 (talk) 17:42, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

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

The article seems to be typed up as advertisement per WP:NOTADVERTISING. I also can't find any sources supporting notability. Fails WP:GNG. JudeccaXIII (talk) 21:21, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America 08:52, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
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 would be happy to userfy the page to anyone that wishes to hold on to it until circumstances changes and it meets notability guidelines. J04n(talk page) 16:06, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Amine Gouiri (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)

Young footballer who has never played in a fully-professional league or won a senior international cap and therefore fails WP:NFOOTY. Article can be restored as soon as either criteria is met. Number 57 21:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

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. J04n(talk page) 16:08, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Originally deleted by WP:PROD with the rationale "A Texas-based law firm with 14 attorneys, and not the hint of a suggestion of a whisper of what makes it more distinctive than any other small law firm in the US. Texas, or even Austin." I believe that rationale still holds. The article is unsourced except for some external links. There may be coverage of the cases the firm handles, but where's the evidence that it meets WP:CORP criteria for inclusion? ~Anachronist (talk) 21:16, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:40, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:40, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
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. Speedy deleted and salted by Alex Shih, CSD G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (Highstakes00) in violation of ban or block. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:56, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

TrepCamp.org (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 company. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH XFhumu 21:01, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:08, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:08, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
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. J04n(talk page) 16:29, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Ashley Brewer (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)

Insufficient evidence for notability. XFhumu 20:54, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:06, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:06, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:00, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
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 Bill Fink. A Train 06:31, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Bob (image) (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 does not see evidence that this particular photo--which is just one a series of similar ones for multiple people -- is notable. The LADN article is about the overall series. I note is was created with a COI derived from paid work for the artist DGG ( talk ) 20:40, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

DGG: The article has two (i.e., multiple) references that discuss the subject non-trivially and that are reliable independent verifiable secondary published sources. I thought that meant it qualified. Or maybe the fact that I was paid to create it mean that it is ipso faco disqualified (?). Also, can I ask where/ how you were able to read the LADN article, considering that it was published in 1992 and the Internet archives for this paper only go back to 1995? Thanks!KDS4444 10:49, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
...Or are you maybe basing your assessment of the newspaper article on the title of that article... Because if you are doing that, then I have to tell you that you have made a terrible mistake. I have the article in front of me right now, and it clearly discusses this particular image in great depth. I would like to hear your explanation as to why you think it says otherwise once you have read it. And if you have not even read it, then this nomination starts to look vindictive and unfounded. So please communicate with me about this. Thank you. KDS4444 23:31, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Would you mind stating which parts? Because as far as I understand it, it qualifies by virtue of having multiple non-trivial instances of discussion in reliable independent secondary published sources (which you no doubt read yourself, yes? Can I ask how you found them? Because I tried to find them on the Internet and failed, but I could send them to you if you like). KDS4444 12:35, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
The image (and this article) fails because it is not the subject of the sources. I could see the artist potentially passing, but not this specific piece of art. Ifnord (talk) 19:37, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep by merging into Bill Fink (which is a submitted AfC draft). I'm going to set aside the issue of paid editing, since at AfD our task is to determine notability of the topic. The article has three offline references. I can take the creator's word for it that at least two of these deal with the specific artwork, but the only one I can see in snippet view on Google Books, The Advocate, is about a group of memorial works of which this is only one. Google doesn't even find Bob's last name there for me. Moreover, what I found by searching ("ashes" gets far more results than other words for the material) is that this is mentioned among his other works. There's quite a lot of bloggy coverage on-line of his technique of "Time and Matter Photography" in general: I'll cite here Oddity Central, which several others refer to as their source. The following don't, so far as I can see: Pondly, Amusing Planet, A Geeky World, Gadgetcrunch. In all of these the Bob picture is one example (the last is a teaser for a video and the Bob picture is there on the wall in the still image; a different kind of "one example"). The emphasis is rather on "human ashes" as one material he uses. These all seem to date to 2014. What puts it over the top for me and makes the artist (or rather his technique) meet GNG is this press release from 2016 that he created images out of ashes from a wildfire for a Forest Service fire prevention campaign. I think Bob (image) is a useful search term, since there was demonstrably news coverage (and the creator might possibly change my mind with stunning quotes from the two news articles that we are told are all about this image). But what's actually notable, in my view based on my search, is Bill Fink's art. So keep, and make a redirect. And the draft of the article on the artist needs expanding with other examples including the forest fire ashes. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:57, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Comment Looking further, can I ask KDS4444 whether the PSA print campaign is the same Bill Fink? I see there is a San Francisco Chronicle travel writer, and that the artist is based in Southern California. On the other hand there's this on his technique from 2011. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:09, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, that would be the same individual. In the draft article about him there is an image made by him used in an AdCouncil fire-prevention poster. KDS4444 09:01, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
      • I only have access to one of the three articles, the one from The Dallas World News, but that is about the subject. It discusses the photographs and the person who organized the exhibition, raises Christensen, quotes a couple of responses to the work, briefly describes Bill Fink, and includes quotes from Fink and Christensen's mother about the image. That said, I like the suggestion of adding it to a Bill Fink article, as personally I think it would be a bit more valuable to have an article on the artist rather than "Bob", but the sources are good. (I should note that these sources are pre-web, so I'm not expecting a lot to be found online). - Bilby (talk) 22:07, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge to Bill Fink. There are a few RS articles mentioning this work, but hard to say it is notable enough for its own page. Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:03, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment AfD is about all aspects of WP:NOT, which deals with many things besides the policy section NOT INDISCRIMINATE that is the basis for notability guidelines. Of even more direct important is NOTADVOCACY, which includes both advertising and promotionalism. Paid editing almost inevitably leads to both promotionalism in making articles and POV coverage, which includes overcoverage of particular aspects. DGG ( talk ) 03:49, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
  • DGG: Okay, do you feel this article is somehow promotional? Because I wrote it intending to explain why I believed it to be notable— I did not include any puffery or any unverifiable qualitative remarks like "exceptional" or "amazing" or "incredible". I don't recall "overcoverage" being a reason for deletion. Have you read the Daily News article I asked you about earlier? Where did you find it? What did you think? KDS4444 12:27, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
@DGG: By "overcoverage of particular aspects", do you mean things like having an article on this particular work of his? In that case, what I found has brought me to the same conclusion (pending, as I say above, stunning sources that I did not find, which might be the ones that are cited and that I can't see). However, I do find the sources justify an article on Fink. To my mind this is ababy and bathwater case; for the good of the encyclopedia we shouldn't refuse to cover a notable topic in reaction to the overcoverage of one aspect of it (whether theoretical or actual). Yngvadottir (talk) 15:57, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
I meant "focussing on this particular picture rather than the overall subject." I agree that an article on the artist might be OK. DGG ( talk ) 17:10, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep, although if Bill Fink ceases to be a red link, merge will be a better choice. The sources aren't many, but just enough to pass the GNG, and given that this was pre-web there may be other print sources to use in the future. That said, if Bill Fink existed there wouldn't be enough to warrant this as a spin-off article, so should that situation change I'd be inclined to bring the two together. - Bilby (talk) 04:21, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - There's very little media coverage of this work, as one would expect if it were culturally significant, regardless of its pre-Internet provenance. I did find a blog discussing it.]. I'm not sure that Bill Fink has enough notability either. If an article on him is ever created, my blog link can serve as a starting point for interested editors to merge the info from this article and preserve the history of Mr. Christensen. TimTempleton 17:43, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete for failing WP:GNG, my comment is above. Ifnord (talk) 19:37, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per Yngvadottir, and merge with Bob Fink. ---- Patar knight - /contributions 02:35, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
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. There is a clear absence of consensus either way with respect to this subject. There is no question that the subject is a business that exists, and has remained in operation for nearly 150 years (albeit with both substantial structural changes and a possibly ill-advised name change). In my opinion, this is a borderline case. If the bank had been founded 20 years ago and had achieved its current status in terms of holdings, NYSE status, and slight press coverage, I would consider it much more difficult to demonstrate notability; if the bank had existed since 1870 and never gained a substantial business footprint, I would also consider it much more difficult to demonstrate notability. I was, frankly, tempted to move this to draft space to seek better sourcing, but that is typically appropriate where the article is not being worked on in mainspace. Since that work is being done, I will encourage its continuation where it sits. bd2412 T 11:56, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Blue Hills Bank (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)

My initial impression was that this should be notable, but I couldn't find the coverage to verify this. WP:ATDs are to Blue Hills Bank Pavilion or Nantucket, but I didn't think either was a convincing redirect target. Boleyn (talk) 15:25, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:05, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:05, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:05, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train 06:20, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Sizable bank. JuntungWu (talk) 15:26, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete No indications of notability, reference provided fails the criteria for establishing notability. Fails GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing 17:16, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is "Blue Hills Bancorp", traded on the New York Stock Exchange, there will exist analyst coverage of it as it is a traded security on the biggest U.S. stock exchange. There be Wall Street Journal announcements of its earnings etc. There may be U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission investigations, enforcement actions, etc. It is a big deal to be NYSE listed. I think in the past there has been some ridiculous claim made that NYSE-traded firms are not necessarily notable, but of course in fact they are. You try listing your company on the NYSE!!!!! --doncram 00:42, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Comment Please post links to two references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Note that company announcements, earnings announcements, etc, are not regarded as intellectually independent sources. -- HighKing 15:30, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Yahoo finance profile; reuters profile; Wall street journal articles, etc. You put in the links. I am not looking who put this article into deletion play, but whoever it was didn't do their wp:BEFORE homework. Are you serious? I suppose you are, that you think a NYSE-listed company is not notable, which is absurd. --doncram 15:59, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi doncram, from WP:LISTED There has been considerable discussion over time whether publicly traded corporations, or at least publicly traded corporations listed on major stock exchanges such as the NYSE and other comparable international stock exchanges, are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case.. Yahoo Finance and reuters profiles (generally) fail WP:CORPDEPTH. Many WSJ articles rely on interviews/quotations or company announcements and fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. I've tried to find references that meet the criteria for establishing notability and haven't found any.
Also, just be aware that whoever closes this doesn't count !votes but evaluates the arguments and reasoning against policy/guidelines. Your (any mine and everyone else's) *opinions* don't count. If you want to smash the AfD irrefutably out of the park, the easiest is to post two links that meet the criteria for establishing notability. -- HighKing 23:55, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. I know, you should know, everybody else knows that this (and probably every other NYSE-listed) company is Knowledge (XXG) notable. It has $2.3 billion in assets. It has market value of $537 million! There is no value provided by AFDs on NYSE-listed companies.
Also, per wp:LISTED, "..., sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companie ..." (bolding added by me) and editors are encouraged to search for and add the analyst reports, etc., that are publicly available in this case and, at least behind paywalls for, I expect, all others. Also it is nonsense that Google and Yahoo and Reuters profiles are not valid reports on the audited financial statements of the NYSE companies. --doncram 17:02, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, all I'm seeing is that you still can't find two references. Your opinion doesn't trump policy and guidelines. -- HighKing 12:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete or TNT - Fails WP:NCORP, WP:LISTED, and WP:MILL. First, the article subject exists but the sourcing is primarily concerned with Blue Hills Bancorp, Inc, and not with the actual Blue Hills Bank(s). Second, per WP:LISTED being traded on a stock exchange is not a direct indication of notability. Third, per WP:MILL small community banks are not considered to be notable if they do not provide a notable service even if they have accrued coverage from reliable sources. My advice would be to delete this article and create one for Blue Hills Bancorp, Inc or rename and WP:TNT the current article.--SamHolt6 (talk) 16:45, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Umm, "TNT" acknowledges that the topic is valid. Sure, it can/should be moved to Blue Hills Bancorp probably ("Keep" with suggestion to move/rename is the appropriate AFD outcome), and it should cover the history of the Nantucket Bank, one of its predecessors, and so on. Umm, what is your reasoning for deleting then recreating? The essay wp:TNTTNT provides numerous reasons why that should not be done, one being that it violates Knowledge (XXG)'s promise to contributors that they will be credited for their work (while deleting the article then recreating it wipes out edit history of contributions). --doncram 17:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  20:28, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Ran some searches, no indications of notability, fails GNG & WP:NCORP. Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:11, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. I will add some of the available sources after this AFD closes. It is ludicrous that several editors are announcing they searched but found nothing. Perhaps they did not search "Blue Hills Bancorp" or they didn't try very hard. If a closing editor chooses to delete to make some point that "AFD is for cleanup" (contrary to wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP), then please provide a copy to my user space, to save time, as I would surely re-create the article. --doncram 17:16, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep - Subject of significant coverage. See - Hirolovesswords (talk) 17:44, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Comment The first link is broken with a 404 error. The second link is a company announcement in relation to a name change and fails WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. Your last reference is a self-published book and fails WP:ORGIND as it is not intellectually independent. -- HighKing 21:24, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
      • I've fixed the first link. I disagree with your assertion that the second link, an article written by an independent source (The Boston Globe) prior to the the company officially announcing its name change and features statements critical of the bank's decision could be seen as failing WP:ORGIND or WP:CORPDEPTH. As for the last link, it is independent of the subject of the article, therefore it meets WP:ORGIND - Hirolovesswords (talk) 22:10, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
        • Comment Thank you for fixing the first link. The article is based on a company announcement and this is confirmed at the start of the second paragraph. It therefore fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. You say that you disagree with my assertion that the second link fails WP:ORGIND because the article predates the "official" announcement of the name change. Here is another article for the same date. Note it clearly refers to "a statement" from the company as the originator of the information. Finally, your assertion that the last reference is "independent of the subject of the article, therefore it meets WP:ORGIND" may be true, but it misinterprets what I said. The book is self-published and books of this type are generally not acceptable as reliable sources, therefore it fails WP:RS. Furthermore, the book is 96 pages and the company is mentioned once, in passing, and therefore fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Finally, I stated that the book is not intellectually independent but this is no longer important to the process of analysing this source for the purpose of meeting the criteria for establishing notability since this book fails on two other counts. -- HighKing 16:46, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
          • Comment' WP:ORGIND refers to sources that are substantially based on a press release. An article that features information that would not be included in a company statement, including comments from people outside of the company (especially those critical of the company) is a non-routine work. - Hirolovesswords (talk) 17:32, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
            • Comment I agree - an article that includes information and data originating from a company announcement or press release may still meet the criteria for establishing notability if it also includes original analysis and/or opinion. I assume you are referring to this Boston Globe article and while I can see comments from "Milton banking consultant Suzanne Moot" and from "Mayor Thomas M. Menino", there is nothing substantial in those comments and anyway, the reference is still "substantially" based on PRIMARY sources. -- HighKing 13:27, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Page is sourced back to the bank's founding in the 1870s, and its modern activities are quite well sourced. More sources exist (I just added a 2011 article from the International Herald Tribune on the bank's shift in models due to low interest rates in ~2011. More can be added, but, frankly, I am puzzled to understand why there is a long AfD about a Boston area bank with a well-sourced page and more sourcing available in a news archive search.(the fact that the Boston Globe is pay-walled may have misled some editors).E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:45, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
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. (non-admin closure) J947 00:32, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Upon being asked to add a rationale for my closure, I will. The 'delete' opinions are 'Unsourced BLP, needs sources', 'can't find any sources', and 'no good sources in the article'. WP:CONTN specifically makes the last point not worth anything. Now the 'keep' arguments: 'systemic bias, sources out there', 'sources, merely improvement needed', 'soon will be foreign-language sources', 'will be Armenian language sources', and 'notable'. The last one doesn't say why it is notable, so is discounted. All in all—with two on one side and four on the other, balanced out by BLP and systemic bias—I see a rough consensus to keep the article. J947 18:37, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Anait Isahanova (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)

