Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 May 17

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 16 May	18 May >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Steve Smith (talk) 00:44, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

T.Y Songs[edit]

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

Lacking in credible evidence of notability; full of fluff, external links, etc. Orange Mike | Talk 23:57, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Article reads like a resume and no third-party coverage. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 00:39, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:49, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 20:37, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify. Steve Smith (talk) 00:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adalberto Carrasquilla[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he has been called up the Panama national football team and played in the CONCACAF Champions League. Neither of these satisfy WP:NFOOTBALL, since hasn't actually played for Panama and his Champions League appearance was for a non-FPL club. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:20, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:21, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:21, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Panama-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:21, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There has been coverage worldwide about the subject after he was named in the Provisional World cup squad for the 2018 World cup.Hence felt it would better if brought to AFD rather than be proded .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:51, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:15, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Deletion - Even if Adalberto Carrasquilla didn't play yet, whether if it's a Panamanian local team, or a national team, there are is a Spanish source of FIFA that has a list about the Panama squad that is preparing for the 2018 FIFA World Cup. If that's the case, why would a non famous player be called up by a notable coach? Plus, I understand that it the Panamanian Leagues are not fully "professional" yet, but mark my words. He could not be part of the nobility guidelines, but a reliable source such as FIFA and other sports news is more than enough to encourage him, to be part of Wikipedia. Ivan Milenin (talk) 19:54, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or delete This is one of those articles that may be just a bit WP:TOOSOON. He was on the subs bench for Panama in their recent game against Trinidad and Tobago. I fully expect him to get an article soon, but not yet. SportingFlyer talk 20:37, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draft - I choose to draft the article, because he might appear in the World Cup squads for Panama, even if not well known. Ivan Milenin (talk) 01:13, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:07, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft He fails WP:NFOOTBALL, I am not sure about GNG at this time I am happy with the article being returned to draft. Govvy (talk) 12:43, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Statement For one thing, he might not be notable in football, but I am so aware that he plays from a non-Pro club. Nevertheless, he is in coverage of the media, but what I'm trying to say is, I have checked the sources of him, and some, such as The Washington Post, now stated on the paper. Of course, he is just a minor, and somehow was uncapped in a national team, or the club team, but with a reliable source, that statement should be hopefully made clear. You are welcome draft, or to oppose this statement with a relative statement why it should be deleted. Thank you.Ivan Milenin (talk) 22:58, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Userspace - For once, my opponent is correct. Adalberto Carrasquilla will get deleted because he didn't appear in a FIFA international recognized match, such as the World Cup, or a fully professional league that it recognize the nobility about apart from Panama. But since the Panamanian league is about to be professional, I don't know what say. What I'm trying to say is, I would highly suggest to move this article to my userspace, rather than the mainspace. If Adalberto is playing in the World Cup, and on the bench the national team in a World Cup match, hopefully he can get back on Wikipedia. If not, I am aware about the notice, and just accept it as it is. I'd be a lot happier to let it stay, but if you have to delete it, just delete, and move to my user space for my reference of that notice. Thank you. Ivan Milenin (talk) 19:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draft - on the verge of being notable with a WC nomination but no appearances yet.--Ortizesp (talk) 13:43, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draft until he accomplishes something notable per GNG. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 21:53, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Steve Smith (talk) 00:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Irena Orlov[edit]

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

Non-notable piano instructor. No reliable third-party coverage found on Google and GBook searches. Article falls under WP:NOTINHERITED in that it leans heavily on puffery and namedropping in attempt to establish notability, with no efforts at improvement since its 2011 creation. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 22:50, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Beemer69. I didn't turn up anything outstanding about her. This article can be deleted. DJRafe (talk) 15:56, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 23:48, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:32, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 20:41, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Pretty clear consensus to keep here. (non-admin closure) Smartyllama (talk) 16:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of governors[edit]

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

No apparent reason for having a list of lists that merely duplicates entries that may be found in or better covered by Category:Lists of governors, and what's listed appear to be of unclear criteria and indiscriminate and therefore contravenes WP:NOT. As a list of such lists is not sourced or discussed in sources, nor is there a clear reason for its existence, it fails WP:LISTN, WP:LISTCRITERIA, and WP:LISTVERIFY. Hzh (talk) 22:16, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 23:49, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 23:49, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and develop, this is a completely obvious search term and parent for organizing our lists of governors, particularly since List of governors even redirects here. Seems like a pretty standard set index to me, in aid of reader navigation and content organization. See WP:NOTDUP ("It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative."), WP:LISTPURP ("If users have some general idea of what they are looking for but do not know the specific terminology, they could browse the lists of basic topics and more comprehensive lists of topics..."), and WP:NOTDIR ("...Wikipedia functions as an index or directory of its own content..."). On the nominator's complaints, first, if it "duplicates" a category, then how is it unclear what should be in this list? It could obviously be expanded to match the contents of the category, and organized and annotated in a way that the category cannot, yet the nominator inappropriately focuses on the list's current state rather than its potential. Second, it's our list of what articles we have on this topic, so it's completely irrelevant if not nonsensical to complain that our list is not "discussed in sources". Re: LISTN, to the extent that guideline is helpful here, see governor; clearly the position or title that these are lists of is notable. postdlf (talk) 17:44, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep useful search term, and there are more countries than the US and Nigeria that have governors. (i.e. List of current state governors in Mexico) power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:45, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am expanding it now; the extra organization and information (that weren't there before) are sufficient to justify its existence. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:13, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Serves the encyclopedic purpose, Wikipedia:list of lists. wumbolo ^^^ 14:53, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The encyclopedic purpose here is as a finding aid to the more specific lists. Bearcat (talk) 18:05, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This seems extremely useful to me, and in line with the overarching goals of Wikipedia. I don't see any reason why this should be deleted. Lonehexagon (talk) 05:23, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. Aid to navigation. Pburka (talk) 23:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tourist Attractions, Europe[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Article reads like personal impressions or tourism agency descriptions of three European cities appearing to have been selected at random. Nthep (talk) 22:09, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTESSAY. Another article by the same editor that is based solely on personal opinion. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 23:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTESSAY and (an actual use for this one!) WP:NOTTRAVEL. SportingFlyer talk 23:19, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 23:50, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTESSAY , as stated above and since Wikipedia is not a travel resource --Sau226 (talk) 09:55, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The creator Beston77 needs to be directed to Wikivoyage. Bearian (talk) 21:40, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Vorkeller[edit]

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

Non-notable mayor. I couldn't find any sources in WP:BEFORE to help improve the article. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 21:44, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep major local politicans are notable. In addition to being mayor he was on the War Manpower Commission. I'm finding lots of coverage of his role on it and of his involvement in the building indistry although only snippets are available online. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:46, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Every mayor of everywhere is not handed an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL #2 just because he exists. The notability or non-notability of a local politician is not determined by his title alone, but by the depth of reliable source coverage about him that can or cannot be found to get him over WP:GNG for the holding of the title. Bearcat (talk) 17:58, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails per WP:POLITICIAN #3; fails WP:N, WP:GNG.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:55, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 23:51, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 23:51, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per TonyTheTiger; non-notable politician. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 13:42, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable local politician. There is a whole bunch of Melbourne mayor articles in need of AFDs....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:06, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNG doesn't appear to be met (and NPOL certainly is not); an obituary directory and the cities own list of mayors aren't close to enough; the contemporaneous newspaper articles I can't view but they don't seem likely to be substantial coverage of him, as opposed to mention of his position on a committee. To be clear, this is Melbourne, Florida, not the more notable Australian city. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:41, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Melbourne FL is not large enough to hand its mayors an automatic inclusion freebie just for existing, but the sourcing is nowhere near adequate to actually get him over NPOL #2 (where, as I explained above in response to somebody else's comment, the test is the degree sourceability that the person does or doesn't have, not the title itself.) Bearcat (talk) 17:58, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If I am understanding, the war manpower comission had lots of local branches, and it was the local comission, not the US one that Vorkeller was on. Nothing adds up to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify. Even the lone keep !voter acknowledges the need for a complete re-write, and, conversely, two of the two delete !voters suggest the development of a legitimate article with this title is possible (and the other two, while they make no specific comment on the question, take issue with the current content of the article, rather than with the notability of this subject, or with the suitability of the subject for a Wikipedia article. All of this adds up to a consensus to draftify.. Steve Smith (talk) 00:55, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Secularism in Iraq[edit]

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

Reads like the editor's personal opinions, fails WP:NOTESSAY. PROD for same reason removed by page creator without comment. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 20:38, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 20:38, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 20:38, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Unencyclopedic and fueled strictly by personal opinion. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 22:58, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rewrite per above. This is noteworthy topic with a complex history for which an article is deserved. Charles Essie (talk) 19:53, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete current article as it is appears to be personal opinion and we shouldn't keep it around hoping someone will fix it. No opposition to a new article on the topic that is encyclopedic and referenced to appropriate sources. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:08, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or draftify. Anything that starts with, There seem to be is pretty much not an encyclopedia article by definition. On the other hand, this, ahem, seems like an interesting topic, and with work, might end up being a useful article. I'd be happy to see this moved to draft space for somebody to develop further. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:28, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. Steve Smith (talk) 00:59, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Live Three[edit]

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

Does not appear to satisfy the WP:NALBUM criteria outside of a single review by AllMusic. FamblyCat94 (talk) 05:34, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:32, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: there's quite a few limited release live albums by Coil that could be AfD candidates... Live One, Live Two, Live Four, Megalithomania!, ANS, and the box set that contains all of them, The Key to Joy Is Disobedience, could all conceivably be bundled together for AfD, rather than just proposing one album in the series. I think all of them should be redirected to Coil (band). Richard3120 (talk) 23:19, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enigma^msg 20:21, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 21:06, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Even if the notability guideline for recordings can not be met - and I can't find sufficient sources - the article title is a perfectly valid search term, and there is no need for deletion. The policy-based solution per WP:ATD-R is to redirect to the artist article Coil (band) as a categorized {{R from album}} and {{R with possibilities}}. (The script Sagittarius+ can be useful.) Redirecting per ATD-R after a proper WP:BEFORE can always be tried before nominating for deletion. Sam Sailor 13:03, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Enigma^msg 03:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vanishing Men[edit]

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

Stumbled upon this article while doing some new page patrolling. No references in the article, and a single external link is provided to the film's entry on IMDb. The film definitely existed, but I was unable to find any references that establish notability. There is a List of lost films that the film could be added to, but I see no reason for it to have its own page. kewlgrapes (talk • contribs) 19:54, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 20:41, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or potentially redirect. I find that (relatively) early films almost always have significant coverage in contemporary sources, and even lost films get some attention from modern scholars. But, admittedly, that... might not be the case here. This film was produced by Monogram Pictures, arguably the standard-bearer for Poverty Row B-movie production, and the Poverty Row films didn't attract as much attention then (or now). Complicating the issue here are the false positives (from 1924's documentary The Isle of Vanishing Men, the unrelated 1924 The Valley of Vanishing Men, and the 1940s serial of that same name). It has a very short capsule review in the 4 June 1932 Motion Picture Herald, where Rita McGoldrick declared it "Good" (which didn't mean it was good—that got you a "very good" or "excellent"), but I'm not going to pretend that's enough to establish notability. I do expect some modern discussion of the film in Ted Okuda's The Monogram Checklist, but I don't have that one immediately available. If sources sufficient for retention aren't forthcoming, I'd suggest a redirect to Tom Tyler instead of the more generic lost films list; he was what passed for a big star at Monogram, and the article includes this in his filmography (although I guess you could make a case for a redirect to the director's article instead...). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:35, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. No reliable sources exist to support an article. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 22:34, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually fairly sure I can convert this to an appropriately referenced stub, but it's going to be Monday, I think, before I can get to it. Also, I suspect I won't have access to Okuda or to the 1932 review in Kine Weekly(but I can prove there is one...), so further expansion will be plausible after I'm done. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 01:42, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306, Kewlgrapes, and Beemer69: Expanded somewhat. I won't lie, this is a weaker film stub than I prefer to author; the two sources I'm missing are sadly important. Okuda's monograph of Monogram Pictures is the definitive work on the studio's films (and should be a reliable sources as to its lost status, I expect). Also, the Kinematograph Year Book confirms the existence of a British review of the film (Kinematograph Weekly, June 9, 1932); most of the back issues of "Kine", as it is called, are digitized and available online, but this is (of course) from the middle of one of the big gaps. Finally, I haven't found any contemporary commentary on the 1937 re-issue by Astor; I'm sure someone took further note of it. There hasn't been a published monograph of Astor's re-release work, so there may not be much more to say than noting it happened. I think this meets the inclusion standards as it stands, especially knowing that Kine review is out there. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:22, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly a notable film and documented as such in numerous books. FloridaArmy (talk) 01:10, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Like what, exactly? If you claim there's sources that exist, then produce them. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 01:21, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of Squeamish's promised improvements, will check back later in week and if he is unable to carry them out will change my vote, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 18:39, 19 May 2018 (UTC) 18:38, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me! kewlgrapes (talk • contribs) 20:37, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reaffirming strong keep as the article has been significantly improved with the addition of well referenced content and those references show that it passes WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 15:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - looks good to me. Thanks for rescuing the article, Squeamish Ossifrage. kewlgrapes (talk • contribs) 15:52, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes notability with current referencing. There are also other mentions in trade magazines of the day, such as Ralph Wilk's column, A Little from "Lots". Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Steve Smith (talk) 01:03, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anjum Rehmani[edit]

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

This BLP was created by a user [1] who is known for creating hoax articles. While the subject of this article is real but xe seems not notable enough to warrant a standalone entry yet. Director of a museum is not something that would be expected to have an article on English Wikipedia. This article claims the subject has written some books but I don't see any notable (at least one of the book has a WP entry which is created by the same user) However author are not given an automatic free pass over WP:BIO just because they exist — their ability to qualify for Wikipedia articles is determined by criteria at WP:AUTHOR which fails in this case. Also the creator of this page is socking here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/UA85. --Saqib (talk) 19:20, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 19:42, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 19:42, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Creating editor UA85 has COI as Rehmani is the chairman of his organization/business. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:18, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notwithstanding that the editor has proven untrustworthy (with another deleted article referencing his own sites), the nominator's analysis is sound. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:50, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as a hoax. The subject is a random teen in India who is claiming to be a member of South Korean boy group Exo by extracting the information from Byun Baek-hyun, as well as uploading various pictures—sans one photo which is genuinely the uploader—of the aforementioned subject and trying to pass them off as himself (I had to deal with that mess on Commons, where you can find notices on the user's talk page). This is blatant attempt to spread misinformation, and this simply will not be tolerated. ℯ xplicit 02:02, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Joong[edit]

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

Fails notability, WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:ENTERTAINER. The article is awfully nonspecific as to exactly what his role is with S.M. It seems like he sings in groups. The article claims a New Star award from the 2016 SBS Drama Awards, but the article on 2016 SBS Drama Awards shows that, first, this award doesn't single out one winner and, second that he wasn't one of the ten people who received it. The article also says he "released" his first group song in the form of "Monster", but the table below that shows that "Monster" was an Exo video, where Exo is a nine-person group, and he isn't one of those people. So it's hard to see how this hit amounts to "significant popularity and commercial success" for Nick Joong. Finally:

a Google search for "닉 중성" yields 23 results;
I don't know how many of the hits for the search "닉 중" relate to him, but even in that case Google returns only 120 hits, which is very few for a celebrity; and
a Google search for "Nick Joong" yields 50 hits, pretty much all social media. Largoplazo (talk) 18:48, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Blatant self-promo. No notability (fails GNG & SSG), fails verifiability. The author has repeatedly moved it out of the draft space despite a block and numerous warnings and notices. The author has also tried to insert false information multiple times into the article and a notable boyband's article claiming to be part of the band. KingAndGod 18:54, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I nominated this for AfD almost simulatenously with this one. Rationale follows.
Seventeen-year old Korean boy singer. WP:TOOSOON (hopefully, for his career) appies. Userfication not an option as has been delted once, userfied once, and now in mainspace for the second time[2]. There has ben insufficent coverage of him of any depth or persistence in reliable sources to enable him to pass the (less than vigourous) requirements of WP:ANYBIO.

Further, also fails the particular requirements of WP:MUSICBIO. He has:

Not "been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published" reliable sources;
Not "had a single or album on any country's national music chart"—"online real-time music charts" need not apply;
Not "had a record certified gold or higher" in any country;
Not "received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour";
Not "released two or more albums on a major record label" or any other label.
Not "an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians"—his collaboration does not apply.
Not "become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style" or any regional style or scene;
Not "won or been nominated for a major music award"—Grammy, Mercury's rather than the SBS award.
Not "won first, second or third place in a major music competition";
- 1. 9 is arguable; but as the criterion says, "if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article," which seems particularly applicable since only one of the shows he has performed in seems notable;
Not "been placed in rotation nationally by a major" station;
Not "been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network."

