Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 March 12

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 11 March	13 March >

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:03, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vinayak Nath

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

This isn't LinkedIn. There are other outlets for posting resumes. See WP:OUT Mduvekot (talk) 23:11, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:44, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:44, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete mere mentions L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:44, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject has not received SIGCOV in RS. Per nom, Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:38, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete did my checks and I just saw some mere mentions like other user pointed out this is not LinkedIn cause that is where most information is coming from. Chabota Kanguya (talk) 05:38, 15 March 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PeaceTones

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

Possible advertising, no apparent significance. Should have been nominated for CSD, but using AFD to be safe. —- Randomness74 (talk) 22:52, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:45, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:45, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:45, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:45, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough coverage. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:46, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough RS here to substantiate WP:NOT. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:22, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't find any reliable sources. Chabota Kanguya (talk) 05:42, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the author is just spamming for his business here, on the article about the business Virtual intellectual property organization, and at Richard Minsky. Cabayi (talk) 12:49, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pure un-encyclopedic advertising. They should also adopt terms better than the wishy-washy "empower" and "social change" but I digress... ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:48, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pretty obvious. It should have been deleted as G11 promotional. Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:19, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV, apparent PROMO although it may merely be WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:15, 19 March 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:03, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moto Mart

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

Non-notable store chain. To be honest it probably qualifies for A7 but I figured AFD just to be safe. The only coverage I can find is passing mentions (usually of something related to x was robbed at Moto Mart) etc... CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:50, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:53, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:53, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:53, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:53, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:53, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete this page! I spent an hour creating it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petro59XtcŪ (talk • contribs) 01:23, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No RS, or anything really. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:23, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep On page two of search results I found a source from the FDA telling one chain they were in violation of selling tobacco products to a minor. Page three: a source detailing a robbery, another source detailing a separate robbery, and two local business articles saying they were taking over two QuikTrip locations. Page four detailed a theft. There was no page five. Another search on a different engine brought up a lot more: gas station industry news articles, saying they were a top 101 convenience store, a Bloomberg article, and a ton of routine local coverage. [1] was the best source. Probably passes WP:CORPDEPTH. The article needs some reliable sources, but they can probably be found somewhere. SportingFlyer talk 06:43, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lacks notability. "Probably" is not actually good enough as far as passing WP:CORPDEPTH that states "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability.". The primary criteria is "A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization.", and that is pretty clear-cut. The parent company is Moto, Inc. and FKG Oil Inc. is the subsidiary. Refbombing any sources concerning selling tobacco to minors, a robbery or theft at a business location just supports existence. There are "thousands" of smaller businesses that could be listed but Wikipedia is NOT a business directory. Unlike CST Brands, with 1900 stores bought by Alimentation Couche-Tard (Circle K) with 15,000 stores, FKG Oil Inc. is tied with Spinx at #97 on the ["The Convenience Top 101"]. The bottom line, other than the actual wrong title, is that there is nothing that stands out. Sheetz, Inc. has 463 stores so short of actually becoming a yellow page or business directory there needs to be a threshold and being 97 out of 101 should not be it. Because there is a source has not been giving automatic inclusion status and that is a slippery slope we need to stir clear of. Otr500 (talk) 22:35, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - plenty of routine coverage, but lacks significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 21:58, 19 March 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 duplicate nomination. (non-admin closure) LaundryPizza03 (talk) 23:08, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Queens of Hearts Couture Cakes

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

Complete advert. A variant Draft:Queens of Hearts Colture Cakes currently sits in draft space, where it is being discussed. This was created by User:Ivarhcp4ever to bypass that discussion. I would also suggest the accounts of User:Katm23 and User:AlexisClarke33 be examined as I suspect they are connected to User:Ivarhcp4ever . KJP1 (talk) 22:06, 12 March 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. Clear consensus to delete as spam. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:57, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Queens of Hearts Couture Cakes

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

Complete advert. A variant Draft:Queens of Hearts Colture Cakes currently sits in draft space, where it is being discussed. This was created by User:Ivarhcp4ever to bypass that discussion. I would also suggest the accounts of User:Katm23 and User:AlexisClarke33 be examined as I suspect they are connected to User:Ivarhcp4ever . KJP1 (talk) 22:01, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you are saying in the nomination, but the proper place to accuse editors of sockpuppetry is at sockpuppetry investigations, not above in the nom or below in the discussion.104.163.147.121 (talk) 09:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They were reported in the correct manner and all the users have been blocked for sockpuppetry. Theroadislong (talk) 10:27, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they were reported elsewhere in the correct manner, but not above. My point is that SP claims do not belong in an AfD nomination.104.163.147.121 (talk) 17:41, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Noted and thanks. - My error, reporting for sock puppetry is not something I've done before. KJP1 (talk) 18:26, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:43, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:43, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Complete company brochure. scope_creep (talk) 08:00, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As nominator, I would point out that the editor who authored this article has now been banned for operating no fewer than three socks in support of retaining the article. Such serial abuse surely removes the general requirement to Assume good faith? KJP1 (talk) 08:25, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It was overly promotional, but it was easy enough to tone back. It seems to have sufficient non-trivial coverage in multiple venues to get past the notability requirements. - Bilby (talk) 08:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I’d disagree. Toning back overly promotional wording doesn’t make an article any less of an advert. What the authors want is presence. And in this instance, they were prepared to sock puppet to get it. KJP1 (talk) 09:11, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Strictly speaking, removing promotional material does make it less of an advert. While I agree that they want a presence, the issue for us is whether or not the topic meets the notability requirements. - Bilby (talk) 09:32, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't think it makes it remotely less of a product-placing advert. I also note you don't comment on the author's sockpupperty, which makes their motivation very clear. But let's see what others think. KJP1 (talk) 10:04, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just on the sockpuppetry issue - yes, it is frustrating. But AfD isn't punishment for bad behaviour, however frustrating that behaviour may have been. - Bilby (talk) 10:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article violate WP:NOTADVOCATE The consistent view on Wikipedia is always to delete in these instances, as the tone of the article is so extensively promotional that the promotionalism cannot be removed without extensive rewriting, when the work needing to be rewritten goes beyond the normal editing, compared with the usual practice of removing a sentence here or there. The tone of the article is clearly promotional, and a complete rewrite would be needed. scope_creep (talk) 19:58, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The original article at the time of being nominated for AfD was 275 words, which seemed within the realm of a viable extensive rewrite. I've since rewritten the article to remove any promotional text, and reduced it by about a third. If you feel that anything overtly promotional remains, I'll be very happy to look at addressing any concerns that you may have. - Bilby (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am genuinely puzzled. You are working hard to save a wholly-promotional draft, created by an editor who came here with the sole intention of placing an advert, who openly lied when challenged about their connection to the subject, who sought to circumvent Afc, and who then manufactured no less than three socks to support retention. Your efforts would see their behaviour rewarded by giving them the very thing that they behaved so poorly to achieve, namely presence on this site. Can I ask, why? KJP1 (talk) 23:12, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because my primary concern is improving Wikipedia. The article had sufficient coverage to meet the notability requirements, and fixing it was relatively easy due to the short length, so it seems to make sense to see if there is something worth saving rather than deleting it. - Bilby (talk) 23:44, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And you think you're improving Wikipedia by overlooking blatant advertising, lying, process evasion and sock-puppetry to have a promotional article about a non-notable cake-decorating business. Ok, we aren't going to agree. KJP1 (talk) 00:39, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When I delete copyright violations from articles, people accuse me of removing content rather than fixing Wikipedia. When I nominate articles I can't fix to AfD, I'm accusing of deleting articles rather than improving Wikipedia. It seems now if I fix articles, I can be accused of supporting bad editors rather than improving Wikipedia. I'm not sure that there is a win state in this. However, to address your concern, I'm not overlooking blatant advertising, lying, process evasion or sock-puppetry. The socks and master have been blocked, the advertising removed, and the lying called out. But in regard to AfD, the community has always said that we should evaluate content, not contributors, so that's the path I have to take. - Bilby (talk) 02:15, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course who the creator is matters. We ignore that part of the essay too many times a day for me to count. If someone is a notorious copyright violator, policy allows for us to delete their content without checking if it is too hard. If someone is a vandal who has created vandal pages, we can use Special:Nuke, if someone is a mass link spammer, we use the mass rollback script. If someone has published an article in violation of our terms of use, we don't care what it is, we delete it, as it has no right to be here. Full stop. Not doing so is the most harmful thing we can do to the encyclopedia, as it lowers the credibility that we have worked years to finally establish, and in turn lowers the value of ever single article here. That's not fair to the featured articles out there, and it's even less fair to the good articles on corporations out there. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:48, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that there are exceptions, but this isn't a notorious copyright violator, vandal or spammer, nor was it created against the Terms of Use. Those exceptions don't apply to this article. - Bilby (talk) 00:30, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete why are these so many sources in the Phillipine press for a UK bakery? I am very dubious of the inquirer.net sources. The notability here is not established by quality sources with significant coverage. The bakery itself is a bakery, whoop-de-doo. 104.163.147.121 (talk) 09:25, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a run-of-the-mill business establishment. Does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:14, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't want to badger opposes, so I won't push this, but I'm curious. I thought it met CORPDEPTH because we have eight sources which go into detail about the company's history and impact, including an eight minute video. So I'm not sure what I'm missing - what sort of depth are we looking for? - Bilby (talk) 00:30, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per bilby. Mahveotm (talk) 15:18, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as native advertising excluded by WP:NOTSPAM. Nothing else matters. The G11 should have gone through, and as this was created by a paid sock farm in violation of the terms of use, it does not even have the right to an assessment for inclusion under local policies. This has no more business being on Wikipedia than a copyright violation or other TOU violation. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:35, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tony. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:06, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete business with only local press coverage. Would clearly fail the new NCORP guideline if we can ever get that done. yes, obvious PROMO that is being pushed for hard. We are not a vehicle for promotion, although far too many view WP that way. Even the supporters of this article have left blatant garbage in the article even now, like "Valeri and Christina have published four books.". No we are not here to be a refrigerator for Valeri and Christina to post their gold stars, nor are we a chatty homepage for this company. Jytdog (talk) 20:16, 18 March 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:06, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

T2 infosec conference

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

I'm not seeing why we need this article. It's largely directory-like. Most of the sourcing is primary. It seems like a run-of-the-mill annual conference that doesn't particularly need an encyclopedia article. Marquardtika (talk) 21:49, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:38, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:38, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as not notable and organizational advertisement. It is a two day conference of which there are approximately "1.8M conventions, conferences, congresses, trade shows and exhibitions, incentive events and corporate/business meetings" each year so how many should we include on Wikipedia? To refbomb an article with a lot of primary sources to present notability is actually counter to several policies and guidelines. Otr500 (talk) 00:21, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN, plenty of refs which are in finnish or primary, i had to watch some of the presentations on youtube to get an idea of the reach, there are probably 100 people in the room watching presentations on information security. Szzuk (talk) 17:57, 19 March 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:07, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mellow Down Easy

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

Part of a group of 3 linked COI pages to promote a non notable band. Fails WP:Music and WP:GNG. The entire article is just supported by 3 low level sources that back up small snippets of info. No significant coverage. Consider in unison with the two bandmates - nominations are [2]here and [3]here. Rayman60 (talk) 19:26, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:08, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:08, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:44, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, fails BAND and GNG. Search for "Mellow Down Easy" returns results for a song of the same name, unrelated to the band. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:51, 13 March 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:43, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Super Mother 2

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

Non-notable movie; no reviews to be found, sources provided are promotional interviews, launch blurbs, and YouTube links to trailers. (PROD removed by author). Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:39, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:06, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:06, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the most famous Armenian comedy movie. There is a significant coverage about the film and the producer is the most well known in Armenia also. Harut111 (talk) 14:18, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see the refs then. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:07, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These 2-3 people are nothing more than lungers in their lives, and the joy of their lives lies in the shamelessness of the ruling system. Let me tell you, they are always high above their own people. Naturally, these hate every successful person's successful work. And only the idea that most of our people liked our film is already killing them. Only the idea that more than 300,000 spectators came to the cinemas and rejoiced to kill them, the idea that people in dozens of towns and villages have come to watch and enjoy themselves in the temporary cinemas we have created. The fact that at the end of all the screenings there were always applause in the halls, that idea was killing them. The fact that people in the border villages remembered (honest, not just before the elections) The film was shown for free and people enjoyed a little bit of life, that idea kills them. And in general, when the Armenian people are just happy, that idea kills them.^[4]

- An Armenian news report on the film. Prince of Thieves (talk) 16:00, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has been the subject of national news coverage as shown above Atlantic306 (talk) 18:35, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:43, 12 March 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. E.M.Gregory pretty much called it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:47, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Renato Mariotti

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

WP:BLP of a person notable primarily as an as yet non-winning candidate in a future election. As always, this is not grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of itself -- he needs to win the election, not just run for it, to clear WP:NPOL, and otherwise he needs to demonstrate and properly source that he would already have been notable enough for an article for some other reason independent of the candidacy itself. But that's not what this article shows: his prior work as a laywer is referenced to two primary sources that cannot support notability at all, and one source that tangentially verifies the existence of a court case while completely failing to even mention the subject's name in conjunction with it (thus failing to be coverage about him.) And other than that, all we've got otherwise is campaign-related coverage, not even slightly out of scope with the volume or breadth or depth of campaign-related coverage that any candidate in any election could simply and routinely expect to receive. This is not enough to make a candidate notable just for being a candidate. Bearcat (talk) 00:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that under WP:NPOL, coverage during campaign itself can suffice to pass WP:GNG if a candidate attracts an unusual amount of INDEPTH coverage beyond his local area.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 00:15, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 00:15, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice; completely agree with nom. SportingFlyer (talk) 02:03, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Mariotti was notable before he declared his candidacy. He was the lead prosecutor in the first-ever anti-spoofing case, and he's a well known legal commentator. You seem to think that running for public office automatically makes a person NON-notable, regardless of his or her other accomplishments. Or maybe you're just nominating it because I created it, and you have a problem with me. --MopTop (talk) 03:52, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MopTop personalizing a discussion is generally a bad way to go. You say he was notable before his candidacy but based in which sources? The legal case entry cited doesn't even mention his name. FloridaArmy (talk) 13:45, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The question of whether he was notable before he declared his candidacy or not is a matter of whether the article shows sources which were covering him before he declared his candidacy or not. No article about any person can ever claim anything that hands them an automatic inclusion freebie just for existing even if the sourcing isn't there to carry it — but there are no sources here which support your claim that he already had preexisting notability for other reasons before becoming a candidate. Bearcat (talk) 03:26, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kagundu Talk To Me 12:48, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Mariotti was a famous prosecutor long before he declared his candidacy for Attorney General. See updated 'Career' section with several news references from before his candidacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wonderlisa (talk • contribs) 02:18, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The new sources that have been added are not about Mariotti for the purposes of demonstrating preexisting notability — with one exception which isn't enough all by itself, all of the others just namecheck Mariotti's existence within coverage about other things or people. That's not what we're looking for. Bearcat (talk) 20:48, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mariotti was an assistant US attorney, not the district attorney. If he had been the later he probably would be notable, but he wasnt, so he isnt at this time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:31, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:43, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A non-notable person. There are 170 assistant US attorneys in the Northern District of Illinois alone with many infamous convictions. Because Wikipedia supposedly has unlimited storage does not mean we should have a article on everything known to man or we end up with articles like List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States or Virginia A. Seitz (two years and resigned).
Keep - he's clearly notable as a lawyer and legal commentator. FWIW, I follow him on Twitter. Bearian (talk) 01:20, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is established by reliable source coverage in media, not by who you follow on social networking platforms. But the sources here aren't demonstrating notability at all — in every single footnote here that predates the campaign coverage itself, he's merely namechecked as a giver of soundbite, not covered as the subject. Bearcat (talk) 14:53, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a man already well known as a successful public prosecutor and well-known pundit on air, in print and on twitter BEFORE he launched his candidacy. And, of course, it is true that press coverage during a campaign can be sufficient to pass WP:GNG. This discussion reminds me of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Canova, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conor Lamb - we couldn't reach consensus there, either.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:20, 20 March 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:42, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delhi Public School, Riyadh

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

No indication of notability per WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES or WP:GNG; no significant coverage online in WP:Reliable sources in English, Arabic, or Hindi. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:38, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:38, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:38, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 13:40, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Now you guys only find my article in this world to be deleted. The fact is, none of you contribute to improve the article. You just put a label of speedy deletion or proposal deletion.

Now, DPS is a worldwide franchise of Indian schools in India as well as abroad and these schools are in the maximum of their cities. Now deleting this article doesn't make sense.

Hamza Ahmad Wiki Scientist (talk) 16:09, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of other articles being considered for deletion at any given time, Hamza Ahmad Wiki Scientist. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Current discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:24, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:42, 12 March 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. Stifle (talk) 09:23, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hachia

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

Promotional page for a non-notable Youtube channel. Absolutely zero secondary source coverage that I could find. Current "references" are all self-published (press releases, etc). Rockypedia (talk) 13:37, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:45, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:45, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:45, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:45, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:45, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. 655,897 views since May 2016. Fails WP:WEB. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:41, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Nomination by blocked sock, needs more input by real users.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:41, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing I can find that is indicative of notability. MT Train^Talk 06:40, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find any WP:RS, and there aren't any in the article. SportingFlyer talk 06:47, 13 March 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 Ankalamma. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:49, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Angalaamman

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

patently WP:NOT / WP:BALL, WP:PLOT in current shape, WP:NOCITE. Devopam (talk) 10:51, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:00, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:01, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect with Ankalamma. Feel like the Temples section at least can be saved and sourced. Honestly do not understand the WP:BALL component of the AfD. SportingFlyer talk 06:54, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect – Agree with SportingFlyer even a quick search of Google Scholar gives numerous references to Angalamman deity as shown here [5]. ShoesssS ^Talk 13:30, 13 March 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 Mercer County Community College#MCTV 26. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:49, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MCTV 26

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

Unsourced article, appears to be full of original research. I'd actually be okay with merging this into Mercer County Community College, but cannot verify the accuracy of any of the information. The station's website no longer exists (leading me to believe the station doesn't either) and a search doesn't bring up anything either. Without any sources to satisfy WP:V, I think deletion is the best option. Rusf10 (talk) 05:01, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:38, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:38, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:38, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Mercer County Community College. It appears that it does exist, at least as of Dec 2017. There's a few snippets of info here and there available. Most of this page can be deleted in the merge; a short mention should be enough. Rockypedia (talk) 16:22, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mercer County Community College#MCTV 26 section I just created. Non-notable college run tv station with limited media coverage. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:53, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:36, 12 March 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:50, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Swing Swindlers

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

Fails to meet WP:NOTABLE, more specifically does not meet any criteria of WP:BAND. Citations given in article are either band's own website, links to commercial sites selling albums, or passing references in news items which do not support the band's notability; many of the 'citations' do not mention 'Swing Swindlers' at all, although some of them do mention Mart Sander who is said in the article to be the group's founder and conductor. This article was flagged by me for speedy deletion, but swiftly reverted with the addition of a number of specious citations of this sort by User:Martsander - who has also previously contributed extensively to the article. As Mart Sander is (apparently) the founder and conductor of the group, if he and the reverter User:Martsander are one and the same, there is also an issue of WP:CONFLICT. User:Martsander's contributions to Wikipedia indeed seem to consist mainly of edits to this article and to the article Mart Sander. Smerus (talk) 09:42, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further 'citations' added by User:Martsander following my AfD referral are equally invalid. They include this link to a music agency representing the band, and this link to a music sales site which gives no support to the very unlikely claim that the record was made Jazz Album of the week by the Evening Standard and "earned positive reviews globally". Another 'citation', which is said to be review of the band's album, is no such thing, but is an article about Robert Farnon on what is apparently a junk website of odds and ends. Basically it appears that User:Martsander is just using WP for WP:PROMO and this is another reason for deletion.--Smerus (talk) 19:54, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:43, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:43, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:32, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 22:12, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Smerus‘s comprehensive analysis. My own searches failed to find significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to meet the general notability guideline. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:24, 20 March 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 Lego Interactive. If somebody wants to mine the history for stuff to merge, go for it. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Create TV and Film

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

Procedural nomination: article was an expired PROD, but had previously had a PROD tag removed. I cannot find any evidence of notability myself. Pinging Lordtobi, who placed the second tag, and Power~enwiki, who placed the first. Vanamonde (talk) 10:50, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:59, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:59, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:59, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'll stay neutral in this discussion, as I only became aware of the article because I followed back the lead of an IP vandal (currently blocked) and reverted their edit. Seeing the poor quality that was still there, I checked the article back to its state when it was PRODed by Power (not re-PRODin per se, because the initial tag was removed by the author without prior discussion). As I mentioned in my edit summary back then, the company seems to fail WP:CORPDEPTH/WP:SIGCOV, but I'd like to see what others think of it. Maybe we do find lots and lots of good sources after all? P.S.: I also believe that, if we kept the article, it should be titled "Create TV & Film" instead. Lordtobi (✉) 13:17, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I feel, the page needs expanded (And while I feel it still needs to exist, it was quite rushed when I wrote it up most of what's there) and yes Lordtobi, I also have to agree that it needs to be changed to Create TV & Film. There's things like Project X and the stuff it did while apart of LEGO Media, that if the page stays I'll work on adding. I personally feel this knowledge needs to stay somehow, as several groups have very little knowledge of Create TV & Film, that when told are very interested.