Unsourced BLP. PROD removed. Possibly could be sourced, but without sources the page can not stay on Knowledge (XXG). Ymblanter (talk) 17:40, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. There are two sources provided, one of which is an external link to the organization's site. At the very least, it does serve to confirm the subject's status as Armenia's representative. And in a few weeks, the Miss Universe site will post brief bios on all of the contestants, at which point some additional detail will be available. But my primary concern here is something different. This nomination illustrates the ease with which systemic bias gets introduced into the encyclopedia. Making determinations on the failure to find English-language sources is problematic for subjects whose sources are not likely to have been written in that language. This is especially true if the sources are not written with the Roman alphabet but, as is the case here, the Armenian alphabet. Armenian language sources exist, as shown here. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:24, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
    I have written hundreds of articles with sources solely in Russian. I think it is ridiculous to accuse me in systemic bias. It is just instagram is not a reliable source.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep: National titleholder, sources exist, article needs improvement though. { } 03:32, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Knowledge (XXG) is supposed to be based on reliable sources. Instagram is not a reliable source. It is also supposed to be based on indepdent sources. The website of the competition someone won is not independent. There is nothing even approaching a source here that shows notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:28, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak keep: National level winner of Miss Universe qualifier. There will be foreign-language sources that can be used for expansion and per NewYorkActuary, whenever the pageant hits (which will be soon, I presume), we will see more content. This one is a DONOTDEMOLISH. Montanabw 07:06, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  20:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Only if statements are "challenged or likely to be challenged". The article consists of lines on the pageants that Isahanova won. Not particularly contentious material so no need to talk us into hysteria that isn't in the policy referenced. gidonb (talk) 17:39, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
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 keep, indeed passes WP:NSPORTS, WP:GNG is presumed to be ensured for KHL players--Ymblanter (talk) 06:28, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Roman Malov (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 ice hockey player. Fails WP:GNG XFhumu 20:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Keep: He played 257 regular season games in the Russian Superleague, a now defunct league (replaced by the Kontinental Hockey League in 2008) which meets Criterion 1 of WP:NHOCKEY (see WP:NHOCKEY/LA). --SP17 (talk) 20:41, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

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 keep. Nom-withdraw (non-admin closure) Dysklyver 09:24, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

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

not notable, only sources I have find are unreliable tabloid features. Heavy promotion by MTV resulted in a great deal of promotional material, but no reliable independent sources. Dysklyver 20:22, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Dysklyver 20:23, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Dysklyver 20:23, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. You promised to stop nominating articles for deletion just four days ago. Your deletion nominations are way too often partially or completely invalid and show a problem with your application of WP:BEFORE. I have no idea how you can only find "unreliable tabloid features" when a simple Google Books search immediately finds this: "Talking 'bout Your Mama: The Dozens, Snaps, and the Deep Roots of Rap" by Elijah Wald, Oxford University Press, 2014 (I guess this is not a "tabloid feature"?): "The most ambitious and influential dozens showcase was MTV's Yo Momma" As of 2017, it is still being used as a notable example of insult shows, like here, in "A Slap in the Face: Why Insults Hurt - And Why They Shouldn't" by William Braxton Irvine, Oxford University Press. When someone who co-hosted the show dies, this is deemed important enough to be the title of his obituary in "Entertainment Weekly" and for news stories throughout the world (Netherlands, but also Spanish, French, Danish... stories). It is referenced regularly, even ten years later, in all kinds of sources, as the example of rap-insult-dozens shows, e.g. in this French article. And all of this isignoring contemporary articles like the adweek one presnet in the article, or this lengthy NY Times interview about the show. Fram (talk) 09:02, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. North America 08:56, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
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. --Ixfd64 (talk) 17:44, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

JackEL (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:MUSICBIO. lacks coverage in reliable sources XFhumu 20:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:14, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:14, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:14, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Hallo, I wrote the article. I realy tried to give as much and as seriouse refs as posible. I think every important thing is prooft. But If someone have a other opinion on it, please let me know so I can correct it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakabl (talk • contribs) 20:21, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I added some new ref which I found with the source list frome abouth — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakabl (talk • contribs) 20:59, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz thank you very much for your help and your criticism. I saw what you did and made also a few changes like yours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakabl (talk • contribs) 21:05, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Do not Delete These Article is no promotion. I just can't give more other informations becaus there are no references. As I said, I'm working on it and take every criticism serios. At the moment I'm serching for more references to give also other informations.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakabl (talk • contribs)
@Walter Görlitz: I searched using Google and Bing. The sources are thinner than an Amish phone book. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:39, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:53, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - I originally tagged the page for speedy deletion for lacking independent reliable sources and not written from a neutral point of view and it looks like it was deleted. Now, it has been recreated with the promotional content removed however, most of the page's references don't detail the subject. Meatsgains (talk) 02:07, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - Despite the in-depth research by Walter Görlitz, I still don't feel the sources are reliable enough to establish notability.--CNMall41 (talk) 02:40, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
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. --Ixfd64 (talk) 17:36, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Abusaria (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 is an unreferenced surname article with no encyclopedic information whatsoever. Sadly, because this was lumped into an AfD 11 years ago it can't be prodded. It used to be an unreferenced caste article. Xezbeth (talk) 19:41, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:47, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:48, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
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. --Ixfd64 (talk) 17:39, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Sevenling (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)

Notability concerns. "Roddy Lumsden invented the form about ten years ago as part of a teaching exercise." I can't find any coverage which suggests it is a notable form of poetry or meets WP:GNG. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:37, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
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 and redirect to Arithmetic progression. --Ixfd64 (talk) 17:45, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

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

The article was originally at the title Infinite arithmetic series; XOR'easter removed the prod and retitled the article. The content still matches the old title. About the existing content, I repeat my prod comment: "Appears to be a made-up phrase to discuss two examples; none of the references include the word "arithmetic," let alone "infinite arithmetic series." It seems doubtful that true sources exist. This non-important special case of zeta regularization should be discussed (if at all) in the more general article as an example." About the new title, it is a thing that is not made up and indeed sources exist for it. However, there should not be an article with this title, instead it should be a redirect to arithmetic progression and any relevant content can be covered there in the correct context. JBL (talk) 19:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. JBL (talk) 19:28, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
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. --Ixfd64 (talk) 17:35, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Sardar Mohammad (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 film, clearly written for publicity. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NFILM and WP:NFOE. Also not even released, thus WP:TOOSOON, though claimed it was/is released on 3 November 2017, that's over 20 days from today. Also no reliable sources coverage WP:NFSOURCES Ammarpad (talk) 18:06, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 23:11, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 23:11, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
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. (non-admin closure) J947 00:29, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Alexander Berghaus (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)

Biography contains no independent sources. Fails WP:GNG and the only claim of meeting WP:NPROF is unsourced. RexxS (talk) 18:14, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

The circumstances of the creation of this article may be questionable. However, Alexander Berghaus is a notable medical scientist. According to Web of Science he has an h-index of 23 and 222 listed publications. The article refers to
A. Berghaus: Porous polyethylene in reconstructive head and neck surgery. In: Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 111, 1986, 1985, S. 154–160.
which is one of his most influential publications with a citation count of 79 which is still cited (2 citations from 2017). Hence, WP:NPROF is given per its first criterion. --AFBorchert (talk) 19:37, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
He's not notable by WP:GNG. WP:NACADEMIC #1 requires "a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources". These independent reliable sources are demonstrably missing from this article – in fact there is a complete absence of any relevant independent sources. I'm sympathetic to academics who are genuinely notable within their field, as there are often fewer independent sources available, but merely being cited by others is not a free pass to notability for an otherwise unremarkable career. --RexxS (talk) 21:22, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
You are claiming this as if this would be a fact. But the facts are different. The article I've cited above appears to be the first work to present the use of porous polyethylene as implant material for plastic surgery. It is, for example, cited in Complications and toxicities of implantable biomaterials used in facial reconstructive and aesthetic surgery: A comprehensive review of the literature by J. P. Rubin and M. J. Yaremchuk in Plastic and reconstructive surgery, vol. 100, no. 5, October 1997, pp. 1336–1353. Quote from p. 1341:
Silicone has been a widely used implant material. Seven studies, describing 239 patients, reveal an infection rate of 3.8 percent and an exposure/extrusion rate of 2.9 percent for mixed facial implant sites (Table II). Porous polyethylene has enjoyed a much lower infection rate (0.9 percent) and almost no displacement.
118 refers to the above mentioned paper. Quite a number of those citations are studies which confirm the suitability of this material.
Again, the circumstances on how this article was written are indeed concerning and it is surely justified to review these cases critically. But the introduction and medical evaluation of a new implant material is surely to be considered as a “significant impact”. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
It is a fact. And why should it have "surely" "significant impact"? If it's so obviously significant, where are the independent secondary sources that tell us that? With all due respect, we insist on secondary sources so that we don't have to rely on either your or my judgement on that point. If I build a better-mouse-trap and publish an academic article comparing it with a standard mouse trap, should I expect a Knowledge (XXG) article about me and my invention as soon as my article gets cited? The marketeers will be rubbing their hands in glee. Have I not been clear about the fact that the article has no usable sources? We have the following guideline (WP:WHYN):
Not only that, but we have a policy that no guideline can override (WP:STICKTOSOURCE):
  • If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Knowledge (XXG) should not have an article about it.
No amount of citations, impact factors and h-indices can make up for the fact that there are no independent, secondary sources to use in order to write the article without original research. --RexxS (talk) 22:56, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I've cited an independent source above. Here is another one: A. Shanbhag et al, Evaluation of porous polyethylene for external ear reconstruction, in: Annals of Plastic Surgery, vol. 24, no. 1, January 1990, pp. 32–39. Quote from p. 32:
One of the predominant problems in ear reconstruction of both congenital and traumatic deformities is the provision of a satisfactory ear framework. Currently the most commonly used material is autogenous rib cartilage. However, a number of problems are associated with its use. For these reasons investigators have been searching for almost 50 years for an ideal alloplastic material that could be formed preoperatively, sterilized, and implanted unter the appropriate soft tissue covering. Unfortunately, none of these materials have proved satisfactory. More recently, porous alloplastic materials have proved clinically useful as implants in a number of areas including blood vessel replacement, breast augmentation, and total hip replacement. The porosity of the implant allows collagenous tissue ingrowth into the material, anchoring it into position and providing a larger interface between the alloplastic implant and the soft tissues of the body. One such material is porous polyethylene. Berghaus and colleagues reported some initial success with this material in ear reconstructions, although long-term follow-up studies are not yet available.
This is independent and there are many other likewise independent sources that evaluate the material which was first introduced by Berghaus for plastic surgery. In the meantime you will find also long-term studies covering this. You are right that the article falls short of presenting this. But there is no doubt that Bergstein did significant work in this field. --AFBorchert (talk) 05:57, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm not trying to be awkward about this, but are you really suggesting that the above quote from pmid:2301880 is sufficient to base a biography of Berghaus on? I simply don't believe there is enough material available from independent secondary sources to use in order to write a proper biography, regardless of whether or not he meets a SNG – and I still haven't seen it "demonstrated by independent reliable sources" per NPROF#1. There's no point in attempting to establish notability if there's nothing we can write without doing OR. --RexxS (talk) 20:12, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 20:11, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 Comment: The author of this article admitted at de:wp that he was paid for it by the subject. The article at de:wp was developed in March to July 2015, and then translated to English in August 2015. (The added “A” is short for “Auftragsarbeit“, i.e. paid editing. Ventus55 was asked in September to declare at de:wp openly which of his articles were paid for.) --AFBorchert (talk) 09:11, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:45, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:04, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:05, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG with only a few WP:ROUTINE local sources covering his hirings and some stats pages. Fails WP:NHOOPS by not head coaching in a well covered league, Canada isn't exactly a big basketball country in terms of media coverage or attendance. Yosemiter (talk) 18:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 19:53, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 19:53, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete does not meet our overly permissive notability guidelines for basketball players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:38, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. However, it is a laughable cheap shot to say that our basketball guidelines are overly permissive. The men’s guideline is for six domestic leagues (including predecessor leagues), three pan European leagues, first and second round NBA draft picks and stat leaders/major award winners for two top minor leagues. These are probably some of the least expansive Sports SSG guidelines. The truth is that many more basketball figures than this meet GNG because there is high interest in the sport from a number of countries. Rikster2 (talk) 12:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG with lack of significant coverage from independent sources. Assistant coaches aren't inherently notable per WP:NHOOPS.—Bagumba (talk) 08:30, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:05, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG with few sources found and all appear to be out the WP:ROUTINE variety ("Dunlap named coach", etc) and mentions in articles about the new team. The closest is a rather in depth article from the local paper, which possibly runs afoul of WP:SPORTSBASIC Fails WP:NHOOPS by not head coaching in a well covered league, Canada isn't exactly a big basketball country in terms of media coverage or attendance. Yosemiter (talk) 17:56, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 20:04, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 20:04, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 20:04, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Not seeing sources to demonstrate GNG. Rikster2 (talk) 21:40, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

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. There is no prevailing argument among the participants. Even if we abide by the nominator's wish to discount WP:RAPID-based arguments (and I'm not suggesting whether that that would be appropriate or not), it does not shift the consensus to delete.