Note this has also been speedilly deleted G3 previously, although I cannot of course see what if any similarities there are between them. Fails notability requirements. Too soon. Either fan cruft or autobio. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 19:11, 17 May 2018 (UTC) *Note I CSD G4 for this and the duplicate Afd don't need CSD, just simply NACR, which I done based on #4. --Quek157 (talk) 19:30, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the G4 tag. That applies to discussions that reached a consensus for deletion. That discussion never got off the ground. See WP:G4. Largoplazo (talk) 19:35, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~:* actually without the userification, that thing will be a "soft delete" with refund. Nevermind, I use A7/G11 as COI is also suspected. --Quek157 (talk) 19:36, 17 May 2018 (UTC)~~ *Delete - per a combination of G3,G4,G11,A7. All are youtube sources as well as one korean source which doesn't have his name. User also have a record of an G3 as well as multiple speedy. I don't support userification anymore as it will not improve. Ambivalent on SALT as we can G4 this time round. --Quek157 (talk) 20:09, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent analysis! I heartily agree. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 20:23, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~:::actually this can end eariler if you don't remove my CSD, I had CSD such pages before and managed to get them SALT based on G11 and Talkpage reasoning. --Quek157 (talk) 20:33, 17 May 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

And then he can recreate it at Nick joong or Nick Joong (singer) or some such thing. He's already shown himself to be persistent. Please, just let this go through to the end. Largoplazo (talk) 20:41, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~:::::then some warnings / ANI maybe??? Hope not --Quek157 (talk) 20:43, 17 May 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 21:33, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 21:33, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

removed all comments, let others chip in --Quek157 (talk) 21:53, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. CSD tags are rarely acted upon when there is an AFD effect (at least recently). ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:58, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I believe this aricle is 100% a hoax. Random86 (talk) 22:05, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oh, so it was all just cribbed from Byun Baek-hyun. Largoplazo (talk) 22:40, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. with the above, nothing much to say, I am wondering where such info is to be taken from, and it's from baekhyun. I stand now by my previous comments. I watched the 2016 SBS Drama Awards twice and wondering where this person is. Perfect CSI work from @Largoplazo:, now we think this can permanently disappear from wiki. To add from above deleted all are youtube sources as well as one korean source which doesn't have his name. User also have a record of an G3 as well as multiple speedy. I don't support userification anymore as it will not improve. Ambivalent on SALT as we can still do a G4, will let this run it's course. To note, I am still learning CSD, see my CSD logs, I only used it from this month. So hope for some slack to be cut , I certainly did not want to cry this at AN/I. I just wanted in good faith to make this end faster, but understood will be worse. On record, I am back to wikipedia only 2 months, though my account is a 2007 one. Thanks a lot --Quek157 (talk) 22:54, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to LiveJournal. Consensus is to delete the content as it is OR, creating redirect over top to preserve links. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of sites using the LiveJournal codebase[edit]

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

Aside from two entries, LiveJournal and Dreamwidth the rest are all external links and otherwise not notable. WP:NOTDIR WP:LINKFARM CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:45, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 19:44, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 19:44, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. WP:NOT on so many levels (linkfarm, directory, guide). Ajf773 (talk) 20:10, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I used to maintain this but I have come to the opinion that it's mostly WP:OR. The Nussbaum NYT and McCullagh CNET sources are reliable and are about the phenomenon described here, of other sites being clones of LiveJournal and being attractive to users who have left LiveJournal. But they don't go into any depth about this sort of feature comparison. There's already a paragraph about this on the LiveJournal article and we don't have the sourcing to go into more depth in a separate article. It would be good to provide sourced information about a phenomenon that should become apparent to anyone looking at the article in its current state: most of these clones don't last long, and even the longer-lasting ones are vulnerable to their founders losing interest or running out of operating budget. But a feature comparison table, sourced primarily to the clones themselves (and in most cases to deadlinks from dead clones) isn't the right way to say that. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:57, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to LiveJournal, neutral on it being a delete+redirect. Some of the redirects to this page (such as DeadJournal should point somewhere. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Sea of Green. Steve Smith (talk) 01:07, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Time to Fly[edit]

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

Unsourced article about an album, whose only evident claim of notability is that it exists. It's true that in 2006 when this was created, the only notability claim an album actually had to have was that a notable band had recorded it -- but WP:NALBUM has since been tightened up considerably, and nothing here actually meets or reliably sources what's now required. Bearcat (talk) 18:34, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 19:21, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 19:21, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the band article. I agree this isn't notable enough to have a standalone article, but it's a plausible search term and there are incoming links. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:43, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sea of Green. Plausible search term, but no independent notability. PhilKnight (talk) 20:55, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Tampines#Parks. This close is a bit of a reach, insofar as I'm finding "consensus" to do something that only one user actually suggested doing. But there is a clear consensus not to keep a free-standing article on this subject. Two users proposed a redirect to List of parks in Singapore (prior to the suggestion of redirecting to Tampines#Parks even coming up. The nominator made a cogent argument against this proposal: that the target article, being a list, would not actually allow for the incorporation of any content, meaning that the redirect would be of no particular purpose. That rationale, however, does not apply to the proposed redirect to Tampines#Parks, which would allow for the incorporation of any sourced content about Sun Plaza Park. In this situation, I don't think relisting is likely to advance the discussion in a meaningful way, so I'm closing somewhat WP:BOLDly. In sum, though only one user suggested redirecting to Tampines#Parks, that outcome essentially addresses the concerns of all participants in this AFD other than User:FloridaArmy, who was in a minority of one in advocating keeping the article. Steve Smith (talk) 02:39, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sun Plaza Park[edit]

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

The park is in Tampines, and under Tampines#Parks there is a slight mention of the park. I think based on WP:NOTGUIDE, this is the only mention that should be warranted. The source needed tag dates from 2009. I really cannot pass this local park as WP:GNG. All the sources I found is saying "Sun Plaza Park lead to Tampines Eco Green" and it is a larger park than this and much more notable, as it has the only eco-toilet, non lit and etc, that have enough sources to make it into an article, but not this. I will take back this nomination if there are any sources (I also visited the National Library, Singapore) but no sources either. Even Google Books are also passing mentions, and can't pass GNG. I don't think there is a need for redirect to Tampines as the mention in Tampines is just one line worth Quek157 (talk) 22:12, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Quek157 (talk) 22:33, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per User:Quek157: Not notable with no sources. "External links" are not primary sources but information that cannot be used for various reasons. Otr500 (talk) 21:27, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:02, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, probably to the List of parks in Singapore's "Community parks" section, where it is mentioned, with bare fact of its area. Adding perhaps "The park has a 700-person amphitheatre" or similar would be justified. We are supposed to seek wp:ATD alternatives to deletion, and here a suitable list-article is available as a good redirect target. --Doncram (talk) 20:43, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - redirect is the right term for it not merge (just a reminder). I have extensively researched for WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD is always in my mind. Especially for a park I visited quite regularly, I just live a 5km to it and visited it extensively. What can we merge to a LIST which is a LIST. What is in my mind when putting up this for Afd is for someone from outside Singapore to find some sources, then I withdraw my nomination and that's will end it. But I really see no meaning for a redirect, the page doesn't give any kind more of an information than there being a Sun Plaza Park which will make the reader none wiser for this searching. Redirects are cheap, yes, but a redirect to the part where is just a list of Parks doesn't tell you more about the Park? I see no point, anyway, did a google for Sun Plaza Park, that List came up within 10 hits also, so doesn't the need to preserve the redirect for searching. To address the part of 700 seater amphitheater, if we are going to do that, all the other parks in that list (and frankly I visited almost all - we are a nation smaller than D.C) will have some sort of amphitheater. And this is based on Nparks brochure, I don't remember such a structure when I visited the park (and in Singapore, it is used very loosely, a small concrete land with only a few rows of chairs is considered such, every few blocks there is one (in fact this is Housing and Development Board design). And anyway, I am opposed to such redirects is that this is usually the outcome of Singapore Afds, HDB Hub is a redirect to the above, which actually HDB Hub is a shopping mall (inclusive of Toa Payoh Bus Interchange which happens to have HDB HQ above as well as it's a mixed development as Gek Poh Shopping Centre is a 2 storey shopping centre but then redirected to Gek Poh which makes the average reader none wiser as the mention is just a line. Such redirects doesn't improve the quality of Singapore Pages but reduces it. I don't know whether it's an Afd decision or not but such precedents are dangerous. --Quek157 (talk) 21:05, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[3] will show the amphitheater, this is just a shelter. National Parks Board puffer it up a little. Does it sounds like 700 seater, nope. I never wish any pages in Singapore will disappear, but this just doesn't make it. In Tampines, we have more significant parks like Tampines EcoGreen / Upcoming Quarry Park and etc, and this is just a WP:ROTM park. --Quek157 (talk) 21:27, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep this is definitely a notable park with plenty of coverage about it. It's good sized for an urban park, 9.6 acres, includes an amphitheatre, scultpures, an interactive wall, volleyball, running track, walking paths, and other features. "Sun+Plaza+Park"&dq="Sun+Plaza+Park"&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiXwpywwYvbAhUCY6wKHc6lCBoQ6AEIMzAC this source dedicates an entire page to the park. In another source, only a snippet view of Singapore (1996) is available online, but the part that's visible says "Another regional park being developed is the Sun Plaza Park. It is based on the theme "Celebration of Life". Located in the heart of Tampines New Town, it will be the recreational focal point for future office workers from the Tampines Regiona..". This is just a taste of the park's coverage and significance. Deletion would be absurd. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:46, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@FloridaArmy: fun singapore is a travel guide,,"Do you really know Singapore? Is Singapore just a concrete jungle? This guide will surprise you and dispel all the wrong notions about Singapore. It is meant for all - locals, foreigners and tourists. Featuring more than 250 places with pictures, easy instructions on getting there and useful snippets of information, it is a handy and friendly recreation and leisure guide.Go ahead, take your family and friends. Discover, explore, enjoy and have fun!" as description with paid advert disclosuring btw, this is not independent coverage [4] isn't Wikipedia not guide. I also read that particular book, and many different editions as it is in nlb. the second source what book is it but I'm afraid such one liner is rotm. do note that tampines is one of the 4 regional centre in Singapore, so every mention of tampines there will be regional but it cleary not regional in the sense of corpdepth also gng not met isn't it Quek157 (talk) 10:14, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:24, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, bearing in mind that the current wording is promotional. Deb (talk) 19:24, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To where??? no place seems proper. --Quek157 (talk) 19:40, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To List of parks in Singapore as suggested above. Deb (talk) 20:05, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Same oppose as above, but can consider if really needed --Quek157 (talk) 20:11, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If it is already mentioned there, it makes sense to redirect rather than get into a debate about it. We can protect it to make sure the article is not recreated. Deb (talk) 07:12, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

if we really have to close as redirect, I agree with you here --Quek157 (talk) 09:45, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of new sources

#Keng, Hsuan; Keng, Ro-Siu Ling Keng (17 May 1990). "The Concise Flora of Singapore: Gymnosperms and Dicotyledons". NUS Press – via Google Books.

Yes, I know Tampenis tree is at there, but the entire Tampines is loitered with the tree, e.g. Our Tampines Hub and the rest of the Parks, it is a Nparks intention, shall smaller parks be there - such as Tampines N9 Park, if consensus is such, we will have 400 more parks in Singapore pages.

#http://www.asiaone.com/News/AsiaOne%2BNews/Singapore/Story/A1Story20110424-275303.html

ROTM mention, this is on Tampines EcoGreen, not Sun Plaza Park

#https://books.google.com/books?id=sWxtDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA121&dq="sun+plaza+park"&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiWhPW_3YzbAhVpmK0KHTXvALkQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q="sun%20plaza%20park"&f=false

"run through Sun Plaza Park - isn't that ROTM"

#https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/transport/where-to-go-and-what-to-see-on-downtown-line-3

"Cyclists will want to head to Tampines East, which is connected via a cycling path to Sun Plaza Park and Tampines Eco Green." - isn't that ROTM, the entire website have so many places, under other stations, V Hotel in Lavender, if this source will be accepted, that can also be a page

#https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/bird-owners-of-a-feather-flock-together

"Birdies and Family Sg organises three meetings a week - at Buangkok Crescent, Farrer Park and Sun Plaza Park in Tampines." - isn't another ROTM, actually Buangkok Crescent is another community park, but do see "https://www.ura.gov.sg/maps2/?service=mp#" (URA Masterplan, compare the size of Sun Plaza Park with the rest of the green spaces, you will understand how "small" (sorry Tampines Residents - you have your EcoGreen already) it is as compared to others.

Side note: not WP:POINT but really why for such a ROTM park so many people are saving it, rather some other more important things I mentioned above got redirected. I appreciate all the efforts to save this page, in my WP:BEFORE I did looked into all the sources mentioned above, but really not enough --Quek157 (talk) 19:50, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, a map [5]. (2MB in size just to prevent data overspent), you will know what is Sun Plaza park per other parks, there are just way too many parks in Singapore. tampines EcoGreen deserve an article but not this --Quek157 (talk) 19:58, 17 May 2018 (UTC) Just in case that map is gone (should be gone by next week), this is another [6][reply]
Quek, I noted a couple of the sources that establish notability above. Those aren't the ones you mention, although lots of articles noting aspects of the park certainly helps establish thr park's notability. What is run of the mill about being reported as one of the tourist features to visit in the area? Also, Eco Green Park is ALSO notable. But they are very different parks. As the cited sources note: "The new park (Eco Green Park) also complements the two existing ones in the vicinity. Said Mr Kong Yit San, an Assistant CEO from NParks, "Tampines Eco Green provides a tranquil sanctuary for nature recreation and education, Sun Plaza Park offers amenities for community activities, and Tampines Bike Park provides an adventurous cycling trail." FloridaArmy (talk) 20:23, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CORPDEPTH??? And mind you that the poor Tampines Bike Park is now redeveloped. The Parks is a Nparks Park, it is the same from this quote that if Bill Gates says a microsoft product, does that product be notable striaght? nope. We need independent sources. Can I create a Park Connector page based on this [7] and not being hauled to Afd? I doubt so --Quek157 (talk) 20:29, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would add Tampines EcoGreen is notable based on the above sources and may create an article for it if I have time --Quek157 (talk) 20:31, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is already an article on it and the Bike Park. All three are notable. FloridaArmy (talk) 10:53, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

did you see the blue link above for Tampines Bike Park, definitely notable as it is a venue for the Youth Olympics Games, ecogreen is as passes gng and corpdepth but not this dear Quek157 (talk) 10:59, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most definitely notable. See the sources I noted above. And has held international sporting competitiona of woodball. And in fact it was Singapore's first woodball course. It is notable the same way and the for the same reasons the other two parks are notable. Subatantial coverage. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:20, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

which sources state it held an international competition for woodball and first woodball course. substantial coverage? multiple sources mentioning something in passing isn't. Quek157 (talk) 15:12, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did you try Googling it? Not only have international competitions been held there but it is the first woodball course at a public park anywhere in the world. For wanting to delete so strongly you know very little about the park. What about the other features? Many aspects have been covered very subatantially in reliable independent sources. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:55, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did [8] is what came out? Any international competitions? Nope. First woodball course at a public park, sources? I know so little about the park? Sorry, I had been to it countless times (did you been to it?). Substantial amount? See WP:CORPDEPTH once more. Reliable sources yes, independent sources yes, but just WP:ROTM. I will not add anymore WP:DEADHORSE.Quek157 (talk) 19:15, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Searching finds little coverage beyond routine mentions in guidebooks. Nothing indicates this is more than a WP:MILL local city park. MB 02:45, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tampines#Parks. It doesn't matter how many trivial mentions you bundle together - they'll never add up to significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Articles like this do nothing except create work for other editors, and we're all volunteers here. Exemplo347 (talk) 06:17, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, default to keep. There are unquestionably weak arguments being presented on the keep side, as User:The Gnome points out. In particular, given that the nomination statement clearly takes issue with the notability of the street, I am at a loss to understand the claim by User:Greywin that the nominator does not contest notability. As the advocates for deletion correctly point out, the real test here is WP:GNG, and whether the street has received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. On that question, both User:Greywin and User:IAmNotU have presented cogent arguments that the street has. I am not saying that those arguments carry the day, merely that they are legitimate arguments based on policy, and this discussion has not resulted a consensus that they do not carry the day.

I will add only that the fact that the article in its present form does not demonstrate the notability that may (or may not exist) does not, under Wikipedia policies, require deletion. Steve Smith (talk) 02:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Münsterstraße (street in Dortmund)[edit]

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

Article about a run-of-the-mill city street in Dortmund, Germany, with no sources to support that it's more notable than any other city street around the world, only links that prove the street exists. The article also seems to have been created mainly to promote a Moroccan grocery store there (see content I removed, and the low quality image of the store that is being repeatedly added by an IP...). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:30, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is an article about the street on the German language Wikipedia, de:Münsterstraße (Dortmund), with a totally different angle on the subject, focussing on historical buildings and its place in (local) German history, an article that if someone translated it from German could form the basis for an article here that might clear the notability threshold, though not by much. An article where an IP that per WP:DUCK (same ISP, same /16-net, same geolocation) is the same person as the IP who has repeatedly added the image mentioned above here, an IP that on de-WP tried to add the same material about a Moroccan grocery store, a Lebanese fast food joint etc as was originally included in the nominated article here, but had their edits reverted and then turned their attention to en-WP. The German article is so totally different from the nominated article, though, that the nominated article is best blown up, and a new article started from scratch... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:03, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:36, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:36, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & Start Over per nomination. -The Gnome (talk) 09:32, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can't see where this article doesn't describe the reality. There is no guideline that requires an article to look like the one in the German WP. This article is definitely good enough to be improved. That's the basic principle of Wikipedia.--Greywin (talk) 10:29, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the rule or the policy about inclusion in Wikipedia on account of the article being "good""? Quality of writing on its own does not mean much in terms of a text staying up. One could post up a wonderful text about their cat; it won't stay up for long. Or "describing reality"? Are you aware of the rule saying that even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it? (See this essay for more.) An article must be about a subject that possesses independent notability, for starters. And that must be determined through third-party, independent sources. Those are the rules. -The Gnome (talk) 08:57, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:ATD, this is the basic principle. Nom doesn't doubt notability of the subject, instead he complains about the "quality", which would be better in the German article, and I just replied to him, that the article can be improved, just as WP:ATD says. Therefore alone this AfD discussion is to be closed, because it is about "quality" and the comparison to German WP, about information which is obviously disliked by some, mixed with a few WP:ADHOM arguments. But these are no reasons to delete an article.--Greywin (talk) 17:43, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrong. The nominator most certainly disputes the notability of the subject. What do you think the use of the term "run-of-the-mill" means? It's equivalent to "not notable." In fact, Wikipedia offers a helpful little essay, titled, yes, "run-of-the-mill"! We learn from it that Something or someone that is "run-of-the-mill" is probably not notable.. Have an article for every street, must we? Jimbo help us.-The Gnome (talk) 08:22, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. What happens in the German Wikipedia or any other-language version cannot be used as an argument in the English Wikipedia. -The Gnome (talk) 08:22, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom and run-of-the-mill city street. The article states, "Münsterstraße is a typical downtown district of a large city with a dense population.", and that sums it up. Wikipedia is not a street or travel guide. There is nothing that is "worthy of notice" on an international scale (probably not local either) to be "just another street listing". Although Wikipedia may have unlimited "space" I am sure we don't need a listing of every street in every town (here and abroad) or that the German Wikipedia may seek or allow. "If" we could get our best writers to build this article to FA status (we can't but just saying) it would still be a typical street and the always argued WP:OTHER would mean this "typical street" scenario would also have to be rehashed over and over. I have a nice street near me with a beautiful and notable lake on one side, an historical district on the other, and a "skyscraper" (22 floors). It has some cool stores and older buildings. Listing the street would still amount to an indiscriminate listing of "just a street" because not everything needs to be included in an encyclopedia. Try to add the street to the Dortmund article and see how that works. If it does then it would have a relevant home. Otr500 (talk) 00:50, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I think you did not even read this article. "It is very well-known within Dortmund and also known outside of the city and even abroad"... "The street was already very important in the Middle Ages and connected certain cities in this region". If you switch to de:, you find the street described as "one of the oldest and historically most significant" streets of the city. Excuse me, but I consider your posting off-topic. Notability is not in question, as it was not questioned by the nom. This AfD is to be closed asap.--Greywin (talk) 09:49, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And you obviously didn't read my nomination, because I do question its notability, or I wouldn't have nominated it, I even question that replacing the current article with a translation of the German article would make it notable here, on the English language Wikipedia ("might clear the notability threshold, though not by much"). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 10:07, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems you question anything, besides the substance of your own arguments, and there is in fact none (because your nomination is simply WP:IDL and WP:ADHOM, and because WP:ATD is also valid for you). There is no single guideline that allows a deletion. We have a well-sourced article about a notable subject, a well-known main street with an underground station of the same name, part of a federal road, a street, that was very important "already in the Middle Ages", "one of the oldest and historically most significant", as the German article, that you promoted here, says. If you doubt notability of the subject, please do me a favor and try and nominate it for deletion in de: first and see what happens. Otherwise it might look like this is not about the subject itself but only about disliked infomation about the subject. WP:ATD says: "The content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first, such as listing on Wikipedia:Requests for comments for further input. Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an uninvolved editor, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum."--Greywin (talk) 16:11, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And, this added, why do I find your boldly presented "English language" argument in WP:IDL? The language is absolutely meaningless for the notability of the subject.--Greywin (talk) 16:39, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:37, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GEOROAD, a historically important road of Dortmund and district being "an important Hanseatic trade route", from German wikiarticle that has numerous sources contributing to its notability. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Coolabahapple: Then I assume you're not only willing to rewrite the article along the lines of the German article, but intend to do so ASAP, because the article is definitely not notable in its current shape, which is what this is about (hence "delete and start a new article from scratch..."). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 10:23, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas.W, in the same way i could assume that you should have been WP:BOLD and rewritten the article in line with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Nominating article(s) for deletion (C. 1.)- "1.If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." as for "the article is definitely not notable", WP:ARTN - "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article.", so really this afd should have been speedily closed as no legitimate reason given by the nominator for deletion, as for problems with editing by an ip, just semi-protect the article. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:22, 15 May 2018 (UTC) ps. instead of bickering and arguing about who should edit what (apologies to monty python:)) ive done a bit of editing to the article. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:22, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Coolabahapple: A total rewrite from scratch, i.e. removing all content from the existing article and creating all new content along the lines of the German article, isn't "normal editing". See Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over: "... if the article's content is useless (including all the versions in history) but the title might be useful, then delete the content to help encourage a new article. If you keep the article, then you're keeping something of no value until someone replaces it with something of value, when people tend to be more inclined to fill red links. When you see this as an argument to delete, don't give up. If you can repair the article in a timely manner, then you've neatly refuted that the article is irreparable ...". Which is why I suggested you do a rewrite ASAP, because you're the one who claims it can be fixed. I you can't, or don't want to, then the article should be deleted. It's as simple as that. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:57, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