Legorza (talk) 20:03, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Legorza: If wish to keep the article, you might want point out that you are voting to keep it (by changing the bold "Comment" to "Keep"). Lordtobi (✉) 20:11, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:31, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lego Interactive. I'm not 100% convinced this is appropriate due to the paucity of references; though that's not a reason to keep the article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:55, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Lego Interactive, due to limited sources. One of the company's shows Little Robots was produced before the company spun off from Lego, and the Bionicle shows were not included when the company was sold to a private individual. Very little notability as a standalone entity, which suggests a better home would be Lego Interactive. That article needs to be improved - there's nothing about Lego Interactive except video games. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:05, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd actually debate that LEGO Interactive be renamed to LEGO Media, then add Create TV & Film and a area on LEGO Interactive, as in many ways LEGO Media was basically split up into LEGO Interactive and Create & TV.

Legorza (talk) 00:10, 21 March 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 Yongzheng Emperor#Yinzhen's quote. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yinzhen's Quote

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

User has been warned not to WP:CONTENTFORK when there is no justification to do so; the information already exists at Yongzheng Emperor#Yinzhen's quote. Yinzhen = Yongzheng Emperor in case people don't know. Timmyshin (talk) 10:50, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:59, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I wanted to drop a quick note. It looks like the student in question (李许安) wanted to have the article renamed to "Yongzheng Emperor's Quote" (to retitle it after the main article) and then redirect it to the section in the main article, per this comment. Pinging Shirt58 to see what he thinks. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:19, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:31, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 19:48, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 19:48, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 19:48, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, per above. Coolabahapple (talk) 19:50, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Seems like a mistake. No real indication of why this should be standalone and is duplicated in main article.Icewhiz (talk) 13:06, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect -- The bio-article is not so long as to need splitting. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:26, 18 March 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. Although E.M.Gregory made substantial improvements to the article, there was no general agreement that this proved the topic met the criteria for inclusion, and the conversation started to get heated, which is usually a good time to kick the discussion into the long grass. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2016 shooting of Philadelphia police officer

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Clear example of WP:NOTNEWS. Single news event without lasting coverage or notability. All of the citations are from the couple of months immediately following the event. Searching for lasting coverage, I found news articles from the day the suspect was convicted, and nothing since. CrispyGlover (talk) 01:10, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nom, User:CrispyGlover has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Rockypedia.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:52, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nom's assertion about sources - "nothing since" - is flatly contradicted by the simplest WP:BEFORE search on any reasonable keywords, such as: "Edward Archer" + Philadelphia; "Jesse Hartnett" + Philadelphia; "Edward Archer" + "Islamic State. Here:[6], for example, is a gNews search on "Edward Archer" " convicted.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:03, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:16, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:16, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:16, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:16, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:22, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:22, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Extremely wide international coverage in 2016 around the event. More coverage in 2018 around the trial and conviction, e.g. - Shooter Who Attacked Philadelphia Police Officer Jesse Hartnett in the Name of Islamic State Found Guilty, NBC10, Jury Shake-Up In Trial Of Man Accused Of Shooting Philly Cop As Testimony Continues, CBS, Accused cop-shooter ruled competent, scheduled for trial in January, philly. Coverage in 2017 around various issues Pa. Trooper's Use of Tourniquet Comes as Device's Popularity Is Skyrocketing, NBC10, Officials Honor 5 Local Officers Who Survived Being Shot in the Line of Duty, NBC10. Journal article - Gallagher, Martin J. "The 2016 ‘Lone Wolf’Tsunami-Is Rapoport’s ‘Religious Wave’Ending?." Journal of Strategic Security 10.2 (2017): 5. (there are also some 4 google book hits - however I'm uncertain regarding RSness of some of them). Icewhiz (talk) 14:29, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete I don't see what differentiates this from all the news events that are covered every single day. The link to Wikipedia is not a newspaper is a useful one; it states "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events." I don't see any enduring notability here - there's a burst of coverage after it happens, like with all cop shootings, and a burst of coverage after the conviction - and that's it. Rockypedia (talk) 16:03, 5 March 2018 (UTC)Note that User:Rockypedia has been indefinitely blocked as a puppet master, and that Nom was one of his socks.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:54, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, clear case oj WP:NOTNEWS. As User:Icewhiz says, coverage is from the time of the incident & time of the trial.TheLongTone (talk) 16:11, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Encouraging to see the "I can throw the same news story at you so this is notable" rationale is not cutting it with most of the editors thus far. Clearly another case of why we are not news; it is simply illogical to claim there has been continued coverage when there has only been brief bursts of reports at exactly the time we would expect them.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per GracefulSlick above; WP:ROUTINE and "wire spamming", which just takes the same story and with minor rewrites or re-configuring of content, makes it seem like a clean source. Nate • (chatter) 19:26, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HEY, KEEP - article has been updated and expanded. The WP:SIGCOV meets WP:NCRIME criteria of WP:GEOSCOPE with 2 years of regional, national and some international coverage. There has been WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE that is WP:DIVERSE with multiple, unique, WP:INDEPTH articles not only in Pennsylvania, but in such national publications as the Wall Street Journal. And although 2 years is soon for scholarly coverage, there have been 2 articles in the Journal of the Philadelphia Bar Association. The assertion that coverage is WP:ROUTINE is refuted by the nature of sources already on the page. Reasons for the intense coverage probably include: the unusual nature of the attack on a police officer with no apparent precipitating incident or motivation; , the video showing PERP sticking his gun into the patrol car and shooting the officer at point-blank range; the fact that the seriously wounded officer gave chase; statements by Perp declaring his Islamist motivations, including statements of jihadist motivation made at trial.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:59, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Updated and expanded"; in other words, you hastily threw in unavailing quotes so you could bump up the reference count, some of which are conveniently behind paywalls. If anything, you have proven why the article falls under what we are not.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:14, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please WP:AGF. Searches get over a thousand hits. I expanded the article - which was desperately in need of updating - by adding s INDEPTH coverage from well regarded, large circulation publications, like the Philadelphia Inquirer a paper that, after I had looked at several articles, told me that I had "exceeded my monthly limit" and would have to pay. So I switched to a news archive search. It is perfectly legitimate to cite articles using the URL in a news archive.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:12, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you ran out of free stories for the month on one site solely to source this then moved to an archive site with the same source, you're doing it wrong. Articles require a diversity of sources, not just one publication following the story through a number of months, as the Inquirer has clearly (but yes, rightfully) done. This is no better than the "wire spamming" I described above and only shows local notability rather than anything that has sustained outside the Delaware Valley. Nate • (chatter) 03:42, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Except that article is sourced to a wide range of reported stories in WP:RS publications in many American cities and in other countries, as well as to books and academic articles.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:05, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources 57 and 58 are from the same writer just writing for two publications that share a newsroom. 65 is just another bullet-point made by an NRA spokeswoman in her book to advance a certain agenda. And the vast majority of sources outside Philadelphia are just 'crime beat' stories which are hardly unique and parrot the local media with only appropriate drop-ins to point out things unfamiliar to readers outside of the Delaware Valley. It is pure wire-spamming. Nate • (chatter) 16:32, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, you are asserting, to take just one example, that the articles that ran in the Wall Street Journal, and that did not credit a wire service but that were signed by journalists Scott Calmert (11 January 2016,) Devlin Barrett (13 January 2016) were "wire-spannimg"? That, in other words, the Wall Street Journal pretends to have put their own reporter on the story when they are merely copying a wire service story without copying the wire service? You may want to take a closer look at the sources. If you find actual evidence of wire-spamming, by all means remove it. But the notion that major newspapers behave in the manner you have accused them of behaving is absurd.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:55, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing out the duplicate cites, I have deleted one. On your 2nd point, even if a fact provided by a partisan organization is cited to as part of an argument in a book by Dana Loesch, we nevertheless have a well-known political commentator discussing this case as part of an argument she is making in a book. You are, however, ignoring the fact that the article is sourced to over 60 published books, stories by numerous authors in geographically disparate major media, plus academic articles over the course of more than two years. Just as an example, here [7] for those who can access it, is my search of the shooters name the in the Wall Street Journal, most of the 17 are signed articles reported by journalists working for the Journal. the assertion that coverage is local, is wire spamming, or fits NOTNEWS is simply invalid. E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:32, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to sourcing, I want to note the discussion of this incident in books by well known individuals including Claude Moniquet, a former French intelligence official, and American political commentator Dana Loesch, and also to note an essay in the Wall Street Journal about the politics of talking about this crime by Dorothy Rabinowitz. There is a great deal of published commentary and news coverage of the question of whether or not this should be categorizes as a terrorist attack (pro and con) that could be added to the article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:12, 6 March 2018 (UTC) Not only has INDEPTH reported coverage been ONGOING since 2016, there have been many INDEPTH reported stories about the shooter and about the officer who was badly injured, there have been discussions in books and in long articles in major media discussion whether this is an instance of terrorism or of mental illness (Note that the court judged him competent to stand trial;) in addition to discussions of this issue in two articles in a minor law journal, books, plus many essays and news article in newspapers on the fact that having some sort of mental illness does not preclude participation in an act of terrorism (cf. Philadelphia Inquirer, December 26, 2017, Was Harrisburg shooting spree a terror attack?; The Convergence of Mental Illness and Terrorism, Some of these are op-eds, like this one from The Star-Ledger, March 2016 Mental health issues, not Islam, is why man shot Philly cop, lawyer says, and then there is coverage of this attack as part of the ISIS -inspired wave of attacks like this Peter Bergen CNN story How Big Is the U.S. Terror Threat?. I also have to refute your assertion - or pehaps assumption? - that coverage has been anything like "routine." Routine crimes get maybe a story when the verdict is handed down, this story generated news coverage as the trial date was set, as the trail approached, coverage of what was said and who the witnesses were during the trial, plus, of course, stories when the verdict was handed down. This is not what not routine coverage, it is what coverage of a WP:NOTABLE WP:NCRIME looks like. Oh, and Here this crime is included in an academic article in the journal of the Combating Terrorism Center, January 2017, [Is There a Nexus Between Terrorist Involvement and Mental Health in the Age of the Islamic State?E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:01, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of WP:SIGCOV from scholarly sources example [8]--Shrike (talk) 16:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not news. WP:NOTNEWS Ira Leviton (talk) 04:47, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify that assertion, in light of the fact that this article is sourced to over 60 published books, stories by numerous authors in geographically disparate major media, plus academic articles published over the course of well over two years?E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:34, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The WP:SIGCOV meets WP:NCRIME criteria of WP:GEOSCOPE with 2 years of regional, national and some international coverage indeed. User Shrike and user E.M.Gregory are right in their assertions.BabbaQ (talk) 09:52, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the story received the media coverage it got because the shooting was originally thought to be related to ISIS, yet no evidence of their involvement was ever proven. This is purely a mentally unstable individual who became radicalized in his head, and decided to shoot a cop. The shooting was politicized by others with their own agenda to push. Thankfully the officer didn't die, but that serves to make this even less notable. Today we have the luxury of hindsight to see that the event didn't deserve the broad media coverage it got. Overall, a routine occurrence, and I think that WP:NOTNEWS carries more weight here. TimTempleton ^(talk)

^(cont) 18:55, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:26, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to TimTempleton. In their 2016 Brookings Institution book, Countering Terrorism, political science professor Martha Crenshaw and criminology professor Gary LaFree rather agree with you, arguing that Archer's "motives were obscure" despite his repeated claim "to be acting in the name of Allah and ISIS." By contrast, in his 2017 book Unholy Alliance: The Agenda Iran, Russia, and Jihadists Share for Conquering the World, First Amendment attorney Jay Sekulow places Archer in a group of "Muslims (who) choose to bring Islam to the West through violent acts of jihadist terrorism." The fact is that discussion of Perp's motives for the point-blank attack on a police officer have been canvassed in WP:SIGCOV that includes scholarly articles and INDEPTH journalism. It does not take a CRYSTALBALL to predice that it will be revisited when the ~~trial~~correction:sentencing hearing - begins this summer. Motivation, meanwhile, is only one of several aspects of this shooting that have attracted EXTENSIVE and ONGOING coverage in books, scholarly and news articles. Furthermore our standard is WP:GNG not our personal opinions about what should and should not be written about in books and newspapers.) WP:GNG and WP:NCRIME are met in this case by extensive and ONGOING coverage in WP:RS journals, news media and books.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:18, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note also the runaway bride cause in NCRIME If a matter is deemed notable, and to be a likely crime, the article should remain even if it is subsequently found that no crime occurred (e.g., the Runaway bride case) since that would not make the matter less notable. - it matters not what the final verdict here is (and the jury is still out) - whether an ISIS connection was proved is immaterial, what matters is coverage.Icewhiz (talk) 22:52, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He's been found guilty - we're just waiting for the sentencing. There is a fundamental difference of opinion which basically comes down to the question: is an event notable if it turns out to not have been as much of a big deal as the media once thought it was? I get the runaway bride comparison, but that was a rare event. A crazy man shooting a cop is sadly not rare, especially since he was just wounded. This reminds me of several similar past discussions about terrorism attacks where there were no fatalities, such as the 2017 Yavneh attack. Deletion discussion: [[9]] That one was kept, but I voted delete there also, for the same reason. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:01, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, You call him a "crazy man," but the judge looked at his status and ruled him competent to stand trial. Also, in this case, coverage has been ongoing since January 2016, and includes substantive discussions in 4 books by bluelinked authors.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:12, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He may have been ruled competent to stand trial, but his violent action certainly doesn't suggest he was a normally functioning member of society. But that's irrelevant to this discussion. What's key is that if you take away the ISIS claims, which are generally accepted as being made up, this is a routine police shooting by an angry man. I feel that by voting this article as worthy of inclusion, we are in some way legitimizing the falsehood he tried to spread. Unfortunately, this is likely going to be a no consensus, which is the same as a keep. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 04:40, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you source your assertion that "the ISIS claims, which are generally accepted as being made up,", are "a falsehood". Multiple scholarly sources now on the page make clear that perp claimed to have attacked a police officer on behalf of ISIS, discussing it as an instance of a perp who was inspired by the idea of jihad, without actually being in contact with ISIS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:02, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Keep in mind that I knew nothing about this when I came to the deletion review. Everything I know is from reading legitimate sources. [[10]] "Authorities later said there was no evidence indicating that Archer had coordinated the attack with any terrorist organization, and he was never charged with terrorism-related counts." [[11]] "Comey said authorities had found nothing to suggest that confessed shooter Edward Archer was part of an organized terrorist cell or was planning any follow-up attack." TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:56, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. You are unaware of the definition of [[lone wolf (terrorism}]], carried out by individuals who have had no contact with radical or violent groups, but who pick up ideas from TV or websites. For the short course, you might want to take a look at Age of Lone Wolf Terrorism, a book that explores Archer's trajectory as a type.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:46, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm familiar with the term - seems very subjective to assign his random statements weight, when someone can say whatever they want, to get attention. Some people also act on voices in their heads they claim to hear. There's a lot written about schizophrenia also. I'm focusing more on his violent action being non-notable, not its purported inspiration. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. The coverage in books is shallow and incidental; noting the mention by Dana Loesch as evidence of notability strikes me as odd; ultimately, a routine crime, with no long-term societal impact. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, standard NOTNEWS case. Stifle (talk) 09:23, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HEYMANN expanded 2016 shooting of Philadelphia police officer#Motivation of perpetrator and 2016 shooting of Philadelphia police officer#Context using scholarly books and journal articles that had not previously been cited.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:28, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Really wish you hadn't. Heymann's are supposed to signify improvements to an article, not selective quotes and a POV essay on why mentally ill suspects can/should still be called terrorists--as long as its Islamist terrorism. I would almost be willing to change my !vote to return the article to its prior form; it would still be unnotable, but at least imitate an encyclopedic entry.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:47, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is an inaccurate description of my source/expand.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:22, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the curious, several paragraphs at the end of this January 2018, open source AP story from the Allentown Morning Call provide a quick summary of what is known about Perp's mental status, and "pledge of allegiance" to ISIS, Prosecutors: Man who shot cop for Islam was ‘lying in wait'. Discussions of this question in several academic books and articles, and by some non-academic sources (pundits, Mayor,) can be found in 2016 shooting of Philadelphia police officer#Motivation of perpetrator.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:46, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Meets and exceeds WP:SIGCOV, with 80 citations so far. People's unfounded objections include WP:ROUTINE, but that's a misreading of the policy. See WP:NOTROUTINE, which reads, for example, «Once every four years, the United States holds an election for President. These elections are "routinely" covered by every news outlet and the event is a "pre-planned event" as a part of the United States Constitution. However, that does not mean that this coverage would be excluded from notability discussions because of the WP:ROUTINE guideline.» Besides, WP:ROUTINE is designed to weed out "announcements, sports, or celebrities," not actual lone wolf terrorism. Another unfounded objection is WP:NOTNEWS, but WP:SIGCOV alone trumps that, and anyway the book citations nix the argument, as, by definition, coverage of the subject in books by definition is not news. The final objection raised is "selective quotes and a POV essay." This is egregious, since WP:DINC, deletion is not cleanup: if anyone has any genuine objections to the material as presented, the forum to raise it is on the TP, and not AfD. XavierItzm (talk) 19:19, 17 March 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)} 21:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

