Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 October 10

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 9 October	11 October >

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 speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 01:50, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Artemevna Buturlina

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

~~A thoroughly nonnotable Russian noblewife. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:43, 10 October 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]

Withdrawn after expansion based on Russian sources. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:16, 16 October 2019 (UTC)`[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:52, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:52, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Numerous appearences in Russian-language sources with reference to her art history, family life, expatriate life in Italy, and connections to Pushkin. Have expanded the article a little and will add more, time permitting. Spokoyni (talk) 15:52, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to International recognition of Kosovo. (non-admin closure) ミラ P 04:06, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil's reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence

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

This article's contents can easily be copy-pasted to International recognition of Kosovo. Currently, that article's Brazil reaction box redirects to here. If Brazil was a key player in the Kosovo dispute, having an article such as this might be warranted, but given Brazil's marginal role with regards to the dispute, having a separate article is uncalled for. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:32, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:32, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:32, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge into Brazil–Kosovo relations~~ Wait.. no such thing? Merge per nom. E.g. Botswana's and Cambodia's reactions are doing well in merged state. BTW, there are several articles of this type (i.e., of marginal bilateral relations), see the infobox. Anybody wants to take care of them as well? Staszek Lem (talk) 17:56, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Brazil–Kosovo relations may not exist, but Brazil–Serbia relations does... *shrug* Moaz786 (talk to me or see what I've been doing) 20:56, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Interested people can move the required content or rewrite anywhere else. Aman.kumar.goel (talk) 16:18, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 20:28, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Humayun Usman

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

Article about a politician that was never elected nor has and coverage beyond being registered as a candidate. No proof of WP:GNG McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 17:32, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:45, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:45, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No in depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. Just WP:ROUTINE mentions of his appointment as candidate. Got only 48 votes and was not elected, so also fails WP:POLITICIAN. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:56, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN.Subject was not elected.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:08, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect (self-withdrawal). Didn't realize that a relevant redirect target was created between nominating for PROD and bringing here. Withdrawing this nomination, and will redirect to Selfie of Success (non-admin closure) _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Burra Venkatesham

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, coverage is largely limited to either reviews of their debut book or quotes on behalf of their position as an Indian Administrative Service officer (which is not enough for WP:NPOLITICIAN). The subject's debut book, Selfie of Success would appear to be notable, but one notable work is not enough for WP:NAUTHOR. PROD placed by me, dePROD by an IP editor who made no other changes. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why not a redirect ? ∯WBG^converse 17:52, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Winged Blades of Godric, oops, when I had created the PROD, that article didn't exist yet, and I didn't check again before nominating here. I'm going to go ahead and withdraw this as redirect. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:56, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 17:50, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Republika Srpska (1992–1995)

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

This article essentially covers the Bosnian War-era existence of the autonomous entity in Bosnia and Herzegovina known as Republika Srpska. The claim that today's RS is somehow distinct from the RS of 1993 is completely ahistorical. There is no reason that the entity's entire existence from January 1992 to the present should not be covered by the Republika Srpska article.

Some background: The argument that the wartime RS was somehow distinct from the current RS is often used by Serbian ultra-nationalists to put distance between the RS of today and the war crimes that were committed in its name during the war. They worry that these war crimes could delegitimize the entity in the present day and provide critics with ample ammunition to call for its abolition. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We routinely split histories of states in distinguishable time periods, if there is much to write. The language of the nomination is clearly politicized and nonencyclopedic. For example, we do not merge Nazi Germany with Germany because some want to " put distance between the <...> of today and the war crimes that were committed in its name during the war". Staszek Lem (talk) 18:11, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree if the Germany of today was still called Nazi Germany, but it isn't. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 18:25, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, take Poland (eg Second Polish Republic) or Russia or Soviet Union or Greece (eg, First Hellenic Republic) - all split into pieces. and BTW Germany was not called Nazi Germany by Hitler, it was the same Deutschland even when it was uber alles. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:39, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but there is scholarly consensus across the board that Nazi Germany was a unique state distinct from prior and future Germanies. The same cannot be said here. Moreover, the RS isn't a sovereign state, it's an autonomous entity. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 18:45, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in wikipedia we have our own consensus what to do with our articles. Even if your position is right, i.e., there is a continuity of "statehood", the correct solution would be History of Republika Srpska (1992–1995). Staszek Lem (talk) 18:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That could work within the framework of a larger History of Republika Srpska article. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 19:13, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The same name put aside, RS of that time was not an entity established based on an internationally backed agreement. The political context and legal status make a difference. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:37, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Would you argue that the Kosovo of 2008 should have a different article from the Kosovo of 2019 due to the ICJ decision in 2010? Or perhaps we should create a new article after Serbia eventually recognizes Kosovo and it becomes a UN member? After all, legal status makes all the difference. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 18:45, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We are not discussing Kosovo here. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Amanuensis Balkanicus As I said, the difference is made by the legal status and the political context. The legal status does not merely depend on whether an entity recognizes another. Albania declared independence in 1912, widespread international recognition came a year later. But we do not have two articles named Albania because in both cases Albania considered itself to be a country. On the other hand, the first RS considered itself to be a client state of Serbia/Yugoslavia or another kind of entity within Serbia/Yugoslavia. The second RS considers itself to be an entity within Bosnia and Herzegovina. According to your rationale, the Republic of Kosova article should be merged to Kosovo. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:00, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think Kosovo should cover the geographic region while Republic of Kosovo should cover the self-proclaimed state, but that's a discussion for another time. You're kind of proving my point with the Albania 1912/13 comment. Why should we have an Albania (1912) article and an Albania article, just because the Albania of 1912 wasn't internationally recognized, while the Albania of 1913-present is internationally recognized? The RS of 1993 considered itself an independent state, not a client of Belgrade. In the end, it was the RS's independence-oriented behavior that prompted Belgrade to place an embargo on the RS in 1993 for blocking peace negotiations, effectively cutting the entity off from the outside world and indirectly contributing to the end of the war two years later. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 19:13, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the first RS considered itself to be an independent state or an entity within Serbia/Yugoslavia is not important. The important thing is that it did not consider itself to be part of an independent Bosnia and Herzegovina like the current RS does. The matter of the legal status begins with what status an entity claims for itself. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:51, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:50, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Staszek Lem nailed it Ribbet32 (talk) 21:24, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Velika Kruša massacre. Selectively. Sandstein 17:54, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Women of Krusha e Madhe