and this is where we differ, its as simple as that. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:10, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Or, rather, relißted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:22, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, without a doubt. The street clearly meets WP:GNG with significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. The German article calls it "one of the oldest and most historically significant streets in Dortmund", the eighth-largest city in Germany. That article has several pages of high-quality content, and 31 citations. The street has coverage in news media, travel, and history books, Dortmund Tourism has produced a video guide to the street, and the street has its own website at https://www.muensterstr.de produced by the neighborhood's Interessengemeinschaft Münsterstraße (community association of Münsterstrasse). Even the nominator admits the German Wikipedia article shows that the subject is notable. However, statements like "the article is definitely not notable in its current shape" are mistaken - the question of notability is purely whether the subject itself is notable or not, which is unrelated to how well or poorly the article is written or sourced - see WP:ASSERTN. If it is established that the subject meets the notability guidelines by the existence of coverage in reliable sources, non-notability cannot be an argument to delete the article. Possible WP:PROMOTION, too few citations, or poor-quality writing, are content issues that must be solved through the appropriate procedures including talk page discussion and good faith effort to improve the article. There is WP:NODEADLINE for that. Deletion of the page and its edit history via AfD is not an appropriate method to address content issues. --IamNotU (talk) 21:22, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that at German wikipedia, a user deleted my article and wrote the new one really only about history, and only 2 short sentences about today's state. My edits are deleted by this "agressive" user - that's why I created it here because English wikipedia is much better and friendlier. --77.182.248.213 (talk) 23:14, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

77.182.248.213, thanks for your contributions. However, "Articles for Deletion" is not the right place to discuss content issues. I have opened a discussion at Talk:Münsterstraße (street in Dortmund)#Disputed edits - May 2018, and ask everyone involved to please go there to discuss how to move forward, thanks. --IamNotU (talk) 00:55, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on notability: Wikipedia is not a travel guide nor a place for an indiscriminate collection of WP:Run-of-the-mill street listings. This mundane listing is supported by four sources of which three are from the same primary source that count as one for notability. Having sources does not give automatic inclusion rights. GNG states: " If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.", and this "street" fails GNG. Notability in the English Wikipedia is determined by "gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time as evidenced by significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic.". There is nothing "Worthy of notice" to the world at large about a city street as every town and city has them. Otr500 (talk) 09:00, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean "every city"? Ah, lucky you, so you had streets in your city, huh? -The Gnome (talk) 09:53, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

what about Giethoorn? "only canals and footbridges here thanks":) Coolabahapple (talk) 16:17, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you say it's "run of the mill" doesn't make it so. Is it normal for a "run of the mill" street to be the subject of a two-month long exhibition at a major museum, as Münsterstraße was in 2015? Did you even try to find sources? Did anyone ask for help at WikiProject Germany? Per WP:BEFORE, the nominator is obligated to search for sources, and if they find that sources do appear to exist - and in his second comment, he states that the German Wikipedia article "could form the basis for an article here that might clear the notability threshold, though not by much" - then there is no basis for the nomination. Also, per WP:NEXIST, a lack of existing citations in an article is irrelevant to the subject's actual notability, and before "offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search." So even if you searched and didn't find anything, the existence of a substantial article with 31 citations in the German Wikipedia should certainly be enough evidence of notability to put the brakes on a deletion. I have added several citations of reliable indpendent sources with significant coverage to the article, two of them from the regional newspaper Ruhr Nachrichten. There are more to be found. I've seen this time and again - people bringing an article to AfD without doing due diligence, and then demanding that other people do the work of finding sources or improving the article. That's not my responsibility, it's yours. --IamNotU (talk) 18:36, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't state it is run-of-the-mill of my own accord but from the evidence, or lack there-of. To be fair, I randomly picked one and it is a news report titled "Dispute in Dortmund Police prevented with large-scale escalation after mobile robbery" with an apparent address; Münsterstraße 66. This is a junk news report about a robbery that does not belong in any article. I picked another. This one is titled: "1877 - 1900 Industrial population and "social issue" Changes in urban infrastructure". Interesting article concerning a lot about the history of Dortmund, the Ruhr area and 66 mines, Dortmunder colliery, Bismarck's Socialist Law, the "father of Westphalian Social Democracy," and social democracy in Dortmund and Hörde. Two random picks and two sources that are bragged about, "31 citations in the German Wikipedia should certainly be enough evidence of notability" that I see as junk for notability of this subject.

I picked a reference from the article and this reference includes things like "with 949 crimes last year and explains: "It has not gotten worse on the Münsterstraße. More junk. Another reference is titled, "The history of Dortmund's northern city". It does include the name of the subject (passing mention) but that is about it.

Just as a lack of referencing in an article does not mean there is no notability a ton of references, that might be good for content, does not mean the article passes the criteria for a stand-alone article as being NOTEWORTHY. Mundane news reports or general sources with "passing mention" does not provide for notability, and is typically seen as refbombing if used just to try to falsely present notability.

IamNotU: I do not know if you have some connection to the street or live in the area because of your insistence that the street holds notability, but the reason there is not anyone providing notability sourcing is that they do not exist. They are not in the sources I looked at or the ones you provided. Before anyone can worry about using a lot of mundane sources, pretty much about nothing, they need to use sources that prove notability. Therein lies the problem no matter how much Wikilawyering is used. Maybe it wasn't an "agressive" (sic) user that caused the deletion of the article a user was mentioning above but the fact that there is still, after all this verbiage, a lack of notability no matter how many times we mention the article that is on the German Wikipedia. Arguments that all things can have an article on Wikipedia because there may be sources somewhere out there in the universe and demands that others "fix the article" as an alternative to deletion are not actually good arguments against deletion. You want me (us or other editors) to prove notability because it is not your job: I am stating notability for a stand-alone article does not exist. If you like the subject so much ask to have it userfied and stop demanding others do the impossible. I like history and historic places so I did try to seek out sources on notability. Please see: Wikipedia:Places of local interest, Wikipedia:Notability (local interests), and Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). Just because a street exists does not mean it is notable.

Passing mention per GNG: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.". Please also note that "just" because there is an article on another version of Wikipedia does not give an automatic pass to have a non-notable mirror article on the English Wikipedia. Otr500 (talk) 07:29, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is enough significant coverage in independent sources to establish notability, article passes clearly WP:GNG. It should be easy to find sources for experienced authors - who seem to be active here - which are not necessarily web sources. Instead they seem to do everything to get the article deleted, writing dozens of lines instead of improving the article. The criticism here is exaggerated by far, and I can't stop to wonder if certain content of the article still might be the reason.--Greywin (talk) 10:01, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"I am stating notability for a stand-alone article does not exist." You keep repeating your opinion that no sources that would establish notability exist, but it seems to me that you could try harder to find them - which is your job, if you are arguing for deletion - and are willfully ignoring strong evidence that they do exist. With regard to the sources I just added:

[9] writes about the history of the street, from the middle ages to today. That is not a "trivial" or "passing mention". And despite the site having the word "blog" in its name, it is a legitimate and reliable local news outlet, with experienced journalists and editorial oversight. The article is in the context of the two-month exhibition on the subject of Münsterstraße, by the Museum für Kunst und Kulturgeschichte. This is certainly something unusual about the street, and thus it can't be considered "run of the mill", per that essay's description. Should Wikipedia have an article on every city street that has been the feature of a major museum exhibition? Absolutely!! On the article's talk page you have dismissed this as contributing nothing to notability. I don't see under what rationale that is justified.
Two articles in Ruhr Nachrichten on the subject of Münsterstraße, and its problems with crime. Again, much more than a "passing mention" of Münsterstraße, they deal directly and in detail with the subject of the Münsterstraße neighborhood and its social issues. It's entirely different from the mundane example of "The side street where once every few years, a news-reported crime has occurred" given in the "run-of-the-mill" essay.

This coverage is significant - beyond a passing or trivial mention, multiple, independent, reliable - news organizations with a reputation for fact-checking, and secondary. Thus it satisfies the requirements of the relevant guidelines WP:GNG and WP:NGEO/WP:GEOROAD (and WP:GEOLAND as Münsterstraße is not only a roadway but also a populated place, an unofficial neighborhood). These are just a couple of examples from the news media that I found on short notice, that are clearly more than "the street exists". It doesn't consider for example, coverage in German history books which may not be available online, but again are strongly indicated by the existence of the very substantial German Wikipedia article.

Furthermore, though this is not required or even mentioned by the relevant guidelines, there is ongoing attention to the street over time by a regional-level newspaper for the Ruhr (the largest urban area in Germany), beyond passing or trivial mentions, showing that it is more than just local interest, which in other (not applicable) guidelines indicates "a strong indication of notability" (WP:AUD). And even Wikipedia:Places of local interest says, about places that "may be well-known locally, but little-known outside the community", that "It may be considered that if enough attributable information exists about the subject to write a full and comprehensive article about it, it may make sense for the subject to have its own article." As there is already a full and comprehensive article in the German Wikipedia, it makes sense - even if only local sources were found to establish notability. But that isn't the case, given the Ruhr Nachrichten coverage... --IamNotU (talk) 16:10, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why so much text over simple issues?

(1) Everyone please stop using the term "German Wikipedia" in your arguments! What happens there is irrelevant. Enough is enough.

(2) Please also stop invoking blogs as sources. We do not get to decide if blogs are "legitimate and reliable local news outlets"; Wikipedia has already passed judgement on self-published news and commentary websites as sources. They are unacceptable. Enough with blogs.

Just these two cutbacks will make the dialogue smoother. And our life easier. So, pretty please, with sugar on top, support the process. -The Gnome (talk) 17:36, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(1) WP:OTHERLANGS does not say it's "irrelevant". It says an article in another wiki "does not indicate, by itself, that a topic is notable" (emphasis mine), as Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Reliable sources are still required. But that doesn't mean it's irrelevant, or that it's not allowed to speak about it. We are asked to use common sense above all. What it demonstrates is that there is a strong likelihood that there exists sufficient attributable material to create a substantial article. And, that flat-out assertions that "notability for a stand-alone article does not exist" should be treated with skepticism and examined more closely, before permanently deleting it. Once an article is deleted for non-notability, it is somewhat difficult to bring it back, despite those arguing that they're just doing a "blow up and start over". If you want to do that, create a stub. There's no need for AfD.

(2) We certainly do get to decide whether a particular website can be regarded as a reliable source or not. I believe that Nordstadtblogger, despite the name, doesn't fit the definition of a personal or "self-published" web page given in WP:BLOGS - "self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings, are largely not acceptable as sources." It is a (small) news organization with a website they call a "blog", which is per WP:NEWSBLOG acceptable if the writers are professionals and the articles are subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process. According to their "about us" that seems to be the case, although it's apparently on a volunteer basis. Perhaps I'm mistaken about it, you're welcome to ask at WP:RSN whether it could be considered a reliable source for local news. --IamNotU (talk) 19:47, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Other-language Wikipedias are irrelevant as far as notability is concerned. The term "irrelevant" paraphrases quite accurately the policy. You gave it verbatim, I paraphrased it. German Wikipedia articles are not proof of their subjects' notability here in the English-language Wikipedia. That's the point.

(1A.) My (informed) opinion is that, on the basis of what we have seen so far, notability for a stand-alone article for that subject does not exist. You disagree. Fair enough.

(2) You invoke WP:NEWSBLOG but I'm afraid that rule actually goes against your argument. It talks about blogs by established news organizations. (Several newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host columns on their web sites that they call blogs.) Nordstadtblogger does not belong in that category. It's a stand-alone web host of opinion pieces and personal commentary. It correctly calls itself a blog. -The Gnome (talk) 23:09, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely did not get the impression that Nordstadtblogger is a "host of opinion pieces and personal commentary". It seems to be a typical small-town/community newspaper, and the articles I browsed seemed to follow usual standards of journalistic reporting. The news desk is run by the former editor of a mainstream mid-sized daily regional paper, the Westfälischen Rundschau. The writers are described as "experienced journalists", though I can't vouch for what that means exactly.

If you're saying that the existing citations (including the ones available to us from the German Wikipedia article) are so far not good enough in your opinion to establish notability, that's not entirely unreasonable, and we can agree to disagree. Maybe you could help find some better ones? What is entirely unreasonable, is to insist on an a priori assertion that the street is run-of-the-mill, that "the reason there is not anyone providing notability sourcing is that they do not exist", and that finding such is to "do the impossible", and therefore you are exempt from the provisions of WP:NEXIST to search for sources when arguing for deletion, when numerous facts and common sense strongly suggest otherwise. From the Notability Guideline at WP:NEXIST: "an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet. If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate." In my opinion, it's already been found. If in your opinion it hasn't, then you're obliged to help look for it. The article can't stay forever without sources establishing notability. But it also can't be deleted before people make a serious, good-faith effort to find them. --IamNotU (talk) 03:02, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article is well sourced, it is well sourced that the street is important, and Nordstadtblogger is a regional site that obviously follows journalistic standards and is not a personal commentary.--Greywin (talk) 05:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's talk about the arguments presented so far:

Hey, this article describes reality. Really? Then how about articles on today's weather or my hair? Those article would also describe reality. But is that enough? Uh, nope: Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.
This is a well written article! Indeed it is. Unfortunately, a well written text is no justification for inclusion. One could write some great text about their cat. But it'd get deleted. (Unless the cat's famous!)
This article is good enough to be improved. That's the basic principle of Wikipedia. I'm afraid the basic principles are the so-called five pillars and we find nowhere in them such a notion. You are probably confused with the WP:ATD policy, which states that if editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. All this means is that if a badly written article can be improved, we should not rush to delete it; we should try to improve it. Which is quite fair and logical. Having a badly written text, should not be cause for immediate deletion. On the other hand, having a well written text is not by itself a reason for the article to exist.
The nominator does not dispute the subject's notability Does, too. The expression "run-of-the-mill" used by the nominator means in English something ordinary, something that lacks notability. Do I have to provide text even for this? Aww, alright, here goes: Something or someone that is "run-of-the-mill" is probably not notable.
The article exists in the German Wikipedia! So what? Wikipedia is not the same, thank god, across all languages and cultures. What's notable in German Wikipedia under their rules and practices might not be notable in another Wikipedia. And, lest we forget, Wikipedia is not a reliable source for Wikipedia.
Lack of existing citations in an article is irrelevant to the subject's actual notability. You misunderstand the meaning of the rule you're citing. WP:NEXIST says Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources; not their immediate presence or citation in the article. This does not make sources and citations "irrelevant" as you seem to think. All articles most certainly do require them! The rule simply instructs editors to search actively and thoroughly for sources and citations before rushing to delete an article. That is actually made even clearer in WP:BEFORE. So, the question comes back, as always to this: Do we have source-based notability, yes or no?

Fine, then, so let's talk about sources.

Nordstadtblogger article: A local blog/local news website talks about a 2015 exhibition whose theme was that street. Even the title is a give away ("Nichts besonderes," it says, i.e. "nothing special" but "unique for the city").
A brochure about the same local event.
Article in the local paper, Ruhr Nachrichten, about the high level of crime in that particular street. Does that make it notable? Then we should have an article about Borsigplatz too. Or the whole northern city.
Complaints about empty flats in the neighborhood. The neighborhood and not specifically the street ("Die Nordstadt ist ein Karussell, in dem sich die Probleme weiterdrehen": "The northern part of the city is a carousel, etc.") which is mentioned only once, since the interviewee has his business there.
Another crime committed in the area ("Bereich Münsterstraße/Heckenstraße ": "The area of Münster street and Hecken street").
Historical articles about the first settlements of the city of Dortmund. They're supposed to support the notion that "The street was already very important in the Middle Ages and connected certain cities in this region." However, nowhere in those articles appears the name "Münsterstraße" (Die Anfänge der Besiedlung, Königshof - Königspfalz - Königsmarkt, Dortmund wird Reichsstadt, Aufstieg der Stadt im Spätmittelalter, Reformation und 30-jähriger Krieg).
Stats about the ethnic constitution of "the quarter where the street is located."