J.J. McCullough

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

Doesn't appear to be notable; he has a ~monthly column as a "Global Opinions contributing writer" on washingtonpost.com but there are no independent references about him. I'm uncertain whether this is about the same person as the article deleted in 2008. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:19, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:20, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Too self-promotional in tone and style.TH1980 (talk) 04:46, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:46, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:46, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The decision of deleting in 2008 could not justify deleting the page in 2018. J.J. McCullough's influence is getting bigger and bigger through YouTube and also his increasing appearance in the media as well as different webpages. It is inappropriate to define if this page is to be kept from a result in Wikipedia 10 years ago. --NYKTNE (talk) 14:51, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody appears to be suggesting that deleting this article is justified by a previous deletion. The comment above states that he is uncertain if this is the same person as the previously deleted article. Likewise, being "big" on youtube and making media appearances is rather meaningless without secondary sources. freshacconci (✉) 19:20, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing claimed in this article is an automatic notability freebie that would exempt him from having to have enough reliable source coverage for it to clear WP:GNG, but exactly zero of the sources here represent reliable source coverage about him: two of the four are his own YouTube videos, a third is his own self-published website about himself, and the fourth is a simple directory listing of his own contributions to the Washington Post. A person gets a Wikipedia article by being the subject of sources written and published by other people, not by being the author of coverage of himself or other things. Bearcat (talk) 16:10, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:21, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:21, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per TH1980. 2001:569:7C07:2600:F954:8C4F:6E35:6AFA (talk) 01:01, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: a J. J. McCullough page was already created and deleted. - VivaSlava (talk) 21:23, 19 March 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hüseyin Başaran (businessman)

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

No evidence of notability provided; the existing references are all related to his daughter very recently dying in a plane crash. Some Turkish-language references exist, but they seem largely trivial. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:15, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:47, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:47, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to 2018 Bombardier Challenger 604 crash. No evidence of independent third party notability; all coverage is in relation to the air disaster. In the Turkish Wikipedia (his country of origin), there is a short article about his company, but no standalone biographical article. Clear recentism. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable figure. The fact that he is a businessman doesn't establish notability. Keivan.f^Talk 22:14, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It seems that notability is relying upon 2018 Bombardier Challenger 604 crash. I would like to know if there was significant coverage before this crash because these sources[12][13] dont establish notability per WP:NOTINHERITED. Raymond3023 (talk) 14:28, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Quite a waste of time to create this stub. Where does the notability lie? In his daughter, whose only major claim to notability is the plane crash? That is a double-not inherited!TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:40, 18 March 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)} 21:31, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Watts (author)

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

A non-notable author; None of the references are about him, only about his books or random news articles where he is quoted. Both of his books were published through Greenleaf Book Group which "is based on a business model where the author pays for the publishing". For "Emerald Book Company" note [14]. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:41, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:53, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:53, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:11, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - previously speedied three times, but the creator just doesn't seem to have got the message. Deb (talk) 19:55, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not fair to say the creator hasn't gotten the message. The last two speedied versions were nowhere near as promotional as the first (history now at Draft:Richard Watts (author)), and unlike all three, the currently-visible version at least makes some effort at pointing out third-party coverage. That coverage doesn't amount to what's needed to meet our inclusion criteria, however. Delete. —Cryptic 00:43, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- They weren't speedied for G11, they were speedied for A7.Deb (talk) 09:24, 14 March 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)} 21:30, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Higgs boson in fiction

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

This is pretty much an indiscriminate collection of things that happen to mention the Higgs boson. Every prose section is either a minor portrayal or about a non-notable work (no article). Most of the works in the Others section are also very minor portrayals or mere references. The article is mostly unsourced, and all of the references are primary. (The one that does not go to a work of fiction is irrelevant to the context.) Finally, there is little discussion of the list itself (all of which is unsourced WP:OR), and there is no indication of WP:LISTN. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 20:40, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pure WP:LISTCRUFT, and almost all the mentioned media simply use "Higgs boson" as pure technobabble rather than hard science or science fiction._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:15, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:54, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:54, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This isn't a reasonable subject for an encyclopedic article. Imagine "Gluons in fiction". /Julle (talk) 12:22, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep Sourcing could use some work, but I don't see an intrinsic problem with such an article, and in some of these cases, the Higgs boson plays a semi-prominent roll.
Weak delete unlike some commenters, I don’t mind the existence of an article with this name, but as it stands this seems like a WP:TNT candidate. Porphyro (talk) 16:30, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 23:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on WP:NOR policy, and also and WP:LISTN, which says a list article is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. My own search for RS found only derivatives of this WP article. Without secondary, reliable sources, the premise of this article is entirely original research. (Also, a search of article histories shows this article had its origins in the Higgs boson article, but was removed 22 Mar 2005, then became a subject of a merge discussion which apparently failed.) Cheers! Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 01:19, 14 March 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. I considered the delete and redirect option, but Martin Illa's uncontested salient point tips the scale. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:29, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lost Heaven

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

I could not find any sources for the actual city within the game, as opposed to the game itself. The name is suitably vague that I'm not sure it would even work as a redirect. The article is pure plot summary that fails WP:NOTPLOT. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:55, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:55, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not sure any non-primary, non-promotional reliable sources even exist for this after a search. SportingFlyer talk 06:57, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete - Although a gamespot article exists. I don't think the town that this game is set in is particularly notable. A good note, is that one of the more famous cities for this purpose - Liberty City from GTA - can't establish notability. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:45, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mafia (video game). This is just WP:GAMECRUFT. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 08:54, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Dissident93. After all, the full title of Mafia is Mafia: The City of Lost Heaven, so the redirect makes sense and if another notable subject comes along that is called "Lost Heaven", we can always reuse the name then. Regards So Why 10:04, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - SoWhy makes a very good case for redirect, but the high probability of there emerging a more notable subject called Lost Heaven (it's hardly a distinctive title) makes me uneasy. In my experience, when an article already exists in one place, even as a redirect, article creators tend to use disambiguation for the new article rather than go to the trouble of moving the existing article.--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:35, 16 March 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)} 21:26, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The City of Gold (The Tripods)

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

While the book itself might merit its own article, this isn't it. Rather, it's a pure plot summary that violates WP:NOTPLOT. If the book isn't notable enough for its own article, the city in the book definitely isn't. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:18, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The City of Gold and Lead already exists as a redirect to The Tripods. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 23:05, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:55, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:55, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Description of a city in a novel, the novel doesn't have its own page. No refs. Not a worthwhile search term. Szzuk (talk) 16:24, 18 March 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 2018 Bombardier Challenger 604 crash;. Sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 06:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mina Başaran

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

Per WP:NOTINHERITED. Her death is tragic but there isn't anything in this article denoting Basaran as a notable person. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:42, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

She has been on the Turkish Vogue ( https://vogue.com.tr/bugun-ne-giydim/mina-basaran/2 ) , her father has been the deputy chairman of Trabzonspor (a big Football club) and one of the richest business people in Turkey, Mina's name is given to Mina Towers (a huge residence project http://www.basaraninsaat.net/mina-towers/ ) and she was going to be the next president for her fathers empire. ( https://www.thenational.ae/uae/who-was-mina-basaran-the-turkish-bride-whose-sharjah-istanbul-plane-crashed-1.712324 ) --2001:16B8:468:2400:95E7:7165:7D60:E8B5 (talk) 20:46, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— 2001:16B8:468:2400:95E7:7165:7D60:E8B5 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 10:16, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But nothing in your statement proves notability because notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 21:01, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2018 Bombardier Challenger 604 crash; this is WP:BIO1E. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:09, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2018 Bombardier Challenger 604 crash per nom, but indeed tragic at that young age. Brandmeister^talk 21:23, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or at least redirect. Later, people will wonder, who was this person? Wakari07 (talk) 22:01, 12 March 2018 (UTC) Also noting here that the same OP user *coincidentally* a few hours earlier started Bombardier crash AfD mess with a simple 889-byte post. Both for the same pretext. Wakari07 (talk) 00:03, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She was in the board of directors in one of the biggest companies in Turkey and a public sweetheart. 2001:16B8:468:2400:95E7:7165:7D60:E8B5 (talk) 22:18, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— 2001:16B8:468:2400:95E7:7165:7D60:E8B5 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 23:18, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2018 Bombardier Challenger 604 crash. The subject has insufficient notability, clear case of WP:NOTINHERITED. WWGB (talk) 23:21, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2018 Bombardier Challenger 604 crash, (if the latter is kept as it itself is going through its own AFD, although I'd be just as fine if the latter was redirected to this article). Doesn't seem to be enough independent coverage aside from her sad death to warrant an independent article. Inter&anthro (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2018 Bombardier Challenger 604 crash or Delete if that article is deleted. Notability is not automatically inherited. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:45, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2018 Bombardier Challenger 604 crash not notable in her own right 50.111.31.53 (talk) 04:24, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:56, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:56, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:56, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are numerous reliable independent resources which cover the subject significantly. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 10:06, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's enough information out there too make keeping this make sense. Bbonds775 (talk) 15:12, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously notable. --Nanorsuaq (talk) 16:32, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She was known before the tragic accident and not just because of her father. This is like suggesting that we delete Paris Hilton. 2001:16B8:1191:EC00:B8AC:7904:2FD4:FE25 (talk) 08:34, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— 2001:16B8:1191:EC00:B8AC:7904:2FD4:FE25 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 10:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's worth noting that the Turkish Wikipedia does not have separate articles about her or her father, though it does have an article about the crash. tr:2018_Bombardier_Challenger_604_kazası. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:15, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

She and her father and the plane are linked through the company, tr:Başaran Grup or Holdings, from Trabzon Province. Wakari07 (talk) 17:22, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that even on the Turkish wiki, they were not deemed notable enough to merit standalone biographical pages. The father's name is only mentioned there in the "key people" section of the infobox, and that creation of articles like this on English Wikipedia is a classic example of Wikipedia:Recentism. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:29, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey blocks Wikipedia. I'm accessing it over a German proxy like many others. Mina Başaran has been growing in popularity exponentially in the last few months. The huge residence in her name made her appear all over the media and there were also a lot of fashion and travel articles from/including her. https://blog.wikimedia.org/2018/03/11/turkey-wikipedia-block/ https://vogue.com.tr/bugun-ne-giydim/mina-basaran I personally find it kind of absurd to even keep digging this but of course, people who aren't living in Turkey wouldn't be able to empathize. I don't want to be seen as spamming here and I've written all I can say already so, I'll just shut up now and wait for the decision :) Thanks for your understanding, people! 2001:16B8:1191:EC00:C925:6AA1:6E4E:CD04 (talk) 18:46, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect – Without the crash I doubt she would have been considered notable enough for an article (that's the case even on the Turkish WP), and I very much doubt the article could be expanded much beyond the current two paragraphs (one of which is about her death). --Deeday-UK (talk) 11:58, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Using "even" in relation to the Turkish Wikipedia shows you should re-read the IP's comment. It's rather the role of the English WP to support the Turkish WP, rather than the other way around. As far as I know, the 2017 block of Wikipedia in Turkey is still ongoing in 2018... I'm afraid that supporting WP:DELETIONISM is a political choice here. Besides, what's wrong with a small article? Wakari07 (talk) 18:07, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My point still stands: without the crash, arguably no-one would have thought about writing an article; and a biography with seemingly little potential to grow from stub-level raises serious questions on the notability of the subject. This article is screaming for a merge. --Deeday-UK (talk) 18:37, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep - two days ago I would not even had considering !voting here, but now her achievements has been included. So now I am actually leaning towards Keeping this article. The person has recieved worldwide media coverage. Article is sourced with good reliable third party sources. She had a noted board member status, and was a known columnist. Whether she would have had an article if not for this crash is irrelevant. I would have to say that if this article would have been created if there were no crash no one would have put it up for deletion. And not even half of the people taking part in this AfD would have taken part. This also covers WP:BIO.BabbaQ (talk) 18:29, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, being a board member and having a column on a magazine does not necessarily confer notability. This case is very similar to Kim Wall's, another otherwise non-notable author that tragically becomes notable because of her untimely and unusual death, and just like Wall and per WP:1E, it makes sense to merge this article into the event's one. --Deeday-UK (talk) 01:33, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to or merge with 2018 Iran Bombardier Challenger 604 crash. Just like everyone else I'm really sorry that her life was cut short, but the truth is that she probably wouldn't have an article on Wikipedia had she stayed alive as she was not notable enough. After a few months how many people will visit this article? Not so many I guess. Keivan.f^Talk 22:20, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Keep voters have not demonstrated how this coverage--dependent on the plane crash--is not a pure example of WP:BLP1E. All we mostly have here is a condensed version of her death, or, in other words, a smaller version of an article that already exists. It is tragic, but we are not here to build a memorial.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:36, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Not notable. 208.96.169.26 (talk) 19:12, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2018 Bombardier Challenger 604 crash per WP:NOTINHERITED.--Catlemur (talk) 22:30, 18 March 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:09, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ADconity

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

Non-notable company, no coverage in RS whatsoever. Fails GNG and NCORP. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:37, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Advertising piece. Non-notable entity, fails GNG and NCORP. There are not multiple reliable sources that are independent of the topic and give in-depth information about the topic. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:24, 19 March 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of magicians in fantasy

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

There is an almost infinite list of magicians in fantasy - almost every fantasy novel has one, sometimes dozens. This seems like an indiscriminate list, and it is unclear what purpose it serves. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 19:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AFD is not cleanup, and there are plenty of actually notable magicians in fantasy, like Gandalf the Grey or Harry Potter. Only magicians that are independently notable should be listed, e.g. ones that have their own article, and are primarily described as magicians (not just being able to use magic)._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:25, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AfD not being clean-up has nothing to do with having an indiscriminate list. Are any of the entries notable for being magicians in fantasy, or is it just an arbitrary list? ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 20:33, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems indiscriminate currently, but it can be cleaned up to have clear inclusion criteria._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No lead, no inclusion criteria. Although the Force can be utilized for magical-like abilities like telekinesis, I doubt that the Sith could be considered magicians. No references except for the last 7 entries of "Fairy tales, myths and legends" and 3 interviews of the same actress playing a specific character in a single film, Now You See Me. The Notes section is irrelevant, pointless OR. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 21:40, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily passes WP:LISTN, being covered in sources such as The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy and The Encyclopedia of Fantasy. Andrew D. (talk) 23:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:58, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:58, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:58, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – WP:LC items 1, 2, 6, and 7 apply. Stifle (talk) 09:24, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it's indiscriminate, has been for some 12 years, and likely to remain that way without constant vigilance. I note that this list was created as an attempt to clean up another article; that's a terrible motivation because it just relocates the problem.~T P W 14:23, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. Ajf773 (talk) 18:08, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, but only the notable ones, i.e. with articles. And magicians/sorcerers/wizards/enchanters only need apply. Witches belong in List of fictional witches; Chun the Unavoidable is not identified as a magician; Hecate is a goddess; whatever Lilith is, she's not a magician; Jezebel???; etc. (If this is deleted, then also delete the fictional witches and List of magicians in film.) Clarityfiend (talk) 05:40, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, completely indiscriminate list, as User:Clarityfiend points out the question of "what is a magician" is almost as fuzzy as "what is fantasy (fiction)". One might be able to come up with a definition that results in a more focused list, but this is WP:TNT stuff. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. sufficient coverage has been demonstrated above; I am not sure whether it should be onely ones with individual articles, or should include major figures in works that themselves have articles, but that can be discused at the talk p. DGG ( talk ) 06:24, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A classic case of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. There's no possible way this article could not be a pointless trivia magnet. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:55, 20 March 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. sufficient consensus after the relisting DGG ( talk ) 06:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Wankum

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

Subject is merely one of many, many on-air US television news/sport/weather talents. Doesn't quality for inclusion under GNG or JOURNALIST. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 19:33, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Subject of at least two nontrivial RS. Profiled in Washington Post and WCVB thing, not to mention won Boston/NE Emmy Award. Thus meets GNG. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 19:56, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WCVB is not an independent source, as the person works for them. Also, Regional Emmys, such as Boston/NE, have long been recognized as an insufficient rationale for inclusion. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 21:13, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:59, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:59, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:59, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, only sources are either primary or local or both. Also, the Washington Post reference is trivial. SportingFlyer talk 06:59, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of indepdent sourcing. Almost all local TV reporters are non-notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:43, 16 March 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)} 21:19, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chargebee

AfDs for this article:

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

Sorry to waste everyone's time here. I created this page 4 years ago when my understanding of WP:NCORP was not as good as it is now. I used TechCrunch and Entrepreneur to show notability. Due to SPA and promo activity, I was going to revert this back to the stub I created, but after checking for additional sources, I realize it doesn't meet notability guidelines. The TC article is what I now consider a routine announcement of funding and I can no longer find the Entrepreneur article as the link leads to a dead page. I did not go speedy as there have been numerous edits made since its creation, but if speedy is still possible, please do son. CNMall41 (talk) 19:10, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:00, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:00, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:00, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:00, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: In 2012 I nominated the AfD deletion of an earlier article on this company. The sources in this instance are normal start-up coverage, describing features and announcing funding, falling short of the WP:CORPDEPTH criteria. AllyD (talk) 22:04, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I created the current one in 2014. I wish I was knowledgeable enough at that time to know how to see if an article was previously deleted. Probably would have weighed on my decision to create it (or not create it). --CNMall41 (talk) 23:34, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete run of the mill with sourcing being WP:PRIMARYNEWS failing CORPDEPTH. Widefox; talk 17:08, 15 March 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)} 21:17, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Capital.com

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

A young start-up without significant accomplishments. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. All I find are interviews, trade press, routine announcements, press releases. WP:TOOSOON. Rentier (talk) 18:05, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 19:14, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 19:14, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I searched under both names for the company and couldn't find anything to satisfy notability requirements. The references used in the article also do not meet the threshold for WP:CORPDEPTH. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:53, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree. scope_creep (talk) 07:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom. Little independent coverage, although there was this article, but I wonder about what criteria World Finance uses to choose companies to feature (company pays fee?). Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:25, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above.--SamHolt6 (talk) 17:10, 14 March 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 .tk. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:33, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Freenom

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

~~Non-notable company.~~ Sources are either press releases, or do not mention the subject. ~~Not seeing anything better in searches. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH as well as the new proposed guideline on company notability.~~ A few additional sources move it to 'borderline' changed !vote to Keep or merge, per my comment below. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 22:17, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - cant find anything online. Barely any sources. Would fail WP:CORPDEPTH Geymarfan (talk) 01:29, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this user's contributions only include a half dozen AfD !votes within a couple days, leading me to believe that they are probably the sock of another editor (probably a blocked editor). — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 02:03, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:15, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:15, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:15, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:40, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - quite a lot of references about (especially with regards to the .tk domain) and certainly not all of them are positive. Shritwod (talk) 23:54, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What references? When someone else has said they have searched and not found anything better, it is probably a good idea to include links to your sources that demonstrate notability. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 00:08, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For example.. [1] [2][3] [4]. Many references in connection with malware online, that's one thing Freenom is known for, but they tend to lead to industry blog sites which might not be suitable to cite. Shritwod (talk) 00:25, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep or merge to .tk @Shritwod, of the above sources, only the quartz one is any good. The World trademark review source is behind a paywall, so I have no way of identifying how in depth the coverage is, but appears to be routine coverage of legal proceedings. Both of the scmagazineuk.com sources seem to be trivial mentions within stories about other stuff, and so do not contribute to notability. The quartz article is more like what we are looking for to establish notability, but that is only one source, and we require multiple good ones. Searching for other coverage of the .tk domain finds quite a few sources that just barely mention Freenom [15]. However, there are other sources for the company's older name; CNN's coverage of the company and Zuubier would probably work [16], though they call it 'Freedom registry', which was the old name for the company. One issue is that all of this coverage isn't really about Freenom or the Freedom registry, despite containing significant coverage of the company, the stories are about the .tk domain. TonyBallioni was the first to redirect this article to .tk, and I still agree that is a good solution, but should include a merger as well. Per WP:CORPDEPTH, the above sourcing does seem to be enough to establish notability though, if barely, so I guess I'll change my !vote to keep, but a merger is also a good solution. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 01:55, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to .tk. The company is not notable in itself. The .tk domain is. As Insertcleverphrasehere mention, the sourcing barely mentions it. Redirect closes are always superior to mergers at AfDs, IMO, because they are easy to implement and anyone can merge from the history. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:23, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment perhaps a merge would work, but they also have a relationship with .ga and .ml at least. Shritwod (talk) 08:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to .tk. Freenom fails WP:GNG because of the lack of coverage, but is of some interest as part of the .tk ecosystem. I like to include merge with a redirect vote because otherwise readers won't understand why they are being redirected. There's nothing at .tk about Freenom now. BTW - I looked up Kima Ventures, a backer of Freenom, to see if that might be an alternate redirect option, but they were just deleted. [[17]] TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:36, 19 March 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 Forscene. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:02, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blackbird (codec)