Given the number of AfDs similar to this one in the recent past, many of which have closed without a clear consensus, it may be time for a policy refinement. A Train 13:12, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Murder of Reuven Shmerling (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)

Knowledge (XXG) is not news. This incident was in the news, mostly regional, for about four days because it was called suspected terrorism. However, it appears to have been a monetary dispute. Even if it was terror, which needs a trial not news reports to confirm, there is no long-term impact or significance to a wide region. The story was covered in predominantly Jewish sources; nothing wrong with that but it fails WP:DIVERSE. No WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE from four days in the regular news cycle and potential coverage (no WP:CRYSTALBALL please) on a trial is WP:ROUTINE. Remember, the affects of WP:RECENTISM on a recent story and please avoid employing a "wait and see" tactic to this AFD. WP:RAPID goes both ways and that alone has no assessment on the notability, or lack thereof, of this tragic but unnotable crime. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:31, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Note that Nom misrepresents the facts. As shown on the page and in discussion below, this is officially an act of terrorism. Nom's mistaken assertion that this was a "monetary dispute" appears to have misled at least one iVoter below, who changed his iVote. Advise Nom to be more careful in future to read sources WP:BEFORE and exercise care in describing topic under discussion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:22, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Icewhiz read my comment about WP:RAPID -- it has no bearing on notability. Routine news reports about a crime is not a sign of notability, it's just expected. I do agree, it "would be crystal balling to assess the future persistent of coverage" which is why an article should have never been created on this incident. Until, or if, we are offered actual analysis or impact of the alleged crime, we have no indication of notability whatsoever.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:14, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Murders are not routine, and in this case it is not routine murder covering. In most murder cases - we have an article the next day, maybe two, and little else until the trial. In this case we have several news items coming in several spurts throughout the 15 days from the event.Icewhiz (talk) 20:16, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Actually, sadly, murder is routine. 437,000+ people are murdered globally on an annual basis. We cannot create 437,000 articles a year. AusLondonder (talk) 20:47, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Murders that get covered in national and international media are not routine by Knowledge (XXG) standards.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:06, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Comment I have added a ton of sources to the article that demonstrate notability. - Galatz 12:04, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Note - WP:RAPID does not apply to this nomination. It has been 14 days since the incident and it has fallen out of the news cycle. I expected the "wait and see" !votes regardless but hope an admin gives less wait to these moot arguments.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:22, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Even a tiny bit of research into the topic would have shown you that there is a gag order on the details of the case. What do you expect them to report on meanwhile? The killers were arrested alive, so you know it will continue to be covered as their trail begins. Additionally what do you consider it stopping being covered? The fact that 4 days ago it was covered when the President visited the family, or that 2 days ago it made press because even an Arab MK went to pay a shiva call. I think the fact that the family is still sitting shiva definitely makes your assertion that its faded out a little premature. - Galatz 17:37, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
      • So, hypothetically Galatz, if these assailants died after the attack and no trial took place, would we even be having this disagreement? The media commonly updates people -- there is nothing unique or analytical about it. Notability is awfully weak, if not non-existent, if you are depending on the routine announcements of a trial. Could you agree with this compromise: put the article into draft space until the subject has actual analysis and ramifications. You even agreed the article should not have been created (a passive delete) so why advocate for keeping a news story?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:44, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
        • If you read WP:BREAKING it basically agrees with exactly what I said, so the fact that I wouldn't have created it, does not mean I want it deleted, two very different things. And once again you are trying to twist my words, saying why it will still be in the news to dispute your comments that its already gone, does not infer anything if they were killed. I am simply saying that you cannot say its out of the news when there is so much left to do go, its impossible to draw a conclusion on a chain of events that didn't happen. - Galatz 18:07, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
          • "Its impossible to draw a conclusion on a chain of events that didn't happen": so where is the notability Galatz? Are you implying something notable is going to come from this, eventually? We can only work with what we have. At this point, right now notability can not be established. Maybe later when (or if) this develops more than routine reporting but right now that is uncertain. We do not work with uncertainties, otherwise all our notability guidelines are rendered worthless. I'll ask again, would putting this into draft space be a reasonable compromise since you are so sure notability will be established during or after the trial?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:45, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
            • Right now we have enough coverage to establish GNG. More than enough (a number of bursts, diverse, reliable, non local, etc). What we do not know is if this will be PERSISTENT. Hence, WP:RAPID applies. With the gag order on the case, most wiki editors who aren't aware of what's being gagged, are not able to assess potential persistence here, which in any event is crystall balling.Icewhiz (talk) 18:53, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
            • @TheGracefulSlick: Stop attempting to twist words. My comment is in relation to your made up past event, and you are now trying to say I am making comment about how future stuff works. - Galatz 13:41, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:21, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:RAPID. Disparage article creator for rushing to start an article, and Nom for rushing to delete without running a proper WP:BEFORE when even a brief, good faith search would have shown that investigators are calling this terrorism, and that coverage is not ROUTINE (Nom has a track record of making WP:POINTy nominations of terrorist incidents for deletion.) However, article exists and, as Icewhiz states, we diverse, reliable, non local, non-routine sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:21, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete This is a routine news story with no current indication of notability or significance and therefore has no encyclopaedic value. Pincrete (talk) 21:51, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete however tragic this is to his family and friends, it simply does not have any encyclopaedic value,Huldra (talk) 23:43, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete No encyclopedic value whatsoever. If this murder turns out to be something more than a routine crime, and if the killing has repercussions, it may be appropriate to have an article about it. Until then, put away your crystal balls, because you don't know whether this story will have "legs", and we don't keep trivial articles on the small possibility that a news story might develop into something more. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 02:29, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:08, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Note - Millionsandbillions' comment about terrorism has absolutely no bearing on notability as even some of the keep voters have noted. Even if it did, the sad reality is terrorism is becoming more and more routine (we literally have lists devoted toward individual months) so to say this incident is somehow unique is a misstatement. Also note that the incident has not been the subject of worldwide coverage. Lastly, anything can be covered for a few days but that does not mean it passes WP:GNG, especially when it falls under WP:NOT.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:54, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
And how does it fall under WP:NOT? Additionally worldwide coverage is not a requirement for WP:GNG. As discussed above we have had continuous coverage for the past couple weeks so there goes your few days comments. - Galatz 18:26, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm not saying that this incident is somehow "unique", just that it satisfies the project's notability guidelines. Even if terrorism has become more routine (I'm not really sure that it has or if it is a bias towards WP:RECENCY), we shouldn't delete articles about it solely for that reason. There are sources from the US used in the article which shows that this incident has attained, if not worldwide, international coverage. I also think that this article does not fail WP:NOT; it is not a memorial, not about routine news, not making predictions about the future nor is it an indiscriminate collection of information. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 18:27, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Millionsandbillions how is it not news? The media is simply rehashing the same story and giving occasional routine updates with no further analysis or indication of long-term ramifications. And a single source from The Seattle Times is not reflective of the US covering the incident or persistent international coverage. Other voters are steadfast on keeping the article despite its failure of our notability guidelines but I have hope you strongly reconsider.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:43, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
So Are you saying if , all of which are non-Israel websites having reported on it, were in the article you would change your mind? I cant wait to see what stretch excuse you come up with next. - Galatz 18:54, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
All reporting the exact same story in the exact same way with no actual substance. Great, thanks; the pinnacle of why Knowledge (XXG) is not a newspaper. They are all either from October 8th or are Jewish sources reporting on what Israeli sources said. Nothing wrong with Jewish sources but it doesn't demonstrate any diversity or persistency. Galatz I am trying to have a discussion with another editor; if you are just here to disrupt it and prove how lost you are, I would appreciate if you just stepped aside. Thanks.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:11, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the incident is news but it is not routine news. WP:NOTNEWS is in regards to routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities; this incident is none of these. This incident is being investigated as a terrorist incident and it is my position that gives it notability. If the motive for the murder had remained thought to be a monetary dispute, or if the investigation yet determines this was not an act of terrorism, I would !vote to delete but currently I'm inclined to include it because it is not a routine murder. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 20:05, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Okay, thank you Millionsandbillions. I happen to disagree because it is just an alleged act of terror at this point; the accused and their defense will tend to disagree and perhaps claim another motive. Only the conclusion of a trial will confirm anything so it was far too soon to even consider creating an article. Also note your quote routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities: the word "like" means it is not limited to those examples. Other things apply and there is no inherent notability to the possibility of terrorism.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:28, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Criminal act is not like or anything near " announcements, sports, or celebrities".You have to gain consensus to change the policy.--Shrike (talk) 09:18, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Nope Shrike. I don't needed added consensus to make the policy more clearer for you. Routine news includes crime and NOTNEWS is regularly applied to it. Crime, and this may come as a surprise, occurs daily and the news routinely covers it because it is a "good" story that sells papers, gets viewers or online subscribers. We aren't trying to do that. That took some thinking but not that much and the fact that you write the exact same rationale inherently for these scenarios tell me you never took the time to consider that.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 10:48, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Well among many AFDs you initiated you almost(?) never gained a consensus to your view.Any crime that reported in multiple intentional news outlets is notable per our policy.--Shrike (talk) 11:02, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Shrike just because enough editors willfully ignore this policy and damage the encyclopedia that does not make it "my view"; it is a reflection of the community. And for your "international news" statement, WP:EVENTCRIT disagrees: "A violent crime, accidental death, or other media events may be interesting enough to reporters and news editors to justify coverage, but this will not always translate into sufficient notability for a Knowledge (XXG) article". And: "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance". Isn't it odd the policy describes violent crime and most crimes in general as routine or a media event, like I have said many times. My rationales tend to be more consistent and accurate because I take them directly from the policies I cite, not my POV.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 11:28, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep it per WP:GNG which says if subject is discussed by the reliable sources and discussed in detail without any need to write per WP:OR then the subject is notable. But here he is part of an event then we should have an article on the event instead. Article is written from encyclopedic point-of-view so WP:NOTNEWS doesn't apply. Greenbörg (talk) 17:07, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Greenbörg anything can be written in an "encyclopedic point-of-view". That doesn't mean you can just outright say NOTNEWS doesn't apply. There is no clause that says that anywhere. But whatever, if someone wants to keep an "article" they can write just about anything.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:08, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
@TheGracefulSlick:I find it quiet amusing that in multiple AfD you have accused E.M.Gregory of WP:BLUDGEON (such as Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Tapuah Junction stabbing (2010) and Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/2017 Yavneh attack (2nd nomination)) yet its exactly what you are doing here. - Galatz 13:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Accused? Actually, I've proven it at ANI already Galatz so it's just a fact now. Baiting me will not work but I appreciate the effort. Maybe you could put that much effort into understanding our guidelines? Thanks.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 13:48, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I am not attempting to bait you in any way shape or form, just pointing out your hypocrisy. Additionally considering you keep being so insistent on articles like this and your keep having the losing argument, I suggest that it is you who needs to better understand them. I think a HUGE factor you are missing is that all of the guidelines are just that guidelines, but GNG trumps all others. - Galatz 13:51, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
"No consensus" isn't a "losing" argument sorry to say Galatz. Perhaps you should read what GNG has to say like: "'Presumed' means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Knowledge (XXG) is not...". So GNG does not trump all. I made the statement this is WP:NOTNEWS and supported it thoroughly with our criteria for events. You, on the other hand, used the good ol' wait and see argument for an incident that happened over two weeks ago because you think it might be notable with even more time. I work with what we actually know, not what we possibly will know.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:06, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
This really isnt a topic for here, so perhaps it should be moved elsewhere, so after this comment I will refrain from commenting again here. Firstly you should read the background section of WP:EVENT, which states that they are to attempt to help you navigate GNG, so how does GNG not trump it, if this is sub-part of GNG? You quote WP:EVENTCRIT but read the nutshell at the top An event is presumed to be notable if it receives significant, non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time. Coverage should be in multiple reliable sources with national or global scope. National scope is sufficient yet you argue its only national. Significant coverage, yup it definitely has that. Non-routine, I would say its not routine, how many of these attacks show Arab MK's going to shiva, I could give other examples but its a big one? Period of time is vague, but I would say its safe to say its premature to assess when the gag order is still in place, which is common sense, not WP:CRYSTALBALL. As I said before, I am happy to discuss further, but this is not the proper location. I have opened a section on my talk page, quoting my text from here if you wish to comment. - Galatz 14:22, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Per WP:EVENTCRIT which says "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. Absolutely nothing to demonstrate this murder was of exceptional notability. AusLondonder (talk) 18:41, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