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

This article is essentially a coatrack with elements of original research and WP:PROMOTION that combines some cursory information about a village in Kosovo, backstory about a wartime massacre that took place there, the post-war activities of some NGOs in the village, and then essentially advertises the village's agricultural products, their prices and where they can be bought. If there is a paragraph or two of encyclopedic value here, I see no reason why it can't be copy-pasted onto Velika Kruša massacre. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:52, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:52, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:52, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge. Concur about the COATRACK issues, delete it or merge the relevant bits elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Creffpublic (talk • contribs) 17:19, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WTF??? Move to Krusha e Madhe (red link as of nom time) and edit accordingly. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Velika Kruša massacre seems like the most sensible approach. Most of this article appears to be about the massacre that we already have an article about, and this article appears better developed than the latter. Certainly it should be edited to remove OR/POV content rather than merged wholesale, of course. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:51, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:56, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:56, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Discussion on what quotes to keep, what amount of quote content to keep for each entry, and whether or not the article should be merged are best welcome at Talk:Reactions to the 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria. (non-admin closure) ミラ P 04:13, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions to the 2019 Rojava offensive

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Contains mostly the expected diplomatic platitudes, including by countries about whose opinion nobody in the region cares, in the form of flag salad. Excessive detail. Can be summarized in a few sentences in the main article, 2019 Rojava offensive. Sandstein 16:19, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 16:19, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 16:19, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree and Keep. The purpose of the article is not to be news, but instead to clear out the "reactions" section of it's parent article, which had gotten quite bloated. Faced with the undesirable alternatives of deleting relevant information or making the article too long to be comfortably readable, the splitting off of the reactions section offers a moderate middle ground, which allows for the most significant reactions to be summarized within the parent article, while maintaining the full list for willing readers on a separate page. This is very similar to what was done with Responses to the 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis, Reactions to the assassination of Jamal Khashoggi and Reactions to the 2019 Hong Kong protests, as well as many other articles. Goodposts (talk) 16:25, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or possibly merge. A legitimate sub-page. A part of the content does not qualify as WP:RECENTISM. The page should be fixed, not deleted. In the really significant international events (such as that one) some reactions are important and should not be lost. My very best wishes (talk) 16:25, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge this article, on other operations, (Operation Euphrates Shield, and Operation Olive Branch, these reactions were on the main article. Beshogur (talk) 17:11, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then it would be "merge"? My very best wishes (talk) 17:31, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was already under Operation Peace Spring article. Beshogur (talk) 17:56, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. As for its "purpose ... not to be news, but instead to clear out the "reactions" section of it's[sic] parent article, which had gotten quite bloated"; well, indeed it had, but the solution is to remove the platitudes, summarise the remaining quotes, and let the three sentences you are left with remain in the parent article. Not create a horrible NOTNEWS-busting list of politicians' quotes from Twitter. This is just shifting the problem somewhere else. --The Huhsz (talk) 17:12, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This would entail the deletion of a huge amount of information needlessly. Feel free to do the summarization on the parent article, but the child article is fully legitimate in expressing the full list of reactions, as many other articles have done so far. Some readers may be interested in reading about the official position of a perticular country, a regional bloc, or would simply like more information on how the world in general reacted to this event. This is the purpose of the article. Goodposts (talk) 17:41, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. As regards "the child article is fully legitimate in expressing the full list of reactions", please see why we are not an indiscriminate collection of "stuff". If it is kept, the article will have to be drastically trimmed in any case.--The Huhsz (talk) 14:13, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – contains more than "platitudes". See for instance the reaction of the EU commissioner for migration on the day before the announced invasion. Wakari07 (talk) 17:56, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but please merge it into the current Rojava Offensive article as this is important information as it does have obvious historic value.Takinginterest01 (talk) 18:17, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge -- the vast majority of material here is notable. Whether it is placed here or on 2019 Rojava offensive is a style choice.--Calthinus (talk) 18:19, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Every reaction documented here carries some geopolitical significance; this isn't like the reaction to a massive terrorist attack where everyone can be expected to denounce it in language identical to their response to every other terrorist attack. Additionally, this seems to have been split off from the main article because it was already too long; if it was believed that this information could be reasonably summarized, then this would have occurred on the main article. In regards to WP:ICONDECORATION, the flags are helpful for quickly finding country responses, so they serve more than a decorative purpose. Regardless, AfD is not clean-up; the desirability of the flag symbols does not impact the appropriateness of there being an article for this topic. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 18:37, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The strong and virtually unanimous condemnations of Turkey go far beyond 'normal' reactions this time. The reactions are relevant, and backed up by ample sources. Keeping them all in the article on the Turkish invasion of Rojava would be too long, making a separate article relevant. Jeppiz (talk) 18:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - High ranking and unanimous condemnations of the aggressor. BabbaQ (talk) 21:51, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – For already given reasons. If the operation ends up being short, this article should be merged. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 23:06, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Information is relevant for an ongoing event. Provides consistency in that 'international reactions' are recorded on Wikipedia pages for many events that have occurred (not just military operations). Maybe to make the article a bit easier on the eyes to split the respective nations into continental areas if possible. If not then a merge might be the best option. Information should definitely be kept though. DarkLight753 (talk) 01:16, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – It would be better to have this be its own article than to jam it into the Rojava offensive one, and other military events have had their own pages dedicated to reactions to said event. However as mentioned previously, if the operation is short, merging this article would be better. Fernsong (talk) 01:31, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Presenting a wide overview of international reaction has a significance beyond the conflict itself. It is a nice illustration of undeclared alliances in international politics. Darwwin (talk) 05:16, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge the entirety of the article back into 2019 Rojava offensive. I don't have an opinion whether it should be a separate article, but all the information here should be kept. I found this AFD because I went looking for this information. It's an aspect of the main event, and not inherently more newsy than the main event. This will be useful information to retain in the long term. -Pine457 (talk) 11:51, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and merge) - as per sentiments expressed by @Pine457.Resnjari (talk) 13:01, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as separate article. Turkey's actions have attracted lots of attention, and might have a wide range of consequences. A topic that deserves to have its own article, though it might need to be restructured. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:07, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above. --SalmanZ (talk) 17:04, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (have already voted Keep/Merge above) at this point we may as well close this per WP:SNOW, and instead discuss how/if to merge it with the main article.--Calthinus (talk) 17:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There is a very helpful colored-in world map image, that was removed from the main article for some reason. It would be quite practical to keep the image on the main article to provide a good at a glance overview, while keeping the actual reactions themselves to the reaction page. That way we maximise both information density and article readability, imo. Goodposts (talk) 18:07, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge obviously! Worldwide opposition to this offensive is just too notable for us to just ignore and delete the article. The sources make this fact quite clear. The information can either stay here or be merged with the main article but not be deleted. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 20:36, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above. -TheseusHeLl (talk) 01:22, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The so-called "diplomatic platitudes" from the United States, in particular, have achieved wide distribution and notability. - Jandalhandler (talk) 04:01, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All the information here should be kept its helpful. PakEditor14 (talk) 01:22, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These "reactions" articles are the cruft-iest most useless list pages on Wikipedia. WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM, fails WP:10YT. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:28, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge - per Spirit of Eagle. Andysmith248 (talk) 18:43, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge - Well-referenced and notable. Keivan.f^Talk 22:47, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per others-- BoothSift 00:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge Obviously need to keep. Far more than "platitudes"; either that or merge with main. Useful for details and reactions, yes? Also, stop allowing Turkish nationalists to edit this and the main page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.23.63.30 (talk) 11:53, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Keep This is a clearly escalating situation in Syria, to delete this article would be extremely counterproductive at this point.Theprussian (talk) 14:48, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge - Well-referenced and notable. Will no doubt become more useful in the future, given the escalating and changing military situation. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 17:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is notable and well sourced. Felicia (talk) 16:53, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Gives option on the current event. --cyrfaw (talk) 05:20, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Summarize and Merge into the main article. While most of the reactions are noteworthy and significant, it is not necessary to provide the exact quotation of the words chosen by every foreign ministry (this article is a bit of a WP:QUOTEFARM). I'm sure we can summarise the reactions and move them back into the main article.VR _talk 22:22, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The current state is a bit of a long and disorganized, but the topic is notable and the article has a place here. Sourcing and notability aren't the real issue here, but the WP:NOTNEWS arguments are a fair point, particularly for less significant world events. — MarkH21 (talk) 08:05, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. JGHowes ^talk 23:28, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bernetz (township)

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

Article about a geographic location, not properly referenced as clearing WP:GEOLAND: this is a township in the geographic surveying unit sense of the term, not in the "community where people live" sense, so it doesn't fall under our notability standards for populated places. For example, it's within an unorganized territory, which a place that was a township in the municipal sense could not be — and the entire unorganized territory had a 2016 census population of just 10 people total, all of whom live in the hamlet of Despinassy and none of whom live in a community named Bernetz. But the only source here is a government directory that indiscriminately lists every single geographic name that exists within Quebec at all, and thus is not a notability-clinching source in and of itself if there are no other sources to support any content more substantive than just "this exists, the end" — but it's not even really worth redirecting to Lac-Despinassy, because that article doesn't mention Bernetz at all. And if we couldn't compile a comprehensive list of all the geographic townships within Lac-Despinassy, there's no reason why Bernetz would warrant being singled out for special mention denied the others, either. Bearcat (talk) 15:13, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:13, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:13, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge I don't see why Lac-Despinassy can't have a list of townships within it, but as it stands there are no sources discussing this place or evidence that is is an actual community. Reywas92^Talk 16:49, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge Per Reywas92. Rockphed (talk) 17:37, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Mutant Liberation Front. RL0919 (talk) 17:51, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thumbelina (comics)