Read my lips: There is no source-supported notability. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 11:36, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of existing citations in an article is irrelevant to the subject's actual notability. The "immediate presence or citation in the article" of sources is completely irrelevant as to whether the subject is, in fact, notable or not. I did not say that citations are not required in an article in the long term. In fact I said "The article can't stay forever without sources establishing notability. But it also can't be deleted before people make a serious, good-faith effort to find them." You continue: "The rule simply instructs editors to search actively and thoroughly for sources and citations before rushing to delete an article. That is actually made even clearer in WP:BEFORE". Correct! And all the more so, if evidence such as a major museum exhibition on the subject, or the existence of a substantial article in the German Wikipedia calling it "one of the oldest and most historically significant streets in Dortmund", etc., although in itself is not a substitute for proper sources, would by common sense strongly indicate that the existence of sources is likely. And "If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate." It's not like I'm claiming there might be a teapot orbiting the sun. Given the evidence, it's very likely that sufficient sources exist and just haven't been found yet (though several people believe they already have) - in part because the nominator and delete !voters have not made a serious effort to find them, despite the strong indications, and their obligation to do so. "So, the question comes back, as always to this: Do we have source-based notability, yes or no?" No. The question does not come back to that. The question is, "how likely is it that sources exist?" If common sense says "very likely", then those proposing to delete must try harder to find them. Convince me that you've done a thorough search for sources. Then we can talk. Have you looked in a history book about Dortmund? Have you even searched the online sites of the major German newspapers? I don't think you have. --IamNotU (talk) 16:07, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. I won't try to "convince" you of anything. I rest my case. Take care.-The Gnome (talk) 21:16, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So just to be clear, you are now arguing to delete, on the basis of non-notability (which is not what your original !vote says, since "start over" is not an option for a non-notable subject), and despite having read WP:NEXIST, you haven't really searched for sources, and you don't intend to? --IamNotU (talk) 22:56, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"To be clear," no, the subject is not Wikinotable, and no, I did not change my stance, the whole text deserves to be WP:TNT'd and start again from scratch, in order to salvage some chance at N-proof, and no, I don't want to waste much more time on this issue. Yes, take care. -The Gnome (talk) 13:34, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand WP:TNT to mean, delete the entire article and its history. It's used in cases where a subject is notable, but all past versions of its content are 100% unencyclopedic and useless, for example entirely a copyright violation, unsourced blatant promotion, or content which is not actually about the subject. It has little to do with notability. If an article about a notable subject contains some properly referenced material, as this one does, it's not a candidate for that. You've referenced WP:DRAFT - do you mean to draftify the article, keeping its history? I don't quite understand the "start again" part of what you and/or Tom are saying. Or what you mean by "salvage". If you believe that the subject isn't notable, and none of the content would be useful in another article, shouldn't it just be deleted, end of story? How is what you're proposing different from a plain delete? --IamNotU (talk) 15:54, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Gnome: again and again you are reading the article only selectively. It is well-sourced that: "The street was already very important in the Middle Ages and connected certain cities in this region. It had also a significant share in Dortmund's process of becoming a major city." This alone is enough for a street to be kept as a important road because of its history. Then, on top of that, there was an exhibition, how many streets are subject of an exhibition? Even if the exhibition says, that today the street may be nothing special anymore, it definitely was in recent centuries, and this is sourced by the brochure of this exhibition! Above all that, the street is known as a crime spot which is sourced by state-wide and national newspapers articles. The sourcing of the article may be not perfect, but is much, much better than the average stub sourcing in Wikipedia. If we delete this article becaus of the sourcing, we would have to delete hundred of thousands of WP stubs. It is by far enough - and according to WP:ATD there is in this case no other selectable option but to keep and improve the article.--Greywin (talk) 10:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greywin, ~~I imagine the deletionists would argue~~ It can be legitimately argued that historical research, published by the City of Dortmund, about the city of Dortmund, technically can't be used to establish notability, because it's not independent. Also, technically the fact that there was a major museum exhibition doesn't in itself prove notability, though common sense says it does. The guidelines call for published sources - for example, the Nordstadtblogger article. With regard to the argument about "nothing special" in the title (and that is the title of the news article, not the exhibition), that's nonsense. The title says "nothing special aber doch einmalig". The word doch is a bit difficult to translate (Google just ignores it), but it means something like "on the contrary!" or "it is too!". In other words, the title means something like, "it might seem like nothing special (i.e., run-of-the-mill), but actually in fact it is really unique/one-of-a-kind (i.e., noteworthy)". Hence, the reason for having an exhibition and writing news articles about it...

About the attempts to dismiss the Ruhr Nachrichten articles:

"Article in the local paper, Ruhr Nachrichten, about the high level of crime in that particular street. Does that make it notable? Then we should have an article about Borsigplatz too. Or the whole northern city."

"Complaints about empty flats in the neighborhood. The neighborhood and not specifically the street ("Die Nordstadt ist ein Karussell, in dem sich die Probleme weiterdrehen": "The northern part of the city is a carousel, etc.") which is mentioned only once, since the interviewee has his business there."

Appeals to WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST aside, first, Ruhr Nachrichten is not "the local paper" but a regional paper for the entire Ruhr area, one of the most heavily populated regions in Europe. Also, the difference is that the examples given make a passing mention of eg. Borsigplatz as the location where a crime happened to take place, while the ones cited in the article directly and in detail cover the social situation in the Münsterstraße neighborhood. Münsterstraße is not only literally the street itself, but (unofficially) the neighborhood too; the news article refers in its lead to the Münsterstraßen-Viertel and that the subject of the article is the Zustände in dem Quartier, the situation in the Münsterstraße quarter/neighborhood. One more thing - we do have an article on Borsigplatz, and the Dortmund#Nordstadt section could easily be expanded into a full article. At that point I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to a merge-and-redirect of both Borsigplatz and Münsterstraße into Nordstadt (keeping all their histories intact) if it made sense. But that's a content/organization question that doesn't have anything to do with notability. --IamNotU (talk) 16:43, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need to anticipate the arguments of deletionists. The brochure is by the Museum für Kunst und Kulturgeschichte, it has no interest in faking the history of a street, also the city of Dortmund doesn't have any interest to do so, and such a content in a publication about an exhibition is usually edited by the historians of the museum and based on scientific books and research papers - that do exist for sure and can be used to expand the article at any time. And I would oppose a merge and redirect, as there is enough material for articles about Münsterstraße, Borsigplatz and Nordstadt.--Greywin (talk) 18:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greywin, if you will present arguments at AfD, it's necessary to know which arguments to avoid, and to anticipate the arguments that other people will make. I am neither a deletionist nor an inclusionist - if anything, I'm for fairness, consistency, and common sense. If there is a valid argument based on policy and guidelines, no matter who makes it, no matter if it is for or against, it has to be acknowledged! Decisions are made on the basis of consensus, but that is not simply the consensus in one particular AfD discussion. The consensus of Wikipedia is contained largely in the evolving policies and guidelines, that are gradually influenced by these discussions. That's why the quality of arguments and counter-arguments is more important than the number of people giving them. There can be 100 people arguing delete with low-quality arguments, and 2 people arguing keep with high-quality arguments, and it will be found that the consensus is keep! There is a well-written description of the requirmements for sources supporting notability at WP:ORGCRIT, most of which applies to geographic locations (though not WP:AUD). The brochure may be considered secondary and reliable for the reasons you say, and therefore used to support facts about Münsterstraße, because it meets the requirments for verifiability. But it, and the exhibition, (arguably) may not be considered independent, which is necessary in establishing notability, because the museum is a public institution supported by the City of Dortmund. I would consider that far-fetched and against common sense, but it could be challenged. "A primary test of notability is whether unrelated people with no vested interest in the subject have actually considered [it] notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial, non-routine works that focus upon it." That's why the article in Nordstadtblogger is important, as it fully meets that definition. You say that the brochure is "based on scientific books and research papers - that do exist for sure and can be used to expand the article at any time." I'm sure you are correct, and it would be very helpful if you could actually name and give citations to these! On the other hand, as I have said several times, it's the responsibility of people before nominating or arguing for deletion, not the ones arguing to keep, to do a thorough search for sources. So far I see little or no evidence of that...

About "merge and redirect" - that's a simple process of normal editing that anyone can do, or undo. It doesn't require formal discussion or decision (though a message on the talk page is nice). It's just a way of re-organizing material between article pages. For example, the Borsigplatz article is at the moment quite short. If someone wrote an expanded article for the Nordstadt, it might be better for readers to move the material from the Borsigplatz article into it, so that it would all be in one place. But that doesn't mean that Borsigplatz is not notable - it is. Later on, if someone wanted to expand the Borsigplatz article again, they can easily do so, because the article and all its history still exists "behind" the redirect. It's very simple to bring the article back again - but that's not true if an article has been completely deleted because it's been found not-notable. --IamNotU (talk) 01:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The first victim on a one-sided conversation is the truth, as it is here. We are labelled "deletionists" (as if that's what we do, we go around deleting articles; must be in our genes) and of course our arguments are distorted (I supposedly changed my stance and did not search for sources; this after a detailed exposition of most sources as worthless). Well, if nothing else, this discussion has been educational. -The Gnome (talk) 13:34, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If we're the Deletionists, they must be the Keepists! Well, there are worse ways to murder English, I suppose. -The Gnome (talk) 13:42, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you took offense at the word "deletionist". I've struck it out. I didn't know that apparently it would be regarded as a slur, as described at meta:Deletionism. I do get the impression that you have a somewhat "conservative inclusion philosophy", but that's not necessarily a bad thing. I see that you've done a detailed analysis concluding that the existing sources are worthless. But I don't see anywhere a statement that you've made an effort to find new ones. That was my question. About changing your stance, at this point I honestly am not clear what your stance is. I'll reply to your comment about that above. --IamNotU (talk) 14:47, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note While others are talking about philosophies and who offended whom, I added 3 4 reputable literature and 2 3 web sources. I'm looking forward to read the first It's all crap statements, but on the other hand we could finally find a common sense to end this senseless discussion.--Greywin (talk) 18:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC) Updated.--Greywin (talk) 18:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
merge and redirect to Dortmund. Which needs a lot of work to trim unsourced stuff. People get hyper-local too much in WP and this warps our mission which is to give high level, encyclopedic knowledge. We are not a travel guide. If it gets too big there (based on strong sourcing) then a WP:SPLIT discussion can be initiated. Jytdog (talk) 03:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge it into a 100KB article, and then better split it... ok. There is no guideline that defines "our mission" as to give "high level, encyclopedic knowledge". Every small village, every rock in the Antarctic has an article here, but not a well known and historically important street with a well sourced article? This must be a complete misunderstanding what Wikipedia is. And this article is definitely not a travel guide, it highlights the historic importance of its subject on the base of scientific sources.--Greywin (talk) 12:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As it seemed that none of the... persons arguing for deletion... were going to step up and actually search for sources, and I felt bad that Greywin was all alone, I Googled "Dortmunds lebendiges Pflaster", the official motto of the street. I only had to look to the fifth result: an in-depth piece about the Nordstadt as a "social flash point" in Germany, with a focus on Münsterstraße as its main street and central neighborhood. I haven't yet transcribed much from the article, but it's there for others to expand from. I guess Die Welt, as one of Germany's four national newspapers of record, could be considered a reliable (and not hyper-local) source?

I don't get the repeated references to a "travel guide". Maybe Americans relate to Germany as a European holiday destination, but people in Germany generally would like to learn about the country, its history, and its present situation. And, especially for recent immigrants, I don't see any way that it's a problem to offer such "encyclopedic knowledge" in detail and in English.

I had hoped that the original author of the article, apparently a Muslim who probably lives or works in the area, and who seemed very motivated to write about it, might produce something interesting. Yes, the first drafts were overly promotional-sounding, and yes they started to edit war when they got frustrated with grumpy old farts erasing their work. I still had hopes that with a friendly reception and some mentoring, they could learn the ropes, but unfortunately by now it looks like they got chased away. I'm happy to see that Greywin is taking on some of the work, and in general to see people building up Wikipedia rather than tearing it down.

As I said, I would not be opposed to a merge-and-redirect (and I'm always happy to see that proposal to WP:PRESERVE useful content, instead of a straight delete) to a section in an expanded article on the Nordstadt - if such an article existed. However, I think there's already too much to be merged into Dortmund, without throwing away (or hiding behind a redirect) a good deal of encylopedic material about a notable subject. --IamNotU (talk) 03:08, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. In contrast to my comments relisting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beloved God Prayer, this AFD has generated enough participation that I think I can find consensus to delete, in view of the lack of policy basis underlying the keep !votes (which consist largely of an attack on the nominator's motivations)...as delighted as I am by the concept of a "cannon of prayers". Steve Smith (talk) 03:04, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prayer of Repentance[edit]

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

I fail to see an iota of notability of the subject and non-trivial significant coverage about it, except in the biographical hagiography of Meher Baba, other biographies and self-sources.Yeah, he wrote it but how is it encyclopedic stuff?!Notability isn't inherited.

Part of a walled garden around Meher Baba.Nukable mess.

This t/p thread may provide some nackgound aspects on the issue. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 05:28, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 05:33, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, this is about the 10th page I've found in a coordinated purge-attempt of Meher Baba articles. There are likely many more, and I don't have the time now to find them all, so I'd ask that, due to the bias language used, that the nominator remove all of the deletion attempt pages. As with the rest, I am sad to have to actually "defend" myself from the language used and say I am not in a Baba cult, am not a member of any related organization, and do not know anyone who is. I'm an editor who has found an attempt to gut a notable topic on Wikipedia, and find this series of deletion pages both very unusual, overlayed with language that proves the nominator's bias, and is possibly unique in my experience editing here. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:41, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks and congratulations on your finding.Now, please provide the sources, since you've gladly forgot the main criterion of defending the notability of an article.And, you may like to read WP:ILIKEIT.~ Winged Blades^Godric 16:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It there is no WP:SIGCOV. There is no coverage outside of writing about Meher Baba, which would obviously mention his work. Of the 17 references there are 5 different books cited, the same issue of Awakener Magazine is cited twice, and 2 websites that are primary sources. Mention of this prayer is better placed on his page. I cannot respond to Randy Kryn's vote because he does not make a valid argument. 8==8 Boneso (talk) 11:50, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Boneso. Edward321 (talk) 14:29, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Valid source listed on page, a book published by Allen & Unwin, a reputable publishing house. This is used as a reference. Please pull this nomination, and any other nomination made that lists this book as a reference (does the nominator not check and research references before making a deletion claim?). As for the numerous "non-reputable" books and sources listed, most are not written by the subject. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:34, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is part of a cannon of prayers by a real religious movement. See by Meher Baba. Why would the prayers of the Meher Baba movement be deleted and not the hundreds of prayers on Wikipedia. Prayers are in prayer books. Should we go hunting through Category:Prayer or List of prayers for whose prayers are holy and which not? Sounds like bias to me. How is any published and used prayer notable, and another not? There's no criterion. But if you want to delete this prayer be sure to be thorough and delete ALL Baba's prayers, for being especially not notable. Part of a very immature "culling" of Baba related articles. I quote from Winged Blade's back-channeled declaration of his breathless jihad from here User_talk:Serial_Number_54129#Walled_garden...: "I'll be attempting unilateral culling(s) and AfD despatches on some of the easier ones but given the amount of established SPAs devoted to the topic, I guess, tearing the wall down is going to be a difficult" (Winged Blades). When are prayers a wall to be torn down? Dazedbythebell (talk) 16:25, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree that any prayer that is not in itself notable should not have a Wikipedia article. If you have specific instances in mind, the rational thing to do would be to nominate those articles for deletion. --bonadea contributions talk 18:32, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Other crap exists.~ Winged Blades^Godric 04:35, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold and present them for AfD or similar discussion. This doesn't look like a personal vengeance but how this editor went through what was present within categories, etc. It shouldn't be taken personal. – TheGridExe (talk) 20:49, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no significant coverage, no notability, no article. As simple as that. The title would make a good redirect to the Meher Baba article. --bonadea contributions talk 18:32, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:21, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, default to keep. Editors on both sides of the debate have kept the bulk of their comments focused on the core question of whether there is sufficient coverage in independent, reliable, sources (and, to a lesser extent, the applicability of various subsidiary notability guidelines, such as WP:ORG). There is a clear disagreement as to whether the coverage that does exist is sufficient to clear WP:GNG, and I don't see consensus on that question. Steve Smith (talk) 03:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Plainfield Curling Club[edit]

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

Non-notable club. Operating "the only curling facility in New Jersey" is a far stretch to claim notability, and no other fact in this article comes even close to claiming notability. News coverage is exclusively of the local interest variety. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:08, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:39, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:39, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:39, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails the gNG. Only local mentions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:03, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- doesn't clear WP:AUD requirement of WP:ORG--Rusf10 (talk) 14:46, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Under the Curling Clubs section of WP:CURLING/Article Guidelines "unusual location" is considered notable. Since it's the only dedicated facility in the state that seems like an unusual location to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A202985 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It appears to meet the Wikipedia:WikiProject Curling guideline. --RAN (talk) 00:03, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very wary of guidelines from niche projects. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:24, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment In all discussions of notability at Wikipedia, "reliable, secondary coverage" always excludes local coverage (i.e. coverage from media that are located in or near the home town of the organization). All of the media coverage for this curling club come North Jersey specific media. None of the reasons for coverage (hosting a major event; unusual location, membership or other controversy; or status as a home club for a national, world or Olympic champion) apply to this club. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 02:38, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It appears RAN is just pointing to a guideline with no explanation. I also don't see how being the only club in the state makes it "unusual". Of course, its not clear what exactly would constitute an unusual location. Would a curling club in Arizona be unusual because its hot there? How about one in Hawaii? WikiDan is correct though, coverage of organizations need to clear WP:AUD and this does not.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:37, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"local coverage (i.e. coverage from media that are located in or near the home town of the organization)" is a made-up definition not specified anywhere in guidelines, whereas there the above cited mentions: state-wide and regional as being completely satisfactory for GNG.Djflem (talk) 10:08, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, its not "made up", this is an organization so WP:AUD applies.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:41, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you point to a place within Wikipedia that says local "coverage from media that are located in or near the home town of the organization" then it is made up, and as such is an invalid argument and expression of a POV:personal point of view.Djflem (talk) 16:32, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just did point to the specific place, learn to read. It says, "The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary."--Rusf10 (talk) 17:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you try to "learn to read", look for, and point out, and post where it says "coverage from media that are located in or near the home town of the organization". Why? Because you can't cite that made-up stuff. But yet continue to cite something that doesn't back up your argument. The policy you are citing does say: "one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary", which this article does and which you'll easy see if you learn to read yourself.Djflem (talk) 17:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. All the sources are from NJ or NY 2. You can't just pick and choose the part of a sentence you like best to quote, you left out two words, "at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary."--Rusf10 (talk) 18:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Still waiting on the verifiability of the made -up stuff about local coverage from you. When can we expect that? But, in the meantime, thanks for pointing out the at least one part. If you will read correctly, you'll note that there is at least one. In fact, there are multiple state-wide and regional sources, aren't there?Djflem (talk) 18:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:AUD guideline is clear and certainly not made-up, as usual you are engaging in WP:ICANTHEARYOU. at least one means there probably should be more. And when all I see for sources is the local newspaper, one article in the local section of the New York Times, and the local NBC affiliate, how is that meeting the requirement?--Rusf10 (talk) 19:11, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try, but your usual commenting and accusations don't mean a thing. Nor does the attempt to move the goal post or cherry-pick. Provide a policy for the statement made-up "local coverage (i.e. coverage from media that are located in or near the home town of the organization)", which you were backing, prove that the multiple sources are not "state-wide and regional"(by the way, "at least one" means "at least"), or as you earlier suggested to me, "learn to read" since the "And when all I see" comment suggests that you're missing something.)Djflem (talk) 19:54, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete New Jersey is not an unusual location for a curling club, even if there is only one there. I think the reference actually claims that it's the only dedicated curling facility, not that it's the only organization. The curling project's guidelines are simply guidelines. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:49, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pass GNG.Djflem (talk) 17:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @Djflem: You've done some extensive work finding sources for this article. Unfortunately, the sources that have been added that go beyond local coverage are articles that are either high school newspaper articles (i.e. not reliable), or mere mentions in passing. I'm still not seeing the depth of coverage needed for this to be a notable organization. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:31, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Satisfy: Wikipedia:ORG and WP:AUD (statewide, regional, and a book) plus multiply reliable sources which satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability for claims made.