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

  • Keep it seems to be notable, simply by the amount of attention all the above have been paying; perhaps better paid contributing elsewhere, perhaps not. The fact is, if it was reported in non-Jewish media sources, it would be too obscure for many of the above to uncover, so citations would become difficult; that is not the problem, as citations exist, keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.209.23.138 (talk) 22:24, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

— 126.209.23.138 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Keep The usual editors are obviously whitewashing obvious terrorist attacks. Suspected terrorist attacks are never routine Bachcell (talk)
Please assume good faith and stop engaging in personal attacks. Closing admin should discount your !vote. AusLondonder (talk) 00:26, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  • WP:OTHERSTUFF. Nableezy fails to encounter arguments made above that coverage of this murder had been national and international. (Note that there is a temporary hiatus in news reports; attackers are in custody on terrorism charges, a temporary legal gag order is in place while the contacts of the two suspected terrorism-related murderers is investigated.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:37, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Um not every argument is a Knowledge (XXG) acronym. The point here was that murders are generally covered in the news because they are news. In a smaller country like Israel that may mean it is covered in the national news. In a larger country like the United States it may only be covered in the local news (depending on the race of the victim, minority victims generally get less coverage for what I assume is the same reason why we cover a much larger number of Israeli victims of Palestinian violence as opposed to Palestinian victims of Israeli violence despite the numbers showing one of those things being less likely to occur than the other). But you really dont need to respond, everyone already knows what you think about this. Repeating it just makes this more of a pain for somebody to close, which now that I think about it may well be the intention. Much easier to close No consensus if there is too much difficulty reading through the whole discussion I suppose. nableezy - 17:12, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
I think we all know by now that E.M.Gregory relishes filling AfDs with a pack of lies and destroy the chance of a consensus. AusLondonder (talk) 18:23, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
As you said to someone a few comments above, please refrain from making personal attacks. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 14:58, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Just want to answer one thing, the AP has stories for EVERYTHING you can imagine. For example, they covered this pumpkin patch raid by a few elementary school kids. We live in an age where everything can be found in the news, but this remains an encyclopedia, not a news repository. nableezy - 16:41, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
My understanding is that AP, being an American based organization, will cover American stories of lower importance/interest more in-depth than if those incidents had occurred in other countries. I doubt that a similarly inconsequential story in Israel would be published by the AP in a similar manner. The AP simply reporting on something also usually doesn't mean that its subscriber papers publish everything the AP publishes, there's some editorial discretion. Here, the AP story was published in the Seattle Times, which is not a regional Israeli newspaper, and is used as an example of a non-Israeli RS that covered this incident. The pumpkin story also seems to fall into the "can you believe how silly this story" type of news that WP:NOTNEWS bars as "routine" as opposed to hard news, like in this story.---- Patar knight - /contributions 18:41, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Note - continuing coverage today, the 26th, due to a house demolition notice served to the family of an alleged perpetrator . The investigation case itself is still under the standard (of late) 30-day judicial gag - so details are not yet officially published by the Israeli press.Icewhiz (talk) 12:43, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Week Keep Though current news in itself has no place on Knowledge (XXG) it is clear that this event, being around 3 weeks old now, already has already amassed some facts and reactions which have created some notability for the article. It should not perhaps have been created so early and it would have definitely been better to wait as the story unfolds however it seems a waste of community resources (and even wiki server space) to delete an article which has a good chance of becoming notable in the future given the current projectory (terror attack & Netanyahu etc). Overall of course the article should not have been created on the 4th October given the current notability at that point in time was low. Vasemmistolainen (talk) 15:55, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Keep (changed vote per points made in following comment - this appears to be terrorism) - this is going to be closed as no consensus, but I'm concerned the amount of time that is wasted arguing each side - time that could be better spend fixing articles and other encyclopedia-betterment pursuits. I was asked by the nominator to help craft a policy that would minimize this type of discussion down the road, but demurred because I think that such a policy would suffer the same endless debate fate that these articles do. The current guidelines don't seem to make these AfD discussions easier to settle. So, here are my general thoughts. Most of these controversial articles seem to be related to attacks that are assumed to be terrorism, but a sticking point is that the terrorism is not yet proved. Other variables are number of perpetrators, number of victims and number of fatalities. So here's my decision tree. Excuse my need to be clinical. An attack by a non-notable individual or small group on another non-notable individual or small group, however shocking and unexpected, is generally not notable if nobody is killed - regardless of whether it is terrorism or just bad blood. If large groups (>10 persons?) are involved and the event attains riot status, then we need to see what media reports come out on the event's societal impact. If there is one or a small number of fatalities, but the attack is ruled to be conflict not related to organized terrorism (street gang fights or organized crime, for example, ethnically motivated or not), it's not notable. A murder or murders clearly identified as terrorism are notable. With these rough guidelines, this event should be deleted as it is WP:TOOSOON. It was originally reported as a robbery but is being investigated as terrorism. Once that issue is clearly determined, the final fate of this article can be decided. TimTempleton 18:39, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
    It was not initially reported as a robbery - initial reports mentioned a financial dispute could've possibly been the cause - alongside possible terrorism (so - there was doubt as to whether this was a terror attack for the first 1-2 days - but it wasn't reported as something else). It very quickly shifted to a terror case. The victim has already been recognized as a terror victim. The house of an alleged perpetrator is slated for demolition. PM level visits. Arab leader visits. And no - they do not choose to visit everyone. Regarding closed criteria - I don't think we'll get them - it really depend on the conflict. The threshold for Syria/Iraq is obviously higher than, say, London - just because of the frequency and scale of events - only the "really big" stuff in Syria/Iraq gets coverage. However - if so many people feel strongly on this matter in the wiki community (both on the suppression and inclusion of articles) - it's probably an indication it is notable.Icewhiz (talk) 18:59, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Any article called failed assassination by definition suggests it's not a run of the mill failed attempted murder. That's not the best example, but I do agree that failed plots (shoe bomber and underwear bombers) can be notable. My guidelines are an attempt to simplify the debate when there's no consensus - borderline events such as this one we're debating here. TimTempleton 21:37, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: User:Galatz made the point that the article was created too soon and nominated too soon. I agree it was created too soon and my gut tell me to vote delete in an attempt to discourage such article creation in the future. Per nom, Knowledge (XXG) is not news. However, I do not think it really would dissuade anyone and it would be a disservice to User:Galatz who spent time enough to prove notability. Ifnord (talk) 19:32, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete it is one murder of an individual and has no significance beyond family and local community, fails WP:EFFECT. It may have been picked up in some US news outlets, but that is not a sole reason for declaring the event notable by Knowledge (XXG) standards, fails WP:GEOSCOPE. This is mostly a regional occurrence. It is no longer being picked up in the news cycle, and new information coverage seems to have stopped about 20 days ago, fails WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE.
Even if it is deemed terrorism, it still has no impact beyond the local region, no demonstrated lasting significance, and no indication of importance. The same story is being regurgitated in a variety of news sources, fails WP:DIVERSE. Breaking news is not necessarily considered notable per Knowledge (XXG) standards, per WP:NOTNEWS. Per WP:RECENT, this Knowledge (XXG) article has an "inflated imbalanced focus on recent events."
This results in an article that is unable to develop "a long-term, historical view." It seems there has been enough time to demonstrate whether or not this topic has significant impact beyond regional concerns. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Please note that coverage has not stopped, the demolition of the house of one of the suspects was carries a few hours ago by Wafa, Palestine News Agency. There is, however, a press gag during which investigaros are releasing no information to the press. Also, if you scroll up to the iVote marked "Keep immediately above your comment, you will see that User:TimTempleton was under a similar misapprehension about terrorism, but after User:Icewhiz's explanation that this has officially been deemed an act of terrorism, changed his iVote.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:22, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
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. --Ixfd64 (talk) 17:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Jim C. Beck (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:NPOLITICIAN and WP:GNG Domdeparis (talk) 17:09, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 20:06, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 20:06, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 20:06, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Argument Against Deletion. All sources mentioned in the entry are well-respected objective publications in the insurance industry and have nation-wide subscriber bases. Furthermore, all information currently in the entry can be found in the two aforementioned sources.
  • I have reviewed the WP:POLITICIAN specifications. The subject in question (Jim C. Beck) is a politician, who has held state-wide public office in the state of Georgia (U.S. state) and is currently a candidate for another state-wide office. Please understand this is not a "local" office as WP:POLITICIAN specifically mentions.
  • Conclusion: This entry is legitimate. Logically, the subject of the entry is more notable than lesser holders of public office (i.e. State Reps, State Senators, etc.), and therefore merits entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zach191944 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
NPOLITICIAN are guidelines that are meant as a rule of thumb to avoid speedy deletion and PRODDING. In any case he has to meet WP:GNG with in depth secondary coverage. Domdeparis (talk) 05:19, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete I ran some news archive searches, got only very routine coverage, stuff like "Jim Beck, a longtime insurance agency staffer and leader of the Georgia Christian Coalition, and a onetime insurance industry lobbyist, has announced his candidacy as a Republican for state insurance commissioner. " and "records show insurance industry lobbyists treated Insurance Commissioner Ralph Hudgens' chief of staff, Jim Beck, and Chief Deputy Insurance Commissioner Justin Durrance to a series of lunches since the start of the year. The expenses total $354.43." Routine stuff, lots of hits of Beck saying the proper thing to a reporter on insurance relateed issues going back a couple of decades. I found nothing to suggest notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:33, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. WP:NPOL applies to elected offices at the statewide level, not to appointed deputies, and being an as yet unelected candidate for any office is not a notability claim in and of itself except in the rare instance that the person's candidacy can be incredibly well-sourced as vastly more notable than most other candidacies for some genuinely substantive reason. And the sourcing here simply isn't what it takes to show that at all — we need a lot more than just two hits from trade magazines. Bearcat (talk) 06:40, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete being insurance comissioner of Georgia, might, and I say might, be enough for notability. Being deput anything at the state level is not. And being a candidate for public office does not confer notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:21, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
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. Per consensus (non-admin closure) Nightfury 12:31, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Does not meet WP:PROF or general notability, or if she does, the article fails to explain why. Getting an NSF grant and tenure does not qualify one to get a Knowledge (XXG) page. Her h-index is 18, which is about standard for an associate prof. The user who started the article for Sarah Schaack is named Schaackmobile, which is presumably the individual herself (see Twitter profile here: https://twitter.com/schaackmobile?lang=en). This is a vanity page. It was apparently previously nominated for a speedy delete, but when that failed was never put up through the proper deletion process. Bueller 007 (talk) 17:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 17:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 20:06, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think the article about her in Nature, the Fulbright scholarship, and her high citation record (WP:PROF#C1) add up to notability. But as the nominator said, "Getting an NSF grant and tenure does not qualify one to get a Knowledge (XXG) page" — the article was previously written in a way that emphasized those picayune details, rather than anything that made Schaack notable. I have rewritten it to be shorter but I hope also to make notability clearer. As for the h-index, I am more interested in the top end of the citations (her Google scholar profile shows five publications with over 100 citations each) than in how many lower-level ones she has. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:33, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Revisions contributed by David Eppstein have established she meets WP:PROF, without question. My thanks for making this an easy call! Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 09:56, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. I had earlier (after the AfD nomination but before DE updates and revisions to the article) added a mention to the article regarding the Lynwood W. Swanson Promise for Scientific Research Award from the M.J. Murdock Charitable Trust, which is a reasonably significant award, certainly counting towards WP:PROF#C1. A few comments to the nominator: The NSF grant in question was not an ordinary grant but a National Science Foundation CAREER Award. These grants are much more prestigious and harder to get than ordinary grants, and they do contribute to academic notability, at least somewhat. In fact I think this info should be re-added to the article. About the h-index of 18. There is no such thing as a standard h-index for an Associate Professor. H-index varies greatly by discipline (and also by the source of data used, GScholar, WebOfScience, Scopus etc). In lower citation disciplines like mathematics most full professors probably retire with GScholar h-index lower than 18. Sarah Schaack works in a higher citation field but still even there, for somebody to reach an h-index of 18 in ten years (her Phd is from 2008) looks impressive to me. In any case, I think there is enough here to satisfy , for the reasons above and those given by David Eppsein. Nsk92 (talk) 12:03, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
    • I don't think the CAREER should be added. For one thing, it's still just a grant. For another, it's restricted only to junior faculty. For a third, very many faculty get them, to the point where I've seen arguments that getting or not getting one should determine the outcome of a tenure case. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:51, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
      • I don't have particularly strong feelings about adding/not adding the CAREER grant info. I think I have sent in some other articles about academics, but maybe it shouldn't be there either. PECASE would have definitely merited a mention... Nsk92 (talk) 16:38, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
        • Comment Depending on the funding agency, an early career award may or may not be signifiant. For example, the Early Career Research Program award of the U.S. Department of Energy goes only to 35 scientists in all DOE-supported fields, and it's a 5-year grant of $150,000 annually for research and summer salary. That's significant in my book!—Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 16:52, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep -- meets WP:PROF and per article improvements. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:24, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Citations in GS are sufficient for this well-cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:31, 21 October 2017 (UTC).
  • Keep passes WP:PROF.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:06, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Greenbörg (talk) 15:34, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Not much to his credit. Fails WP:NJOURNALIST. Greenbörg (talk) 16:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 17:35, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 17:36, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 17:36, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

*Keep Zahid Hussain is a senior journalist and analyst from Pakistan. MShamsudDin (talk) 12:15, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

This user is blocked for socking. --Saqib (talk) 13:26, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Award-winning journalist and correspondent as per this, and several Book results supporting that he's a veteran in his field. Mar4d (talk) 03:36, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep: From the edit comment immediately before the nomination: "Not clear if he quite meets WP:NAUTHOR or what his award was, however both and would meet WP:NBOOK due to quantity of reviews in RS, so should be retained." HydroniumHydroxide 11:30, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
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 Train 06:37, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Cricket All-Stars Series 2017 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