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

Non-notable character TTN (talk) 14:54, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:54, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:54, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to either List of Marvel Comics characters: T or Mutant Liberation Front. BOZ (talk) 15:18, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mutant Liberation Front. Already covered there in sufficient detail. Nothing else worth preserving as unsourced. --Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 15:40, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; recurring X-Men villain. Nyssie (talk) 17:01, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Nyssane: So what? This is not a valid argument in deletion discussion, seems like a fancruft version of WP:ITSIMPORTANT. Try again. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:10, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NFICTION. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:10, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:54, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mutant Liberation Front per Killer Moff, and keep the categories as useful search tools. We don't need individual articles on every minor comic book character, when there is good information in an existing list article. We do need a way for readers to find out about the character, so deletion would be unhelpful. No prejudice against recreation if independent notability can in future be shown. Narky Blert (talk) 21:56, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mutant Liberation Front where the character is already covered. Aoba47 (talk) 14:45, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mutant Liberation Front, Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:37, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Double Dealer (disambiguation). RL0919 (talk) 20:31, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doubledealer

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

Non-notable fictional character. The current reception is trivial. TTN (talk) 10:43, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 10:43, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 10:43, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:20, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly non-notable. Lovelylinda1980 (talk) 14:42, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When an article on a fictional character spends all of its time in universe, it is a bad sign. I could not find any reliable sources about this character. Verba Delenda Est! Rockphed (talk) 17:31, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others and redirect to Double Dealer (disambiguation) - valid search target. ミラ P 17:32, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Herpetology. Since the nominator has changed their mind and nobody else has expressed any interest in deleting the article, I'm calling this now. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:59, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cheloniology

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources about Cheloniology. Thus fails general notability guideline. Also WP:NOTDICTIONARY

Article has been puffed up with content about turtles rather then content about Cheloniology. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 14:14, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 14:14, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a fairly large field of biology. The lack of sources is absurd but so is the idea that we should delete this article. Lovelylinda1980 (talk) 14:44, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Herpetology - for now. I share the suspicion that there should be an article here, but I'm unable to point out obviously suitable sources right off the bat. Looking at the other subdisciplines noted at Herpetology, only Batrachology has its own article, and that's functionally unsourced as well - not a good role model. Current article state is obviously undesirable: not a single on-point source, and inflated with lots of related-at-one-remove material. - Possibly a subject expert with a good library can solve this in a minute. Dropping a note to Faendalimas here, who I fully expect to have All The Books :) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:44, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge to Herpetology. Most of the article is about turtles themselves, not about the study of turtles, and the rest is largely tautological which can be covered in the herpetology article perfectly well. Reywas92^Talk 16:56, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect /merge to Herpetology. Although this is a field I work in as @Elmidae: was clearly getting at, thanks for the heads up, it is a field that uses all the same resources, terminology for the most part as Herpetology. Its also actually spelt Chelonology. But like I say to focus the article on Chelonology would be a reproduction of herpetology. Although some may feel this is a big field, it really is not. There are only some 375 species of turtles alive, probably only 7-800 scientists worldwide in the field and that includes all facets of science and many of the more prolific keepers as well. Turtles are popular it is true, people tend to like them. But it is in the end a study of one group of reptiles which means it is herpetology. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 20:46, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Herpetology. XOR'easter (talk) 20:21, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Herpetology, especially in light of the comment by Faendalimas about the spelling. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 20:37, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to O' Parvardigar (album). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:15, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Parvardigar Prayer

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NOPAGE and all that.

There's no significant or non-trivial coverage of this prayer, outside of (non-independent i.e. Meher-Baba-affiliated sources or un-reliable sources or personal memoirs other than a few scattered instances of a few lines in relation to Pete Townshend's O' Parvardigar (album).

Seeking redirect and/or merge to O' Parvardigar (album). ∯WBG^converse 14:08, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 14:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 14:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:13, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect/Merge. per nominator. Lacks independent coverage.4meter4 (talk) 03:21, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect/Merge. There doesn't seem to be any WP:N to the prayer itself. - ChrisWar666 (talk) 19:16, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:13, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Scahrossar

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

Non-notable D&D character TTN (talk) 14:01, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:01, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:01, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:08, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even in Dungeons & Dragons, she is described as a "fairly minor" deity. In real life, she doesn't seem to have any sort of notability. Not a very active user (talk) 12:53, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:13, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hiatea

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

Non-notable D&D character TTN (talk) 14:01, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:01, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:01, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:08, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable. D&D is a commercial property, and since every source is from that properties publishers, this is essentially using Wikipedia as advertising for these products. Every article like this should be supported by at least one reliable, independent source. Grayfell (talk) 18:28, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am not seeing any independent (much less reliable and significant) sources in my cursory search of the internet. Rockphed (talk) 17:24, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. It's heretical, anyway, so extermination is for the best. Sandstein 19:05, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Inquisition (Warhammer 40,000)