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

The sources are 1 patent notice 2 patent notice 3 passing mention in a conference paper, 4 an WP:INTERVIEW with the company CEO, 5 routine coverage probable from a press release 6 ditto and starts with "Forbidden technologies ... is pleased to announce..." Fails WP:GNG Dom from Paris (talk) 17:10, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:14, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:14, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:14, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article Forscene could be a suitable redirect target. However, it looks like unsourced advert... Pavlor (talk) 09:48, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect to Forscene as preferred WP:ATD. ~Kvng (talk) 21:40, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Forscene which runs on the Blackbird Codec has been nominated for an emmy (added reference). The codec world is small and blackbird has been used by multiple companies (including one in which I am involved). I find it incredible the article is being considered for deletion. What extra resources are required? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanjmcm (talk • contribs) 23:04, 14 March 2018 (UTC) — User:Seanjmcm (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Broad coverage in independent reliable sources. Eg. chapter in a book not written by people/company behind Blackbird Codec, review/article in published/online magazine etc. Pavlor (talk) 06:18, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A source has been added by an WP:SPA account but this is a company announcement and not independent so not useful to prove notability. Also the comment is a WP:TRIGGERED response. The fact that it is used by multiple companies including yours is neither here nor there, to be included in an encyclopedia there has to be in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources. The sources do not prove this. ~~There is nothing in the article about a book, is this a reference to the conference paper maybe?~~ It is not the fact there are sources that are published it is the quality of the information in the source and the source itself that are important, is it in depth independent coverage in a a relaible source? I think not hence the nomination. Dom from Paris (talk) 07:25, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Am I missing something? There are wikipedia entries on reality TV stars who do not have chapters in books written about them. Is this a requirement for codecs? There is a very small number of video codecs and Blackbird is one of them, in use since 2004. It is a commercial codec so will not be described in books to protect the IP. I added the emmy information in response to the notability remarks but it was removed as I hadn't written the entry very well. Is that a WP:TRIGGERED response, I am only responding to the feedback I have got and am not an wikipedia expert. I will look for something better to add by a third party but will need time as busy with my job. Should have something early next week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanjmcm (talk • contribs) 17:12, 15 March 2018 (UTC) — Seanjmcm (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS also I was replying to Pavlor's statement about a chapter written in a book about the subject and I have just realised that this was a reply to your question "What extra resources are needed" ...my error. Your response was that you use it and you find it incredible that it is up for deletion. This is a triggered response because it is a purely personal point of view. The Emmy nomination is 1/ not a national nomination 2/ for a company called MSG 3/For Scene Editing & Digital Distribution [18] There is no mention of the technology used in the nomination. The company looks like it is trying to piggyback on this nomination to gain notability as the source provided is from the company itself. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:59, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Seanjmcm: the justification behind our core inclusion criteria is that there has to be enough information published by reliable sources to write a quality article. There is often copious coverage of reality TV stars and other topics we may consider less important than Blackbird. From what I can tell, there is insufficient WP:INDEPENDENT coverage of the codec. Though strict adherents to policy may disagree, this doesn't, in my opinion, preclude us from adding coverage of the codec in the Forscene article and WP:REDIRECTing searches for the codec there. ~Kvng (talk) 18:42, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi, am a user of the Forscene platform, a software system built atop the proprietary Blackbird codec. Could I ask why the article RealVideo should not also be up for deletion as it would appear to be similarly bereft, as is the nature of proprietary codecs, of referenceable material in the public domain. Only has a couple of blogs and some company press releases. mk (talk) 13:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. ~Kvng (talk) 14:29, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kvng: OK thanks that makes sense. Will have a look see and amend the article if I find anything. Hopefully it will not be removed prior to April 2018 as there may be more literature in the public domain following NAB. mk (talk) 21:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mark Kilby: We usually get these decisions done in a week or two, or three. There are various ways to revisit when more evidence of notability is available. I can help you though that if and when we come to it. ~Kvng (talk) 22:12, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Forscene#Blackbird. Insufficent media coverage to support a standalone article - fails WP:GNG. Honestly, though, there's not much meat that isn't there already. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:20, 19 March 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)} 21:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa Brown (artist)

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

Fails to meet WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. Does not credibly state the impact of work. Basically a resume article about a '13 grad. Awards are not on the national or international level. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 16:55, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:22, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:22, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 19:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 19:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 19:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article does not need to explain the impact of the artist's work... it just needs to include good sources. A few very minor mentions exist in the press, but overall she is not yet notable. 104.163.147.121 (talk) 20:28, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice for future recreation. WP:TOOSOON. --Theredproject (talk) 00:46, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. --QEDK (後 🌸 桜) 11:44, 19 March 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. The automatic headcount is 33 keep, 20 delete and 3 merge. Under these circumstances, the arguments for deletion would need to be very persuasive, or those for keeping very weak, to allow me to close this discussion with a consensus for deletion. The same applies, vice versa, with respect to a consensus for keeping. I do not think that this is the case.

The core issue here is whether these women, who were apparently quite ordinary people (or ordinary petty criminals) from around 1900, are notable because their lives were covered in a modern local historian's book, in addition to local newspapers and official records of the period. In most AfDs in which notability is the issue, editors can in good faith disagree about whether a given number of sources of a given quality are sufficient to support an article. This AfD is an example in point, with many valid policy- or guideline-based arguments made on both sides. Ultimately this is a matter of editorial judgment, and one about which we seem to broadly disagree. The uncommon number of well-reasoned neutral opinions do indicate that this is a bit of an edge case, or just a very novel one.

Additionally, there is quite a bit of discussion about historiography and our role in it. While we don't have as many alphabet-soup rules about that as we do about notability, here again I think that both sides make valid points that might merit a broader discussion. While these three articles are now kept by default, and I can't really envisage a consensus forming about their inclusion in a renomination any time soon, there might be a point in creating an RfC about some of the broader issues discussed here should a substantial number of similar articles be created and contested. Sandstein 18:57, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Lynch

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was nominated for deletion yesterday, but the discussion was closed as "Speedy Keep" on procedural grounds (the article was in the "Did You Know?" section on the main page, which prevented its deletion). Now that the article is no longer on the main page, I have nominated it for deletion again to reach a proper consensus.

The subject of this article is non-notable. Some of the only sources on Catherine Lynch are a few local newspapers and perhaps a self-published book. She completely fails WP:PERP. Centibyte ^(talk) 16:54, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I am also nominating the following related pages because they are affiliated with the Lynch article and have similar issues:

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

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

Centibyte ^(talk) 17:08, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all of the many the "keep" comments in yesterday's AfD, including mine, in which I observed that "this is a valid form of history and enhances our coverage of how part of society lived during the period." See also User talk:Iridescent#Catherine Lynch notability in which the article-creator explains the significance of this article at some length. In no way would Wikipedia be a better encyclopedia without this article than with it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:03, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If we want to understand "how part of society lived during the period," we probably need an article that discusses that topic directly. These articles are about non-notable individuals and should be deleted regardless of how well they reflect Crime in Wales. That's my view of this debate anyhow. Centibyte ^(talk) 17:14, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Terrific articles and well referenced for their era. Szzuk (talk) 17:06, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While the article was a good read, individual hookers generally are not notable.– Gilliam (talk) 17:13, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject clearly passes the general notability guideline, which reads 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 since it contains secondary sourcing it fulfills the requirement of at least one secondary source within it. Both academic texts (When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources) and contemporary newspapers("News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact are reliable sources, and provide the sole sourcing of the article: Sources of evidence include recognized peer-reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally.
It's worth remembering that notability on Wikipedia does not require a person to have been notable in their lifetime, or even to have done anything notable.
Incidentally, the perceived quality of the article is irrelevant: if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability. Over all, the nomination seems to be confusing notability with individual significance, but of course, notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity.
The nomination itself is flawed: "perhaps a self-published book" is nullified by the "perhaps." —SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 17:15, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (all articles). These are very well referenced for their era, and as Newyorkbrad says, these are valid historical records of individuals who lived in an era when such coverage was typically limited to the landed gentry. I have no doubt that this series of articles are written about clearly notable persons who qualify for inclusion. P.S Centibyte, don't reply to every comment, it creates unnecessary edit conflicts. Nick (talk) 17:17, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per yesterday, and yes, the others also. - Nominator, please have the courtesy to link to the first nomination, - it seems a waste of time to make us all repeat. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:19, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Clearly passes GNG on the basis of the sources already cited in the article. Nom mischaracterizes sources as "local newspapers." First of all, The Cambrian covered all of Wales, hardly local. The Cardiff Times had a broad circulation in Wales as well. I'm not so sure about the other papers involved, but these two are enough. The same argument shows that the other two articles meet the GNG as well. This nomination is a waste of everyone's time. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 17:20, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (all articles): Though I understand the concerns about relevance, this could be ameliorated by Iridescent (or someone else) providing contextual information in the articles. The bottom line is that Wikipedia is a richer encyclopedia with these interesting articles. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:25, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Superbly written articles on a completely non-notable subjects - failing WP:GNG, WP:PERP, and WP:BASIC. All 3 are sourced to a few pages in a self-published book by an otherwise obscure author, and local Welsh newspapers "police blotter" reports. The single WP:SECONDARY source is not a RS, and in any case we would typically require multiple secondary sources even if it was. The local WP:PRIMARY newspaper crime/obit/marriage reporting is not grounds for notability - if it were, a humongous number of petty criminals with a few convictions that are strung together from reports such as this: Police: Man drove stolen car to court for stolen car charge, Bristol Press, 8 March 2018, Man with history of drug sale convictions charged again, Bristol Press, 9 March 2018, or Bristol woman pleads not guilty to prostitution charge, Bristol Press, 9 March 2018 would become notable on the basis of strung together local reporting (born, married, crime-conviction-crime-conviction-..., died). This is exactly how the author of the self-published book wrote it: starting with a mug shot in the archives and stringing together newspaper and court record reports [19] Drawing on photographs, mugshots and contemporary newspapers accounts this book explores the crimes of theft and of violence, often through drink or other social causes, which filled the police courts and prisons, and tells the stories of the lives of these extraordinary women who survived through adversity.. Per [20] the author was Inspired by mugshots of female prisoners from the Swansea Prison collection at the West Glamorgan Archive Service, author Elizabeth Belcham was inspired to delve into the lives of these women and discover how they had come to end up on the wrong side of the law.Icewhiz (talk) 17:26, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm going to refrain from voting as I see this situation as a catch-22. If we delete this article, it's just another shot at women (in the eyes of some). If we keep this article then we're devaluing the encyclopaedia as a whole. That seems like a blow to women who have contributed something of significance. Yes, there is an oversaturation of men and many such articles are piss poor. Delete them, don't bring women down to that level. I'll dissect the plausible arguments as best I can.

Sourcing: Citations 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, and 30 (21/31) are all primary sources. (Note: I write history articles, and contemporary sources are considered to be primary sources in that department. As far as I am concerned, this is a historical article, and thereby historical sources are primary). They are not suitable to justify an article on the subject alone. More importantly, an article based solely on primary references would constitute original research (WP:OR) which is unacceptable on this encyclopaedia.
Citations 2, 7, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 23, and 31 (9/31) come from Belcham, 2016 an unreliable secondary source which only collates the primary sources and does not conduct any kind of analysis of the subject and is thus unsuitable for asserting notability. Not only could I find nothing about the publisher, what I did find was that the publisher has only ever published three works all of which are Belcham's work. It is implausible to call this anything other than a self-pub which is unacceptable as a source on anything other than in an article about itself (WP:SELFPUB).
Citation 8 (1/31) Gregory (2017) has nothing to do with the subject and is useful only for explaining the value of money from that era in modern terms. (21 + 9 + 1 = 31/31)
Overall: This is very bad sourcing. I maintain my surprise that Iridescent, who is very experienced, would write an article with such bad sourcing, which some above actually refer to as "good".
Quality of the writing in the article: Ignoring the fact that "quality" does not determine notability, I can only say that the article is well written. This doesn't justify a keep in my view.
Significance of the subject: Ok, some refer to the significance of the subject as a case study of poor women from the era. That's about the best argument I have seen on either AfD. Unfortunately, I can't support that assertion, or if I could I might be able to ignore the rules (WP:IAR). The article does not provide a greater context from which to view this subject. It is a biographical article with no analysis and little context. I'm sure you could write an article about Welsh women in the 19th Century and include this subject somewhere in there, though not without sliding very close to OR, but as an article in itself it doesn't do this. My knowledge or understanding of Welsh society in the 19th Century remains untouched. I don't know anything about it, and this doesn't really tell me anything that I didn't already know. Australia was built by such people.
General Notability Guideline (WP:GNG): 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. This may actually form a solid argument to keep, in that there is significant enough coverage, from acceptable primary sources that are independent of the subject. I am concerned, however, that our original research policy conflicts with GNG here as it states unequivocally that Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. I do not accept Belcham as reliable secondary source and Gregory does not discuss the subject, which means that I find this article to be in violation of OR.
Perpetrator (WP:PERP): I find this policy to be irrelevant to the subject of the article. This subject is not known in connection to a criminal event or trial and no article on such an event exists. She is known via connection to the time period.