We are not predictor about future events per WP:CRYSTAL. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 14:29, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 15:15, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 15:15, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
But nothing has happened since then - that's a year between someone saying they'd like to do it, and now. Lugnuts 06:42, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - there's no evidence that it will ever happen. Warne's speculation is a year old and the article itself suggests that the tournament would have happened by now. Delete it and wait and see what happens - we can always recreate it if there's any chance it'll actually happen - and I'd strongly suggest that at this stage of the year it's very, very unlikely to occur. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:07, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:06, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Subject fails WP:MUSICBIO, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:GNG. It relies almost entirely on the subject's website and Discogs, which isn't providing any notability. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:22, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:22, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:22, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
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. North America 02:28, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Not notable: the article is mostly text about a non-existent image with non-reliable sources. I tried to find information about this artist - at several art sites, Newspapers.com, and Wikimedia Commons, as well as by googling - but was unsuccessful. Leschnei (talk) 20:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 23:06, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 23:06, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KagunduTalk To Me 12:52, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. Only a handful of Google hits which are all mirrors of this page, and no luck with other search engines. No indication of any notability whatsoever. Eloquai (talk) 16:38, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:06, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Rafida (sect) (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)

Fake and made up sect. Shias generally are what is refereed as "Rafida" by Sunni's and all reliable sources that exist can attest to this, for example Britannica Rafida, US Newsweek and New York Times. Also included Washington Institute and single google search will attest to this. In short this is made up sect and Knowledge (XXG) don't host hoaxes and Unveriafiable content. Ammarpad (talk) 12:18, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
The link to rafida.org does mention "sect in Shia Islam", but since anyone can make up stuff about themselves, I'd like to see secondary or tertiary sources (newspaper articles, books, etc. written by people not affiliated to rafida) saying the same. --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:22, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
@HyperGaruda: You may see that the website you're talking of is even under construction claiming that "FULLY FEATURED WEBSITE COMING SOON", please how soon? is it after they come soon that they will be qouted by Knowledge (XXG) to support existence of new Rafida sect?. Actually none of the sources I provided or the ones attached to this discussion can attest to that. And there is one thing you should understand, the person listed as the number 14 (i.e Yasser Al-Habib) is the owner of the unconstructed website you are talking of. Moreover, the remaining two external links added (http://www.almuhassanmosque.com and http://www.fadak.tv) are all his own websites. But you can do some little searches to confirm what I am saying. -Ammarpad (talk) 14:54, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
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 Train 06:38, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Daniel Gildar (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 individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial sources. Should have been speeded , but someone removed the CSD because "the article had sources." Not really sure why the editor failed to look at the qualify of and availability of the sources. reddogsix (talk) 11:33, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Try being an admin and getting a "nice" message like "why did u delete my article u fascist" ;-) As for the actual notability, not sure - I can only find this one source and not a lot else. Ritchie333 17:05, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I'd use a LOL, but in reality it is not funny to get/put up with abuse in any situation. I did a WP:BEFORE prior to the CSD nomination and also found it to be lacking. My best to you.... reddogsix (talk) 17:20, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:02, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:02, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:03, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
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. Ritchie333 10:59, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Does not meet WP:notability criteria and also large sections of the article remain unreferenced. I feel this article has quite an impartial and informal tone, as it was likely written by someone close to the the person this article is about or by the person this article is about Theprussian (talk) 10:38, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Keep Leading Ghanaian news sources and Google books indicates notability. The article needs work but so do most.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:47, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Keep Article does need more work as the previous commentator points out, so many African articles do though we don't have the same access to published and digital sources that Western countries have. We need to stop applying Western notability to African articles. Yes controversial. Just because he doesn't share the notoriety of similar Western doctors, he clearly is a doctor well thought of in his field in Western Africa and his own country. A simple search in medical journals clearly shows he is well published. Will try and improved the article as I think his devotion to his field deserves a permanent mention.Conlinp (talk) 14:49, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

    • I have to disagree with your pleading for special notability guidelines for some continents. It is a horrible idea. A central principal of Knowledge (XXG) is verifiability. However, speacial pleading is not needed here. Ofori-Adjei seems to pass Academic notability criteria 8 as far as I can tell.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:56, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 15:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:06, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
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 Train 06:39, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Julian Marquez (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 MMA fighter with no top tier fights. Does not meet WP:NMMA. The article was recreated after a recent PROD. PRehse (talk) 08:37, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 08:41, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I think he meets WP:NMMA as he has had one fight in Bellator, one in the UFC and is due to have his third on December 16 at UFC on Fox 26 against Marvin Vettori which makes up his 3 notable fights that he needs and there is no point deleting it as he becomes notable on December 16th anyway and people will be googling him in the run up to that event to find information out about him. Rickyc123 (talk) 08:42, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Please check WP:MMATIER. Bellator is not top tier in 2016, Danna White event is a feeder promotion and as the article says his UFC debut is months away.PRehse (talk) 09:15, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 15:52, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
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. A Train 08:32, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Zia Mian (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 in-depth coverage. Fails WP:NACADEMICS. Greenbörg (talk) 15:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. This very poorly sourced article provides no evidence of passing WP:PROF as a physicist, nor WP:CREATIVE as a filmmaker, nor WP:GNG as a peace activist. And searching elsewhere didn't help: citation counts too low on Google scholar for academic notability, and only the one clickbait asianscientist link about him by someone independent of him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Eppstein (talk • contribs)
Thanks for your help, in checking the other sources. Greenbörg (talk) 18:10, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable enough with sufficient news coverage per this, and that is without taking into account the huge online footprint of non-news references which are also easily available (see book citations for instance). The subject qualifies for WP:GNG easily. Mar4d (talk) 14:29, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
This is no argument that there are many sources. That much like WP:ILIKEIT argument than actually showing us that the subject is discussed in detail by multiple sources independent of the subject. Greenbörg (talk) 18:04, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:44, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:44, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  07:59, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as this seems like a resume and has no intrinsic usefulness to the encyclopedia. - NsTaGaTr  15:11, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Actually the sources used are not independent, 3 from his organization (Princeton), one from Amazon, merely his book for sale, the remaining didn't discussed him independently in details. Also as someone said above the article more or less looks like CV with listing of unreferenced Journal papers and Knowledge (XXG) is WP:NOTCVs repository. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:14, 20 October 2017 (UTC)*
  • Puzzled Can someone explain why doesn't make him pass GNG? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:27, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep What I find even more puzzling is why no one has noticed he easily meets WP:NAUTHOR. In my opinion this easily meets WP:GNG, like most the people here I agree the majority of the sources are namechecking, however several are clearly not, and these substantial sources are easily sufficient to pass GNG. He features on several lists of the most important Asian scientists, so I have no issue with the relevance of the subject. Dysklyver 11:24, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep as WP:AUTHOR; writer / editor of multiple books with substantive reviews. Samples:
  • Out of the Nuclear Shadow (Book). Bajpai, Kanti. Critical Asian Studies', Jun 01, 2002; Vol. 34, No. 2, p. 312-315. Reviews the book 'Out of the Nuclear Shadow,' edited by Smitu Kothari and Zia Mian. more
  • UNITED WE STAND. Edwards, Rob. New Scientist, Feb 02, 2002; Vol. 173, No. 2328. Reviews the book 'Out of the Nuclear Shadow,' by Smitu Kothari and Zia Mian. more
Substantive body of work to meet Wiki notability criteria. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:26, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't think these are well-known works. If they were, then they must be critically reviewed and would have article on Knowledge (XXG). There is little coverage in WP:RS and he fails WP:GNG. Can't pass WP:AUTHOR for merely publishing the books. Störm (talk) 12:56, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
I do not see it this way. Please see Knowledge (XXG):Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Literature: "Published authors are kept as notable if they have received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work, or if their work is likely to be very widely read." There's no requirement for the books to have Wiki articles themselves. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:23, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
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 Train 08:34, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Qatar–San Marino relations (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 aren't significant bi-lateral relations between these countries. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

power~enwiki, I'm sorry, I'm still working on that article. there are signficant to all of the articles about bilateral relations, at least in hebrew. there are articles about Greece-Liechtenstein relations, Greece-Monaco relations and that article. I think your policy is accepting all of these articles. I can to translate more about the relations from hebrew, but don't delete this. Good Evening. Ofek - Call me - In hebrew 17:16, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
BiggestSataniaFanboy89, Jan CZ, LibStar please watch the article now, you're still thinking that the article should be deleted? Ofek - Call me - In hebrew 15:20, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Mark the train 18:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
WP:JUSTAVOTE. LibStar (talk) 01:34, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps off-topic, and I have no opinion on deletion, but I thought it relevant to point out that a recent expansion of the article was a copyright violation (nearly every paragraph taken verbatim from the source cited). I've removed that, which took the article back to being very brief. Jessicapierce (talk) 18:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep Plenty of reliable sources to fulfill notability. A lot of state visits to show connection between the two countries. If the two countries have signed any agreement, should be listed out.Tart (talk) 12:30, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
there have been no state visits whatsoever. state visits mean national leaders visiting another country. LibStar (talk) 21:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Antonella Mulroni was also the captain regent of San Marino, she visited in Qatar as Minister of Foreign affairs and she met Emir Qatar, if this is not state visit, what is it? Ofek - Call me - In hebrew 04:51, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
that's a ministerial not a state visit. LibStar (talk) 05:28, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/San_Marino%E2%80%93United_States_relations , there are actually more things happening with Qatar than with the US. If we kindly avoid US-centric, to keep San Marino-US relations is also a definitely yes to keep Qatar-San Marino.Tart (talk) 15:18, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
no. that's definitely a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. in fact, I've nominated it again for its dubious notability. LibStar (talk) 06:42, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
WP:JUSTAVOTE. LibStar (talk) 21:28, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Please provide reasonsTart (talk) 14:59, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Disregarding the pure votes, we don't have sufficient discussion here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  07:59, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete largely per those advocating same above. Pomp and circumstance (parts of this article read as though they're from official press releases, even after the removal of the copyvio mentioned) aside, this really is an article about something which doesn't actually happen on any meaningful level. Not overly surprising, to be honest, as I doubt there'd be much call for extensive relations here. The fact that there are articles about similar pairs of states in other language editions of Knowledge (XXG) is a special form of the OTHERSTUFF argument, as notability standards do differ among projects, to say nothing of the willingness of editors to clear things like this up. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:23, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete given that the population of San Marino would fit inside a large stadium their relations with a small country on another continent aren't likely to be impressive, and the sources for the article are press releases and the like reporting diplomats talking to each other. Doesn't meet notability standards. Hut 8.5 21:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
low population should not be a reason for deletion of articles.Tart (talk) 14:58, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Not in itself, no, but as I said the source coverage here isn't enough to support an article. The low populations are likely to be the reason for that. Hut 8.5 17:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete until such time a notable amount of interaction happens between these two governments. Presently the article states that:
1) relations between the governments are "good and friendly" (no source provided - probably because it is not noteworthy enough to record)
2) Qatar does not have a resident ambassador in San Marino (hardly a sign of advanced interaction between the two states)
3) Citizens of San Marino require a visa to enter Qatar (again, hardly a sign of advanced interaction between the two states)
4) There have been several high level meetings where the agenda items were to discover reasons for more meetings and co-operation (none of these meetings are notable)
5) There is an income tax treaty that has been signed by the two states (This alone is notable, but not enough to build a whole encyclopedia article on)

This is not a reflection of the low populations, but the low interactions between the two states. Loopy30 (talk) 15:29, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Loopy30
1) relations between the goverments ar "good and friendly". (I have to write it different, I will change that)
2) "Qatar doesn't have a resident ambassador in San Marino." So? there is only three embassies in San Marino; Embassy of the Holy See, Embassy of Italy and Embassy of the sovereign order of malta. the USA and the UK don't have even a consulate there.
3) "Citizens of San Marino require a visa to enter Qatar" So what? there are only five countries that their citizens not require a visa to enter Qatar. Ofek - Call me - In hebrew 04:12, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep - the population number is no argument; the article is longer than most Iranian villages existing as microstubs, it is sufficiently referenced and important is that all diplomatic relations between all countries should have an article, albeit a stub, for completeness. It doesn't hurt leaving this start class article here, it is notable for the simple existence of those relations that will always exist. With the World Cup coming in 2022 and San Marino participating in the new set-up of the Nations League in football there may even be more relation between the two countries in the near future. Tisquesusa (talk) 02:43, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
With the World Cup coming in 2022 and San Marino participating in the new set-up of the Nations League in football there may even be more relation between the two countries in the near future. that is pure WP:CRYSTAL and to say it adds to relations is pure WP:SYNTH. the existence of relations doesn't guarantee a bilateral article as hundreds have been deleted. lastly your WP:NOHARM argument is invalid too. LibStar (talk) 03:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Sports is definitely part of international relations without doubt. We should be more open mind on cultural relations and soft power. After all, international relations is not like pure science and counts only on hard data. Flexibility is needed on articles to illustrate the full picture on social science.Tart (talk) 15:16, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Do these countries have any sporting relations at all? The article doesn't say that they do and no kind of evidence has been provided here. The comment from Tisquesusa is extremely unlikely speculation, San Marino have one of the worst football teams in the world and are very unlikely to qualify for the World Cup, and the two countries cannot meet in the UEFA Nations League because that only comprises European teams. Even if that wasn't the case and the countries did occasionally play football against each other it certainly doesn't justify an article. Hut 8.5 17:39, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

there is absolutely no sporting relations. Tart is just clutching at straws to suggest this adds to notability to these 2 countries relations. LibStar (talk) 04:18, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