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 13:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:07, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: while I am leaning delete based on every current source being primary (the Black Library is Games Workshop's fiction publishing label), I would rather do at least a cursory internet search before I cast that vote. Does anyone have a suggestion for getting more than the 78 (bad) hits that the google link above gets, but less than the 2.3 million hits that moving the quotes to be around "Warhammer 40,000" gives? The Inquisition is an important part of WH40K, but I am not convinced it is notable. What complicates things is that there is a video game series, "Warhammer 40,000: Inquisitor". There seem to be 2 or 3 games in the series that seem to have received reviews in various gaming publications, so the series of games might be notable, and definitely is destroying my ability to search the internet. Rockphed (talk) 15:11, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if Imperium (Warhammer 40,000) is not notable enough for a standalone article, this is certainly not notable enough and fails GNG._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:08, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Meher Baba. Sandstein 08:25, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amartithi

AfDs for this article:

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

I fail to see much of any notability of the subject (and non-trivial significant coverage about it, to the extents necessitated by WP:SIGCOV) to grant a passage of WP:GNG and/or WP:NEVENT, thus leading to a stand-alone page.

Trivial mentions in books of the Meher-Baba-Universe, mentions in personal memoirs and a few trivial name-drops over news-pieces are located.

There's a piece over South Asian Tribune but that's not independent (vide 'Dictated Sunday, 13th December 2009'). And there's another over a niche-outlet Asian Tribune that has a checkered history of indulging in partisan-journalism-for-pay and defaming journalists, who refused to be a part of their ring, which says volumes about reliability of the media.

Barring that, there's five lines at a broader entry over a two-volume encyclopedia by J. Gordon Melton titled "Religious Celebrations", which is the near-sole piece of reliable secondary/tertiary coverage about the subject. But, that ain't enough to propel the subject past the barriers of WP:NEVENT, which necessitates WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:DIVERSE .

As a consequence, seeking redirect to Meher Baba. ∯WBG^converse 13:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 14:01, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 14:01, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 14:01, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:12, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge to Meher Baba.4meter4 (talk) 03:16, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Horrid Henry. Notability as an individual character is not met, but suitable for inclusion in the parent article. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:31, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect Peter

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

Nomination on behalf of IP. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:56, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No reliable sources, only source is main topic itelf (in-universe referencing), definitely does not have a cult following. Best deleted. 109.228.137.207 (talk) 06:25, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:56, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep and improve The character Perfect Peter is the brother of the titular character Horrid Henry of the Horrid Henry cartoon and storybook series. A simple Google search spews out multiple references to the character. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7356688/Anhgamat (talk) 17:14, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete @Anhgamat: IMDb is not a reliable source, searched Google and no relevant reliable sources. 38.117.105.189 (talk) 18:37, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  38.117.105.189 (registered to Cogent Communications) - what information in the article do you believe is false and inaccurate? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:25, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note: This IP user and the (IP) nominator are both using open proxies, and in my opinion they are probably the same user. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:31, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unless sources can be provided, this article currently shows no signs of notability. TTN (talk) 12:30, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Sometimes our mischievous protagonist triumphs over Perfect Peter, his tidy, pious younger brother ... Horrid Henry and Perfect Peter’s competition for control of the TV does lead Henry to devilish attempts to thwart his irritating brother" [1] Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:22, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Horrid Henry as one of the main characters in the series which is verifiable as having sold over 20 million copies worldwide. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:19, 12 October 2019 (UTC)\[reply]
Merge with Horrid Henry. There is critical appraisal of Peter (e.g. [2]) that would belong in a GA/FA version of the Horrid Henry series article. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:06, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the main Horrid Henry article would seem to be the most sensible option as outlined above. I suspects character lacks the level of notability and critical coverage to have their own article. Dunarc (talk) 19:25, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Horrid Henry. Notability as an individual character is not met, but suitable for inclusion in the parent article. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:31, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moody Margaret

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

Nomination on behalf of IP. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:56, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No reliable sources, only source is main topic itelf (in-universe referencing), definitely does not have a cult following. Best deleted. 109.228.137.207 (talk) 06:25, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:55, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:55, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Horrid Henry as one of the main characters in the series which is verifiable as having sold over 20 million copies worldwide. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:18, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Notability isn't established. TTN (talk) 11:16, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Horrid Henry as there is some element of her character that belongs on a well done version of that topic. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:04, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:12, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

زهرا جهرمی

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

Article not in English Hughesdarren (talk) 12:33, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Recreation of page deleted via WP:BLPPROD. 165.91.13.55 (talk) 13:05, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but not on the grounds given by the nominator. Afd for not being in English is premature for pages that haven't received the prescribed consideration per WP:Pages needing translation into English. However, delete as a recreation after WP:BLPPROD without supplying any qualifying sources. Largoplazo (talk) 13:55, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete in accordance to A1. It is a fragment. It starts in medias res and ends in medias res. Also, I strongly suspect copyright violation, but I'm going to have difficulty procuring proof. flowing dreams (talk page) 17:01, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced BLP, without a clear assertion of notability. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:11, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Recreated BLPPROD, no sources. Lectonar (talk) 06:34, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:11, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Messianic College