Conclusion: I can't bring myself to say delete given how well the article is written, but under no circumstances do I think that this article meets any criteria of this encyclopaedia. The same statements apply to the articles on Lily Argent and Selina Rushbrook. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:56, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Newspapers are not considered to be primary sources for WP purposes and there's no way these articles constitute original research. See WP:STICKTOSOURCE for information on what OR is, and see in there where we specifically consider mainstream newspapers to be among the most reliable of reliable sources. For purposes of establishing notability all that matters is that mainstream regional or national newspapers have covered the topic over a significant span of time. If your theory that newspapers are primary sources is correct, large swaths of WP would have to be deleted. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 18:06, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Contemporary sources count as primary per Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event + Primary sources may or may not be independent or third-party sources, more importantly OR clearly states that you cannot write an article solely using primary sources. Unless you have a guideline or policy which states that newspapers do not count as primary, I'm going to stick to the letter of what is written. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:09, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that newspapers clearly are a secondary source (for an external / academic opinion, see Mannheim, J.B. & Rich, R.C., Empirical Political Analysis: Research Methods in Political Science' (New York, 2016), 53: "Newspapers are an excellent source of current and historical information including the texts of important speeches, commentaries on political issues, and results of public opinion polls"); it is also hard to see how one would suddenly have to provide a "guideline or policy" when we actively encourage editors to use them (and it tangentially raises the question why WP:DAILYMAIL was as necessary as it was deemed to be if it was merely a primary source and thus to be used sparingly!). User:Cullen328 summed it up on the WP:RSN very recently: "Someone expressed the opinion that newspaper articles are primary sources. Such articles can be primary or secondary, depending on context. A "police blotter" type newspaper article saying that a burglary was reported at 123 Main Street is a primary source, and is probably reliable. A lengthy article by a staff reporter about a wave of burglaries, including interviews with detectives, victims and detailed reporting of court testimony is a secondary source." It is the latter we are encountering here. The journailists are basing their pieces on police reports, court statements, interviews, witness reports; they are primary sources. To then base a subsequent piece on them is the esssence of secondary reporting. The operative word in the cited Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event is the word original—that police notebook, for example, or the witness statement. Not the report on such things. If everything that is produced contemporaneously is a primary source than the historiography of modern history is a fraud :) —SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 23:11, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In this particular case the newspaper reporting is all straight PRIMARY with no analysis and context, skirting the question of sourcing a historical figure with no continued coverage based on at the time newspapers. Most of it, e.g. [21] or [22] is 2-4 narrow lines as part of a police or court blotter with many unrelated cases. The coroner reporter is longer at 2 paragraphs worth [23] of a coroner's inquest summary with absolutely no context on the person beyond the inquest.Icewhiz (talk) 23:31, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question for you Serial Number 54129: Is Geoffrey of Monmouth a primary or secondary source in your view? I mean ignoring the inherent unreliability of his famous Historia Regum Britanniae, I am only interested in whether it is a primary or secondary source. I suspect you would call it a primary source, which is to quote our utterly unreliable article on it: ... is an artifact, a document, diary, manuscript, autobiography, a recording, or any other source of information that was created at the time under study. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:25, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral This is a difficult case and I am torn. I can understand the arguments put forward by a number of those !voting to delete, specifically that "anyone could be an example of something" or "this is just a collection of newspaper reports". But then the point here is that someone has written about Lynch et al and not you and me – Belcham (the newspapers thus become 'filler' information and are not necessary to establish notabilitym which potentially resolves the second issue). WP:PERP is trumped by GNG. Wikipedia is supposed to be a tertiary resource and hence it is not up to us to decide that one book or subject is not sufficient to establish notability just because it's not what individual editors consider "notability" (the word) to mean. WP:Notability, the Wikipedia concept, depends on coverage in reliable secondary sources, and we should not be selective in using these to form articles on Wikipedia even if we don't think the subject matter is particularly notable in a subjective sense. Hence I want to lean keep in this case. I want to see this article kept and I applaud the intent behind and the prose and research which form it. The only thing that is stopping me is that I am not convinced Belcham is actually a reliable source, and that to me is important in maintaining the integrity of WP as a source of knowledge. --Noswall59 (talk) 17:59, 12 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Keep all: firstly because of yesterdays AfD of the Lynch article whuch was not closed solely for it being on the main page. But because a clear Keep result was emerging. Secondly all articles are referenced and within WP:GNG. Any concerns should have been raised at respectove talk pages. BabbaQ (talk) 18:04, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep yet again, just like last time most of the opposes boil down too "why don't i have a article" esque votes, this woman has been written about over 100 years after her death as a case study of her background, which implies notability. To expect mass media level of coverage of an article BEFORE mass medias time is absolutely ridiculous. GuzzyG (talk) 18:22, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GuzzyG have you read either of the two oppose votes? (IceWhiz or Gilliam) because yet again, just like last time most of the opposes boil down too "why don't i have a article" esque votes is the most bullshit statement I could have expected to see on this page. Do not expect to lie, and walk away without being called out on it. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:26, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lets start with the AFD nominator in the original nomination "in my opinion; I reflect modern society, so why can’t there be an article on me?", but i am lying? I do think people are being extra harsh on this due to the details of the subjects life. GuzzyG (talk) 18:38, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you're literate in the English language then you are fully aware that 1 =/= most, but 1=1. So yes, you are lying. I have no qualms with the rest of what you've said, but you can't deny that you have deliberately misrepresented the "oppose" votes. You would be better served to strike the patently false, then by arguing this shoddy case. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:44, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Was my argument entirely faulty? Centibyte ^(talk) 18:48, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, no more or less than I expect anybody elses to be. Perp isn't a guideline I would have used; GNG and a study of the sources is what I chose to focus on. I wouldn't have advised a second AfD so soon after the first, but if we can put this article to bed (either as a keep or delete) than that is all I can ask for. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:56, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mr rnddude, stop your battleground tactics. If you can not handle this AfD then do not comment. Being rude does not solve anything.BabbaQ (talk) 18:54, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BabbaQ, I don't think you have any clue what that policy is referring to. You would be hard pressed to find me a competent editor who would accuse me calling out a lie as being a battleground mentality. Good fucking luck. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:56, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, take a deep breath. Lol.BabbaQ (talk) 19:01, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr rnddude: PERP is highly relevant. The sourcing we have here is primary local news covering crime (their arrests, charges, and conviction), a mug shot (or to be precise - an inmate photo), and reporting on the coroner's inquest into their unusual deaths - this is standard local crime reporting.Icewhiz (talk) 19:15, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Only because you've pinged me Icewhiz. The asserted notability is not in relation to a criminal event or trial. So I have no reason to assess her notability against that criterion. If I assert notability based on "historical significance" (even if it's about a criminal) and you reply "doesn't meet perp" we are talking past each other and not to each other. Of course, you can assess the article against that criteria, but I don't see a reason to do so. Now, I am off to sleep, because it's getting late (or early depending on where you live). Mr rnddude (talk) 19:33, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:28, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:28, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm going to leave Iridescent to repeat the points so ably made on their talk page—the first nomination offers a good example of what we miss in depth of argument when nominators fail to notify the creators and significant contributors to articles they put up for deletion—and repeat my argument with respect to Lynch that I made at the first AfD. It was: The study of history has broadened in recent decades, to include non-prominent people, and not only in the form of overviews and statistics. The cited book is an example of this, and makes a study of Lynch among others. The extensive newspaper coverage also counts toward notability, local though it is. And the final decisive element, in my view, is the coroner's choosing to make an example of her. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:40, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You know I would very much like to see Iridescent's response here. In all likelihood, they are the only person capable of convincing me to switch stance, as they are the only person who has conducted any research into the article. In particular, Iridescent, I would need a solid justification for your use of a secondary source for which publishing details are difficult to find, which is likely a self-pub, and the authors credentials. I have them, but I need confirmation that you did a solid background check before you used the source. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:51, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yngvadottir Mr rnddude While understandably impassionated, Iridescent's points were not that convincing, essentially revolving around the poor coverage that Welsh society and particularly Welsh women receive on Wikipedia. As noted by Iridescent his/her-self, the true origin of this problem is the "colonial" attitude of the British (English ? As a French, I don't know what word to use not be offensive, apparently I broke the etiquette last time on this), not Wikipedia bias. I am all for more coverage of Wales and women in general, but I have trouble seeing how early 20th century prostitutes are really a progress here. Instead, an article on the general issue of Victorian and Edwardian-era prostitution in Wales would have been much better and could have included small sections on the ladies concerned here as examples.Iry-Hor (talk) 20:44, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Yngvadottir, NYB and others. This meets GNG and is encyclopaedic in scope. - SchroCat (talk) 18:52, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all as they pass the WP:GNG. Notability is not a matter of importance or significance. Andrew D. (talk) 18:55, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Them All. The articles rely heavily on newspapers of local significance and a book of questionable literary merit as such the subjects cannot be considered notable even outside their hometown (WP:NOTNEWS). As such the people described in the articles are no different from any other common early 20th century British prostitute. They are not related and had never interacted with any people worthy of an article. Had they been men, common housewives or were born later into the century the article would have been speedily deleted without a single objection (WP:NOTOBITUARY), yet people want to keep it simply for the quality of its prose. With a variety of sources available one might write millions upon millions of articles on people of their caliber, we DO NOT need that to get an insight of her profession or era when articles such as Prostitution in the United Kingdom exist. I frankly do not see how the procedure used in WP:PORNBIO cannot be extended to prostitutes. Wikipedia's obsession with and glorification of criminals not matter how petty they are has reached its crescendo.--Catlemur (talk) 19:06, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:18, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All Well researched and well written and illustrated, but alas these individuals all fail the applicable tests for notability. Yilloslime ^T_C 19:33, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all 1) articles have essentially one single self-published source for me this fails GNG; 2) everybody is an example of some stratum of society so this is no ground for notability; 3) being talked about is not in itself sufficient for notability.Iry-Hor (talk) 19:43, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete all I'm looking at this along the same lines as @Catlemur:. Almost all of the references appear to be repeating or elaborating on Belcham's research, and her book is the only clearly not-primary source. I can't find the publisher, and while the book sounds like a fascinating piece of research, I just can't find the interest in it yet (though I wouldn't be surprised if it picks up) outside of a local author presentation. And I see problems in repeating these biographies outside the context of the book: in-period, these almost epitomize non-notable criminality. Mangoe (talk) 20:05, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (this is from the previous nomination yesterday) per Icewhiz, Catlemur, Centibyte, Robofish etc. I have the greatest admiration for the work Iridescent does, often on relatively obscure topics, but there is, as far as I can see, no significant notability, and other than a single source and local press, there is not enough coverage of this person. If someone can once and for all show us why this person is notable — not just the social side of it — then maybe I can change my position. BTW, I am happy to be engaged in conversation here by anyone who disagrees with my position and is able to persuade me. Also, the other bios should be deleted as they are similar in terms of notability and sourcing. Aiken D 20:06, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Serial Number 54129. Meets GNG. There is sufficient coverage in contemporary newspaper reports and a secondary source (which although it has been repeatedly referred to as self-published in both this AfD and the previous one, no-one has actually been able to show that it is.)--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:09, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The publisher has only published works (a total of 3) by this author [24][25][26], which is indicative of being self published (note that usually we do not accept sources on faith, burden is or those who want to use a source - though in this case it is clear). If this is not self published (99.9%), the the single-author publisher is reliant and not independent of the author.Icewhiz (talk) 20:24, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Notability requires reliable secondary sources, the book is obviously secondary because Lynch et al didn't write it, so we're left with a discussion of whether what the author has written is reliable. Given the plethora of facts, depth of knowledge displayed and distance of the author from the subject by 100 years, I find it hard to see how her work is unreliable. Szzuk (talk) 21:46, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ILIKEIT is not how we asses reliability (and note that we, per policy, would require multiple secondary sources, not one). The author is a retired local archive worker with very few publicationss or citations. Collating newspaper articles when you have access and a digital archive is not difficult - though it is fraught with some peril of reliability regarding multiple persons sharing a name or when the underlying early 20th century newspapers are not reliable. Lack of a reputable academic publisher or a credible peer reviewed setting is also a major issue in terms of reliability.Icewhiz (talk) 23:02, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think the published book source is reliable because it is full of facts not because ILIKEIT. There are multiple sources, the book and newspaper articles, as is commonplace on wp. Szzuk (talk) 23:27, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into one article and then keep. As individual articles, I'd say delete for non-notability. However, I'm reluctant to lose the work that went into these pages, and I think the best solution would be to merge them into a single broader article called something like History of prostitution in Swansea. That could address the notability issues (since arguably there's a notable underlying topic here, even if these individuals aren't) as well as the duplication of content between the pages. Robofish (talk) 21:09, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly meets GNG. To me, the arguments for deletion really are about not understanding sourcing in the pre-Google age. Newspapers "count", books "count" and so do other dead tree sources; it must be noted that publications from the pre-internet age also may have been authored by people such as respected local journalists or historians who may have had a lot of periodical publications but relatively few books. The sources all seem reliable here. Montanabw^(talk) 22:01, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I have spent countless hours going through 19th century newspapers, and they are full of lurid and sensational accounts of crime. If I wanted to, I could exhume many long dead and forgotten criminals who were far more notable in their time than Lynch. But for whatever reason, these criminals faded into complete obscurity (like Lynch), so I don't think it's my job as a Wikipedian to confer notability upon them. That would amount of WP:OR. - HappyWaldo (talk) 22:21, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies to your POV comment.BabbaQ (talk) 09:54, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another comment: I'll support keep for Lynch if someone writes a folk song about her and it goes viral. If not, this discussion will stand as the full extent of her revival, and her Wiki page from then on will receive two or three views a month from the Catherine Lynches of the world when Googling their names. We all know this. - HappyWaldo (talk) 10:48, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a claim of "importance or significance" isn't necessary for a biography to meet WP:GNG (though there is generally a correlation), and I see no arguments for deletion other than noting the lack of such a claim of importance or significance. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:32, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- After reading through all of this, I do see the argument for deletion: it's that the newspaper sources are primary sources, and the one modern book was self-published. As long as the accuracy isn't disputed, the fact that the book was self-published isn't relevant; WP:PEOPLE states What constitutes a "published work" is deliberately broad. As far as the newspaper accounts being primary sources, something like [27] (currently ref#22 "Advice to an Ex-Prisoner") is certainly a primary reference. If all the newspaper references are that minimal, there is a reasonable argument to delete this. My reading of GNG still suggests it should be kept but I would consider a merge proposal (Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic.) power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:46, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete great article.....about a totally non-notable subject, Huldra (talk) 23:54, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please expand. Your !vote right now sums up to nothing.BabbaQ (talk) 09:54, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable per the time of the sources. Notability in early 1900, especially for a woman, is not necessarily notability now. The subject was considered notable enough at the time to have newspaper articles on her. We cannot apply notability principles for 2000s with notability of the very early 1900s and must use the sources as our standard. (Littleolive oil (talk) 02:07, 13 March 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Comment: Notability is not comparative. We don't determine notability because a subject is more or less notable than another subject and can't be an argument for deletion.(Littleolive oil (talk) 12:50, 13 March 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Keep, obviously. Impeccable writing on an important topic, even if that topic isn't recognized by some of our editors who are either uninterested in the poor or simply follow the old idea of history as the enumeration of the biographies of famous dead men. "no reason is given for Catherine Lynch's notability" is of course nonsense--what, we always need a "x is notable because"? The article explains it well enough: the subject is notable for having been held up as an example of "her class", and these are the kinds of things historians have been doing for the last few decades. There's a plethora of newspaper articles; these are sources that need to be written up with care, of course, because they themselves are biased and not always factually correct, but the fact that they exist is evidence of passing the GNG. As for the book, I can't see it, unfortunately, but not every non-academically published book is automatically excluded, and since the creator is--as far as I know--a decent human being and a valued long-time editor, I will accept that they made the judgment to include it carefully. Now, if we start deleting shit because there's only a few newspaper sources, that's fine and I'm all for it, but that's hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles, and this wouldn't be first on the list. Hey, all this sounds familiar. Drmies (talk) 02:15, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Important topic" What did she do besides sell her body for money and then drink herself into oblivion? We're supposed to treat this unremarkable prostitute and Charles Darwin with equal regard? - HappyWaldo (talk) 12:03, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That makes no sense. We have articles on Earth and 21062 Iasky, are they "equal"? Taking that argument to its logical conclusion, we should limit ourselves to the 1000 most notable topics, and delete the rest. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:45, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - User:Huldra and User:Mr rnddude sum it up. The sources are a single book by a local researcher, either self-published or produced by a local press so small that it's pretty much invisible, with a stack of scraps of information from local contemporary newspapers, which are presumably taken from the one book that has assembled them. This =/= significant secondary sources: it's a single secondary source of low status plus loads of primary sources extracted from it. There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding here of what the newspaper entries are: they're not feature articles but routine reports of local court proceedings and the like, and getting mentioned in them just doesn't confer notability. I suppose it's conceivable that the histories of these women / existence of this book may now be picked up from Wikipedia after the profile they're receiving and disseminated more widely, so that this may eventually turn out to be an instance of WP:TOOSOON. Eustachiusz (talk) 02:53, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Keep (with a concern): The notability guidelines only say that multiple sources are "generally expected". It does not state that notability requires multiple sources. The source itself appears to be "reliable" and the Wiki article also includes links to archived newspaper articles that the source uses as it's foundation. I consider that the coverage in that source is enough to be reliable, significant and independent. As such I believe the article just barely scrapes into notability.Macktheknifeau (talk) 03:07, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Concern: My major concern is potential copyright infringement. With only a single source, how much of the article is copied wholesale from the book? I'm not sure if it is a problem for an AFD, and may only become an issue if actively sought out by the copyright holder, but it's something I feel I should note here.Macktheknifeau (talk) 03:07, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Further up the page there has been some discussion about how an interpretation similar to mine may make anyone who has been written about in a book notable. I think that is an issue for the GNG not this article specifically. If there are issues with 'scraping into notability' on the basis of a single quite well researched, reliable & independent source, they should be taken up at the notability guideline itself for a wider discussion.Macktheknifeau (talk) 03:07, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hey, somebody wrote a term paper on this loser, so she's definitely notable now^[sarcasm]. And look at her, you can tell just by looking that she's notable, that face tells a thousand stories. Plus that lady who coughed up hundreds (at least!) of dollars to get a vanity publisher to print her write-up that was used as the main source (my mother got some poems published that way, they really work). And she died so young, this is how people get notable, somebody cared. Have a heart, people, we don't need encyclopedic standards, we need to make sure such people get noticed. – Athaenara ✉ 05:59, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- "... somebody wrote a term paper"? This is rather offensively phrased. I think the sarcasm is fully as unhelpful as you feared it might be. Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:06, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - An editor's writing proficiency has absolutely nothing to do with notability. How is GNG at all met by an article almost entirely (aside from a self-published book) composed of primary documents? Those documents, by the way, are mainly 2-3 line blurbs. Perhaps because the article's creator is highly respected or because the subjects are women some editors are willing to give a free pass, but you are doing no one--women or Wikipedia-- any favors by ignoring inclusion guidelines you would apply anywhere else. GNG is not met, we are not the news (even old news!), and original research--no matter how well done--is still just that.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:43, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Some of the newspaper reports such as this are more than passing mentions and are not primary (they are interpretively reporting what other people said in court). WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO do not deprecate local sources. Is there any evidence that the book is not reliable? To me it seems to be confirmed by the press reports. Our principle for "notability" is not that we decide based on our own opinions of importance but on whether a topic has been written about in multiple, independent, reliable sources – these sources are not in themselves required to be "notable". Thincat (talk) 08:58, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The example you provided is merely a summary of the inquest into her death. Newspapers back then frequently reproduced similar inquests and/or coronial findings on the death of any random derelict, as long as the details were eye popping. - HappyWaldo (talk) 09:37, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thincat is right in his assessment of the newspaper sources.BabbaQ (talk) 09:54, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just providing context for anyone who might be swayed into thinking that Lynch received a unique amount of coverage here. - HappyWaldo (talk) 10:05, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ThincatThis is setting a dangerous precedent, e.g. a crackpot came in my town to give talks in a local planetarium about how we originated all from space (as in our ancestors came to earth in a spaceship). His talk was announced in a few local newspapers. Does that mean he is now notable enough to have his wiki article ?Iry-Hor (talk) 11:19, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If she received enough coverage to satisfy GNG then yes. We have millions of articles on some very esoteric subjects. Macktheknifeau (talk) 11:40, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This reporting on the coroner's inquest linked to above is the definition of PRIMARY. No analysis. No context on the subject. No commentary - a summary with many quotations from the inquest. Furthermore - there is a WP:V/WP:OR in verifying that the Catherine Lynch in the newspaper report is related to Catherine Lynch/Driscoil mentioned in previous reporting. In this case - we do have a husband's name and address - however in previous newspaper reports we don't even have that - merely having the name or name and age. E.g. [28] which mentions a Catherine Driscoil, prostitute, from Bargeman's-row - there could be more than one individual with the name. None of these PRIMARY reports even bothers to connect the dots to previous incidents - so we are left with guessing that it is the same individual based on the name. Belcham's self-published book, which is not a RS, does connect the dots - but in some cases - she probably did the exact same guesswork (in others - she possibly also had a jail or court record that might have had more, and she probably also had a marriage license and birth record - all of which won't help connection the June 2014 event that ended in a 10 shilling fine) - this leaves us with an article that is possibly of a composite character composed of a number of different individuals.Icewhiz (talk) 11:54, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For many of the reasons given here and in the previous failed nomination. In particular the coroner's comments are a small but noteworthy slice of social history. Wikipedia would be the poorer for not containing articles such as this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.228.185 (talk) 13:07, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete or Merge. WP:PLOT, To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. The argument that she is illustrative of her class doesn't satisfy the condition for an encyclopedic article since it neither defines what that class is or offers any context. If this article were included in an article on Victorian prostitution, say, and explained why she was typical then there really wouldn't be a problem.Twospoonfuls (εἰπέ μοι) 15:16, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Delete Lynch and the others have little notability on their own, but as a group, may be at least locally notable. I find the stories to be interesting, but not notable. There are probably others which could be included in a new grouped article. I am not sure exactly what the title of the new article should be, but probably something with Swansea in the name. Also, as others have noted, the articles rely heavily on primary and self published sources for notability. Cocoaguy ここがいい 19:37, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I wonder whether even the topic "Prostitution in Swansea" is notable, any more than prostitution in any port or other city. How notable IS Swansea in prostitution terms? Locally notable, as you say, but more widely? I'm not sure. There are (as yet) no "Prostitution in [UK city]" articles for comparison.Eustachiusz (talk) 20:50, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:I don't think an article on Prostitution in Swansea would be unreasonable or unnotable. There ought to be a synoptic article on Prostitution in Victorian or Georgian London, but there isn't. There have been monographs on prostitution in Victorian Liverpool and Colechester.Twospoonfuls (εἰπέ μοι) 13:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:37, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have been considering this for a number of days. I would need to see a copy of the secondary source used here (Belcham, 2016) before deciding. Like several others here, I am not comfortable with the extensive use of contemporary (sometimes local) newspaper reports as sources, with only one secondary source to justify this collating of the sources (I say this as someone who has taken this approach in other articles, but it has to be done with great care, particularly given the nature of some of the newspaper reports - I would encourage those participating in this discussion to go and read all the newspaper reports used as sources - they are all online). Iridescent's comments can be seen here (including some suggestions for additional sources for further editing of the articles). Carcharoth (talk) 06:24, 14 March 2018 (UTC) Edited and extended comment. Carcharoth (talk) 10:54, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The issue is 60% of votes think Belcham and the other sources are sufficient and 40% don't. The delete votes are a little stronger than the keep votes but there is no compelling argument. Your "I can't make my mind up comment" appears to sum the situation up quite neatly. However I think it is best to vote either way, there are two questions which you could ask yourself. 1) How much does having these articles benefit the readers of wikipedia? 2) How reliable is Belcham likely to be? Szzuk (talk) 13:26, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see a lot of Delete rationales here that are basic She is not notable because I say so. Most of the Keep rationales are based in guidelines. Anyway this is a dead end AfD since Delete seems to be very far away. Just like in the first AfD. The AfD shouldn't have been initiated in the first place again. Hope when all three articles are kept that a discussion can be held at respective talk pages instead. BabbaQ (talk) 13:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've yet to see a compelling bad policy argument on how Belcham (published via Heritage Add-Ventures) would be a RS. And PRIMARY newspaper accounts (and mainly short blurbs) are not appropriate sourcing either. The problem with this AfD - is opening the door for more such ILIKEIT articles based on court/police/coroner routine reporting in the media - if these are retained, then by the same standards - many petty criminals with 4-5 convictions (or more) would be notable based on the same level sourcing.Icewhiz (talk) 13:40, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Note: brief note that this discussion was referenced off-wiki here (discussion board at The Straight Dope). Carcharoth (talk) 11:29, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG. The whole "Great Man" way of writing history has been out of favor for at least 50 years. In fact, it is so out of favor, there's been a backlash against the backlash and some historians have argued that the pendulum has swung too far against writing biographies or dealing with "great men". If the delete "voters" don't want to be seen as being against articles on women, then perhaps they might try to eliminate the large numbers of small articles on men without nearly as much sourcing as these articles. (Examples such as Darren Newton (which is sourced (and I use the term loosely) to IMDB), Chrysippus of Cnidos (which is sourced entirely to primary accounts), Ma Chul-jun (which is basically only statistics), David Harris Underhill (which is sourced to newspaper accounts and the library he worked for... at least Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Harris Underhill exists but I'll note that the nominator dropped the nomination because having an obit in the New York Times was considered enough to pass GNG... ), Walt Vezmar (sourced to one local newspaper story and a football stats page), Francesco Perrone (sourced only to a stats page), or Merle M. Rasmussen (sourced to companies he worked for and what looks like a similar self-published work as [http://www.mongoosepublishing.com Mongoose publishing is an RPG publisher).) Ealdgyth - Talk 12:50, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merle M. Rasmussen probably should go. David Harris Underhill is a difficult case; one would need to figure out whether the New York Times obituary would make him notable. If not, his article should also be deleted. Centibyte ^(talk) 13:53, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Don't start AFD which would have 0 hope of being closed as delete. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:05, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And that canvas note at the top is borderline rude. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:06, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's been a push for deletion off-wiki L3X1. How is it rude to put a warning notice in response to it? Mr rnddude (talk) 14:04, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mr rnddude Not rude per se, but I consider it bad faith (no reflection on whoever put it there). For there being an off wiki push, the hordes of IPs making non-policy based votes and vandalistic edits have not materialised, so the canvass notice appears (in my eyes) to be directed at all of Iri's TPWs and the dozens of editors who participated in the first nomination. That's why I think it comes across as either bad faith or passive agressive. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:01, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The editor who put it there, L3X1, is a TPW of Iri's, a participant of the last AfD, and one of the earliest keep !voters in both AfDs. It'd be kind of strange for them to be attacking themselves... I get the misapprehension, just poorly timed. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:16, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent choice of words, Mr rnddude, since it most certainly was a misapprehension :p Considering that off-site canvassing had been mentioned fourteen minutes prior to my template, the timing was purely apposite...@L3X1, the reason for the template was that one of the off-wiki canvassed explicitly said You can vote for the article's retention or deletion on this Wikipedia page. I argued for its deletion^{My emph.}; it was to them and theirs that it was directed. Not to any of Iridescent's TPWs—of which I might be one of the most annoying :) Happy Sunday all. —SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 17:58, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Delete. Each of these three not individually Wikipedia:Notable (routine newspaper coverage, and a few pages in a book that is quite possibly self published) though there is something to be said for an article about the group they represent. --GRuban (talk) 13:48, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This article covers WP:BIO as well. To keep these articles is beneficial for Wikipedia. That other articles about similar people could be created as mentioned above has no baring on these three individuals notability. Speculations on books being possibly self published or the newspaper sources being routine or local are at best speculative. There are no consensus either way concerning those issues though Keep !voters gives a strong case about it being notable. My final word on this matter. BabbaQ (talk) 14:49, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In my opinion, the article fails both GNG and PERP. It fails GNG because of the clause that multiple sources are generally expected and this article has only one source that gives more than trivial coverage, the others all being routine reports from the newspaper law courts column. It fails PERP IMO because there is no notable crime here, just petty theft and what-have-you, there are countless thousands of petty criminals with similar records. There may well be a case for an article on crime and prostitution in Wales in the given era, where typical case histories get mentioned, or perhaps even an article on the book on which this article is based, but the notion of having a separate article for every petty criminal who happened to get a few lines in one particular (and in this case possibly self-published) book just strikes me as absurd. Gatoclass (talk) 15:11, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all three Articles all meet WP:GNG. History is not only about the great and the good. Articles like these provide historical insight and context. Infinitely more notable than tuppenny ha'penny celebs "referenced" to today's tabloid press. J3Mrs (talk) 15:20, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Section break