The term "clutching at straws" shows problem in WP:NPV, WP:OR and is not WP:V, thus has ruined the testimony by this editor. Invalid testimony should be ruled out from evidence from a judicial view. I refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/San_Marino%E2%80%93United_States_relations , there are actually more things happening with Qatar than with the US. If we kindly avoid US-centric, to keep San Marino-US relations is also a definitely yes to keep Qatar-San Marino.Tart (talk) 14:50, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Leaving aside the fact that the policies you cite deal with article content, and that AfD is hardly a judicial process, it may be important to note here that the San-Marino-US article was closed as "no consensus" with three contributions (including the nomination), which wouldn't be a precedent even if such things existed in situations like this. Moreover, the fact that article X exists doesn't mean than article Y automatically gets a free pass. If the term "clutching at straws" is sufficiently objectionable, though, might I reiterate LibStar's earlier reference to WP:CRYSTAL, since the World Cup won't be in Qatar for more than 4 years (and San Marino doesn't exactly give any indication of being a team on the verge of international glory). The reference to the Nations League is completely irrelevant, as indicated. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:23, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
I understand your view but if we look at other pages like https://en.wikipedia.org/Germany%E2%80%93Spain_relations and see international relations pages with much fewer information than the subject page have survived for long, we can see the de facto standard of wiki bilateral relations page and thus should keep our standard as the same. Otherwise, it is like a discrimination against Qatar or San Marino or other small states.Tart (talk) 06:53, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
No, we don't "see the de facto standard" of any such thing. What we see is an article which is about a similar topic to the one currently under discussion. We happen, in this instance, to see an article with a tag indicating that there's additional information at the German Knowledge (XXG) which could help to expand what is currently written in the English version (a quick check of that article suggests there's masses of such information, and I'd happily get started translating it right away if I weren't snowed under with real-world commitments). Even if we didn't see that tag and the oodles of content over at de-wikipedia, all we'd see is evidence that there wasn't a current AfD, PROD or CSD tag on the article you've cited, and you, I or anyone else would be well within our rights to put one there. We'd be similarly within our rights now, come to think of it, but it probably wouldn't go so well given the extra information available. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:16, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I've started a thread at WP:VPP that is relevant to this AfD. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:59, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete. Nothing cited in the article actually discusses these relations in any depth. Nor can I find anything that discusses the topic directly. Fails GNG. Yilloslime C 03:54, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:51, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:51, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:07, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Imran Yaqub Khan (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)

Trivial coverage with namechecking only. No achievement yet. Fails WP:NJOURNALIST and WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 07:18, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Mark the train 09:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Mark the train 09:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't see the subject passing the WP's notability guidelines. Being Vice President of Lahore Press Club is not enough to merit an entry on WP. Likewise, serving in Gourmet Media Group as Advisor to CEO is not enough as well. --Saqib (talk) 13:54, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. I looked at the 19 citations. 2 are self-published, 16 only mention him in passing (if at all), and 1 is a report of a lecture he gave at University of South Asia, Lahore in 2012. None of them provide independent in-depth coverage. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Narky Blert (talk) 13:46, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep . Imran Yaqub Khan is a notable Pakistani journalist, Founding news head of Pakistani leading news channels Dunya News and 92 News. Popular pakistani tv show Aik Din Geo Ke Saath also directed by him.Web and journal citations are mention, Including the leading Pakistani newspaper daily Jang.Pakistani Wikipedian (talk)
This user is blocked for socking. --Saqib (talk) 13:48, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  07:56, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

*Keep Imran Yaqub Khan is a Popular Pakistani Feature Writer of daily Jang and host of TV show. MShamsudDin (talk) 12:23, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

— MShamsudDin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
This user is blocked for socking.--Saqib (talk) 13:48, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
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. SOFTDELETE per no input from other users. North America 02:48, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Wanderers Athletic Club (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:NCLUB due to lack of sources (1, 2). The only unaffiliated source I can find is this, which fails to give significant coverage and is just a passing mention in the social overview of South Africa sports. DrStrauss talk 16:33, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train 08:56, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train 07:34, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
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. Note for interested persons, I have nominated his discography for deletion as well at Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Slim Burna. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:05, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Promotional material of a non-notable musician who fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Aside the Vanguard News source which looks promotional, Google News brought nothing about the subject. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 16:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 16:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 16:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
@Stanleytux:, I am not surprised at your vote knowing fully well that the article creator is a sock of yourself per this investigation which shows you have had a long history of sock-puppetry. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 21:36, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
And you think that the admin that closed the previous AfD and the wikipedians that voted Speedy Keep and Keep did not know about the article creator? Nothing is hidden on Knowledge (XXG), you ought to know that by now. Stanleytux (talk) 22:37, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
The last time I checked, the previous afd was closed per WP:SK#2. Why not point out reliable sources which you think makes the subject notable? Pinging previous contributors on that afd to have a look at this. @JTdale: @Versace1608:. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 23:02, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Here you go, some 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Stanleytux (talk) 23:35, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
The references are basically press releases and gossips about his non-notable album and songs, except the last source which is a three-paragraph write-up and does not in any way makes the subject meet GNG and MUSICBIO. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 07:00, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Here we go again. Now it's not about RS anymore. Now it's about Press Release just as you claimed in this AfD. How can you call articles written by trained journalists who have published numerous articles for various news agencies press releases?. I don't know where you get all that. Is this how you plan to discredit reputable medias? Stanleytux (talk) 08:52, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Press releases can not be classed as RS and does not meet SIGCOV anyway. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 10:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
@Oluwa2Chainz: I find it rather interesting and funny that an editor who was blocked for sockpupetting on commons comes around and accuses another editor of the same thing. It's still possible that he has several sleeper socks for God knows why. And to the debate I'd say Keeep as there are sufficient references to indicate notability. This is probably one of the ways he settles scores
@L3X1: You think? On what criteria are you voting keep? —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 07:00, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Don't ask questions you already know the answer to. L3X1 voted keep because the article obviously meets GNG. Stanleytux (talk) 09:08, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that was the policy I was invoking. L3X1 (distænt write) 22:00, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric 05:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Admin, note the above user just signed up and went straight to vote on this AfD. Has no previous history of edits. Stanleytux (talk) 17:02, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more participation from experienced editors/non-sockpuppets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train 07:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete I diligently looked into sources used they are not WP:RS because most, if not all are blogs and obscure websites which everybody can set up and WP:SELFPUBLISH sources of Youtube and Souncloud.. That is why it didn't surprise me the only result of repeated search is bringing this Knowledge (XXG) article and the subject's YouTube videos. -Ammarpad (talk) 08:30, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Danidamiobi (talk) 09:59, 20 October 2017 (UTC) Yea that's right Ammarpad, I noticed this too.

Ammarpad you need to look again, this time at the sources I provided above because Vanguard, Premium Times, Leadership, The Guardian etc aren't SELFPUBLISH. Stanleytux (talk) 14:09, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
@Stanleytux: Please don't assume I just said what I didn't do, The Premium Times ref just mention his name in accident, that is why PL section was added so as to argue (ad Premium Times) i.e argument from Premium Times. If there is enough content for him in WP:RS a single minor accident will not come close to encyclopedia. Also you forget to bring the remaining sources which are all unreliabe and formed bulk content of the entire article. Completely unreliable sources of gisting blogs which are set up by everybody. Note: I am not against your article, and I don't care particularly whether it is deleted or not, but actually upholding Knowledge (XXG) policies is priority to me and your article goes against direction of WP:RS. Thanks -Ammarpad (talk) 14:36, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Premium Times isn't the only reliable source discussing the subject, Ammarpad and you cannot say that an article should be entirely deleted just because a portion of it is supported by SELFPUBLISH sources. What about the multiple reliable sources such as these here 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Certainly enough to warrant a standalone article for the subject. Stanleytux (talk) 10:41, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Danidamiobi (talk) 12:35, 20 October 2017 (UTC) I will be objective. Very very objective. I have gone down to investigate well and I can perceive paid editing, I perceive it in the air. It pains me to accuse so, but, that's what I think I'm seeing. Stan has probably been using puppets to engage the article and could have even gone as far as using puppets like Rita magnoo to support the deletion in a flimsy way in order to attack the deletion (Kindly read that again if you think you missed the logic). Why does he care too much against the deletion than anyone else? The explosive part here is that the Premium Times article in was written by an author called Gentle Stan and that was his only contribution to Premium Times. I stand for integrity irrespective of what I think others might be up to here. Respond Stanleytux Oluwa2Chainz talk L3X1 and most importantly Rita magnoo if I have not mentioned him, her already.
What are you even saying? I don't understand any of it, sorry but you really need to place your sentences appropriately in a debate like this, so we can get your points/arguments. Stanleytux (talk) 13:29, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Hey Danidamiobi, I had to go through your comments over and over again to find out what exactly you are saying. All these accusations including PE, can you prove any of them? Stanleytux (talk) 13:41, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
@Stanleytux: are you the paid editor of this article , or the musician ? remember conflict of interest has no room here on wikipedia , Why does you care too much against the deletion than anyone else? Samat lib (talk) 15:35, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
This debate is beginning to look like a children's playground. Stanleytux (talk) 16:16, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Samat lib Please take it easy with the unfounded accusations. I'm even more passionate about the articles I create than Stanley yet I am far from being a paid or COI editor. That is one policy that I have never broken. I have known Stanleytux on-wiki since his early days, and I think the statement by Danidamiobi, that he might have engaged in sockpupettery to vote on the negative in this AFD inorder to influence a negative psychology on the closing admin is a big stretch. However, the tone of some of his articles are often lacking WP:NPOV. Even if this article is not deleted, it doesn't deserve to be this lengthy. I recuse myself from !voting in this AFD. Darreg (talk) 17:39, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


  • Comment when you take a good look to the creators of the Knowledge (XXG) mother languages page of this very article in portugal, Bahasa indonesia, kiswahili, Simple English, Lingala, just to mention few languages , the creator names is Stanleytux .

and the orther Knowledge (XXG) language articles was created by dj arafat , Alice Shedrack , so now we can all see the root of this job. respond Darreg Oluwa2Chainz talk L3X1 , Danidamiobi, Ammarpad . Samat lib (talk) 09:31, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