"Curling: Throwing stones at NJ's only venue dedicated to the Olympic sport". North Jersey.com. March 3, 2018. Retrieved 24 May 2018.
Flanagan, Barbara (March 1, 2018). "Inside the sport of curling at the Plainfield Curling Club". NJTV Online. Retrieved 24 May 2018.
Genovese, Peter (2011), New Jersey Curiosities: Quirky Characters, Roadside Oddities & Other Offbeat Stuff, Rowman & Littlefield, ISBN 9780762769452</ref>
Delete. All sources are either local coverage, or passing mentions. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:22, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that WP:POL is not met, but WP:GNG is met, and therefore the topic is notable. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:42, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Liz Watson (politician)[edit]

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

Declined PROD. Candidate has some sources covering the primary victory yesterday, but those are more about the election and less about the candidate. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Wouldn't be against a redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Indiana, 2018#District 9. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. She just won primary with headline "Watson wins Big" on the front page of the print edition (I have yet to find a link for this, but of course a print newspaper is a reliable source still!). She has also been covered in articles highlighting the notable number of women running for Congress in 2018 https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/democratic-women-2018-midterms_us_5af2ecbce4b0a0d601e8a6ed?ncid=APPLENEWS00001 and there was a HuffPost article highlighting her victory as a challenge to conventional wisdom that progressives can't win in swing districts. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/democrat-liz-watson-wins-indiana-primary_us_5af21fbae4b0aab8a789f8b4?ncid=engmodushpmg00000003 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scarykitty (talk • contribs) 17:25, May 9, 2018 (UTC)
- Like I said, there's coverage of the campaign, but barely any coverage about her. Winning the Democratic Party nomination does not help her meet WP:NPOL. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- - How is it that being covered in articles regarding women and progressives in the closely-watched 2018 US Congressional elections is not "coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article."? What is the difference between an article about a person's campaign and about the person?
    - It's more about how we define "significant" coverage. This article, for instance, mentions her once, in passing. Much of the coverage of her isn't so much about "her" as it is about the greater national political climate and landscape. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Appears to be a case of TOOSOON. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:04, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom, at least for now, per WP:TOOSOON and WP:NTEMP. Skimming United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_Indiana,_2018, similarly-situated otherwise-non-notable primary contenders don't have their own articles, either. If she wins, an article about a Congressman obviously passes WP:GNG but an otherwise-non-notable person doesn't become so by virtue of contending in or even winning a House primary.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:11, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Her primary election victory has received a LOT of media coverage, from national news sources as well as local. I think she may just pass WP:NPOL. EAWH (talk) 14:18, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh huh, so the election is notable, but not necessarily the candidate. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:32, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- But some of these non-local articles are writing extensively about the candidate, too. Here's the Huffington Post article^[1]: "Watson, 43, returned to her hometown of Bloomington to run for office after years of progressive lawyering in Washington. Most recently, Watson served as labor policy director for Democrats in the House, where she helped craft $15-an-hour minimum wage legislation. In a previous role as the director of workplace justice at the National Women’s Law Center, she worked closely with groups like the Working Families Party to pass Maryland’s paid family leave and gender pay equity laws. “One thing that distinguishes Watson as a pretty unique candidate is not just having the progressive platform, but that she’s had a career of experience designing policy that affects people’s lives,” Dinkin said."EAWH (talk) 16:57, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Marans, Daniel. "This Trump Country House District Just Became A Key Progressive Battleground: Liz Watson's victory in southern Indiana will test the appeal of liberal populism in November".

KEEP. This is a ***textbook*** case of "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." [[PPX]] (talk) 20:05, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't. NPOL #2 is about mayors and city councillors, not unelected candidates at any level of government. Bearcat (talk) 22:05, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That may be your interpretation, but nowhere does the text of the policy make that distinction. [[PPX]] (talk) 21:41, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not independently notable from her campaign. The question I ask in these instances is, in ten years, if unelected, would she still be notable based on the political coverage received, in order to satisfy the "significant press coverage" prong? At this point, I don't think so per WP:GNG. No problems with the redirect. SportingFlyer talk 21:34, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_Indiana,_2018, per standard practice. The coverage of her victory in the primary appears mostly local and about the race rather than her, i.e. WP:MILL. There's no claim of notability other than this run, she does not appear to have held any other elected office. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:53, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or redirect to the election article. People get Wikipedia articles by winning the general election and thereby holding office, not just for being candidates — and the amount of reliable source coverage being shown here is not enough to deem her candidacy a special case, because every candidate in all 435 electoral districts across the entire United States (and every candidate in every statehouse district, and every candidate in Canadian elections, and on and so forth) could always show every bit as much coverage as this. No prejudice against recreation in November if she wins the seat, but nothing here is enough to already deem her encyclopedically notable as of today. Bearcat (talk) 22:05, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom and per WP:POLOUTCOMES. "Candidates who ran but never were elected for a national legislature or other national office are not viewed as having inherent notability and are often deleted or merged into lists of campaign hopefuls, such as Ontario New Democratic Party candidates, 1995 Ontario provincial election, or into articles detailing the specific race in question, such as United States Senate election in Nevada, 2010." --Enos733 (talk) 04:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:48, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although she has only won the primary so far, she's received a significant amount of discussion and coverage, including at the national level, and the sourcing of the article passes WP:GNG for significant discussion in secondary sources. Lonehexagon (talk) 01:44, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:20, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems more than enough to satisfy GNG for me. Govvy (talk) 22:30, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG which is all that matters in the end. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 22:37, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I still disagree regarding WP:GNG being met - she isn't notable except for the fact she's a candidate, and the majority of the sources on the page discussing this are from the night she won the primary. There's still not enough here to make her independently notable as a candidate. The other sources are fine since they flesh out the article, but they don't show notability on their own (like her marriage article: this will be on Wikipedia long after she loses, if she doesn't win the election.) SportingFlyer talk 22:44, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to article on this House race. Editors who wish to do so can try to change the WP:NPOL guidelines so that major party candidates for the November U.S. House elections get an automatic pass. However, we do have rules. And I am not seeing extraordinary coverage of her candidacy, nor am I seeing any notable accomplishment before she ran for Congress, or anything else in terms of her bio or the press coverage that gets her past WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The presence of national coverage of the campaign, which includes biographical details, satisfies me that this is one of those rare cases of a politician who has never held elected office (and whose claim to notability stems entirely from being a candidate for elected office) clearing WP:GNG. Steve Smith (talk) 03:16, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 11:42, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amartithi[edit]

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

I fail to see much notability of the subject and non-trivial significant coverage about it, except in the biographical hagiography of Meher Baba and self-sources.Trivial mentions in related books and very few news-pieces are located.But, since notability isn't inherited, seeking a redirect to Meher Baba.

Part of a walled garden around Meher Baba.Nukable mess.

This t/p thread may provide some background aspects on the issue. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 05:49, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 05:49, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, seriously? This seems like a major religious holiday for the followers of Meher Baba (and no, I am not one). The page is one of a large number of article put up for deletion by nominator in a seeming attempt to purge the topic of many of its pages. I would ask that the nominator remove all of these deletion attempts due to their reasoning and communicated bias against the topic. We have a good Meher Baba collection on Wikipedia, and there is certainly no reason to attempt to remove much of it other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:33, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.Now, please provide the sources, since you've gladly forgot the main criterion of defending the notability of an article, at an AfD.~ Winged Blades^Godric 15:59, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:If the nominator's main criterion is simply the need of sources, then please retract from all your recent nominations the biased, agressive and sarcastic statements about walled gardens and nukable mess. Thank youi. Hoverfish Talk 19:06, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also this link the nominator provides to the "backgound aspects on the issue" has ample evidence that the same is calling up other editors to gang up on these deletions. Hoverfish Talk 19:14, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense.That was because SN54129 was the one to despatch the first article (about which you initiated a conversation on my t/p), to AfD.~ Winged Blades^Godric 04:02, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do not follow any religious practices of any kind, I am no part of any group that does so either, but I do respect all the thousands of Meher Baba followers who chose to do so, as well as the millions who keep religious holidays of any religion. This article contains information about a major religious holiday observed by thousands of people. Hoverfish Talk 19:28, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP does not exist to respect thousands of religious followers.Even a religion/cult, with a lone follower ought to have an article, if sufficiently covered by independent media sources whilst one with lacs, without any coverage in RS would not deserve one.~ Winged Blades^Godric 04:02, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If the topic if not notable, how come and asiantribune.com or allevents.in or loksatta.com mention it? Are they Baba affiliated too? Hoverfish Talk 19:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Allevents is nothing but a database of all events, festivals etc and fails to lend credence to notability.Since I'm not stating that the article is a hoax, there's no point in bringing that.Asian Tribune's editorial practices have been long debated at AfDs and is often guilty of PR-stuff.Loksatta is good enough but one piece of non-independent coverage do not maketh a standalone article.~ Winged Blades^Godric 04:02, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closer note that Winged Blades says "Loksatta is good enough", and on top of the Asian Tribune information, this nomination should be considered null and void. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:55, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Randy Kryn: The only person you are convincing is yourself, and maybe perhaps your pet goldfish. Cesdeva ^(talk) 16:22, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, my pet goldfish is a deletionist, and recently did a number on one of the snails. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:24, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be surprised if your snail had a Meher Baba-related article written about it. Cesdeva ^(talk) 16:29, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm, maybe. I have noticed it has been silent for years, and its credo is "Don't Worry, Be Happy", but I thought it was because of the funny green seaweed it's been making into underwater brownies. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:40, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a wild guess its name is Snaily McFerrin? Or perhaps it was part of 'Bob Marley and the Snailers'... Anyways we have drifted off-topic. Cesdeva ^(talk) 16:50, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Split usable content to Meher Baba, blank and redirect. The article topic has no standalone notability. I also don't have any religious connection to the subject, although I do have a moustache. Cesdeva ^(talk) 19:54, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely concur.~ Winged Blades^Godric 04:02, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Meher Baba per WP:NOTINHERITED. Not seeing any in-depth third-party sourcing sufficient to establish independent notability. GSS (talk|c|em) 13:05, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Source added to the page, from the Asian Tribune. This reputable source "proves" that the event exists, is notable (people have been observing it for almost half-a-century), and that this nomination should be removed and the page kept as notable. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:50, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many of these dozen or so coordinated Meher Baba-related AfDs I have agreed with. But it seems odd to remove a religious holiday observed by literally hundreds of thousands of people annually, and the main religious observance among Baba followers in America, England, Australia, and India. That actually does sound like religious discrimination. It is true one will not find much doing a Google Check. Baba himself forbade proselytizing, which is the main reason. But a check on YouTube will reveal thousands observing it. And any call to any Baba group or Center around the world (and I literally mean any) will reveal it is observed diligently. Note there is no celebration of Baba's birth. Amartithi is the "Christmas" of Baba followers the world over, even if it is done without outward fanfair and press. If anything, the article should eventually be expanded. The trouble is that only Baba followers care about their holidays and prayers, and they don't wind up in non-devotional material. Baba only died 49 years ago, and Amartithi (celebrating his death day) is a relatively new practice and limited, but due to its importance to a large religious group of importance in the New Religious Movements Wikipedia project, it has genuine value on Wikipedia. However, I do get the reasoning of saying it is not notable in print. So I'm fine with whatever the consensus is. Just giving some missing information so a good judgment can be made. Dazedbythebell (talk) 15:30, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No bare-minimum amount of non-trivial coverage in sources.No notability.No article.As simple as that.~ Winged Blades^Godric 04:45, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:18, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just added a source, a large article from the South Asian Tribune, added to lead sentence. This article sources much of the information on the page. There are many sources if you count books and articles and magazines which actually report on these topics, and at some point the weight of the accumulated sources would make this event real and notable to the people interested in such things. In any case, the South Asian Tribune and the Asian Tribune source added earlier amount to good independent sources, with the newest one a full story on the holiday. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:30, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The South Asian Tribune piece isn't independent; 'Dictated Sunday, 13th December 2009' should give you a clue.

WBoG addressed the Asian Tribune source above. Cesdeva ^(talk) 19:27, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wbog said it's been debated, not that it's an unusable reputable source. Did you read the in-depth article itself? Seems to be fine as a source. And wbog also said that an existing page source "Loksatta is good enough...". Good sources about a holiday celebrated worldwide are now on the page to prove that the holiday is real, has a history, and is notable. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:36, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did read it. It struck me as odd how the article ended with a direct exclamation from 'Bhau Kalchuri', rather than a conclusion by the writer. Also there's a couple of occasions where the writer verges on stating opinion as fact, such as 'dropped his body'. What's with the capitalisation of He, Him and Himself too?

On face-value i'd agree it seems fine but some writing choices make me wonder whether the writer was connected to the subject.

I don't think anybody is saying that the holiday isn't real, or doesn't have history. What we are concerned about is meeting WP:GNG. You'll need a couple more articles like the Asian Tribune one. Regards Cesdeva ^(talk) 21:28, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New source found. I don't know how good or ungood this source is, but here is a two-volume book/encyclopedia by J. Gordon Melton titled "Religious Celebrations" and in volume 2 page 577 it has a page on this "several-day commemoration": [10]. I don't think Melton is a Meher Baba follower, so this book is an "independent" source. Hoverfish Talk 21:06, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very good source, Hoverfish. J. Gordon Melton is a long-time expert of topics such as this, a notable religious scholar, and would be accepted as a reputable source (also see his Encyclopedia of American Religions). Now the reference just has to be, if you haven't done it yet, added to the article, and I'd suggest moving your comment to the left as its own section, and linking Melton, so this good source isn't missed by commenting editors and the closer. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:20, 19 May 2018 (UTC) DoneHoverfish Talk 23:26, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Enigma^msg 03:04, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SnackNation[edit]

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

Can't see how this article meets GNG. Aside from the fact that it's a paid-for advert, it has three sources. The first is itself - neither independent nor reliable. The second is an interview that's primary and bears all the hallmarks of a PR-placement. The third looks like a blog. Even if one buys 3, that's still nowhere near significant coverage.

p.s. thanks to Smartse for sorting my messed-up nomination. KJP1 (talk) 17:14, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

_{Note This wasn't listed properly the first time round, but is now. SmartSE (talk) 17:10, 17 May 2018 (UTC)}[reply]

Delete - non-notable company that fails the strengthened WP:NCORP guideline and WP:CORPDEPTH. The article suffers from a severe lack of in depth sourcing, and a good faith search turned up no potential sources I would qualify as in-depth. In addition, the company has and makes no real claim to encyclopedic significance.--SamHolt6 (talk) 17:46, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 19:24, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 19:24, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG and WP:NCORP. Wikipedia is not a yellow pages. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:14, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HighKing - Sometimes, when wading through the submissions at Afc, one gets the impression many view it as just that! KJP1 (talk) 15:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KJP1 From my time at COIN, it seems that companies want the legitimacy that a Wikipedia page provides. Everybody wants a piece of the notability pie, and the google search algorithms don't hurt, either.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SamHolt6 - Exactly so. They want the kudos and the hits. It's also why they are quite prepared to have an article that contains criticism and isn't overtly "promotional". Both are very small prices to pay for presence on this site. My biggest concern is that some editors, rightly concerned about being welcoming to good faith newbies, underestimate the dangers to Wikipedia's reputation presented by the sheer amount of, often-undisclosed, paid-for and/or promotional drafts. In fairness to this submission, at least the COI's declared. KJP1 (talk) 15:50, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is best to take each article on its own merits. Sometimes when I get a little jaded, I take a break. But the statistics on the number of company/organization related articles that end up getting deleted at AfD must run close to 90%+ and this does indicate an underlying motive/problem HighKing⁺⁺ 16:11, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wholly promotional. WP:NOTADVERTISING. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 15:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. clpo13_(talk) 17:37, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Syriac Church of Mosul[edit]

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

I can't find any evidence that this church passes WP:GNG. It's been unreferenced for years, and a quick Google search didn't bring up any churches by this particular name, so I don't know if it even exists. clpo13_(talk) 17:03, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator I did wonder if this article actually referred to a church that ISIS took over (though I thought it might be St. Ephraim), but I wasn't sure given the article's history and vague title. Now that it's been improved and sources can be found for the proper name, I'm satisfied that it's notable. clpo13_(talk) 17:36, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 17:04, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 17:04, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there is plenty material on the church "Sharaf is the Syriac Orthodox Archbishop of Mosul, but he's not in Mosul. As Easter approaches, he's leading a service at a newly built church on the outskirts of Erbil, 50 miles away. That's because its St. Thomas Cathedral - dating back to the third century in the old city of Mosul - was damaged and desecrated by ISIS." [11] --Soman (talk) 20:27, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to a more appropriate title, such as "Church of St. Thomas, Mosul", or "Mar Toma Church, Mosul", or whichever that may be the most appropriate. There are numerous sources for these [12] [13]. Hzh (talk) 00:29, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to "Church of Saint Thomas, Mosul". I've added as much content as I could find in the meantime. Mugsalot (talk) 12:02, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Exemplo347 (talk) 20:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peleg Chandler[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 17:02, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 17:02, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 17:02, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did the nom look for sources? FloridaArmy (talk) 17:10, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I found precious little that would pass muster. Maybe you would care to include some of the ones you found in the article?Slatersteven (talk) 17:13, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The very first source cited says:

"Peleg W. Chandler, a mid-nineteenth century Boston attorney. The legal papers include his work on road widening, development of wharves, and torts against the city due to the destruction of private property caused by municipal work. Chandler also did work for the First Church of Boston, and the Church of the Holy Cross on Devonshire Street, railroad nuisance cases, and family probate land disputes.