Note - The AfD was closed as No Consensus. Then re-opened again. BabbaQ (talk) 14:43, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I closed the AfD as WP:SNOW consensus with the following rationale : "I think we've heard enough opinions from all sides, but Mr rnddude has effectively summed up the arguments for keeping and deleting. The discussion is now starting to descend into personal attacks, so I think it's best we put a lid on it now. (If anyone objects to the early close, whether through a desire to explore new ground or just "it's against policy!", feel free to revert this close and carry on....)" Two editors objected, so as specified, I re-opened. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:50, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am on your side completely that is why I just can not agree to it being re-opened. This is a No consensus discussion, there will never be a consensus for either all out Keep or all out Delete. This discussions should have remained closed. But since it is re-opened, a few extra days of Keep and Delete rationales and personal attacks can be expected. Regards,BabbaQ (talk) 14:53, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on male bias. Does this AfD represent an attack on women? If these characters were male would we be deleting them? 90% of the editors on WP are male. I have just read a very cogent argument on the article creators talk page that this is indeed the case. I'm uncertain and throwing this one into the pot. Szzuk (talk) 15:22, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting view actually. And something to think about actually.15:23, 14 March 2018 (UTC)BabbaQ (talk)

It doesn't but it is thrown out there as a "reason" to keep. I have written handfuls of articles on female musicians and athletes, but voted deleted here. Am I suddenly "against women" because I gauged these subjects against the same notability guidelines I apply anywhere else? I don't think so.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:27, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can speak only for myself. If this was an article on a male subject I would have !voted to delete outright. Not the fence-sitting "here's an assessment, now do what you will stance" that I've taken here. I read Ealdgyth's comment, and I believe it fails to address the reason why this article ended up here in the first place. Stubs don't get DYK level attention. What happened here is that an article of contentious notability went up onto the front page under a spotlight where it couldn't slip in under the radar. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If these were male subjects with this level of coverage (and not under some silly policy provided exceptions such as NFOOTY) - this discussion would've been a SNOW delete.Icewhiz (talk) 15:36, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the question of the sex of the three principals is a red herring being used by "deleters" to in some way open a second front by suggesting the only reason most of us want to keep this article is for some equality reason. This is a straw man (or woman!) argument - none of the earlier keep explanations mentioned gender. Wikipedia has no shortage of articles about women that might be deleted - such as one about Marlene, the wife of a minor character in a sitcom. But in this case keep is not a spurious attempt to create a "gender balance", it a clear reflection that these are good articles, well-written, containing noteworthy information and exactly the sort of thing Wikipedia should have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.70.166 (talk) 16:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment is categorically untrue, reading the comments previously written, a number of keeps explicitely ask the question whether we would even have considered deletion had the articles' subjects been men. I believe we have here a case of discrimination in the opposite sense, that had these women been petty men criminals, they wouldn't have an article in the first place. Read Iridescent's own words on it : he/she also explicitely says that a central motivation in creating the articles is that we have nearly nothing here on late-19th early-20th century Welsh women. Thus, I think the argument of the gender of the articles' subjects is very much central and play heavily into a number of keep opinions.

"a number of keeps explicitely (sic) ask the question whether we would even have considered deletion had the articles' subjects been men". Simply and clearly not true. People may have noted the original article was about a woman, but the deleters' male/female argument only started when they suggested that was an issue. This is not a question of whether the article concerns men or women, but whether it is a good entry. Which it quite obviously is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.240.254 (talk) 18:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - sourcing seems fine to me and indicates notability. Those who think otherwise are advised to ferret through some of my creations because I'm sure I've done the same sort of thing on occasion and thus far no-one has batted an eyelid. - Sitush (talk) 16:56, 14 March 2018 (UTC) Striking - not getting involved in debates about male/female bias. The discussion here is descending into issues of political correctness, for which it is well known I have little time. - Sitush (talk) 18:04, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment In some respects this would be along the lines of having a biography on everyone who shows up in Joe Manning's Lewis Hines Project, except that his website is well-known and this book is obscure — not that it deserves to be: I'm frankly thinking about getting a copy because I'm interested in English social history of the period, and so is my wife. But it is so for now, and the interest in these specific women arises right out of there. Similarly, Manning has been able to produce limited biographies on some of the kids who appear in Lewis Hine's famous photographs of child labor, mostly through interviews with their relatives and descendants. But as far as I know, the only case of a WP bio of these kids is Shorpy Higginbotham, the namesake of a popular historic photo site, and that bio is borderline, being essentially a copy of Manning's work and with all the interest in it inherited from the photo site. And Manning's work really needs to be read as a whole: it is the cumulative reading of the lot which informs (Higginbotham's short life, for example, is atypical). Petty criminals in England are no doubt easier to document than child laborers in the US, particularly when the police blotter appears in online archives of the local papers, and perhaps that has helped discourage giving each of Mannings's/Hines's subjects an article, but in the large, the situations are essentially alike. If we had an article on Victorian prostitution as we surely have an article on child labor, this book, if picked up by others, would likely be a valuable source; but this article and its sisters seem to be written because the primary sources were accessible, not because any kind of notability standard was met. Mangoe (talk) 17:07, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment looks like an argument for keep but you want to delete. I think WP will alter guidelines to correct for historical bias at some point in the distant future - and there will be no need for AfD discussions on articles like this and the ones you describe. Szzuk (talk) 17:27, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we keep getting arguments of "anything you can get info on can have an article", which is antithetical to WP:NOT in almost every way. But no, I cannot see how you get from what I said to the notion that any person who is used as an example in a book or website is therefore notable and should therefore have an article. That's pretty much the opposite of my point. Mangoe (talk) 21:50, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per —SerialNumber54129. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:30, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the argument that User:Yngvadottir (and others) make, about the study of history has broadened in recent decades, to include the lives of non-prominent people, is a good one. However, that does not make the lives of each and every one of non-prominent people notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article. (Instead we could perhaps need on article on, say Prostitution in Wales ...presently only a redir to Prostitution in the United Kingdom) Also: there are lots of pictures out there of other petty criminals, just google mugshot and Australia to get a flavour. Should we have an article on each of them? I sincerely hope not. As for being deleted for being a female....This is a distraction, I am female myself, but will still vote delete for these articles on totally non-notable females. Huldra (talk) 20:44, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. 1) Not notable. Catherine Lynch et al do not meet the Wikipedia guidelines for notability (persons). Specifically: crime perpetrators may be notable if their victim is a “renowned national or international figure” or if the “motivation for the crime or execution of the crime is unusual.”

A. Beware circular reasoning: The fact that a Wikipedia article has been written for a person can’t be used as evidence the person is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. This should hold even if the article was has stirred significant discussion/controversy, or been featured on the Main Page.

B. The only secondary source appears to be Belcham (2016). This does not meet the GNG which states “a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent.” Belcham 2016 is a highly obscure local history. It does not appear in the Library of Congress Catalog, nor does any title of the publisher “Heritage Add-Ventures” appear in the Library of Congress Catalog. It is not even for sale on Amazon (except for a single $93 copy). Note also that in the Guideline “sources” is plural. This corresponds to the guidance that “multiple sources are generally expected” and “Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic.”

2) Red flags indicate probable Original Research. The OR policy is that “Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources.” Yet in these articles the great majority of sources are primary: local contemporaneous newspaper accounts. The sole secondary source, Belcham 2016, does not fit any of the listed categories of “most reliable sources” : “Peer-reviewed journals, Books published by university presses, University-level textbooks, Magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses, or Mainstream newspapers.”

3) I acknowledge that the specifics of Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines must be determinative here. Nevertheless I would like to comment on a philosophical issue that is raised: what is Wikipedia?

In 1968 the visionary economist Kenneth E. Boulding (see Wikipedia for bio) looked one generation into the future and saw this: “One visualizes a computer on which the totality of recorded history has been coded and from which samples can be taken . . .”

It seems that the proponents of these articles think Wikipedia is – or should be – Boulding’s computer. Since these articles represent rich data points illustrating important issues (treatment of women and those judged by society to be criminals, and the social history of mental illness and of addiction), shouldn’t they find a home on Wikipedia? The answer must be no. Wikipedia is organized at every level to be an Encyclopedia, not an archive. Unless an archive is complete, the selection of material that is made cannot be considered free of bias.

That said, these articles have value, and I would love to see them removed to an appropriate site built for the study of the lives of common people. Local historians (disclosure: like me) have created millions of fascinating and meaningful biographical samples drawn from the lives of common people. Although the lives of all of us common people collectively may be more important that those of “Great Men” – see Wikipedia article on “Annales school” – Wikipedia is just not set up to be a catalog of these biographical data points.

Please note that Wikipedia editors can use the Further Reading section to steer interested readers to Internet sites that are such catalogs. Paugus (talk) 20:58, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should try to take a less US-centric view of things? The book is on Amazon (here), and the absence of a copy in the LoC catalogue means little given this is a UK publication. While the British Library does not have a copy of this book, it holds others by Belcham and by Heritage Add-Ventures (also under the name Heritage Ventures). - SchroCat (talk) 08:25, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon actually does not hold the book. It does have an entry (which it does have for just about any ISBN) - and located a single outside vendor - in this case a book shop in Ammanford [29](less than 20km from Swansea) selling this book. Is there any indication that "Heritage Add-Ventures" or "Heritage Ventures" (the one without the Add- seems to be used by a venture-capital firm) is a reputable publisher?Icewhiz (talk) 08:40, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

? I'm afraid you seem to be missing my point. It was made in response to errors in the previous statement: the book is on sale through Amazon - in other words it does not matter one jot whether they hold stock or not (and their business model is to hold as little stock as possible, so that's no great surprise). I don't know what you're talking about with the venture capital company, I'm afraid: the publisher has its books listed with the British Library under the names "Heritage Add-Ventures" and "Heritage Ventures". It has been publishing books since the early 1990s. I have no real wish to carry on the discussion (I've already !voted above, and only added to my comment to correct obvious errors), but you have a good day. - SchroCat (talk) 09:04, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To attempt to put this into perspective, the UK copyright libraries hold copies of all books published (either commercially or self-published) in the UK (the Bodleian also has EB's publications: I haven't checked the other libraries): it doesn't imply anything whatsoever about their quality, just that they were published in the UK: so it's a meaningless criterion. All four of EB's books or booklets were published by Heritage (Add-)Ventures, who have not (according to the online library catalogues of the two of the copyright libraries that I've checked) published anything by anyone else. As for Amazon, anyone can sell any book on it, so that too means NOTHING.Eustachiusz (talk) 17:54, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Newyorkbrad above, and thus also per most of the "keep" comments in both AfDs and in User talk:Iridescent#Catherine Lynch notability in which, as Newyorkbrad has already said, the article-creator explains the significance of this article at some length. I also agree with NewyorkBrad's statement that 'In no way would Wikipedia be a better encyclopedia without this article than with it' and that consequently, regardless of any Wikilawyering arguments to the contrary, it should be kept per WP:IAR and per the related 5th Pillar of Wikipedia (WP:5P5). Tlhslobus (talk) 05:28, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilawyering is a pejorative term which describes various questionable ways of justifying Wikipedians' actions, and none of the delete !votes that I see are wikilawyering, as they are not going against the spirit of the guidelines. Can we reserve the term wikilawyering when people are actually wikilawyering? Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:33, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not like the wikilawyering comment I suggest you do not use wikilawyering to dispute it. BabbaQ (talk) 07:48, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A self-published recent source, and a string of trivial mentions in the contemporary local press to document a sad but utterly unremarkable life. "The text of an article should include enough information to explain why the person is notable.": the article fails to do this, just makes it clear that these are run-of-the-mill petty criminals / victims of circumstances. Not even the number of convictions is really remarkable, e.g. one of the sourecs in the article discusses equally briefly another female alcoholic with 91 convictions[30]. A source like this makes it abundantly clear that the most minute and obscure trivia of court were recorded in the local papers, not singling out anyone or any class for additional attention. These three articles are based solely on routine coverage and one self-published source, and lack the indepth reliable sources to show any actual notability for the subjects. Fram (talk) 09:33, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for all the reasons Fram lists above. Also, I've just re-read the GNG, and don't see how this subject meets them at all. Dcfleck (talk) 20:00, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The GNG criteria should trump the people notability standard where verifiability is clear, and the local newspapers have proper editorial controls and so support GNG. In any case, we should not be deleting high quality, verifiable content. — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:46, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:IAR. A lot of editors I respect have opined that this article meets the GNG, but I simply don't see how, and such a claim is a dangerous one, a slippery slope towards having lots of BLP1E-type articles for deceased persons. But I don't think we should delete articles that make a positive contribution to the encyclopedia just because we are worried about someone trying the same thing in a less competent way. A long time ago that was our argument against having articles for every school on earth, and we were wrong about that one. Most of them are crappy but the encyclopedia has endured. Iridescent is pushing the envelope of what Wikipedia can be, and there used to be a time we would encourage that, instead now we are collectively a bunch of old cranks who vociferously complain about the slightest change in the way things are done, and a few of the loudest ones are, amusingly, voting keep in this thread. Wikipedia has a lot of untapped potential in the realms of local and social history, and these articles could provide a model for that. There are some things I don’t like: I don’t like twisting G the GNG out of shape, I don’t like how the articles do not provide sufficient historical and social context and parts of them read like a true crime article. But no experiments are perfect, of course. In the end, it comes down to if our rules don’t allow a positive contribution like this without keeping out shitty contributions of the same type, then we need to change our rules, because the encyclopedia comes first, not our exponentially growing mass of policy pages nor the expectations of cranky veterans. Gamaliel (talk) 16:50, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:CRIMINAL. The subject is definitely not a renowned figure and neither the motivation or execution of the crimes are unusual; the subject committed a string of petty crimes, that's it. If that is the level of notablity needed to have an article on this site then it might as well include everything. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 20:28, 15 March 2018 (UTC):[reply]
- @Millionsandbillions: WP:CRIMINAL only applies if a better home can be found for the content: it is really a sort of merge vote, and an argument that the encyclopedia is better served by an item in a list than a separate article. Where would you like to merge the content? — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:25, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The content should not be merged anywhere. This is the first time that I have heard that a notability guideline, in this case WP:CRIMINAL, only applies if a better home can be found for the content. Sorry but Wikipedia is not a repository of all the knowledge in the world and there is a lot of content that is excluded by the notability guidelines. Just because something is verifiable does not mean we need an article on it, see WP:EDITDISC. Other than one self-published book, all sources in the three articles are contemporary news articles and being covered in WP:109PAPERS does not mean the subjects are notable for an encyclopedia. The articles are well-written but that just helps to WP:MASK the lack of notability. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 20:03, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No arguments have overcome her utter lack of notability. The article itself says that she is unnotable. The entire purpose for the book that is the sole source of this article is that she is unnotable, and to describe the life of an unnotable person. That is fine, but that means it fails to fit an encyclopedia with notability rules. Since there is only once real source, this should Redirect to an article on the book itself, which is properly notable, as it has received secondary coverage. — trlkly 01:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability in Wikipedia terms is determined not by subjective personal opinion but by WP:GNG, and many of us in this discussion feel that the coverage in contemporary newspapers and a secondary socurce meet this standard. It's nonsense to suggests "no arguments have overcome" your personal opinion.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:28, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well many of us think that the article does not meet the GNG criterion, in particular owing to the single self-published secondary account.Iry-Hor (talk) 12:49, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:IAR by an anonymous IP may be the least persuasive !vote ever, but here it is. This article does not meet the letter of WP:GNG but it does meet the spirit. The book by Elizabeth Belcham would constitute WP:SIGCOV in a secondary source (multiple sources are generally expected, but not required) if it satisfied one of the exceptions at WP:RSSELF, particularly "Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications. Such material, although written by an established author, likely lacks the fact checking that publishers provide. Avoid using them to source extraordinary claims." Belcham, as a professional archivist with over twenty years experience in her field, is an established expert in her field in my opinion and she is not being used to source extraordinary claims -- in fact, the ordinariness of her claims appears to be the problem cited by many proposing deletion. However, I can find no evidence that she has been published in a third party publication, so the wikilawyers will win this one. I submit, however, that her archival experience satisfies the spirit of alternative indicia of expertise and reliability recognized by the policy. Deleting these articles will in no way improve the encyclopedia. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 23:51, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - More than one user has used WP:IAR as justification for keeping these articles. It seems to me that editors arguing for inclusion on such a basis are going against the spirit of WP:IAR and are using more of an WP:ILIKEIT rationale. Note that WP:IAR states If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. Note the improving. If this article is included then it would result in many, many other articles about similarly non-notable people being created. This would not result in an improving of the encyclopedia, but rather in a degrading of the encyclopedia. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 17:34, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your assessment about inclusion of these articles are wrong. When kept these three articles will be beneficial for the project.BabbaQ (talk) 18:07, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that it is rather your argument that is more of an WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT rationale. That slippery slope argument is more of a fallacy, and WP:IAR does apply here - the notability guideline does prevent us from making this encyclopedia better by deleting a well-written article. L293D (☎ • ✎) 00:35, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BabbaQ does not understand WP:BLUDGEON.--Catlemur (talk) 22:28, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Really? WP:BLUDGEON's summary says:

This page in a nutshell:

It is not necessary or desirable to reply to every comment in a discussion.