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

No indication this institution is accredited, also can't really find any indications of it passing WP:NORG or WP:GNG. Please keep in mind that WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES does not provide a carte blanche for all schools, even those claiming to be higher education. It might be a degree mill, and we should be careful not to provide legitimacy to such scams. Also note a red flag - no Brazilian wiki entry for this, generally most reputable higher education institutions will get a local wiki stub before English one. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:18, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:48, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:48, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:48, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:48, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:13, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:12, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to be a seminary for a small new religion sect. Bearian (talk) 13:13, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with delete vote above. fails WP:GNG Iamchinahand (talk) 04:38, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to Church of World Messianity.4meter4 (talk) 03:14, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Nom. Thoughts of legitimizing a degree mill scam would not be good. If something is notable (sourced) as being a scam we can call it that. Being sourced only through the "External links" leaves no option to me but to remove the article. We avoid wording like "claiming to be higher education" and "appears to be a seminary" by providing multiple reliable independent sources. Otr500 (talk)

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. After two re-lists, the strongest arguments are by the Keeps, and they have not been fundamentally refuted by the Deletes. (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 21:03, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sciences Po Law School

AfDs for this article:

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

The "school" seems to be more a program inside Sciences Po than an actual school. It has no undergraduate degree nor a JD, only some masters specialized in law.

Sorbonne Law School is ranked 25th in the world by QS, has its whole buildings, many degrees, many more students, but has been merged with the university page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sorbonne_Law_School_(Ecole_de_Droit_de_la_Sorbonne)

It has been merged in the French Wikipedia for the same reason: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion:%C3%89cole_de_droit_de_Sciences_Po/Suppression (link from the previous request, which resulted in speedy keep).

No actual merging is necessary since irrelevant information has been deleted or are already in the main article. Lots of information are from Sciences Po as a whole: budget, mascot, etc. Most of the article (now removed of all the promotional, unrelated and inaccurate content by @scope_creep and me) and independent sources dealt with the controversy of the bar exam entrance in Sciences Po, which predates the creation of the school in 2009 and is related to the institution as a whole and its students from all "schools". That can be added to the main article, but this article should be deleted anyway.

Delfield (talk) 12:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC) (modified following discussion about confusion with merging --Delfield (talk) 12:55, 10 October 2019 (UTC) )[reply]

Delete or merge. Such programs or whatever almost never have separate notability, and I don't see much going for this one, neither. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:20, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Delfield: You have posted this as an Afd when you were looking a merge. Generally you stick on Template:Merge to propose a merge on your article and the subsequent Template:Merge to to the article you want to merge into and a discussion takes place, consensus is sought to merge or no merge. You now have a real chance of getting it deleted as you have posted onto Afd queue, which is entirely the wrong place. I would suggest we close this, follow the normal process. I don't mind doing it. @Piotrus: Would you agree to that. scope_creep^Talk 12:34, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is more deletion actually. I agree with @Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus on the notability, that should cause deletion (or merge, but it looks more like a deletion whether can add something in the main article afterwards, but I think this article should be deleted we decide to do it or not). I removed the mention to merge, sorry! (editing conflict) --Delfield (talk) 12:44, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If it is deletion, the whole article will be deleted, so no merge will occur and no content will remain. Merge discussion take on the talk page of articles your planning to merge, not on the Afd queue, where your article stands a chance of being deleted. scope_creep^Talk 12:43, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted from the article the unrelated part, and now only remains relevant information, but inside an article that should be deleted. I also edited my request accordingly. Hope this is good for you and sorry for the confusion. --Delfield (talk) 12:52, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have a feeling you don't understand what I'm saying. I'll see what Prokonsul Piotrus says first. scope_creep^Talk 13:10, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, I just say I changed my request to a deletion request. It is not a merging request, at least not any more. --Delfield (talk) 13:40, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (or Merge as appropriate) to Sciences Po, as is pretty standard for this kind of article. Not seeing enough stand-alone coverage to justify spinning it off. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:53, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:46, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:46, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:46, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:26, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. To reiterate what I said last time: We are not bound by decisions made in other Wikipedias that may have different standards of notability. Appears to be a very notable law school in France. It's true that we don't keep articles on schools, faculties and departments of larger institutions unless they're very notable in their own right, but it would appear that this one is. "It has no undergraduate degree nor a JD, only some masters specialized in law." That's a bit disingenuous. According to the article it has 42 doctoral students and 342 masters' students, plus many others. I do hope the nominator is not assuming all legal education is like American legal education. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:30, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is Sciences Po which is notable, not that "school" created in 2009.

It is not a school according to any legal education, US, French, or else. There is no bachelor (undergraduate, European system) nor any JD degree (American system) offered.

Even Sorbonne Law School was not considered notable enough to have its own page (only the university is notable): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sorbonne_Law_School_(Ecole_de_Droit_de_la_Sorbonne) --Delfield (talk) 16:53, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Masters and doctorates are offered. Other AfDs are irrelevant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:15, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:12, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge: Nothing shows a separate notability. --194.199.3.13 (talk) 16:48, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Perhaps the contributors of the discussion on Sorbonne Law School could tell us if their opinion is the same here? Xuo Tran MapcheckerParis Jack N. Stock Meatsgains AngusWOOF --Delfield (talk) 17:00, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- My opinion is that articles should not be brought to AfD if merge is a likely outcome Jack N. Stock (talk) 03:50, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Jack N. Stock: Isn't deletion the most adequate solution here, since there is nothing to merge really? Besides, is merging a likely outcome here? --Delfield (talk) 19:54, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The rationale at the first AFD was that the topic had enough references to pass WP:GNG. We do in fact keep articles on notable departments within colleges that can pass WP:SIGCOV (particularly when WP:CONTENTFORK applies.) The nominator's rationale is not based on policy but on extrapolating a truth off of one example which is a logical fallacy.4meter4 (talk) 03:11, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:26, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is an article on a notable subject with reliable sources. Just the sort of article we keep in the encyclopedia. WP:NOTPAPER Wm335td (talk) 21:55, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:10, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Owen Geleijn