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Peleg Whitman Chandler (1816 - 1889) was born and educated in Maine. He received his early education at Bangor Theological College, and he graduated from Bowdoin College in 1834. He studied at the Dane Law School at Harvard and read with Prof. Theophilus Parsons; he was admitted to the Massachusetts Bar in 1837. That same year he married Martha Anne Bush of Brunswick, Maine. He was a member of the Massachusetts House of Representatives for two terms, in 1844 and 1862. His practice handled civil cases primarily. He was known as an excellent litigator whose career in the courtroom was shortened due to increasing deafness.

COLLECTION DESCRIPTION

The legal papers of Peleg Whitman Chandler consist of 5 document boxes, 1 narrow box, and 1 oversize box.

The bulk of the collection is legal papers, 1840-1861, including his work on road widening, development of wharves, and torts against the city due to destruction of private property caused by municipal work. Chandler also did work for the First Church of Boston, and the Church of the Holy Cross on Devonshire Street, railroad nuisance cases, family wills, land transfers, and deeds. The collection includes some published decisions from the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, and one from the Supreme Court. Chandler did most of his work on land cases and the collection contains many maps, including street layouts, wharf proposals and property lines. The collection also includes legal correspondence and addresses.

Although Chandler was a representative to the Massachusetts House and a Boston city solicitor, there are no papers pertaining to those positions in the collection.

ACQUISITION INFORMATION

The Massachusetts Historical Society acquired the Peleg W. Chandler legal papers from the Peabody Museum in 1943."

It then goes into detail on the many important cases he was involved in. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:23, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And I am not sure that this is enough to establish notability (especially as it fails to mention the one thing that should, have made him highly notable).Slatersteven (talk) 17:27, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is the one thing that should have made him highly notable? FloridaArmy (talk) 17:29, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well for a start more then one thing, and it has to be being noted, not just having someone hold a collection of your papers wp:n.Slatersteven (talk) 17:31, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh misread, the Roberts Vs Boston case. Yet it is not mentioned in your source. So it is either a different Peleg Chandler, or it was not a notable case, or this source is not a biographical essay.Slatersteven (talk) 17:35, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could be an aspect of his legal career that some people might want to gloss over? Do you think it was a minor case? Why do we have an article on it? FloridaArmy (talk) 18:05, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea, this is why we need verifiable sourcing.Slatersteven (talk) 18:15, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per WP:POLITICIAN, as a member of the state legislature. Ravenswing 18:35, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep served in the Massachusetts House of Representatives in 1845, 1846, and 1847='Useful and Upright. The Long Life of Hon. Peleg W. Chandler Which Ended Quietly This Morning at His Residence,' The Boston Daily Globe, May 28, 1889, pg. 5; I found the article about his death in the Boston Daily Globe-thank you-RFD (talk) 21:41, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination, as it seems this is the right one.Slatersteven (talk) 13:07, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, although nominator has withdrawn i would like to add my keep as "batter up, this afd is knocked out of the park":), Peleg Chandler is eminently notable, not only does he meet WP:POLITICIAN, but also WP:ANYBIO no. 2 in the area of US law, and WP:AUTHOR - his book American Criminal Trials is one of those texts with numerous reviews (see external links section of the article that i have added). Coolabahapple (talk) 15:08, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Korea International Trade Association. Will leave the history in place in case anyone wants to merge any of it J04n(talk page) 11:38, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tradekorea[edit]

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

Looking at the article's sources, claiming to be the largest business organization by one's own website (kita.org) does not make its notability verifiable. The volume of trade mentioned in the second reference (joins.com) seems to suggest the potential for notability. Here's another source that references the organization. The third reference (globaltrade.net) does not verify the subject's notability. Also, the fourth reference seemed to be simply promoting or advertising the organization (tradeford.com). Regardless, there doesn't appear to be claim of notability by multiple independent, reliable sources. Perhaps this article should be merged with the article of the website's parent organization KITA. JustBerry (talk) 16:37, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 17:03, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 17:03, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect to Korea International Trade Association, the parent company per WP:ATD. Cannot find much coverage but mentioned there and likely search term. Regards So Why 17:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge - unless people feel this is a term likely to be searched for? HighKing⁺⁺ 19:37, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:36, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anshul Garg[edit]

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

A music producer is not something that would be expected to have an article on English Wikipedia unless meet MUSICBIO.. Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Saqib (talk) 16:07, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 17:05, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 17:05, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable media businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:58, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Enigma^msg 03:04, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Luccia Reyes[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No legitimate claim of notability. No reliably sourced content. All references are completely unusable in BLPs (and pretty much for any purpose here). Borders on eligibility for speedy deletion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:45, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 16:03, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability asserted only by the barest of margins. No real claim of passing WP:PORNBIO. No reliable sources offered and none found in search. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Strong Fail in WP:GNG.Guilherme Burn (talk) 17:05, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Comes nowhere close to passing PORNBIO and GNG. Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 17:14, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the reasons stated above. As should be obvious, "Boobpedia.com is not a reliable source. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I wanted to make a sarcastic keep based on "Boobpedia" but it ended up turning into a rant on why it's everything wrong with the world!, Anyway back on topic fails every policy on this project namely PORNBIO and GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 23:51, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Enigma^msg 03:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abilene Warriors[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG with only WP:ROUTINE local sources abut tryouts and the repeatedly canceled games for yet another fail-to-launch low-level indoor American football team. All sources are from the local papers and new stations, essentially as WP:PROMO for the events, and then following up that said events were then canceled. As this team never played a game, hard to presume any notability for WP:NORG. Yosemiter (talk) 15:23, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 17:06, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 17:06, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lots of lower-level professional sports teams say they are going to play but never do, and we usually do not include exclusive articles on them. I see no reason to make an exception here as the subject seems to fail WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:50, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Low-level sports clubs that never actually engage in competition are not inherently notable, and local semi-promotional coverage is not sufficient. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:51, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lower level sports team that never existed. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 22:59, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to X&Y. Sandstein 18:36, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

White Shadows[edit]

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

Promotional release for a 2007 tour. Only charted (marginally) on one chart, apparently; this isn't even sourced. Any information regarding this topic would be difficult to find and add, and that's if it's even encyclopedic information. This has been deleted/redirected before; it's been recreated. dannymusiceditor ^oops 15:12, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to X&Y. Fails WP:NSONG as an individual article - the three critical reviews are merely passing mentions as part of a review of the entire album, and the first review doesn't even mention the song by name. The Mexican chart placing is highly dubious, as I am not aware of any chart in 2007 that would have included a number 87 placing: the article links to the AMPROFON page, but AMPROFON never produced a singles chart until they started a streaming chart last year; Billboard's Mexican Airplay chart began in 2011; and the Monitor Latino charts have always been a Top 20. With no individual reviews and no obvious chart success, a redirect to the parent album is best. Richard3120 (talk) 14:42, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of Canadian-tax preparation software for personal use[edit]

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

Yet another indiscriminate collection of external links with no apparently notable programs and even if so, this should link to their articles and not to their website. WP:NOTDIRECTORY and borderline G11. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:05, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:25, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:25, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:25, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:25, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. WP:NOT on so many levels (linkfarm, directory, guide) Ajf773 (talk) 18:36, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteAll but 3 would be redlinks, and it is a sort of essay, not an article, and not proven to noteworthy.^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 03:06, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of archive repair programs[edit]

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

Another list of apparently non-notable programs aside from one that are unlikely to be notable on their own. If any warrant a mention it should probably be in the main article. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 15:17, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 15:17, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIR . Ajf773 (talk) 18:41, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable per nom and Ajf773. To salvage some of the material, gymnastics and clever sourcing might make it suitable as prose for file archiver or a new archive repair program page. I haven't checked to see if the latter would be a feasible new topic. 68.173.149.120 (talk) 18:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of ASN.1 tools[edit]

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

On the grounds of WP:LINKFARM and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. I won't pretend like I understand ASN but this seems like just an indiscriminate list of tools that are not likely to be notable on their own, however not a single one appears to have an article. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:53, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 15:18, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 15:20, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:24, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. WP:NOT on so many levels (linkfarm, directory, guide). Ajf773 (talk) 18:40, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This list was split out from the main article less than a year ago. If there isn't the sourcing for it to stand alone, an alternative to deletion would be to merge it, or a subset, back into the parent article. --Mark viking (talk) 19:14, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mark viking If all that can be written about it in an article or list is what we have here then it shouldn't be on Wikipedia at all. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:20, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At AfD, it is not the current state of the article, but its WP:POTENTIAL. A one-minute WP:BEFORE style search finds an ITU page on ASN.1 tools and a book chapter on ASN.1 compiler tools. These secondary sources could help with inclusion criteria and verification of some subset of the list. Both sources have been added to the article. --Mark viking (talk) 21:43, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Feces wine[edit]

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

The article has been recently modified, after first being nominated for deletion in 2014. Meanwhile, no verifiable sources have been added, and new text is coming into the article. There is nothing that should prevent another review for deletion of a poor-quality, poorly sourced article on a topic with dubious distasteful value. Zefr (talk) 14:47, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 15:21, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. I'm dubious. But I'll admit that language barrier and source access limitations are obstacles here, so I'm not quite willing to commit to retention or deletion (but I'll admit that I lean delete here). That said, the sourcing is... not very good. First, I'll note that there are only six sources to evaluation. References 7-14 (the entire origin section) provides vaguely related topics, which you may view as either appropriate background or a WP:COATRACK depending on your opinion for such things. References 2 and 3 are broken for me, including the Internet Archive link for ref 3. Reference 4 is a Korean book I'm only able to access in snippet view, but from what I can see, the content is a trivial mention at best. Reference 6 is a passing mention only. That means, largely, the notability of this topic comes down to two popular media sources: VICE Japan (Ref 1) and Sora News 24 (Ref 5, formerly Rocket News 24). Most other online sources that address this topic refer back to one of those sources. The two articles have a lot of similarities. Both consist of a Japanese popular media outlet trying to prove the existence of Korean "feces wine", admitting they were rebuffed for some period of time, then finally locating a single person with uncertain credentials who is able to supply them with the sought-after substance; neither is written in a tone suggestive of serious journalism. In the case of the VICE article, that contact is a Chinese man who, based on my reading, is an instructor of traditional Chinese medicine, with no further credentials given. The Sora News story has even less of the semblance of reliable reporting; the news crew is able to find an anonymous supplier (at least he's Korean...) who sells them, in a back-alley cash transaction, what he purports to be ttongsul, bottled in re-used commercial soju bottles! Furthermore, whatever the two news crews received clearly wasn't at all the same thing. In any case, I have a difficult time not viewing the two articles as something of an ethnic joke given the cover of reportage. Fundamentally, I think the outcome of this AFD comes down to whether the project is willing to accept those terrible sources as "reliable" enough for our purposes, absent some better coverage in the links I couldn't access or sources not currently provided. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:27, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. The sources seem to primarily be attempts to disparage Koreans, and none of them arte particularly credible. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:55, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The introduction is of the article is just about a Vice report. The remaining sources do not clearly show that the topic is notable. The Origin information is quite general and not really on topic. It also should be noted that Ttongsul in Korean is at least today, a slang term for a type of meth. --Christian140 (talk) 15:12, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aproplan[edit]

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

Largely cited to Aproplan sources; what other sources exist seem to be of the press release variety. Does not appear to meet WP:NCORP or the WP:GNG. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:34, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 15:12, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 19:27, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The TechCrunch article looks like the best source currently used in the article, but it's not very in-depth. There might be better sources in Dutch or French, since this is a Belgian company. clpo13_(talk) 23:29, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:59, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found the corresponding French article fr:Aproplan and made an Interwiki link. There is no article in Dutch Wikipedia. The French article includes three sources, all of which are already in the English article. (The French article is tagged with the Interwiki-linked equivalents of {{Primary sources}}, {{Advert}}, {{Notability}} and {{Orphan}}. The Produit (=Products) section is tagged as a sales catalogue (no exact English equivalent). The article is also semi-protected (3 months on Wiki and 500 edits, I'm 480 short of that; no exact English equivalent), but I had no intention of editing it anyway.)

I searched, but couldn't find anything beyond self-publications and what look like press releases. I am unimpressed by the techcrunch citation, which looks like a "would you like to interview us?" article. I am comfortable with both Dutch and French, but found nothing better in either language. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Narky Blert (talk) 18:07, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indications of notability, references fail the criteria for establishing notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP HighKing⁺⁺ 16:14, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Desportivo Chungussura[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article about a football club that according to www.RSSSF.org appears to have participated in the Sofala, Mozambique Provincial League (although I cannot even confirm that a place named Chungussura exists within Sofala - not even as a bairro within an actual city like Beira), but has never participated in the national league or reached the interprovincial stage of the national cup. I cannot find otherwise significant coverage in reliable sources (just some incomplete notes on its provincial league participations on RSSSF's website). If the highest level of Mozambican football the club has played at is the Provincial League, the club is not notable even if sufficient sources existed to verify the information in this article. Note that article was previously nominated for deletion as a hoax, which is incorrect, but no decision was reached on its notability 10 years ago - and the article is substantially the same today.Jogurney (talk) 14:30, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 15:30, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 15:31, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 16:04, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I hate removing African football club articles, but this one doesn't satisfy WP:V. It probably exists since it's on rsssf.com, but tracking down any sources (apart from one unplayed fixture in 2004? on the RSSSF website) is impossible. Also the link on the page goes to the wrong AfD. SportingFlyer talk 19:07, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the note - the link is fixed now. Jogurney (talk) 19:41, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 15:16, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Definitely not a hoax as per this .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:24, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:09, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clube Marracuene[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article about a football club that according to www.RSSSF.org appears to have participated in the Maputo, Mozambique Provincial League, but has never participated in the national league or reached the interprovincial stage of the national cup. I cannot find otherwise significant coverage in reliable sources (just some incomplete notes on its provincial league participations on RSSSF's website). If the highest level of Mozambican football the club has played at is the Provincial League, the club is not notable even if sufficient sources existed to verify the information in this article. Note that article was previously nominated for deletion as a hoax, which is incorrect, but no decision was reached on its notability 10 years ago - and the article is substantially the same today.Jogurney (talk) 14:23, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 15:32, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 15:32, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unsourced article and I am unable to find any sourcing to pass WP:GNG as a team/orgnaizaiton. WikiVirusC^(talk) 15:40, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 16:04, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 15:15, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:08, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is clearly to keep here, regardless of whether appearance on the main page should play a factor. (non-admin closure) Smartyllama (talk) 16:24, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Silence Day[edit]

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

I fail to see an iota of notability of the subject and non-trivial significant coverage about it, except in the biographical hagiography of Meher Baba and self-sources.Notability isn't inherited.

Part of a walled garden around Meher Baba.Nukable mess.

This t/p thread may provide some backgound aspects on the issue. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 05:26, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 05:33, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, sourced and an important religious holiday for those involved, and part of a good Baba collection on Wikipedia. This is one of many pages on Baba that are under a blitz-type deletion nomination process which, happily, isn't hidden but openly communicated about in the noms and comments. As on the other pages I've found, and I don't have time to find them all so ask that all of these nominations be removed per their obvious bias and not an attempt to build an encyclopedia, I am sad to have to even say that I am not in a Baba cult or a member of any related organization, just an editor who has found an attempt to remove much of the subject matter of a notable individual. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:13, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your insightful commentary.Now, please provide sources about the topic other than his hagiographic biographies, which ought to cover even the trivialest of Meher-Baba stuff in a grand manner.~ Winged Blades^Godric 16:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "...about the topic other than his hagiographic biographies, which ought to cover even the trivialest of Meher-Baba stuff in a grand manner"... is the nominator sure about what they are saying here, or is it all part of a subjective and highly biased image they have about certain topics. Evidently, "hagiographic" is just net sarcasm, as there are no saints involved, neither are these biographies written in any non factual manner. Hoverfish Talk 19:01, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty good old common sense.Any biography of any subject will cover a lot of events in his/her life in quite details.Do you think all such events deserve an encyclopedic article? Coverage in biographies can be only used to bolster up the verifiability of an article, only after it has been proved that the event is notable enough, courtesy it's coverage in independent sources.~ Winged Blades^Godric 04:08, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this event is not notable, how come and it is mentioned in dailyasianage.com or historykey.com are they Baba affiliated? Hoverfish Talk 20:01, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You need to evaluate reliability better.HistoryKey is not reliable stuff and covers the event in all but a small paragraph.And, the piece in DailyAsianAge is an user-generated blog.Sigh......~ Winged Blades^Godric 04:08, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer, as user:Dazedbythebell notes, this page has appeared featured on Wikipedia's Main Page ten times, on July 10, 2007, July 10, 2008, July 10, 2009, July 10, 2010, July 10, 2011, July 10, 2012, July 10, 2013, July 10, 2014, July 10, 2015, and July 10, 2016. This in-Wikipedia recognition shows that it is real, and apparently, given this and Hoverfish's cites above, very notable. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of what Randy Kryn observed, which I ignored previously, I agree that the in-Wikipedia recognition and mention signifies notability and acceptance by the community as such. Hoverfish Talk 15:34, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This and Amartithi are the only two seriously observed religious holidays among followers of Meher Baba the world over. Dazedbythebell (talk) 15:41, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment--Seriously, WP's mainpage has been witness to a lot of crap.Recognition by WPs editorial community as a mainpage mention is immaterial.~ Winged Blades^Godric 15:56, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"a lot of crap"? Sewer talk serves nothing but the sewer. Anyway, so maybe Wikipedia made a huge mistake by putting this article on its main page in 2008. And phew, someone should have caught it and done-their-worse to it back then, because somehow it got back there in 2009. Then, Lo and behold, it slipped through again in 2010, and by that time surely some eagle-eyed Wikipedian would have seen "the crap" floating by. But no! They did it again in 2011, and, goddess forbid, it arrived back (on schedule) in 2012. The barricades were manned and womened, the Wikipedia tanks rolled down the street, but somehow it snuck back (through a side entrance?) in 2013. That was the last straw. Jimbo Wales laid the prone body of Larry Sanger in the path of the page, but Sanger, he got up to make a phone call, and wham, out of nowhere, it again made an appearance on the main page in 2014. Restraining orders flew, ducks and geese and all kinds of wildfowl were thrown at it, and a call to the authorities gave all a sense of safety...but this time, from the sky!, it parachuted in and again appeared on the main page in 2015. Much wailing and tearing of clothes. 300 trained Wikipedians were recruited, gangs of wikitoughs stood guard with clubs and keyboards, but alas, somehow, and nobody knows exactly how, this article again appeared on the main page in 2016. Blasphemy again reigned, and pigs flew. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:13, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Appearance on the Main Page itself is not a reason to keep or delete a page (e.g. Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/The Lying Student which appeared as DYK). Please focus arguments not on what previously happened but on whether the subject is notable enough for inclusion. Also consider whether merging/redirecting to Meher Baba per WP:ATD is a possible solution.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 13:32, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A relisting didn't seem warranted, a clear Keep or No consensus seems to have been achieved. Maybe one appearance on the main page isn't a determinative reason to Keep, but nine in a row? That's quite the run. Your note above seems to be joining in the discussion, not just relisting. This is a major holiday for the adherents of this fellow, as described in the thorough analysis and comments above. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:40, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm....Randy, I guess that everybody is damn hell-bent on deleting these Meher-Baba stuff:) Alas, what can you do all-alone rather than phrase some exotic rhetorics, as just above?!But, trying to bring some reliable sources covering the topic non-trivially might provide you with some impetus, in the aspect.Oh, and these days people are getting Tbanned from XfDs for a lot many reasons.Best, ~ Winged Blades^Godric 13:57, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - He is not alone, but there does seem to be a consensus above. Hoverfish Talk 16:25, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sources added from The Telegraph of 10 July 2011 and the University of Chicago Journal Signs and Society. I added The Telegraph reference to the articles lead. This is a good and reputable source. Also added a reference to the page from the University of Chicago Journal Signs and Society. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:27, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Opinion-columns from guest-writers do not lend to notability.~ Winged Blades^Godric 05:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the latter of those sources doesn't specifically aid the article's independent notability, but the original, as well as the other sources available do. I feel there is sufficient coverage (and probably much more in other languages) for this to be an independent article. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:45, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Bilton[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Sources are either not independent or don't mention the subject. Only one source (The Independent) is more than an in-passing mention, but that is not enough for WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 12:36, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:08, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:08, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable businessman. Fails WP:ANYBIO due to a lack of significant coverage that actually mentions him (most sources cited only do so in passing, or not at all), and frequent-but-unremarkable success in business does not in itself guarantee inclusion in an encyclopedia. If we divest Bilton's business success from any claims to notability, that leaves his charitable contributions. The article subject is currently on the nominations board of Raven Russia Ltd (a company he co-founded) and started his own charity (The Bilton Charitable Foundation). I doubt either of these lend him any claim to significance.--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:49, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I found the subject to be marginally notability based on coverage in The Independent plus frequent mentions in the tabloids as sombody or other's love interest, [14]. I don't yet have a strong opinion about whether we keep or delete this but I deprodded because there was not an obvious case for deletion here. ~Kvng (talk) 15:39, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:58, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to 1985–86 Liga Leumit. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hapoel Tel Aviv F.C. 1–0 Maccabi Haifa F.C. (1986)[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet either the general notability guideline or the sports-specific guideline for individual games. It may have decided the championship, but it was not a grand final like the Super Bowl, or an independently notable game. [Note: this is my first AFD nomination] Tera TIX 12:33, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Tera TIX 12:39, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:30, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:30, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:30, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Unless I am misunderstanding some this is the championship match of the 1985–86 Liga Leumit season. Therefore, since the season article is so small this should be merged into there. The current article name is not something someone would search for and should be deleted. - Galatz ^Talk 13:37, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the article about the season is substantially shorter than the article about the match, that's a definite red flag for a merge.Tera TIX 23:38, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - sourced prose can be used to build out 1985–86 Liga Leumit but no indication that this match has received sufficient sustained coverage to be notable on its own. Fenix down (talk) 14:09, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. This was a title deciding game which happened to be played in the final fixture of the season. It's likely notable if you can track down 1980's Israeli football sources, and there are ones in the article which may be a little past WP:ROUTINE. WP:SPORTSEVENT says The final series (or single game when there is not a series) determining the champion of a top league which this game happened to be albeit due to a fluke of the fixtures. I don't care if it's merged, but we should keep this information somewhere. SportingFlyer talk 19:11, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 15:15, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
merge per suggestion above, clearly you don't need to merge it all, but a brief about the match wouldn't hurt that season article. Govvy (talk) 17:58, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:09, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kasem Bundit University Stadium[edit]