  • NOTE the name of this English Language Knowledge (XXG) article creator on this very page is Alice Shedrack , a sock per this investigation investigation . so now we all can see the root of the hidden job .
@Stanleytux: are you the paid editor of this article , or the musician ? Samat lib (talk) 10:28, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm not paid to edit Knowledge (XXG). You still haven't made any reasonable points yet, and FYI, I'm still going to create more and more Slim Burna pages in other languages, so be on the lookout for them. Stanleytux (talk) 10:39, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Admin, note this Knowledge (XXG) user Stanleytux may be a Knowledge (XXG) paid Editor or the musician in perticuler ., this system goes against the Knowledge (XXG) policies , beside the musician fail WP:BIO, and WP:GNG Samat lib (talk) 12:58, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Maybe you donot know this but you can get a block for making unfounded accusations and personal attacks against any Knowledge (XXG) editor. Don't go too far. Stanleytux (talk) 13:24, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
@Oluwa2Chainz: i have not involve in personal attacks, what i said was a true fact . beside dont accused me of something i knows nothing about .. ok Samat lib (talk) 14:45, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
You really need to improve on your use of the English language, particularly spellings, and sentences. IMO, you don't just have what it takes to participate in AfD debates on the English wikipedia. Stanleytux (talk) 15:09, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Strange, I just recently read someone warning, "Maybe you donot know this but you can get a block for making unfounded accusations and personal attacks against any Knowledge (XXG) editor. Don't go too far." Ifnord (talk) 20:02, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
What is strange about enlightening an editor? think of another way to tell a funny joke. This one certainly didn't succeed. Stanleytux (talk) 21:55, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Strange is "enlightening" an editor about the possibility of getting blocked for using a personal attack - and then using a personal attack against an editor. It's neither a joke nor funny. Ifnord (talk) 22:06, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
but it's a fact that the editor needs to work on his or her English. It's very obvious, from his or her spellings, and grammar. That is not a personal attack. Stanleytux (talk) 22:24, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
We don't place maintenance templates on articles because we want to personally attack those articles but because we want editors to help improve them. Same applies here. This is the English language Knowledge (XXG) where English matters and AfD debates should be taken seriously. Stanleytux (talk) 22:56, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
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. There seem to be people willing to work on improving this, so let's let them have a go, and then we can revisit the question of deletion of this article or whatever other articles are created from it, at another time. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 13:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Outstanding elements of Babylon 5 (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 really love B5, having seen the show 3-4 times but... this collection of minor plot elements and props has no place in Knowledge (XXG), failing WP:NOTWIKIA, and WP:GNG. It is a result of the some former AfDs that ended in 'merge' (ex. Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Triluminary), but the resulting article is a mess, and merging a bunch of topics that fail notability does not make them notable as an aggregate. Topics in this article have no wider, cultural significance, no real world impact, and don't belong on Knowledge (XXG). Babylon 5 as a series has significant cultural influence, but Minbari Fighting Pike or Shadow Death Cloud do not, and adding them together doesn't change that. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:17, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Mark the train 08:37, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Mark the train 08:37, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Mark the train 08:37, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • It's a mess, I'll give you that--triluminary is in there twice. Since I have offline sources for pretty much everything in here... what would you like sourced? How many non-trivial, independent, RS sources would you prefer, divided between how many of these list elements? Jclemens (talk) 09:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Sources that are not B5 primary materials, and that mention the topics in in-depth discussion? Go for it. Anything that is not going to be referenced is a valid target for WP:V removal anyway, section by section. Not much will be left... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:20, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
      • So what I hear you saying is that 2-3 sources, spread throughout the entire list of elements (because it is a prose list, really) are sufficient to meet GNG? I can do that. As far as the V removal, that only applies to material challenged in good faith because someone doubts its accuracy: You can't both say 'NN fancruft' and 'I don't believe it's true.' Both are valid deletion reasons, but they're opposite of each other. Jclemens (talk) 17:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
        • Well, if it is not referenced then it violates V and OR and should be removed. As for other stuff, it is either notable or not. If you find good sources about the cultural significance/etc. of Minbari Fighting Pike, it probably should have its own article. Stuff like Triluminary which already lost at AfD before don't belong anywhere on Knowledge (XXG), well, outside mentions in the plot summaries for individual episodes or notable elements like characters. Frankly, the Triluminary should've been merged to article on Delenn, not to this sad list of trivia. And your time would be better spent referencing that article (I think she is notable, but you wouldn't know it from the terrible state of this plot-only summary, no significance section) article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:07, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
          • Something doesn't violate OR just because it's unreferenced; surely you know better than that. Merging triluminary to Delenn would be inappropriate because of the three uses, two of them directly involve Jeffrey Sinclair. Triluminary didn't "lose" an AfD: Go review it--I proposed it be merged because it was the right thing to have done anyways. Have you looked at List of starships in Babylon 5 or List of locations in Babylon 5? Significant elements of fictional franchises (Babylon 5 encompasses 5.5 seasons of shows, 2 aborted spinoffs, 5 TV movies, novels, comic books...) are necessary to understand them, and when not individually notable belong in list articles. Jclemens (talk) 07:00, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - It doesn't seem like any of the information here doesn't violate WP:NOTPLOT. Being that it's most likely in Babylon 5 Wiki already, I submit it should be deleted, and if anyone thinks they can reference it to the point of notability, draftified until such time as it's approved by a reviewer.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:28, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep 2 RS'es for Triluminary itself. You'll note that I've seriously abridged the entry, a tactic which should probably be used on most of these elements, but which demonstrates that there is nothing wrong with this list that can't be solved by regular editing. You may note that I was the editor who proposed moving it here in the first place: While I have demonstrated that 'Triluminary' is sufficiently notable for a standalone article, I do not believe that the best way to represent individual fictional elements of a show that ended so long ago. Jclemens (talk) 18:19, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Per WP:GNG - "significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included." It still violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE as a "summary-only description".ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:27, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
    • The problem is that your references are not showing the Triliminary's significance outside the show. Stuff like 'The A-Z Guide to Babylon 5' or 'The Babylon File: The Unofficial Guide to J. Michael Straczynski's Bablyon 5' are encyclopedias of fictional universes. Existence of such books does show a popularity of a given universe, and they are reliable, ut I don't think they are sufficient sources for notability. If we allow such sources, we will have article about very minute elements of fictional universes, regardless of whether they meet GNG. It's not enough to have sources, they have to show the significance of the topic outside a given fictional universe. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:32, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
      • The fact that the Triluminary--and pretty much every other fictional element referenced on this page--appears in a real world, dead-tree, major-house published book is the evidence of real-world impact. What else would you expect to see in terms of real world coverage of a fictional element? Jclemens (talk) 07:03, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
        • In terms of stuff like lightsaber it appears in many news articles and the like, as well as books that are not specifically written on the subject of Star Wars and references in other famous media. The bar is high, but that's the way it's supposed to be in an encyclopedia, as it's not Wikia, where you can put any fancruft there.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 09:09, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
          • Exactly. Lightsabers are notable because there is a ton of articles like . I don't think B5 topics have a fraction of this type of coverage. Sad (because I think B5 is a much better show then SW), but we need to draw some standards. Well, enforce them, really, we already have them (they are called notability). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:32, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
            • We have standards. They're called the GNG, and met by being included in summary books like the ones I've cited. Getting an article on how someone assembled a cool-looking Triluminary or a working Minbari fighting pike for Cosplay aren't it, and aren't really going to show anything other than enduring popularity at this point. Nothing in the GNG demands the sort of coverage you ask for. Jclemens (talk) 17:53, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. It's all in-universe plot description. The subsection on "G'Quan Eth" is particularly egregious, as is the third "reference" for Triluminary. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry if it's not clear what that reference is, but it is confirmation by the author of a plot point, per WP:SPS. It's also not clear to me how your critique of one source invalidates the multiple other independent, reliable secondary sources already in the article. Jclemens (talk) 00:54, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Note a new print book, , has just been published. I've ordered a copy, but Amazon doesn't expect it to be here until Monday. I expect there to be additional citations to every key fictional element discussed in this article. Jclemens (talk) 09:12, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: The title of the list does not seem appropriate as it borders on POV issues (i.e. the inclusion of the word "outstanding" and the phrase "some of the most important" in the sentence at the top of the list). I will not say anything about the notability of this per say, but I would think that the title should change even if this is kept. Aoba47 (talk) 18:23, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Note I continue to make improvements to the article. I am not finished, nor am I asking for a WP:HEY reevaluation as there remains work to do, but I believe I have conclusively demonstrated that everything here can either be deleted or sourced, i.e., the article can be fixed through normal editing and deletion is unnecessary. Jclemens (talk) 06:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Your constant attempts to stop the deletion of the article have become disruptive, at this point it's just obfuscating the discussion with repeated WP:MERCY pleas. Ultimately, Knowledge (XXG) discourages including information with a trivial link to the real world, regardless of how many sources there are that are detailed in-universe examinations. Wikia is a place where that information can be expanded ad infinitum. Without evidence that the technology contributed to the show's success or resonated in the real world, it's just claiming notability by association.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 09:40, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
      • The reason I am working to demonstrate that deletion is inappropriate is that I happen to have firsthand knowledge that it is, in fact, inappropriate. Your statement mischaracterizes the GNG, my actions to bring the list into line with our content guidelines, and the depth of the sources I've found. Why don't you join in and help? There are a ton of articles, created in Knowledge (XXG)'s infancy, which could benefit from an editor or several who is willing to source things. I'll teach. Jclemens (talk) 04:17, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Further note the book I purchased with which to additionally source this article, which I had not expected to arrive until Monday, arrived earlier today. As such, I've flipped through it and sourced a couple of plot points. At this point, since this AFD was started I've added six secondary sources, with specific quotes, trimmed the unnecessary plot summary from multiple entries, and removed others entirely. Further improvements are limited only by my time. As such, all the previous delete !votes are moot, as they apply to a substantially earlier and inferior version of the article. I'll note that I've specifically addressed sourcing and references as requested by Piotrus, Zxcvbnm, and Clarityfiend.
  • After mucking about in this and other B5 articles, I propose that rather than keeping this article as a dumping ground for miscellaneous B5 fictional elements, G'Quan Eth be merged into the episode in which it appears, and the rest of the article be split into two list articles, Technology of Babylon 5 and Organization in Babylon 5. Jclemens (talk) 04:48, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Split article between Jclemens. Having this miscellaneous article makes no sense, but the Technology of Babylon 5 would be a suitable list article to upmerge a lot of B5 articles that might fail the GNG (e.g. perhaps the starships list) while Organizations in Babylon 5 would be an upmerge target for several B5 organization articles, and could potentially be merged with the civilizations list. ---- Patar knight - /contributions 06:36, 1 October 2017 (UTC) ---- Patar knight - /contributions 06:36, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
    • I think races/civilizations and organizations might eventually merit merging, but B5 is so starship-heavy, I think keeping technology and starships separate makes more sense. BUT, if you want, we can resurrect the B5 Wikiproject and use it, rather than AfD's, to hash out where all this stuff should actually go... Jclemens (talk) 23:34, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
      • The issue is, can we find sources to show that those techs and orgs are notable? Even Psi Corps, which is a major plot element, is currently in a terrible state and desperately needs referencing (hint) because in current state it begs to be taken here. (FYI, I'd try to reference it myself before taking it here...). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:16, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
        • I have invested, over the years, $60 or so to acquire 5 books, with two more on the way: Babylon 5 aired when the Internet was in its infancy, so much of the coverage is in Usenet or dead tree only. More esoteric sources are rare and cost-prohibitive. This is in addition to the hours I've spent on B5 articles, which prevents me from doing other things on Knowledge (XXG), like GA reviews I've got pending. If you want to help me clean things up, I'll be happy to tag-team on it: Cut the cruft down and I can source the rest, but there's only one of me, and I happen to have four jobs and two degree programs I also have to invest in. Jclemens (talk) 02:36, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
          • I'd really like to work with you, but the one problem is that you think that sourcing plot elements is important, but I stand with the other crowd who thinks it is mostly trivia that doesn't belong here. What we have to write and source is stuff about real life connections and significance. B5 is important not because it had (pretty good) plot, but because of the real life impact it had. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:50, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
            • Piotrus You don't have to agree with me to clean up the parts we both agree need to be cleaned up. I don't have the bandwidth to debate multiple AFDs at once. Withdraw your AfD of Grey Council without prejudice, work with me to merge the rest of the stuff into more well-organized list articles, and then continue working with me at a reasonable pace on the rest of the Babylon 5 content so we can clean stuff up together, without holding the gun of AfD to the content. What do you have to lose? Jclemens (talk) 07:02, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 05:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
How many books do you think have been published on Magic: The Gathering? A lot, and that's why excessively trivial and arbitrary details go on the fan wiki and not on Knowledge (XXG). The contents of this article are, as far as I can tell, impossible to describe in a way that is not "in world", and even if you could, there's nothing I see approaching any objective criteria for inclusion, which makes it an indiscriminate list based on original research. GMG 16:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Your argument is entirely, thoroughly, and completely wrong. Writing out of secondary sources, no matter how much you may not like them, is not OR, not FANCRUFT. It's core Knowledge (XXG) value: we write about what independent RS'es have covered. Magic: The Gathering certainly has a lot of secondary RS'es as well, so I have no idea what your actual argument boils down to other than WP:NIME. Jclemens (talk) 21:03, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
The problem is that these sources tend to describe the subject from usually a completely in-world perspective, and if it's completely in-world, then it's just a selective plot summary. In comparison, a list of main characters can at least get out-of-world by talking about what actors played those characters, what the reviews of their performances wrote, and maybe whether they received personal recognition for the role.
The second problem is that there is no even semi-objective standard that I can tell for what would be an "outstanding element". In the case that you got into a content dispute, I don't see any source really at all that you could point to to say what was and was not outstanding, without relying primarily on the opinion on editors. If you include every aspect of the world, then it is an indiscriminate list. If you include only certain aspects of the world at the preference of editors, then it is still an indiscriminate list. GMG 21:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Please read the above discussion, where all of your objections have already been answered: 1) "Outstanding" was a previous attempt to avoid putting "notable" in an article title. 2) It has already been proposed to be split/changed, 3) The proposed split articles (Organizations, Technology) have obviously defined inclusion criteria, 4) there is no requirement for GNG to be met by reliable, independent "not in universe" sources, 5) you haven't described any problem that cannot be fixed by regular editing, and of course 6) INDISCRIMINATE doesn't mean what you're using it to mean. My apologies that the discussion is so lengthy, but it was not my idea to have such a discussion here. Jclemens (talk) 05:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
WP:NLIST clarifies indiscriminacy with regard to lists, saying the criteria for inclusion should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. This is ambiguous, subjective, and specifically chosen because notability has a particular meaning on WP, and we needed a more meaningless word. If you want to copy it into your sandbox and try to parse it out into some list that meets this criteria, then you can always do that, but this should still be deleted, because it does not appear to be a particularly plausible search term, and I don't see an obvious redirect other than the main article, for which people would presumably just search for the actual title. GMG 10:29, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
The inclusion criteria for the two proposed articles are pretty clear: Multiply reliably sourced appearing in Babylon 5 fictional works. "Outstanding elements of Babylon 5" is an absolutely terrible article title--I do not think there is anyone proposing anything be left at the current title except a redirect, and so to the extent your !vote is against the article title, it misses the point. I would be happy to break up this article RIGHT NOW, except there's this whole AfD thing going on, which prevents me from doing so. Change your !vote to Keep and break up, renominate new articles for AfD if desired and we can change the whole conversation. Jclemens (talk) 06:56, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 19:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment The title is a bit silly. Just under it, the contents of the page are described as the "mythological elements" of Babylon 5. Searching for "outstanding" along with Babylon 5 only brings up this page. If anything the title should be Mythological elements. Mr. Magoo (talk) 19:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Agreed. I'm tempted to just fix things--breaking up and renaming what is sourceable--despite the AfD, as this saga has been dragging on for a month now. I wouldn't want to circumvent the process, but the lack of closure here hinders progress. Jclemens (talk) 01:38, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
You should just edit the page as you see fit. I don't think there is a rule against improving an article while an AfD is going, the opposite. Mr. Magoo (talk) 18:42, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KagunduTalk To Me 06:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
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. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:05, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

AkinG Kalld Pedro (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)

Rapper who released a couple of mixtapes and one self-published album. Minimal coverage in reliable sources, mostly just blurbs and blogs. Doesn't appear to meet any of the criteria in WP:MUSICBIO. The author also created an article about the one non-notable self-published album at 358/2 Days (album), which would qualify for WP:A9 speedy deletion if the bio article is deleted. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 06:40, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 06:40, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 06:40, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 13:29, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Lahiru Weerasekara (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 satisfy the requirements of WP:PERSON, in that the position of convener of the Inter University Students' Federation is not inheritably notable. The references provided all relate to one event, his arrest at a student protest (refer WP:ONEEVENT) and hardly constitutes significant in-depth coverage of the individual as required by WP:GNG. Dan arndt (talk) 04:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 04:59, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 04:59, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
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. The consensus is: the article may have a little promotional tone, but is about a notable subject. It should be worked upon as pointed our by K.e.coffman. (non-admin closure) —usernamekiran(talk) 18:07, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Intuitive Password (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:PRODUCT. The PC Mag sources are all by a single author, and I think they are not sufficient for notability. Last AfD was closed as no consensus. GeoffreyT2000 01:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Сергей и Марина Бондаренко (2013-11-15). "Пропускной пункт: веб-сервисы для хранения паролей" . ru:3DNews Daily Digital Digest (in Russian). Archived from the original on 2017-10-11. Retrieved 2017-10-11.