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

Fails WP:NCYC. Only raced at junior level so far. Will next year be part of Team Jumbo–Visma Academy, a development team for Team Jumbo–Visma, which is unlikely to participate then in the races which qualify under WP:NCYC either. Fram (talk) 11:26, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 11:26, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated for the same reasons are:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 11:26, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:08, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the creator of those pages. I'll be honest I never read that WP:NCYC section, I was not aware of that, and I do find that understandable and logical. However, the amount of pages which fail the WP:NCYC section is just massive. One random example I came across after 3 minutes of search is Mattia Viel. My suggestion is that the WP:NCYC list is updated, mainly to include that if a rider rides for a WT/PCT(/CT) Team, then that should be considered notable. Like Mattia Viel, he rides for PCT and has done many HC races, should his page be deleted? Also most of the pages I created, like Hidde, that guy will most definitely win big races in the future. But I do understand, recognise and respect that these pages fail WP:NCYC (talk) 14:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the NCYC rules are too strict. Even so, there still is a difference between e.g. Viel, who rides for a procontinental team, and the above three, who will ride for a continental team. Compared to other sports, WorldTour is first division (about 20 teams), Procontinental is second division (25 teams), and Continental is "lower divisions" (many, many teams). Most cyclists never make it out of the Continental circuit, no matter how talented they may be. Fram (talk) 15:12, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is true, and WP:NCYC should be more detailed as to the rider's success, like Hidde van Veenendaal should probably not be deleted, as he is already quite successful, while some others have little to no notable results. Pro Continental riders, should definitely meet the guidelines, so should riders who compete in HC/WT events, so we should probably adjust the criteria.--Seacactus 13 (talk) 20:44, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all none of these cyclist are notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:22, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:10, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Bourada

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

Not sure that this illusionist is notable. The article seems to have been created by a single-purpose account (the user page redirects to the mainspace article). There are a few sources from the local press, but there is no sourcing at all for the biographical details in the article. Overall this looks doubtful to me. Mccapra (talk) 11:24, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 11:24, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 11:24, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable illusionist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:35, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Those advancing a delete argument suggest that the coverage out there does not meet the criteria of the GNG and thus this flight is not notable. Those advocating keep suggest that there are several distinguishing factors about this particular flight for which there are RS to thus demonstrate notability. As there has been extensive discussion on these two points and no agreement, a no consensus close is merited here at this time. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:14, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thomson Airways flight BY-1526