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

Fail WP:GNG Hhkohh (talk) 12:08, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 12:10, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 12:10, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:10, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge plenty of room in the University article for a merge and the 2,000 seat stadium is the home stadium for two teams with their own articles. It is already covered with a section in the Uni's football team article as well. FloridaArmy (talk) 12:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Bangkok Post seems to have copied our entry (created in 2008) word for word here. FloridaArmy (talk) 12:34, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GEOFEAT. No indication the stadium has received significant third-party coverage. Fenix down (talk) 14:07, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What about WP:PRESERVE? Why wouldn't we merge or at least redirect to the football team article where it's covered or the University? FloridaArmy (talk) 14:11, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect/merge, whatever. It's a two-line stub; it's not like deleting this will cause us to lose any significant information that couldn't be re-written into the university article. --Paul_012 (talk) 21:59, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:47, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:47, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 15:15, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 18:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tiberium[edit]

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

Purely fancruft content - is already on the Command and Conquer Wikia which is where it is better suited to be. At most it merits a small mention in Command & Conquer, but does not demonstrate any notability on its own. A search in the WP:VG search engine mainly comes up with mentions of the cancelled game of the same name. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep central element of a hugely popular game series that's been covered substantially in reliable independemt sources such as here. FloridaArmy (talk) 12:49, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- That is an article by the game's executive producer Mike Verdu, therefore it's a WP:PRIMARY source, there needs to be a number of secondary sources for it to actually be notable._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:52, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSPOPULAR is not an argument. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:19, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 16:07, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Long description of an in-universe element, no additional or actual coverage. The "concept" section has a huge chunk on how the element functions in-game. Trivial, and the sources provided do not discuss Tiberium itself, but how it functions in-game. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:19, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of significant independent commentary on the subject. There is a lot of good content in the article, but not of the sort appropriate to Wikipedia, and since it's already on the C&C wikia we have no need to worry on that front.--Martin IIIa (talk) 16:11, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 18:27, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adama Nombre[edit]

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

I did quite a bit of checking for sources in the interest of expanding this article, but ultimately I didn't find enough coverage of Nombre to justify keeping this article on any criteria.

Although he has published some papers, I'm pretty sure he doesn't pass WP:NPROF. I don't think being president of ICOLD is enough to guarantee an WP:NPOL pass. And finally, lack of coverage tells me he doesn't pass WP:GNG. For reference, I checked Google, GBooks, GNews, GScholar, JSTOR, Highbeam and Newspapers.com (although both HB and Newspapers are American-focused and weren't likely to have coverage anyway). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:54, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:41, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:41, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Amakuru (talk) 11:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing am assertion of notability or sources with coverage to support one. FloridaArmy (talk) 12:50, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He is in Google News ([15]) and name in several GBooks including the UN ([16]). Just because they are in snippets and you don't have access to them does not warrant deletion. The subject is notable. The sources are reliable and verifiable. Just because you can't gain full access to the sources does not mean they are not verifiable. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 02:36, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of those eight Google News hits are from specialty publications in his field, some of which are opinion pieces from him, not about him. And if you'd actually looked at those books, you'd have realized that every single appearance of his name, in every single one, is in a list of acknowledgements among dozens of others. None of those books contain any substantive discussion of subject, or even give the appearance that they do. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:00, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Being in Google News alone does not mean there is notability. What if he was in Google News due to a press release? That doesn't establish notability. Looking at the actual results, I don't see this passing WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 02:55, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 18:26, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kitty Davy[edit]

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

I fail to see an iota of notability of the subject and non-trivial significant coverage about it, except in the biographical hagiography of Meher Baba, trivial mentions in some writings/books about the broader cult and self-sources.She existed and might have been too proximate to have breath roughly the same composition of air......But, notability isn't inherited and he fails our notability criterion by a mile.

Part of a walled garden around Meher Baba.Nukable mess.

This t/p thread may provide some nackgound aspects on the issue.~ Winged Blades^Godric 06:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 06:25, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:57, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a prominent author on the topic. The nomination language is a copy/paste of language used by the editor to nominate well over a dozen or two dozen Baba pages for deletion at one time, making it a time-consuming task to keep up with this attempt to gut the Wikipedia collection on the topic. I am not a Baba adherent, a member of any organization, not know anyone who is, a statement I feel I must make in my objection to this wholesale topic-cull. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:35, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge with Meher Baba Davy was unquestionably important in this religious movement. I found a couple more sources: one is very substantial, and I added them. However, I don't know much about this movement. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:00, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Megalibrarygirl:--So, it takes a single newspaper article in a fringe local publication to thrust someone to encyclopedic notability?!~ Winged Blades^Godric 02:16, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, but as an important member of a religious movement, she would be notable, Winged Blades of Godric. She obviously figured into the movement pretty heavily and that's what informs my choice. However, a merge or perhaps an article on all of the people who were involved could be a good way to handle the situation. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:22, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Megalibrarygirl:--I'm afraid that's not a valid line of argument.As an important member of a religious movement, she ~~would~~ ought be notable would have been a better phrasing but at any case, we're bound by the constrain of significant non-trivial coverage in reliable sources, which ought to be of quality miles higher than the one provided above.~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:11, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Megalibrarygirl:, If it is possibile to shift a bit beyond the scarce reliable sources (serious) issue, into the how best we could still have this infomation availble as part of Wikipedia, a collective article would be a solution, though it would also have to be a topic limited to these figures only and not open to more. An indefinitely growing "list of followers" has already been deleted, BTW. Hoverfish Talk 01:40, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoverfish: that sounds good. I have no idea how many followers this guy had/has, but it does sound like a lot! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 02:02, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The followers are definitely no topic. In these AfDs we have some of the most relevant of Baba's original close cicle to the Meher-Baba-saga (as WBoG put it). But there is one more issue a collective article would solve. The dynamic of these AfD's (starting with the easier ones and presumably moving on to the "harder ones") also leaves open the possibility that we end up deleting the most relevant figures to the saga (mostly Indian figures who didn't get much attention from the West back then because of racial bias) and keeping only some Westerners due to their fame for some other reason (actress, dancer, film director, etc), which would be a cultural bias issue. Also I see a gender bias issue if the AfD'd mother article goes and the father ends up staying). So if there is an acceptable way for this collective article, the independently notable ones would have an article anyway and the historically close associates could be described in a structured manner. Again, I am not arguing abour RS here. Just a possible way to proceed. Hoverfish Talk 03:18, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoverfish:--I agree with more or less of what has been said by you but I'm quite skeptical about the prospects of a collective article, for all these concurrent AfDs don't cover a very common locus of topics.I meen to state that how Meher Baba's mother could be merged with his last book and also feature Kitty in the same article.~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:11, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying that all of the AfDs should be merged to it, it doesn't make sense. I mean just the figures (the biography articles of his family and close circle) could, not the articles about the book or the terms. Hoverfish Talk 10:03, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Well, AFAIS, there's nothing but a prospective of redirect, with (at best) an addition of a single line.Despite disagreeing with Hoverfish, over this entire Meher-Baba-saga, I definitely agree with him, when he says that if we start merging all these information to Meher Baba, the target will be nothing but a heavily-degraded-bloat and will lose it's GA......~ Winged Blades^Godric 02:20, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge to Mandali, per above discussion. Hoverfish Talk 14:09, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is not inherited. Edward321 (talk) 14:42, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Kitty David is not notable enough to warrant her own article. And there is no sense in merging it or redirecting it (as no other article talks about her or should). I agree fully with the AfD on the basis of notability. There are dozens of followers with more notability within the Baba follower community that have no article. So I am for Delete, pure and simple. Dazedbythebell (talk) 15:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. Not seeing any in-depth third-party sourcing sufficient to establish independent notability. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:07, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Amakuru (talk) 11:23, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. And no redirect page, please. Hoverfish Talk 20:14, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. AfD is not for deleting articles in need of improvement. Mjroots (talk) 21:06, 17 May 2018 (UTC) )[reply]

HMS Forth (1813)[edit]

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

Stub that doesn't seem having the notability. – 333 -blue at 09:54, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:34, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:34, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable warship per WP:MILUNIT, has enough coverage for a sail warship with a short career. Forth was a 'fir' frigate during the War of 1812 and captured six prizes per this source, technical data can be found here. In short, this is as notable as any of the contemporary Royal Navy fifth rate frigates. Kges1901 (talk) 10:49, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know enough about notability of warships or military units to comment, and don't have time to read up now, but just wanted to add a quick explanation of why I created it. I am in the process of creating my first full Wikipedia article, on Captain Sir William Bolton, who commanded the ship for a couple of years (and had a family and personal relationship to Nelson), and came across the note about it on the HMS Forth disambiguation page. I thought that it was worth creating and was intending to come back to it to perhaps add a bit of detail later. But obviously happy to abide by whatever the consensus decision is. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 11:03, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is standard practice to keep all articles on warships of all sizes per WP:MILUNIT. Being a stub is not a criterion for deletion. Stubs get expanded. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:10, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. I've just had a quick read of Kges1901's links and I note Necrothesp's comments - thanks. I can use these to improve the article at a later date, if it stays. Can I leave it up to one of you to delete the note at the top about the deletion discussion, at some point? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 11:18, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That will happen when someone (not us, but an uninvolved party) closes this discussion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:20, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MILUNIT#4 as mentioned above. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:24, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Necrothesp; meets notability. A warship commissioned in recognised naval forces. Kierzek (talk) 12:34, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets notability criteria per WP:SHIPS commissioned warship and over 100 tons Lyndaship (talk) 12:59, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not a valid deletion rationale - being a stub doesn't mean a subject is non-notable. Mostly warships of this size (who served during wartime one would note) - have ample sources - and a cursory BEFORE shows carious sources on this fir-frigate built for the 1812 war.[17][18][19].Icewhiz (talk) 17:10, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep No valid deletion rationale given. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:29, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Should not be deleted per WP:MILUNIT. - zfJames Please add {{ping|ZfJames}} to your reply on this page (chat page, contribs, chat) 19:27, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:SNOW --Quek157 (talk) 20:05, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. A7 by Anachronist. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:57, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Youth Institute of Technology[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful.

I believe this is blatant advertisement . A similar AfDs Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Youth Group of Schools and Colleges and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Youth Academy Saqib (talk) 09:08, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:51, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:51, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It's, again, heavily a duplicate argument from Youth academy, but putting aside merely insane advertising - I'm unsure whether this institute actually exists. In any case, while I heavily lean towards accredited senior academic facilities being near-automatically notable there doesn't seem any significant NON-OR source covering this at all. I can't determine any state of accreditation. Even a proper business magazine etc bit might have been good enough, but there's nothing here that could do it. Whatever graduation of WP:GNG, WP:NSCHOOL or even WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES there doesn't seem to be anyway this article (and its compatriots) can remain.

If anyone has better luck in their WP:BEFORE check then of course post - the naming makes it tricky to find anything, though no non-OR source comes up with all of it. There are lots of sources that bring up the organisation or its founder, but they are all either OR, social media, or anything anyone can post about themselves. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:51, 17 May 2018 (UTC) Nosebagbear (talk) 10:56, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is this a school or a tutoring organization? It says it is affiliated with certain secondary schools. It sounds more like a vocational school and not a traditional academic school so it would have to meet WP:ORGCRIT instead of WP:NSCHOOL. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:16, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the associated secondary schools verbiage. It is not mentioned at all on the websites provided. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:32, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:19, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:19, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That section was a copy-paste of their statement on the main website. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:39, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete CSD A7 unremarkable company / organization. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:41, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Creator UA85 has gotten in trouble before for creating articles and removing CSD posts [20] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:49, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. A7 (and A11) by Anachronist. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:58, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Youth Group of Schools and Colleges[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful.

I believe this is blatant advertisement . A similar AfD : Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Youth Academy and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Youth Institute of Technology. Saqib (talk) 09:06, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:50, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:50, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It's heavily a duplicate argument from Youth academy, but putting aside merely insane advertising - I'm unsure whether this group of schools actually exists. In any case, while I even more heavily lean towards groups of secondary schools being automatically notable there doesn't seem any significant NON-OR source covering this at all. I can't determine any state of accreditation. Even a proper business magazine etc bit might have been good enough, but there's nothing here that could do it. Whatever graduation of WP:GNG, WP:NSCHOOL or even WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES there doesn't seem to be anyway this article (and its compatriots) can remain.

If anyone has better luck in their WP:BEFORE check then of course post - the naming makes it tricky to find anything, though no non-OR source comes up with all of it. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:51, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as hoax. Made up organization. None of the secondary sources presented even mention Youth Group School, Youth Academy. The ones pointing to government websites are just of the generic government website or google location. Previous attempts to CSD have been undone by creator but without any improvement on the article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:52, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:37, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:37, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. G3 by RHaworth (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:58, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Youth Academy[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful.

I believe this is blatant advertisement . A similar AfD : Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Youth Group of Schools and Colleges and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Youth Institute of Technology. Saqib (talk) 09:06, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:50, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:50, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: putting aside merely insane advertising - I'm unsure whether this school actually exists. In any case, while I heavily lean towards secondary schools being automatically notable (per the messy discussion currently going on) there doesn't seem any significant source covering this at all. I can't determine any state of accreditation. Even a proper business magazine etc bit might have been good enough, but there's nothing here that could do it. Whatever graduation of WP:GNG, WP:NSCHOOL or even WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES there doesn't seem to be anyway this article (and its compatriots) can remain.

If anyone has better luck in their WP:BEFORE check then of course post - the naming makes it tricky to find anything (n.b. if article does survive, it might need a name clarification). Nosebagbear (talk) 10:49, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as hoax and unremarkable local organization. Look at the later references pointing to American organizations named "Youth Academy" and the List of books published. They have absolutely nothing to do with Pakistan. The local organization appears to be some kind of tutoring or supplementary class organization so it is not an academic school. It is also full of advertising and copy/paste verbiage from said sites. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Following deletion, create redirect to Youth academy AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:59, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Driver[edit]

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

I just wrote an article on another Tom Driver (the theologian) and came to this article to put a hatnote on it... Then decided to have as second look. This entire article seems to be based on a single source which I suspect is an obituary. It doesn't seem that he won any notable awards in his lifetime, and I am not sure that being General Secretary of the ATTI qualifies him as notable. There appears to be a dearth of actual discussion about him (my admittedly cursory search turned up next to nothing other than— ta da!— this Wikipedia article and the article it is based on). If he were actually notable, or if his union work were enough to qualify him as such, it seems that sources would be easier to spot (amidst tha hordes of "Tom Drivers" out there, of which there are many).