      The article notes:

      Intuitive Password — это молодой сервис, запущенный летом этого года. Несмотря на то, что он, как и LastPass, предназначен для хранения паролей и другой конфиденциальной информации, ориентация у него немного иная. В Intuitive Password стоит сохранять сведения, которые нужны не слишком часто, поскольку тут нет ни автоматического сохранения данных, которые вводятся в веб-формах, ни средств для их автоматического заполнения.

      Intuitive Password — это стопроцентное веб-приложение, работающее в браузере. Никаких дополнительных программ для его функционирования скачивать не нужно. Это относится и к мобильным платформам — и на смартфонах, и на планшетах Intuitive Password открывается и работает в любом популярном браузере. Для удобства восприятия предусмотрено три способа отображения интерфейса: для широкоформатных мониторов, планшетов и экранов мобильных телефонов.

      По умолчанию сервис уже предлагает несколько категорий для хранения данных, но можно добавлять и собственные группы. Кроме этого, можно управлять видимостью категорий в общем списке. При добавлении новых записей можно использовать теги и заметки, а затем использовать их при поиске данных.

      Во время регистрации требуется придумать не только пароль, но и секретный вопрос, а также ответ на него. Он используется не для восстановления пароля, как можно было бы предположить, а для защиты учетной записи от несанкционированного доступа. Intuitive Password сохраняет информацию об IP-адресе, который используется для доступа к учетной записи. Если пользователь пытается войти в аккаунт с другого места, сервис запрашивает не только пароль, но и ответ на этот секретный вопрос. Также для повышения безопасности вместо стандартного пароля можно использовать одноразовый, что удобно, например, при работе с компьютером в общедоступных местах. Одноразовые пароли можно сгенерировать заранее в настройках аккаунта и расходовать их по мере необходимости.

      ru:3DNews Daily Digital Digest is an established online Russian-language technology publication founded in 1997.
    2. Vatu, Gabriela (2013-08-04). "Intuitive Password, Secure Tool for Remembering Login Credentials". Softpedia. Archived from the original on 2017-10-11. Retrieved 2017-10-11.

      The article notes:

      So, web apps such as IntuitivePassword can save you a lot of time by simply remembering stuff in your place.

      ...

      The good part about the service is that users can save up various login details in separate categories, such as general, emails, bank details or licenses, while personalized categories can also be created.

      Furthermore, login details can be stored under three big categories, namely “General,” “Network” and “System.”

      The item editor seems fairly easy to use, with a few details to fill out, such as the user name, password and the site it pertains to, but the form depends on the type of account information you want to add. Each individual item can be given an additional layer of protection once a Master Password is created.

      ...

      It’s also possible to set up a secondary email address where you’ll receive notifications every time someone logs into your account or changes any credentials.

      The service also provides a series of single-use codes (which are quite complicated to type) that can be used instead of the password. The generated codes can be used in the span of a few days, but only once.

      ...

      All in all, Intuitive Password is an easy-to-use app, with a clean interface and what looks like strong security in place to protect user data. So, if you’re looking for such an app, you should at least give this one a try.

    3. Tolentino, Mellisa (2016-05-05). "It's World Password Day: Here's top tips and tools". SiliconANGLE. Archived from the original on 2017-10-11. Retrieved 2017-10-11.

      The article notes:

      Intuitive Password (Intuitive Security Systems Pty. Ltd.) is built on AES-256 encryption and protects users from accidental data breaches by ensuring sensitive data is not accessible to anyone else unless given shared access. The free version allows users to store up to 10 logins, share data with up to three users and access basic security.

      Aside from the Basic free version, there are three other paid versions: Express, Advanced and Pro, (AUD$ 2, 5, 15 respectively), which allow users to save more passwords, share with more people and access passwords even without an Internet connection. It also provides basic account security and two-factor authentication for an additional layer of security.

      https://siliconangle.com/about-us/ demonstrates SiliconANGLE has editorial oversight. John Furrier is the executive editor, Robert Hof is the editor-in-chief, and Kristen Nicole and Paul Gillin are managing editors.
    4. Rubenking, Neil J. (2015-05-14). "Intuitive Password 5.0". PC Magazine. Archived from the original on 2017-10-11. Retrieved 2017-10-11.

      This is a very extensive review of Intuitive Password.

    5. Rubenking, Neil J. (2013-08-08). "Intuitive Password". PC Magazine. Archived from the original on 2017-10-11. Retrieved 2017-10-11.

      This is a substantial review of Intuitive Password.

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

    Cunard (talk) 04:39, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

References

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 06:57, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete unless Cunard or someone else actually puts in the references. There have been too many instances of specifying decent references here that never get adding. Ideally, the should be added to the article at the time they are listed here, so people can judge the overall effectiveness. DGG ( talk ) 13:38, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - CHAMPION 03:56, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
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. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU 05:31, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Perry Meisel (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 think this person is notable. Although this says he was a professor at NYU, the NYU website does not indicate that he had the kind of appointment that meets WP:PROF. He has published some books, but they do not appear to be widely cited. The editing patterns on this article are also suspicious. There are a large number of SPAs with edits only to this article. agtx 03:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 09:06, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 09:06, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America 08:59, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. I took out some of the more egregiously promotional material in the article, but it still could use help. Nonetheless, AfD is not cleanup, and with reviews of his books in venues like the New York Times and Times Higher Education I think he passes WP:AUTHOR. (Also, his NYU professorship was listed in the byline of one of the reviews he wrote for the NYT, so I don't think it can be in doubt; online records of information from that far back can be spotty.) —David Eppstein (talk) 18:10, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep -- a clear pass of WP:AUTHOR; here's the worldcat identiies link: . His book on Thomas Hardy is held in 1000+ libraries. Here are some sample reviews:
  • The Myth of Popular Culture: From Dante to Dylan, in Times of Higher Education
  • The Cowboy and the Dandy (Book Review). Mercer-Taylor, Peter;Schroeder, Eunice, Notes, Dec 01, 2000; Vol. 57, No. 2, p. 358-360 Reviews the book 'The Cowboy and the Dandy: Crossing Over from Romanticicm to Rock and... more
K.e.coffman (talk) 19:21, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 13:28, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Mike Conyers (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:BIO and WP:SIGCOV all the references are WP:routine new coverage about the company except for one interview piece with the subject.this is a paid article to promote the subject. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:33, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 11:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 11:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train 08:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Miles Edgeworth 02:44, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Meatsgains (talk) 01:26, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

2017–18 Ahmad Shah Abdali 4-day Tournament (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 tournament lacking coverage in reliable sources. At best, merge with Ahmad Shah Abdali 4-day Tournament. Meatsgains (talk) 02:05, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep This is a first-class cricket tournament, the highest level of cricket, and the first one to be played in Afghanistan. I agree that the original article looked terrible and did not hint at any notability, and was also unrefrenced too. I've done some basic expansion work on the article. The user who created it has a long history of poor article creation work, which I see as disruption, for which they have been warned about. Lugnuts 06:54, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
@Meatsgains: - would you consider withdrawing the nom, now the article has been expanded and shows its notability? For the record, I fully understand why you nominated at the time, with the state it was in. No worries if you don't want to withdraw it. Thanks. Lugnuts 17:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:36, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:36, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:36, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
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. Michig (talk) 06:46, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Help Generator (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)

Blatantly promotional article for an obscure product. Fails WP:ORG Rogermx (talk) 01:35, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
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 per WP:TOOSOON and COI concerns. If anyone wishes to write a new, neutral and non-promotional (preferably COI-free) article when more sources become available, they may do so. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 13:25, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Aloke Kumar Sen (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 only reliable source that I could find about him is already included in the article (the only source). Fails notability criteria for singers, any bio, and the WP:GNG as well. —usernamekiran(talk) 13:57, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:22, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:22, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 14:07, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 02:54, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 01:28, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Searches found some other reliable sources, such as and . Whether they would be enough to construct a reasonably complete and balanced biography or whether it is WP:TOOSOON in his career is open to debate.
Either way, the existing promotional article, even after being slashed in half, is rife with the WP:SPA's peacock language: popular, famous, one of the best, versatile, gift, and standout; only the last of which is attributed (to a newspaper for which he is an occasional columnist, so maybe not the most objective source). Very little is sourced. WP:TNT applies. No prejudice against recreation via a fundamental rewrite, but I strongly suggest waiting until additional reliably sourced information is available, and letting it be written by an editor with no WP:COI. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:44, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
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. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:04, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

The Locker Room (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)

Completely unreferenced article about a television show which airs only on a single cable community channel (the Canadian equivalent of public access television) in a single non-metropolitan city. As always, every television program does not automatically get a free pass over WP:NMEDIA just because it exists; it must be the subject of significant reliable source coverage, independent of its own self-published web presence, for an article to become earned. The only reason I'm not speedying this outright is that it's somehow been flying under the radar for a full decade. Bearcat (talk) 01:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 02:08, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 02:08, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:59, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
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. North America 03:01, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

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

G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion Creditor8989 (talk) 09:03, 11 October 2017 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for George Steuart Group

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 01:23, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Article needs a cleanup but the well-sourced claim to be Sri Lanka's oldest business is surely a credible claim to encyclopedic notability. (n.b. Dan arndt, your first link there is a semi-automated Bloomberg profile that gets created for every business under the sun and is not a credible reference for meeting WP:N.) A Train 19:59, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Struck vote. I was swayed by HighKing. A Train 19:33, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
unstruck. I have been swayed yet again, this time by the sources located by the intrepid User:Dan arndt. I am a veritable weathervane of opinions. A Train 11:05, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Excellent sleuthing by A Train, changing to Keep. -- HighKing 13:19, 23 October 2017 (UTC) Delete None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. The sundaytimes reference is not intellectually independent and relies exclusively on an interview with the CEO with no independent analysis or opinion, therefore fails as a PRIMARY source and fails WP:ORGIND. The other references are mainly company announcements or business-as-usual announcements or more interviews and fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. I'm happy to review my !vote if two intellectually independent references can be found that meet the criteria for establishing notability. -- HighKing 10:08, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
You make a good point there, HighKing, I hadn't examined that source well enough. A Train 19:33, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Comment @HighKing: @A Train: have located a number of reputable independent sources and included them in the article, which I believe clearly establish the company as being notable. There have also been a number of books published about the company as well. Dan arndt (talk) 03:56, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
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. (non-admin closure) Nightfury 12:20, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Alan Janes (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)

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO. Previously speedily deleted under G11. Edwardx (talk) 12:58, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Please, check or etc. I think there are plenty of independent in-depth coverage available in reliable sources. I will expand it more. Thanks. --Brunierlikan (talk) 11:24, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
We can all use a search engine. If you don't want this article to be deleted, then you need to cite the reliable sources that provide in-depth coverage specifically about Janes. And ensure the article itself complies with WP:NPOV. Edwardx (talk) 11:34, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
For better and worse, that's not actually true. The quesiton at AfD is whether the subject of the article is notable, not whether it is well-written and adequately sourced. The exception to this rule is a case where the article is scurrilous or hopelessly POV, not the case here.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:27, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 01:20, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:03, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:03, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:03, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Sure, I will improve it more with sources but the I think the fact is producers and writers have always taken more of a back seat in terms of publicity/promotion than say actors. Brunierlikan (talk) 19:05, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep because the person is notable and meet the notability guidelines. There are many independent reliable sources where the subject has been discussed. Having worked extensively in many major television series since 1973 certainly add to notability as well! Brunierlikan (talk) 19:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
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. Michig (talk) 06:43, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Here's Johnny (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)

Improper dab page. This does not point to any actual entity called "Here's Johnny", just random things that use the phrase. The entries actually called "Here's Johnny" do not have their own articles and thus shouldn't be on the dab page Ten Pound Hammer • 19:40, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 23:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 01:11, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
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. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU 05:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Copart (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)

Totally non-notable company that has received zero significant, sustained coverage in reliable sources. The only reason we can tell this company even exists is WP:ROUTINE coverage in business and securities media, mostly mandatory filings like annual reports. Lots of press releases, and a few lazy newsblog posts that are quick glosses of a press release, mostly dealing with trivial announcements like opening a new office somewhere. There is also no claim to notability: this company is not unique or important, it is WP:Run-of-the-mill. Thus, fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:39, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 01:10, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article is in dire need of a trim, for sure. It's full of fluff, and most of the references are unacceptable (first-party websites, press releases, SEC filings, etc). However, there are two very good sources in the article that would support a claim to notability. This Forbes profile of the company is good. This Bloomberg profile is even better: it tells us that the company controls a third of the US salvage market by itself, a result of the company's unique business model. That seems like a claim to notability to me, and the basis for an encyclopedic article. A Train 19:50, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep a public company with a significant market share as confirmed by reliable sources, the Forbes and Bloomberg sources push it past WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 20:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep The article as it is right now needs a lot of work. The company it self is a significant force in the automotive salvage market. Not unique but also not a standard 7-Eleven either. 2A04:4540:1101:9F01:3DFA:82E9:6E25:D1E6 (talk) 16:17, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
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. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:56, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Road Bandit (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)

Web series with no strong claim of notability per WP:NMEDIA besides "it exists", and no indication of reliable source coverage about it -- there are no actual reliable sources here, just external links to its own website and the front splash page of a hobby blog. As always, every web series is not automatically entitled to a Knowledge (XXG) article just because it exists; it needs to be the subject of coverage in reliable sources, but this isn't. Bearcat (talk) 00:53, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

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.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

↑