The more often you use the same reason in a given discussion, the less effective your words become.

So far BabbaQ's name appears 15 times in this discussion, of which only about 9 seem to be replies disagreeing with other people's arguments (and the number of people disagreed with is about 8 or less). In a discussion as huge as this one, about 9 or less seems nowhere near being a 'reply to every comment in a discussion'. And most of his/her arguments are using different reasons, so 'The more often you use the same reason in a given discussion' also seems inapplicable.Tlhslobus (talk) 07:42, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tlhslobus - Thank you for explaining that to the user. So far I have been accused of bludgeon by two editors that is participating in this thread. One who left a rather biting message at my talk page that I simply ignored. They seem to misunderstand the meaning of the guideline.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:04, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of valuable historical insight and context and that it passes GNG given the sources. I find NYB's argument that the article "is a valid form of history and enhances our coverage of how part of society lived during the period" valid from a policy pov and persuasive from a 'best for the project' pov. I think that any merge would take from the visceral and thought provoking impact it achieves as currently structured in the stand-alone article. Ceoil (talk) 18:11, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: We're only having this discussion because the subject is dead and female. An article about a currently living male with a similar track record would be laughed off the site. - HappyWaldo (talk) 23:43, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW, I promise you I'd be voting Delete in that situation. How about assuming a little good faith? Yilloslime ^T_C 23:46, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets GNG, and I find the "keep" arguments far more persuasive, Newyorkbrad's in particular; Ceoil's comments cut to the heart of the matter as well. It is, in fact, better sourced and more insightful than a boatload of articles about (otherwise less notable) aristocrats and nobles of the same era, for which there wouldn't in a million years have been a deletion disussion. Risker (talk) 05:05, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nothing in any of the above has convinced me to change my opinion since the previous AfD; the articles meet the general notability guide. SagaciousPhil - Chat 18:05, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Newyorkbrad, I think he sums it up nicely. Nomader (talk) 20:01, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient coverage in reliable sources. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:51, 18 March 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. WP:V is not negotiable. The only "keep" opinion that discusses actual sources is qualified as weak and indicates the considerable uncertainty surrounding this name. Sandstein 18:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Xabasha Wacle

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

Yet another Somali non-place. I couldn't even get this one to show up on Geonames, and there are no coordinates, and Google seems to report nothing but mirrors of our article. Mangoe (talk) 23:30, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

per below: I can verify "Xawaal Shaawacle" through geonames and aerial mapping, and if nothing else, it should have an article. That said, "Xabasha Wacle" is far enough from this phonetically as to leave me doubting, especially since the one source seems to think they are different places. However if others are convinced, I would be OK with redirecting this name to the name we can find from geonames. Mangoe (talk) 02:03, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very rusty, but at the risk of straying further into OR, it seems reasonable: b > β (/b/ weakens to [β] intervocalically), VlʃV > VʃV (no direct confirmation however "One unusual change which can occur is /lt/ to [ʃ]"), and "c" is the Somali spelling of ʕ, which can sound like a glottal stop between vowels("a'a"). Looks like "Xawaal whatever" is the standard form for Somali placenames, so whatever (whatever) works. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 08:51, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 23:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 23:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So with this one, the title seems to mean "Bull". But a random instagram user seems to have visited the place [31] saying it is known as "Habaasha Wa'lei", or "Xabaasha Cawl" both of which is equally unverifiable, and probably based on reading this article. Prince of Thieves (talk) 13:53, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I am equally wary of the article, however I believe this is a byproduct of the lack of standardisation of the language, resulting in different transliterations, resulting in a perception of fictitiousness. hHowever, perception is not necessarily reality. 92.9.152.17 (talk) 21:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Seems to be a legit district/town of Somalia - the article really needs someone familiar with Somalian resources to add more to the article Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:53, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:20, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 23:14, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Map and Geodata. Habaasha Wa'ale mentioned in 2002 on page 15, with a population of approximately 1000 (possibly including other villages?). "Xabasha Waale" mentioned in 2007 on page 89 with a population of 180 and 30 households. "Xabasha" mentioned in 2014 on p38. As "Xabasha Wacle" appears to be in a very few sources such as [32]. Rename with lots of redirects for the various transliterations? Perhaps merge to Las Khorey District? ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 02:22, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This doesn't sound like it even meets WP:V, which is a bright-line requirement. Hydronium cites two sources, one which says, approximately 1000 population, the other says, 30-180 households. Unless we're talking 10-person households, at least one of those is wrong. Or, maybe 10 person households really are the norm there. But, none of this sounds very WP:V-ish to me. Better to omit something than to make things up because they sound good. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually the second source says that the place has a population of 180 over 30 households (which would be 6 per household). The fact that the estimates vary by a factor of 5 isn't encouraging. Hut 8.5 22:33, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, I mis-read that. I read it as some number of households between 30 and 180, but it's really 30 households and 180 people. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:44, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reopened and relisted per User talk:Joe Roe#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xabasha Wacle
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 16:42, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Further to my original comment which still stands, I am !voting a clear delete, citing complete lack of verifiability. There have been several weak keep !votes, however none of these editors have identified or clearly used any reliable source(s) which confirm the existence of this place. It is possible that it exists, and original research conducted here has found a few mentions in very unreliable sources, with no clear attribution and conflicting facts. In my view this article fails the core policy requirement of verifiability, i.e WP:V. Prince of Thieves (talk) 16:47, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NGEO says This guideline specifically excludes maps and census tables from consideration when establishing topic notability, because these sources often establish little except the existence of the subject. That's all we've got here: dots on maps, entries in databases which are basically the same thing and listings in census-like surveys. And we have to use a fair bit of original research to get that far. Hut 8.5 22:33, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And we know from then last ten+ AfD's on these places that the databases were filled in by incompetent unknowns, since a significant number of dots don't equate to actual reality in the slightest, and others are hopelessly mislabeled. Prince of Thieves (talk) 23:06, 13 March 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. This was just kept at a very recent discussion. While consensus can change, it's not going to happen in two weeks. Consensus is clear for now and should be respected. A reasonable interval should precede any future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 20:20, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Hogg (activist)

AfDs for this article:

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

Hardly notable as he is just one survivor of a high school shooting out of hundreds 1bcdbackup (talk) 16:27, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - Kept by clear consensus barely a week ago. The literally hundreds of reliable sources discussing his activism in the wake of the massacre are irrefutable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:34, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep We were just here at the start of this month. XOR'easter (talk) 16:35, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nothing has changed since last AfD. AdA&D ☆ 16:43, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:52, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:52, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Discussion took place a week ago. MT Train^Talk 16:57, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, although he may be seen as trivial at some point in the future, as Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Only time will tell. WP:Crystal. Kierzek (talk) 16:59, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Nom offers absolutely no accepted criterion for deletion other than the purely notional "just one survivor of a high school shooting." We don't delete articles on the basis of made-up criteria. The guy's obviously notable based on the depth of coverage in mainstream media as reflected in the present state of the article. Because I am guessing people might bring up WP:BLP1E here, let me just point out that Hogg is notable as a survivor of the shooting and also as an activist about gun laws. Not a single event, is it? 192.160.216.52 (talk) 17:03, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all members into one cohesive and easily-manageable unit. We don't have individual articles for the Power Rangers or Planeteers. This motley crew of inexperienced do-gooders isn't fictional, but is otherwise similar. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:21, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This individual may be notable now, but who can say that this individual will stay notable in the future? (i.e.) Look at the declining page views for the article on it's talk page. 1bcdbackup (talk) 17:49, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- What kind of argument is that? WP:NTEMP. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 17:54, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - its about "enduring notability", see WP:NOTNEWS. Kierzek (talk) 19:27, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: wait six months and a solution to whether or not to merge will be more readily apparent. Right now, the individual actors and Never Again MSD are all notable imo.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:32, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per previous AfD. Also, do not merge with other notable survivors. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 18:05, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, possibly speedy per numbers 2 and 3. The discussion closed as keep just 2 weeks ago, nothing has changed since then; if anything, subject's notability has risen due to increased coverage and media attention. ValarianB (talk) 19:26, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as above.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:30, 12 March 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. The only "keep" is by an SPA. Sandstein 18:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Pickering

AfDs for this article:

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

Not a single source in the article contains more than the most cursory passing mention of the subject. There appear to be no examples of in-depth, significant coverage available. Subject does not meet WP:NCREATIVE or WP:NBIO. Yunshui ^雲 _水 16:19, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:52, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:52, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough sourcing to show he is a notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:53, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was tending towards keep based upon reading the article but then I checked all of the refs and none of them are about him. Szzuk (talk) 18:10, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Creator of notable TV programs as well as production company. User:Mark Williams222254 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Williams 222254 (talk • contribs) 09:04, 18 March 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. CSD G7, author requested deletion SpinningSpark 14:47, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ant & Dec's Saturday Night Takeaway (series 15)

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

Author of article is putting it up for debate on whether to keep what they created or have it deleted. GUtt01 (talk) 15:26, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are not the author. Please give an actual rationale for deletion. SpinningSpark 17:17, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:58, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please read carefully what I said. No where in my rationale, did I state that I was the author. GUtt01 (talk) 21:12, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did read it carefully. Now you read my comment carefully. I never said you did claim to be the author. What you have done is claim that the author supports this RfD without a link showing that they do. You have asked the author on their talk page if they want the page deleted, but so far there has been no reply. You have not even informed the author that you have opened this RfD. SpinningSpark 22:03, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, they were the one to make the Nomination for the article's deletion - check the article's edit history. GUtt01 (talk) 07:00, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right, that would be this edit. Sorry, I hadn't noticed that. It would have helped if you had linked that in the first instance. That's a clear CSD G7 in that case. I'll close this as speedy delete on that basis. SpinningSpark 14:44, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ant & Dec's Saturday Night Takeaway. None of the other 14 series have their own articles and most of this is unencyclopedic fansite trivia. Ajf773 (talk) 19:13, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep as no proper reason for deletion has been presented by the nominator (please inform the page creator). I would be inclined to redirect per Ajf773 as a bunch of 'type what I see' recaps of this season of the series. Until the proper notifications and reasonings are done though, procedural keep. Nate • (chatter) 02:52, 13 March 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 18:13, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Society of Chemical Engineers, IIT (BHU), Varanasi

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

non-notable student organization. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:08, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, thoroughly unremarkanle organization.TheLongTone (talk) 16:04, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:59, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:59, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:59, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All universities have such organizations in most departments, this isn't any special or notable. MT Train^Talk 17:02, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing special about this one, just a lot of promotional fluff. Ajf773 (talk) 17:49, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Zero notability.Per all above.~ Winged Blades^Godric 12:21, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is a routine student organisation in a university. These are not notable unless they have any extraordinary contribution to society.--DreamLinker (talk) 02:57, 18 March 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 18:13, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

M.Yuvaraja

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

Does not pass WP:NPOL, being a regional head of the youth branch of a party. Coverage is mostly on an issue/controversy of a cultural bull taming sport, with passing mentions. Apart from that I can find a handful of reports on his election as a youth leader and suspension, which is a common thing in the regional section of major newspapers. MT Train^Talk 14:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:37, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:37, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing claimed in the article constitutes an "inherent" pass of WP:NPOL that would entitle a person to have a Wikipedia article just because he exists, but the sourcing here isn't even remotely adequate to claim that he passes WP:GNG in lieu. Bearcat (talk) 15:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat above, no evidence of passing WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. GSS (talk|c|em) 13:42, 14 March 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. WP: SNOW per WP:IAR; even after discounting the non-policy based arguments of Wakari07 and Zanhe, there is a unanimous consensus that on this particular article, the community disagrees with the nominator as to the precise applicatIon of WP:NOTNEWS. Also, I do not endorse the criticisms of the nomination itself and this is absolutely without prejudice to any past or future noms on similar topics; I also do not endorse Wakari's insistence on replying to multiple posts with tangential observations. (non-admin closure) —SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 11:24, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Bombardier Challenger 604 crash

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

WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTINHERITED apply to this non-commercial but tragic aviation accident. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:17, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:18, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:18, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:18, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:18, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per WP:RAPID this 11 fatality crash (which included some fairly notable people) on a private international flight from 11 March 2018 is receiving wide international coverage as of 12 March. We are unable to assess future coverage at this time as it requires a BALL, and coverage up to now has been wide, hence RAPID applies. One should also note that this crash passes the criteria set forth in WP:AIRCRASH (yes, an essay) as the Bombardier Challenger 604 has a MTOW of 21,863kg where as the cutoff is 5,670 kg or less for light aircraft, which the Challenger 604 exceeds even in its empty weight of 12,315 kg.Icewhiz (talk) 14:32, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough media coverage. Important people on board. Rare crash of a Bombardier. (Gabinho^>:) 15:51, 12 March 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:35, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability is inherited. The article can also be expanded with the origin country of the plane. Wakari07 (talk) 16:50, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Notability is not inherited per WP guidelines....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:27, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I mean the notable subject is dead. It's like argument zero. Wakari07 (talk) 20:24, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Icewhiz. Also the explanation by OP is not convincing at all. JahlilMA (talk) 18:56, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's the first time that I read something like "user page is brought to you by a Florida Corporation and equal opportunity employer" on a Wikipedia user page. Wakari07 (talk) 19:07, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - fatal plane crashes are generally considered notable. -Zanhe (talk) 19:15, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No they aren't. Check Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Saint-Bruno mid-air collision and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air Cargo Carriers Flight 1260 both fatal air crashes and the articles on them were deleted. That's just from last year....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:27, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We should definitely keep these kind of airplane crashes. Besides, this specific incident is headlined all major and minor media in Turkey.--Joseph (talk) 20:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep double-digit casualties, and a breaking news story. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:02, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's important to note that the "notable" person who died is also at AfD after their page was created in the wake of this incident. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mina Başaran. My vote is still "snow keep"; a plane crash with double-digit casualties in the news is unlikely to be deleted immediately. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:08, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think also deleting Mina Başaran would still more reduce the usability of Wikipedia. Besides, the templates are ugly. Wakari07 (talk) 21:41, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - just keep on piling up the Keep !votes. Headlining in most media both national and international. Per WP:RAPID.BabbaQ (talk) 21:23, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While private jet crashes are often non-notable, this one has unfortunate two-digit death toll and as such decent coverage. Brandmeister^talk 21:25, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
KeepSignificant loss of life makes it notable. WWGB (talk) 23:16, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many accidents like this have occurred, very tragic examples include 1999 South Dakota Learjet crash, 2008 South Carolina Learjet 60 crash etc etc. Many can be found on the page List of accidents and incidents involving general aviation. Again User:WilliamJE I really do not know why you keep putting articles these up for deletion. I will bring this up on your talk page, yet again...Martinillo (talk) 23:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- What a mess going for 100k edits like this. Wakari07 (talk) 23:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC) Can't we just merge and redirect Mina Başaran to 2018 Bombardier Challenger 604 crash and remove the (ugly) AfD templates swiftly? Wakari07 (talk) 00:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Deaths involved locally prominent models. All female plane (pilot and passengers). Seems a unique case that could even be dramatized in Air Crash Investigations. Meganesia (talk) 16:50, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep the nominator has a history of AfDing notable yet recent aviation events, and the snow here shows the AfD was a complete waste of time. SportingFlyer talk 07:04, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the complaint department really? Wakari07 (talk) 08:48, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per all the above. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:15, 13 March 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)} 21:12, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Honeymoon Disease

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

It looks like this page was generated by a fan with a promotional slant-- the references consist of several links to the band's own website, an interview by someone named "Electronic Brain", and three reviews of their first two albums. The reviews might be legit... for articles on the albums. Do they pass WP:MUSIC? Bindle-stiff (talk) 13:20, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:45, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:45, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.The only stuff I could find per Google is their own promotional efforts. Existence does not equal notability. No significant independent coverage. The reviews cited are not legit for notability purposed. The are from poor sources, consisting of user submitted content or small time. Specifically:

Devilsgate Media is a do-it-yourself promotional service. Here is there detailed guide from their website: http://devilsgatemedia.com/guide-to-band-submissions/

Maximum Volume Music is a similar website. Here are their submission guidelines: http://www.maximumvolumemusic.com/contact-maximum-volume-news/

Rocktopia is user submitted: Here are their guidelines: http://rocktopia.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=46:terms-and-conditions&catid=36:termsandconditions&Itemid=57

Danagerdog Music reviews is just the website of one guy who reviews the music he likes; on the site he solicits submissions. ShelbyMarion (talk) 17:26, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Refs don't support notability, they're forums, primary or weak. Szzuk (talk) 17:47, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough to get it over the notability line. Eagleash (talk) 18:00, 19 March 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. A whole variety of views, and no agreement / refutation on any of them. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:00, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Chaty

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

BLP1E if I ever saw one. Claim for notability is to be 8th i a national beauty pagent. There needs to be some evidence of ensuring notability to retain this. Coverage looks sparse too. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:05, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: This subject competed in the Miss America beauty pageant, which is notable. Are there more sources that can be added to this article? Carajou (talk) 17:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added additional sources to the article. Passes WP:GNG. She appears to be a local figure and continued to receive coverage about her activities for years after she stopped competing.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4] Lonehexagon (talk) 23:20, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

Delete -- the subject does not appear to have achieved anything of note; i.e. "She grew up singing in church and has performed the national anthem for the Chargers, the Padres, and on TV" is hardly a claim of significance. Coverage is routine and / or hyper-local, as in "local resident does good". Fails WP:ANYBIO & WP:SIGCOV. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 08:06, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Claim to notability is that she was Miss California 2007. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:01, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some responses remind me of WP:DONTLIKEIT as opposed to actual Wikipedia guidelines. Chaty had significant coverage about who she was and what she did for years after her Miss California win, satisfying WP:GNG, regardless of what anyone personally feels about her accomplishments. Lonehexagon (talk) 21:01, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep substantial coverage over many uears for various beauty pageant titles, her singing, her role as a beauty queen, and her career pursuits afterwards. FloridaArmy (talk) 21:10, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss California list of winners, her primary claim to fame. Her Miss Mendocino and Miss America attempt can be added in the notes. While I can't view all the sources, they primarily seem to relate to her as Miss California. She doesn't appear to have received note as a psychologist (if she is one: all I can verify is she was a psych major and works for the Alzheimer’s Association). @Lonehexagon:, can you evaluate the depth of coverage for the 2011 Ukiah Daily Journal source? Is it significant coverage or a passing mention, and does it primarily relate to Miss California, or other, independent activities? --Animalparty! (talk) 01:40, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 13:15, 12 March 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.