It would be great if those voting "keep" could provide some links to some specific reliable published independent sources to go with their votes. Thanks! A loose noose (talk) 08:34, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - had an obituary in The Guardian and a profile in the UK Who's Who, proving strong evidence of notability. I'll add information from these sources to the article over the next few days. Warofdreams talk 10:04, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Extra info now added and additional sources incorporated. Warofdreams talk 16:58, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 19:33, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 19:33, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Leader of a major trade union and had an obit in a major national newspaper and a Who's Who entry. Clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:58, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Flux (Galactik Football)[edit]

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

Seems to be entirely fancruft. Hopelessly crufty and unencyclopedic. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:27, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 19:35, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 19:35, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is literally nothing but unsourced OR and fancruft. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 22:55, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- poorly sourced fancruft, full of OR, and no credible possibility of ever being improved to meet our inclusion criteria. Reyk _YO! 10:41, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Magic of Dungeons & Dragons[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Spells of Dungeons & Dragons

Articles for deletion/Magic of Dungeons & Dragons

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

WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE. This article consists entirely of gameguide content and is dubiously notable. There is nothing that indicates D&D magic, in general, it something that merits a separate encyclopedia entry. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:16, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if more sources can be found, otherwise merge to Dungeons & Dragons gameplay. BOZ (talk) 11:29, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dungeons & Dragons. It's possible the subject will be covered more in the future or sources will emerge so the history is worth preserving, but for now it's one interesting part of a very popular gaming franchise. FloridaArmy (talk) 13:10, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:37, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article already has one strong secondary source (the "for dummies" book) with many other reliable independent sources available (e.g. Livingstone's book, cited in the WP article on D&D gameplay). I would like to see the article cleaned up, but there are no grounds for deletion. AFDISNOTCLEANUP applies here. Newimpartial (talk) 14:34, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- You do realize that you are citing a game guide, therefore the article still runs in the face of WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE. I think a gameplay article's perfectly fine, but there is nothing about D&D magic that couldn't be mentioned there that requires its own page._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:01, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"D&D for Dummies" is not at all a "game guide" in the sense of that policy, and neither is the Livingstone book. Have you actually read NOTGAMEGUIDE, Zxcvbnm? It applies to imperative mood instruction manuals, and therefore neither to this article nor its sources.Newimpartial (talk) 02:30, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep pending evidence of a dearth of sources. I've seen lots of stuff by critics and fans, some PRIMARY and published by TSR/Wizards and others SELPUBLISHED but still usable for opinions, regarding reception of various spells, spellcasting classes, etc. so I find it hard to believe that an article could not be written and GMPAMEGUIDE-ish stuff rewritten to be more descriptive and encyclopedic if necessary. If this was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magic in Pathfinder I would !vote the opposite way based on an assumption that nothing could be made of such an article, but D&D has been pored over by critics and even a few legit scholars for decades. That said, for the love of god change the page's current title to Magic in Dungeons & Dragons: the current title reads like something completely different. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:06, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I'm going to go ahead and close this early per WP:SNOW. Many editors cited the fact that this subject has been covered in numerous reliable sources as a reason for keeping the article, and others encouraged editors to wait until more information becomes available before considering deletion on other grounds. Mz7 (talk) 06:21, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yanny or Laurel[edit]

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

WP:ROUTINE WP:109PAPERS WP:FART Lojbanist ^{remove cattle from stage} 03:35, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon test: "yanny or laurel" 480,000 GHits; "bulbasaur" 7,130,000 GHits Lojbanist ^{remove cattle from stage} 03:39, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Transformers test: "yanny or laurel" 480,000 GHits; "galvatron" 1,200,000 GHits Lojbanist ^{remove cattle from stage} 03:43, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:45, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:45, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination (and watch your step). -The Gnome (talk) 10:13, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I wouldn't say that WP:ROUTINE was a fair argument. WP:LASTING is much more significant here as an argument. Now the dress saga carried on for some time. I'm tempted to review this again towards the end of the week which might give at least an initial indication of it has any staying power. It's had plenty of high level news coverage so it's already resolved that particular aspect. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wait — It will take at least a week to see if this receives coverage for a long period of time and is thus notable. There's no point in deleting now if it continues to be in the news for the next month, warranting recreation. — pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 11:36, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. The timeline in your argument is a little confusing: "one week"; "long period"; "next month". Can you make your point more clear, please? -The Gnome (talk) 12:15, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A month seems too long, so how about a week. Regardless, notability is not temporary. — pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 01:34, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wait: This feels like The dress all over again to me, an auditory alternative to the visual one a few years ago. I'd say wait for a few weeks and let the news brew, then come back and revisit this AfD. I also have this feeling that some scientific papers would be published and public interest in science would be sparked by this. xcvista _{- t} 12:05, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete though for some reason this is international news for the day... I don't think it's encyclopedic at all therefore I vote to DELETE.Trillfendi (talk) 12:55, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now per the "Wait" reasonings above. It's a highly-covered auditory illusion similar to The dress. We should keep it until we can form a consensus on whether it's relevant enough. Paintspot Infez (talk) 12:57, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, hey look - it received over 80,000 PAGEVIEWS in ONE DAY. Data viewable here. This isn't just a minor Internet fad. This is a notable auditory illusion and viral phenomenon with extremely sufficient coverage. Paintspot Infez (talk) 15:29, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:LASTING is (deliberately, I'd imagine) not specifically clear on how long something should be active. Personally I don't think it should be that restrictive, I'd argue between 1-2 weeks. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:18, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wait: I agree with the arguments for waiting above, as this might receive notability over the next few weeks. Also, the Pokémon test might not work too well, as the sound has only been known for a few days. SemiHypercube (talk) 13:31, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Definitely a case of WP:NOTNEWS as we're not here to report internet fads. I really can't believe somebody went to the trouble of creating an article about this topic. On the other hand this article explains why different people hear different words – evidently it's due to the size, shape and auditory range of the ears – so it may be worth a paragraph or two in an appropriate article relating to hearing. Not a standalone one though. This is Paul (talk) 13:37, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a pure "internet fad" when it is duplicated by major news networks globally. Whether it is something that satisfies point 2 "enduring notability of persons and events." is something that we argue is better to wait and see rather than delete and recreate. I suppose you could argue out !votes are for Keep with no prejudice against immediate resubmission. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:58, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ok it's an internet fad that got picked up by the media, but it's still an internet fad...and as yet it doesn't have enduring notability. For now let's try redirecting it to List of Internet phenomena. This is Paul (talk) 15:01, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For arguments sake you can say the exact same thing about the dress.--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 20:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds a bit like we're straying into WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS territory, but in the case of "The dress" it did at least lead to increased sales of that particular item. I first became aware of this "phenomenon" yesterday, and hey presto, within twenty four hours there's an article on here, and it's up for deletion. I guess that's what you call enduring notability, eh? Would this pass the ten year test? Somehow I doubt it. I'm willing to bet we'll have forgotten the whole thing in a month's time. This is Paul (talk) 20:51, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wait: I think we should wait at least a week before deleting the article. Despite it being a fad, there are arguments to keep the article; other short-lived, popular crazes such as Dancing mania are allowed their own articles. If millions of people are affected by a passing fad, does that not give it relevance? Or is it just long-lasting historical significance that determines relevance? jamgoodman (talk) 15:39, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, topic is analyzed in numerous reputable secondary sources. Pathetic nomination based on backwards notion of what is a "proper" subject for an encyclopedia is doomed to fail. Abductive (reasoning) 15:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is one of the best internet sensations or memes that I have come across with in ages. I would keep it since a few prominent TV talk shows talked about it (reminded me of how Gangnam Style went viral in 2012). It's a fad that will be remembered, like the dress. Not to mention, it has a very interesting scientific and neurological perspective as well. Meganesia (talk) 01:04, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: You must look past the superficial silliness. This 1-second recording is serious, significant, and notable. It has much to exhibit and teach about acoustics, physiology of hearing, and psychological perception. Wikipedia would be the first place to learn of these underlying factors. If it wasn't a meme, it would still be worth studying. If "knowledge belongs to all of us" like Wikipedia promotes, then this is the kind of information that belongs. Richard J Kinch (talk) 15:30, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wait While internet phenomena is rarely notable, the "Yanny or Laurel" has gotten some incredibly strong coverage over the last few days (including from the New York Times and a few professors). I think it would be worthwhile to relist this article so we can observe whether this coverage continues (like the dress) or if it stops. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 17:04, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sufficient coverage. --GRuban (talk) 17:49, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As the references show, this topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources, which is all we require for inclusion in Wikipedia. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:05, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For some important nuance, what the rule says, in verbatim and with emphasis in the original, is that a topic is presumed to merit an article if...it meets either [WP:GNG], or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline. ... This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. ... These guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article. -The Gnome (talk) 08:04, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Though it made the evening broadcast news in the U.S., it's not merely news in the first place (note the supporting science receiving wide mainstream coverage), so WP:NOTNEWS doesn't apply. Also, notability, once established, is WP:NOTTEMPORARY. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:41, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into an article that covers the scientific sound phenomenon of ambiguous sounds. Normanland (talk) 18:45, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wait: As the others have said above, this is similar to the dress incident, so definitely wait a week or so and re-evaluate it then.--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 20:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is significant indepth coverage in multiple reputable sources. This is not an "event", so does not need lasting significance or coverage. The coverage is not routine or cursory, but includes scholarly analysis of why this sound is ambiguous. A merge discussion can occur later, if a suitable target is found, on the talk page - but I don't think it needs merging. Fences&Windows 20:29, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wait: There's no need to make a hasty decision, especially if the main criticism of the article itself is that it was created hastily! JezGrove (talk) 20:37, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient coverage in mainstream media. —Lowellian (reply) 21:01, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:1CD1:2CC0:F451:659A:5152:BF61 (talk) 21:13, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The illusion is trivia. The explanation is encyclopedic. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:24, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Coverage has been nuanced and in depth, not the type of newswire bare bones coverage that WP:ROUTINE or WP:109PAPERS was designed to describe. The fact that the recording originated on the internet doesn't make it less notable than similarly sourced phenomenon - and there doesn't seem to be much dispute that there's been significant coverage my multiple reliable secondary sources. MarginalCost (talk) 21:44, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 23:46, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant coverage, and the subject goes far beyond a simple one-second soundbyte. Davey2116 (talk) 23:56, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Widespread coverage and not an just an obscure Internet sensation. People of all ages and backgrounds are aware of and discussing this topic. Steevven1 ^{(Talk) (Contribs) (Gallery)} 01:58, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia is not paper. There is no advantage to deleting this article. People come to Wikipedia for information, and there isn't harm in providing well-sourced, well-written articles like this one. Moncrief (talk) 04:41, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that "people come to Wikipedia for information" does not mean that Wikipedia should have all information available. Articles make it in Wikipedia because their subjects are notable and worthy of inclusion, on the basis of Wikipedia's principles, policies, and guidelines. Quoting essays is fine but we need to assess the merits of an article under AfD on the basis of Wikipedia's specific instructions about creating articles. -The Gnome (talk) 08:04, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the article creator, I created this article as the Yanny or Laurel case was similar to the dress illusion, in both concept and notabliliy. The article had developed much further after the announcement of the deletion discussion, especially when the U.S. President responded to this meme and when more scientists and professors attempt to explain the phenomenon. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 04:43, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just a small pointer: The merits of the article will be judged on its own merits and pitfalls. The fact that, for better or worse, "other stuff exists" in Wikipedia is not a valid argument at all. The dress had its own journey; now it's this subject's turn. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 08:04, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep, sanctions such as possible site ban for proposer proposing this article for deltion evidences the cultural irrelevance and shocking ignorance of popular culture by the nerds who run wikipedia. 50 years from now,people will remeber 2028 as “the year of yanny vs laurel” may also be indicative of rapid decline of civilization and human intelligence during the Trump Era and will be useful as an srtifact for future historians interested i. Documenting the sudden collapse. Of humanity during these years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B422:3C9F:E522:4327:D341:A54D (talk) 04:55, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be a safe bet that your unacceptable personal attack won't go unnoticed and that, on the basis of it, your opinion will. -The Gnome (talk) 08:04, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - Clearly, it's a viral meme, being replied by a various social media, especially Facebook, and various TV shows. And it even gives enough critical thought for even scientists to analyze on the viral meme. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 05:13, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook, being a source of self-created information, is generally not acceptable as a reliable source by Wikipedia. On the other hand, when we have third-party, reliable sources reporting about Facebook notoriety then this might render the subject notable. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 08:04, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It seems the original reasonings for deletions seems slack. It could be a case that the user-of-wanting-deletes is violating WP:WHACKAMOLE, which strongly discourages simply deleting things on the go just because of what appears to be attempting to "win" the deletion race. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 05:17, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you get the evidence that Wikipedia contributors, such as for example myself, are here because they want to win some "deletion race"? Why would you think there exists such a "race"? A lot of contributors dedicate a significant part of their time doing work on the AfD process, and this helps rid Wikipedia of unworthy articles. This is not a paper encyclopaedia but this doesn't mean we should have everything in it!

Plus, every English-speaking person can participate, so this means that the quality of AfD work can never be uniform, but comments such as yours are driven more by emotion than by facts on the ground. Keep calm, Laurel will come. :-) The Gnome (talk) 08:04, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Joy - we have a meme troller coming in, and a lovely degrading quality of discussion. I'd love to hear more about this race - am I just doing terribly at it with all my keeps or am I on the other side?

And Laurel is, of course, the correct answer Nosebagbear (talk) 08:10, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Agree with pythoncoder. There's no point in having a deletion discussion if we don't know the long term notability. —cnzx (talk • contribs) 12:06, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, at least for now -- Wikipedia includes zillions of articles about popular culture that are arguably "not encyclopedic" -- and yet are tremendously popular. I'm thinking episode summaries for TV shows. When I first heard of this yanny/laurel controversy, I Googled to find information on what it was all about, but the results were not satisfying. So I went to Wikipedia and the mystery was solved. If some time passes and nobody can remember what the big deal is, it can be deleted then. Kirkpete (talk) 13:18, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and give it a mention in List of Internet phenomena. Things "go viral" every day (often with commercial motivation); we don't need to give so much space to every single one. ... discospinster _talk 13:38, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Eh - Having briefly been swept up in this, and seeing it pop up constantly over the past few days, I considered starting an article on it, if nobody else had, as soon as there was more scientific coverage of the phenomenon, or at least something resembling sustained coverage (i.e. WP:N and/or WP:DELAY, the sad cousin everyone ignores while hanging out with its more fun sibling, WP:RAPID). I'm not surprised someone else already did, basically just after it started to spread, because that's how Wikipedia rolls these days (or maybe not just "these days"?), though I do wish people would wait to cover encyclopedic subjects rather than mirabilia and speculation about three-day-old memes. Regardless, it does also seem like there will be a case for something like sustained coverage/notability, so I can't justify !voting delete either. Covering it as part of auditory illusion for the time being seems sensible, but that article is really more like a list so it would be kind of awkward. So no strong opinion. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:16, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Like The dress this meme has been very widespread, and it's good to have an encyclopedic entry for it here on WP so ppl can understand its origins and influence. Girona7 (talk) 14:26, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Laurel ... oh, actually (and more seriously) Wait. We don't know how this will pan out. My guess is that it will end up merged into a larger article about this phenomenon, with it as a highly prominent and notable example. But in the meantime, the dust hasn't settled yet. Orderinchaos 14:37, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is documentation of both a widely reported Internet phenomenon and an illustration of differing perceptions and how the human mind works. Raider Duck (talk) 18:18, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Currently, the auditory illusion article is just a list of illusions, each with its own article. Yanny or Laurel certainly belongs there. If at some point the auditory illusion article becomes more synthetic and systematic, perhaps the content will be merged in there, or perhaps a short version will be found there, and {{main}} article will stay here. Either way, this content belongs on this page for now. --Macrakis (talk) 19:21, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Just because something is a fad doesn't mean it is supposed to get deleted. Fads are still events that happen and gets covered by media/literature in the future. Also, the number of GHits rose to 1.88 million at the time of this message. Juxlos (talk) 20:55, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Same as the dress; picked up by literally all media outlets, and even the US president. ^{also it's yanny} Nixinova T C 21:02, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:14, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Too prevalent to delete, and the article is well-cited. HarryKernow (talk to me) 21:21, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The shooting in Dallas, the plane crash in Havana, and the Royal Wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle all appear to have purged this out of the headlines. Lojbanist ^{remove cattle from stage} 22:27, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nominator should read WP:DELAY. wumbolo ^^^ 22:44, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -I think that this is an important page for Wikipedia because this has been a significant meme in 2018 and there have been many scientific papers on it, many haven't been cited on this article. [21] — Preceding unsigned comment added by MattArianator (talk • contribs) 22:46, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Worthy of inclusion based on extensive reporting in excellent sources.104.163.137.171 (talk) 23:53, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 00:08, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just as notable as The dress — Supuhstar * — 01:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, most likely Keep: There's a wealth of information out there about how it was recorded, the auditory science that explains it, and the brain interpretation of sound waves. Also, after I heard only Yanny, then only Laurel, then both (yes both), I came to Wiki to find out more. Explorium (talk) 03:12, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:ROUTINE WP:109PAPERS--Srleffler (talk) 03:45, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I came here to vote delete, but the immense traffic on that page changed my mind. 130,000 in just one day. Reh man 06:13, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:47, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Branch (murderer)[edit]

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

I've gone over this article several times and it I do not belive it passes WP:GNG. Looking online and at the citations of the article most of it seems to be rountine coverage, yes he yell and struggle during his execution, but many people who are executed behave this way. Fails WP:BIO1E and WP:CRIME Inter&anthro (talk) 01:06, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Inter&anthro (talk) 01:08, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Inter&anthro (talk) 01:08, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:59, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:59, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Only third-party coverage comes from his having a hissy fit prior to his execution, which is hardly a novel concept. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 22:52, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Enigma^msg 03:06, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lofree[edit]

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

Non-notable run of the mill consumer electronics company that fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Article fails the newly-strengthened NCORP guideline, as it lacks in-depth coverage that asserts a claim to significance. The 'best' reference the article employs is an article [22] by a forbes contributor (with the usual disclaimer "contributors opinions are their own") that heavily features quotes from the founders of Lofree. The majority of the other sources cited are product reviews that do not go into depth about the inner workings of the subject company, an thus are not in-depth coverage as mandated by NCORP. In short, neither the article nor its sources assert a claim to encyclopedic significance, and the company fails Wikipedia's guidelines for notability. SamHolt6 (talk) 00:59, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per SamHolt6. Death pool (talk) 03:50, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 04:44, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 04:44, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 04:44, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom, good detailed nomination, fails GNG and WP:NCORP and WP:SPIP either. Wikipedia is not a substitute for a company sales catalogue. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:06, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Enigma^msg 03:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Asit Chakrabarti[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet notability guidelines for academics. Moreover, the article is written too much like a résumé, relies too heavily on primary sources, and needs more citations to be verifiable. JustBerry (talk) 00:06, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 04:42, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 04:42, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 04:42, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. I want to be in Wikipedia. -The Gnome (talk) 10:16, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Marans, Daniel. "This Trump Country House District Just Became A Key Progressive Battleground: Liz Watson's victory in southern Indiana will test the appeal of liberal populism in November".

[1]