Redirect name to Miss California#Winners list . Although her Miss California title and 8th place finish at Miss America pageant were covered by regional newspapers in California, she does not appear to have done anything else. no notability beyond being Miss California.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:10, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) GSS (talk|c|em) 09:40, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hitomi Yaida

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

References here consist of the artist's own biography and a series of dead Internet links. A web search shows Instagram, Twitter, Amazon, SoundCloud, and other sites that are promotional. I was not able to find substantive discussion in independent reliable verifiable sources in English-- If they exist in Japanese, we need someone who speaks Japanese who can find them. Right now, this article looks like a promotional piece for the artist. Am not certain she qualifies under WP:MUSICIAN or not. Bindle-stiff (talk) 13:02, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:11, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:11, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:11, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Easily, overwhelmingly, meets WP:BAND criterion 2: "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." For instance she had two albums on the Billboard Japan Chart for August 14, 2004, both a song and an album on the Billboard Japan chart for November 1, 2000, and so on. Check this GBooks search for multiple other instances of her charting. Note also that Billboard Japan is an approved chart for notability considerations. This is an extraordinarily irresponsible nomination, a failure of WP:BEFORE, and a radical misunderstanding of WP:ARTN given the nom's reliance on the state of the sources in the article. I'ts especially bad given that nom states explicitly that they aren't sure if she satisfies the relevant notability guideline. If you're not sure, don't nominate. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:34, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Would have been nice if the article mentioned either of the Billboard achievements, I didn't catch those in my search. I did a basic search on her and it did not turn up the Billboard stuff. My bad. But maybe it isn't so deeply irresponsible for me to nominate it for deletion given what I did find and the paucity of references given in the current article. That is why we get to have this debate, to clarify whether or not the subject really is notable. Thank you for clarifying. Mr. IP-address. Bindle-stiff (talk) 10:03, 13 March 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 18:11, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Balliahurbarre

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

Yet another Somali supposed town, this one dumped in from getamap, which resolves to another blank spot on the ground. Mangoe (talk) 11:51, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:11, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:11, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete mass creation from unreliable databases etc not a good idea etc. Fails WP:V because there is no evidence it exists. Prince of Thieves (talk)
Delete I did see a source saying there may be a health facility there, but then it failed to load. Nothing nearby on the map. If nothing else, at least rename to Barri Ahur Barre. SportingFlyer talk 07:23, 13 March 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 18:11, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Ams

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

Contested PROD on the grounds that he passes WP:NFOOTY. However, referees are not covered by NFOOTY, only players and managers. Consensus through historic AfDs is that referees in any league / competition need to satisfy GNG alone. Initial concern therefore remains, there is insufficient significant, third-party coverage of the individual to satisfy GNG Fenix down (talk) 11:50, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 11:51, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:56, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:56, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:56, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 11:57, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, Unless he has officiated top level international matches or received substantial coverage, then delete. Govvy (talk) 13:07, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment officiating at international level is no guarantee that a referee will meet WP:GNG. Hack (talk) 14:41, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

reply Officiating at a world cup or European tournament, I would go on to say that should pass a certain level. Hence why I said top. Govvy (talk) 15:43, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The level they've refereed is irrelevant, they need to pass WP:GNG. Hack (talk) 11:51, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. Hack (talk) 14:41, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Refs are unlikely to meet GNG unless they screw up bigtime at least twice. This article barely even claims notability. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:09, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:01, 17 March 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 18:10, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unkle Adams

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

Currently very poorly sourced article consisting entirely of non-rs sources, primary sources, and short blurbs. Searches turned up some hits, but all were either short blurbs or were from non-reliable sources. In addition, the somewhat longer blurbs all dealt with the single dust-up between this individual and a youtube personality, so WP:BIO1E might apply, but I think the greater policy would simply be WP:GNG, since there is not enough in-depth coverage from reliable, independent sources to show that he passes. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:50, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:50, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:51, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:51, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:55, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable motivational speaker/Youtube personality. The Newsday coverage is WP:MILL news coverage of appearances, and doesn't discuss him in detail in any way. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:06, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. YouTubers are not handed an automatic notability freebie just because their own or other people's self-published and user-generated YouTube videos technically metaverify that they exist — a YouTuber has to receive reliable source coverage, in sources independent of their own self-created content, to clear our notability standards. But there's not even close to enough reliable source coverage being shown here. Bearcat (talk) 23:23, 14 March 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:27, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Noir Leather

AfDs for this article:

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

Nothing special. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 18:46, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:59, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:59, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as noted at the previous discussion the store is considered an institution and is covered very extensivley in major independent reliable sources. Clearly notable. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:35, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ -- a store of local significance only & no improvement since the last AfD. Sources are local; don't meet WP:AUD / WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:30, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 18:33, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Keep Here is another source
• Witkowski, D'Anne. "DIRTY LITTLE SECRET." Between the Lines. 2008. HighBeam Research. (March 4, 2018). Link

•"NOIR LEATHER: Feeding the Detroit Punk and Fetish Scene". THE METROPOLITAN. 27 April 2017. Retrieved 2018-03-04.

So with the one on the article that is two full articles. Personally I like to see three, but it is in the range of SIGCOV that usually passed AfD. Found third full article source. Jbh ^Talk 19:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC) Last edited: 19:35, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I'm not convinced about the coverage listed above. For example, https://themetdet.com/noir-leather/ is the type of coverage one would expect from a local outlet: "local store does well". It's routine bordering on advertorial. "Longest-running boutique in X neigbourhood" is hardly a claim of significance. This content belongs on the store's Facebook page, not in an encyclopedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:39, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Three independent publishers choosing to write in-depth articles spaced over years is pretty much the definition of significant coverage. I do not see how you can argue lack of depth when each article is multi-paragraph, discusses several topics including its history and how it fit into the city's social scene, including the effects it had on the local neighborhood - they certainly are not the type of coverage envisioned by CORPDEPTH. Nor, does 'it is only local' really stand up when local is Detroit. The metro area has 4.3 million people. That is a pretty significant media market with many, many local stores to choose from - local coverage is a valid arguement when you are talking places like metro Iuka, Mississippi but not so much for the second largest metro area in the Midwest. Jbh ^Talk 03:00, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My take on these sources is that they are routine bordering on advertorial. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:08, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Per Jbh. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:47, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't buy this. It's a leather shop covered by ~3 decent sources, but in context to the USA it is not 'famous'. It is highly questionable whether fame should ever be factor in determining encyclopedia value, but coverage that meets WP:GNG is. And the fact this store is attached to a 'scene', however local, is a claim of relevance. Prince of Thieves (talk) 13:56, 12 March 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. Sandstein 18:10, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aung Kyaw Htet

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

Fails WP:NARTIST. Significant coverage in independent reliable sources not found. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:45, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:49, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:49, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of sources in article and on web. Note that this is probably because he is in Burma, and we are unlikely to find a large number of English sources on him or his work. I have the sense form an image search, and a few namechecks in Google Books, that he would actually be notable if we were able to search and read in Burmese or Thai.104.163.148.25 (talk) 00:48, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:22, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep although I am concerned about a possible COI from one of the editors (apparently same family name), language barriers should not lead the delete discussion. If there are sources, they need to be considered. The English language sources I did find, do indeed strongly indicate notability, e.g. his work being at auction at Bonhams, this galley exhibition, or this gallery profile indicating his work being exhibited in major national galleries. One of Thailand's leading English language newspapers ran this article, similarly the Burmese newspaper had this _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 07:36, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: please can we evaluate the new sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:32, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Passes WP:ARTIST as shown by Jake Brockman above. Also this GBooks search shows a wide range of shows at a wide range of galleries. Finally, while 104.163.148.25 above is putatively arguing for the deletion of this article, their assertion that " he would actually be notable if we were able to search and read in Burmese or Thai" is actually an argument against deletion. Per WP:ARTN it's the sources in the world that determine notability rather than the sources which happen to be present in the article at the moment. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:52, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We do not keep things on the off chance that sources might exist in another language that we are unable to read. They have to actually exist. Also, your Gnews search if you actually examine the results, shows only one sentence or less mentions. Such routine mentions are not considered to be RS. Having a wide range of shows at a wide range of galleries also has no value in terms of determining notability. That is what all artists, notable or not, do. 104.163.147.121 (talk) 20:58, 13 March 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. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 13:19, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn Fitzpatrick

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

promotional and non notable, written by now-banned paid editor. Placement on PR-based lists of important people is not notability Possible G11. The overall presentation would have been suitable for her bio on the firm's web site, but not an encyclopedia DGG ( talk ) 10:12, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:48, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:48, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:48, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- As DGG knows well, the state of the sources in the article is not relevant in a deletion discussion per WP:ARTN. In any case, this woman passes WP:GNG easily. There's one NYT source already cited in the article. Here's another one. The Bloomberg sources in the article are all WP:RS. We also have American Banker, Business Insider, Forbes, which calls her "One Of Wall Street's Most Prominent Women," and so on. As I said, a clear pass of WP:GNG. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:40, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

yes, that second NYT article is enough for notability , but the article remains essentially promotional, mostly relying on promotional sources, and that's a violation our basic principle of NOT ADVOCACY. If it's intended as promotionalism , the notability doesn't even come into it. And given the nature of the editors other work here, this is undoubtedly also paid editing with the necessary declarations. DGG ( talk ) 16:47, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but WP:NOTADVOCATE is about article content. The fact that the tone and most of the content is promotional is not a reason to delete the article but a reason to hack it down to a stub and start again. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 16:52, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Our practice has consistently been to delete when the article is so extensively promotional that the promotionalism cannot be removed without fundamental rewriting beyond normal editing, as compared with when it is a clearly removable sentence or two. The overall tone here is such that fundamental rewriting would be necessary. Furthermore , the article was submitted by an undeclared paid editor-- though the specific statement in the TOU did not go into effect until 204, this was always contrary to our COI policy. DGG ( talk ) 01:15, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe anyone is talking about how promotional this article is. Bloomburg, American Banker and the WSJ are reliable sources. The article doesn't use puffery to describe her career. Please, DGG, quote specific passages that you think are promotional. Also explain how the sources are also promotional. Please ping me, as I don't watch every AfD. Thanks.

Delete I absolutely agree. I think it would need substantial work to bring it to order and that is work that shouldn't have to be done. It goes beyond what is expected of a volunteer, in their normal course of work. It reads like an About Us page on a company site, and is of zero value, except as promotion. scope_creep (talk) 12:16, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG. In addition, if anyone still thinks the words are "promotional in tone," I guarantee that I can rewrite the whole article in under 15 minutes. Too easy. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:16, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Other sources: Entertainment Close-Up 2015, American Banker 2017, Forbes 2017.

Keep per this news search, including multiple dedicated pieces in the New York Times and per Megalibrarygirl rewriting the article in less time than it takes me to cook a chicken madras with pilau rice and two naan. (Yum) Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:47, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per meeting GNG. I am perplexed that the nomination says that Fitzpatrick is "non notable" and then the nominator later states in the discussion that "yes, that second NYT article is enough for notability". Seems somewhat misleading, especially seeing that the source was already cited... Thank you to the individuals who helped improve the article. Thsmi002 (talk) 23:02, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject is notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:51, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability is a property of the subject not the article. Where better sources and article improvement is possible these should be improved, not the article deleted. Improving articles is the work of volunteers, any work on Wikipedia is beyond what is expected of volunteers - because nothing is expected. Jonpatterns (talk) 17:30, 17 March 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 18:09, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tres Vampires

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

Does not seem like an unrealized project with an unreleased EP meets criteria for inclusion but given the fame of 2 members wanted input on this. Notably the FB page (our of date) says nothing about the project & is mainly used by the least known person involved for self publicity. JamesG5 (talk) 09:52, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This collaboration doesn't seem to have amounted to much and doesn't appear to have received any significant coverage. --Michig (talk) 11:23, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:12, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: at best, you could say this is WP:TOOSOON. But all this amounts to is three tracks recorded years ago that have never been officially released. Having two notable members doesn't make this project notable, especially when they've never released anything commercially. Richard3120 (talk) 21:21, 12 March 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. Closing sock nomination with evident consensus (non-admin closure) Lourdes 13:17, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan O'Donohue

AfDs for this article:

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

Only notable role is Demyx from Kingdom Hearts. No reliable sources about this subject could be found. Article is essentially a filmography list that pretends to be an actual article. MizukaS (talk) 00:28, 25 February 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) 02:35, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:35, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GSS (talk|c|em) 16:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep multiple leading roles inclusing The Burds ar Back, Waht-a-Mess animated series and Byrds of Paradise. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:07, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 05:21, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep he does have four or five recurring roles n television series so has claims for [[WP:NACTOR] Atlantic306 (talk) 17:56, 12 March 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. Sandstein 18:07, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Evann Siebens

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

Probably not notable enough, although it looks like the artist has had some nice exhibitions. Article reads like a resume/promo. Fails to state the impact the work has had on culture/society. Limited news coverage outside of sourced articles. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 05:00, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:37, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:37, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the coverage I found in a search was routine, and did not rise to the point of being independent, significant and of adequate volume to base notability on.104.163.147.121 (talk) 06:58, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing the relevant criteria. A worthy artist but Wikipedia's rules are quite specific. -The Gnome (talk) 09:44, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment here are some WP:RS from a quick search LA times NYT canadian art vv sf chronicle. I haven't gone deep, but this appears to show sustained coverage.--Theredproject (talk) 13:32, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those look convincing until you actually read them. The first two are extremely minor mentions.104.163.147.121 (talk) 15:18, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Also, here is a CV to make the searching a little more focused. Obv everything on there needs to be verified, but it will give a sense.--Theredproject (talk) 13:44, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - 104.163.147.121 How about this paragraph I added, with citations, showing that one of her films was produced for POV and won awards at festivals? It screened at MoMA also, but I can't find the reference. I find it hard to find info about work that was done around 2000 or so, right at the analog/digital threshold so there isn't a lot of paper records, and the digital stuff was overwritten. Here's the para "Her film American Aloha, about the history and rebirth of hula dancing, was produced for the PBS POV series.[5] The film won a CINE Golden Eagle Award in 2003, Silver Hugo Award at the Chicago International Television Festival, and the Bronze Award in Cultural Documentary at WorldFest Houston.[6][7] The film also screened at the Hawai‘i International Film Festival, and the Native American Film and Video Festival at the Smithsonian Institute.[8]" and I noted that the work was supported by NEA and NYSCA funds.
Keep : I'm finding quite a few mentions of her and her work in published books on film and dance. It's tricky because the books and magazines aren't always viewable online, but she's mentioned repeatedly. I've cited a couple. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 02:20, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:17, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Not a badly written piece with sufficient sourcing. In addition found an in-depth interview with PBS with concern to her involvement with American Aloha, as shown here [33] along with articles and further interviews with the Huffington Post and Vancouver Sun. I believe she meets Wikipedia standards for inclusion.ShoesssS ^Talk 14:07, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree, with Mary Mark Ockerbloom and Shoessss. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:00, 14 March 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. Killiondude (talk) 05:31, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bethany Ashton Wolf

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

per WP:Notability, has very few (if any) reliable sources even about her LADY LOTUS • TALK 02:52, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject is a film director/writer, who directed a film that received a wide release this year. I would give her the benefit of the doubt as to notability. I found another reliable source about her and added it to the article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:23, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She meets WP:FILMMAKER, "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work." She wrote and directed Forever My Girl, which opened in 2018 in 1,115 theaters, and has grossed $16.2 million as of March 4, 2018. So, the film itself clearly meets WP:NFILM. Edwardx (talk) 09:41, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely passes FILMMAKER, as per Edwardx. There are a ton of reviews about Forever My Girl on HighBeam Research, btw. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:35, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:CREATIVE Atlantic306 (talk) 17:50, 14 March 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. Killiondude (talk) 05:31, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Day (politician)

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

Article created by WP:SPA. He is a town supervisor and unsuccessful congressional candidate. All sourcing is local. Does not pass WP:POLITICIAN and his military service does not pass WP:SOLDIER either. Rusf10 (talk) 00:49, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This was the authors only article and he edited no other articles at all (Special:Contributions/RocklandWatch) staying on the site for only 20 minutes 4 years ago, however you shouldn't brand every editor who only edited one article as an SPA. Nothing on the Wikipedia:Single-purpose account suggests that this would be an SPA. Prince of Thieves (talk) 11:35, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editors that busy themselves on only one subject are, by definition, single-subject or single-purpose accounts, although they might indeed not strictly qualify for the WP admonitions on SPAs. -The Gnome (talk) 11:24, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Prince of Thieves (talk) 12:15, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete SPA or not, this reads like a brochure from the failed campaigns. I see no real notability here. Mangoe (talk) 18:24, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete don't need to even consider the SPA account as he fails WP:POLITICIAN and his failed other political run didn't get him past WP:GNG.
Delete per nomination. -The Gnome (talk) 11:24, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. non-notable subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Prince of Thieves (talk) 12:15, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neither being a town supervisor nor being an unsuccessful candidate for Congress is grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of itself, but there's no other notability claim here and not nearly enough reliable sourcing to deem him a special case. Bearcat (talk) 15:32, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We have come to realize that being a candidate for congress alone is not justification for having an article, nor is being a town supervisor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:49, 14 March 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. Killiondude (talk) 05:30, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

M.A. Simonetti

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

Non notable author of self-published books--see the Amazon listing [34] WorldCat shows zero libraries holding one of the books .[35]; the others are not even in WorldCat. The WP article was written by the author's son--see the talk p. The article has been here for 7 years, quite unnoticed. I'd like to think we'd do better nowadays. DGG ( talk ) 00:38, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 04:48, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 04:48, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 04:48, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Self-sourced, clearly promotional article on non-notable novelist, created ~~by herself or by a relative~~ by her son. SunChaser (talk) 08:19, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A WP:COI article on a self-published writer, without evidence of notability. AllyD (talk) 08:47, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find a single reliable source, and given the Amazon links I'm inclined to say this article is an attempt at a revenue stream more than anything else. A couple interviews with a blog and Goodreads isn't enough to meet GNG/NAUTHOR. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:02, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, as lacking notability. This is clearly a promotional piece. -The Gnome (talk) 12:15, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there's only one reliable source, which is not enough to show notability. Bearian (talk) 01:23, 18 March 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] ttps://newspaperarchive.com/ukiah-daily-journal-jul-06-2007-p-1/

[2] ttps://newspaperarchive.com/ukiah-daily-journal-may-24-2008-p-1/

[3] ttps://newspaperarchive.com/ukiah-daily-journal-jun-15-2008-p-5/

[4] ttps://newspaperarchive.com/ukiah-daily-journal-dec-09-2011-p-3/

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]