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

Seems to me that, while serious, this isn't notable. There's many incidents in commercial aviation daily. Madness ^Darkness 22:15, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There’s muddle here. Aviation Herald does not distinguish between "incidents" and "serious incidents". - SquisherDa (talk) 02:28, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's no muddle whatsoever. Look through the listings, you will find many serious incidents included on there. Madness ^Darkness 08:41, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Compare them, though, with this one! It stands out from the bunch. – SquisherDa (talk) 00:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like synthesis or original research. Appropriate for determining which sources are reliable, but rubbish for writing articles. If you can't point to sustained, significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, then all the synthesis in the world is useless. Rockphed (talk) 17:13, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The investigation classified it as a serious incident; thus, it is significant to air safety. It is not speculation, it is the conclusion of the investigation. The difference between an accident and a serious incident is only in the results. News media in the US, UK, Canada, China found it significant enough to report the incident in which 195 people could have been killed. --Pierre5018 (talk) 22:32, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep is preferable to merge, as it makes linking easier. The article's relevance is more about a lack of cross-check in an installed FMC, than about the typo that nearly caused a catastrophy.--Pierre5018 (talk) 11:41, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Be that as it may, itstil fails WP:GNG drastically, let alone any criteria in the WP:AIRCRASH essay.--Petebutt (talk) 01:19, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Totally non-notable, doesn't even warrant a mention in anaccidents list.--Petebutt (talk) 01:19, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge: This is not significant for a separate article or merge to List of accidents and incidents involving the Boeing 737 and summarize. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:15, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:54, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:54, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are dozens of similar incidents every year, the vast majority of which fall under WP:NOTNEWS and/or do not meet WP:GNG. This one is no different. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:31, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the avoidance of doubt, based on the discussions below, I have no objection to the content being merged to Takeoff Acceleration Monitoring System and/or other articles as appropriate, but my !vote for this article remains Delete. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:30, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Report lists (Appx.A) 33 "Examples of accidents and incidents involving problems with takeoff performance" over the years 2004(Apr) - 2018(Mrch): 14 years, so 2+/yr. That really isn’t "dozens .. every year"!! (Anyway, though, it’s the Report, and it’s feasibility review, tht make this incident unique.) – SquisherDa (talk) 01:08, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, oppose merge per comment below. For some reason I thought the accident report had just been published, but it actually was published nearly a year ago and that's when a lot of the worldwide coverage of the event occurred. per WP:RECENT. Flying is hard. Mistakes happen. I really don't envision a situation 15 years from now when someone will ask their friend, "remember that time that plane took off but the pilots made a mistake and something really bad could have happened but everything worked out just fine, and the plane landed safely?" But right now, there appears to be worldwide coverage of the event (or non-event, depending on your perspective). Under the principle of the essay WP:NORUSH, let's give this a month or three to let the facts settle. We might learn soon that there was scandalous misconduct on the part of the flight crew. Or, more likely, we won't learn anything since this will turn out to be a simple mistake that resulted in the flight crew being asked nicely not to do that again please. Or being newly unemployed and never heard from again, since it's Thomson Airways that just went bankrupt and ceased all operations. I expect to wholeheartedly support deletion this December or next January if nothing new comes out before then, if this article survives this AFD, but for now, let's give it a bit of time. RecycledPixels (talk) 07:33, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify: I oppose merge because I'm preferring to keep solely based upon WP:RECENT and the WP:NORUSH essay. If it ends up that nothing notable develops in the near future, then the incident shouldn't have been included in any List articles, but someone is going to have to remember to remove it back out from that article later. RecycledPixels (talk) 07:47, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Additional clarification- The incident happened in 2017, the final incident report was only recently released, which is what my references to WP:RECENT and WP:NORUSH are addressing. RecycledPixels (talk) 20:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Thomson Airways (part of TUI) hasn't just gone bankrupt - it was Thomas Cook that has failed.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:17, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(facepalm). I knew that. RecycledPixels (talk) 15:20, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After watching the comments on this AFD, I reviewed the accident report that was produced by this incident. I'm left feeling stronger on the KEEP side now, because of discussions below about WP:NTEMP, which covers concerns about ongoing notability. Also, this incident led to two changes in the procedures at the airline; first, the company added a mandatory scenario to its 6-month required simulator training of its pilots in which the pilots would have to react to an incorrectly calculated takeoff thrust situation, and second, the company expedited the upgrade of the software in all of its FMC units in its aircraft to a more current version which performs an internal cross-check between the outside air temperature entered by the pilot flying into the system and the detected outside temperature. The incident also resulted in in Boeing sending out a service notice urging all of its operators to perform that upgrade on all aircraft that had not yet been upgraded. That is relevant information that should be added to the article. I'm left feeling less like this is a flight where something could have gone wrong, but didn't and more like this is an incident that will result in long term improvements to overall aviation safety even though it did not result in serious effects (crash, runway overrun, etc.) The flight data recorder and the cockpit voice recorder were overwritten before the seriousness of the incident was detected, and the investigation is complete, so it is unlikely we'll ever learn any scandalous information about what was going on in the cockpit at the time, or why the mistakes were made in the first place beyond speculation. RecycledPixels (talk) 19:54, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets the GNG: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Not a high-profile event, little damage, and no injuries, but a serious aviation incident that resulted in several safety and procedural recommendations by the official investigation ("Lasting effects" in the Event Guideline). I won't argue that it may seem marginal for our purposes, but coverage is adequate for Notability, and an event like this is not "routine". Article does, however, require significant revision and editing so it reads like a proper encyclopedia article. Comparable to Emirates Flight 407. Whether or not deleted as an article, event can be included in List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_the_Boeing_737#737_Next_Generation_(737-600/-700/-800/-900)_aircraft (although nearly all of those events do, in fact, have their own article). In looking at the sources, I haven't seen where it is identified as shown in the article title; seems as though title should be "Sunwing...etc." DonFB (talk) 07:49, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The title could be Thomson Airways flight BY-1526 operated by Sunwing--Pierre5018 (talk) 11:41, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article certainly needs rewriting - at the moment it isn't clear what happened - the article doesn't say what the result of the error was.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:50, 3 October 2019 (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? 20:29, 3 October 2019 (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? 20:29, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – There have been a myriad of no-damage, under-powered takeoff incidents due to wrong data input in recent times. This one seems to have enjoyed slightly more news coverage than previous ones, but is no more notable (and indeed, we didn't cover previous ones either). --Deeday-UK (talk) 11:33, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

not quite, description of damage is now included in the article.--Pierre5018 (talk) 17:58, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think that a runway light knocked off makes this incident any more notable? I don't. --Deeday-UK (talk) 19:07, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the coverage it got in RS makes it notable, by my reading of the GNG. It might be possible to argue it's not notable by invoking IAR, but not, I think, by arguing ad hoc and without regard to the Guideline, that "damage was minor". If some or many of all those other incidents got sufficient coverage, they'd be notable too. If they didn't get the coverage this incident got, then they're not notable. DonFB (talk) 20:52, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to be convinced that it meets GNG, but even if it did, that is not in itself sufficient – see the last line of GNG about creating an assumption that a topic might merit an article, subject in particular to WP:NOT (in this case, there's no sign of the enduring notability mentioned under WP:NOTNEWS, aka WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE in the WP:EVENT criteria). Rosbif73 (talk) 16:24, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Damage is a side-issue in this unusual case. What makes this serious incident notable is what’s in the very full (81-page) investigation Report (and the reasons why the Report is so substantial). The Aviation Herald gives very useful perspective. Incidents are, yes, pretty common, but narrowing the search to "serious incident"s thins it to a trickle. Even among the serious incidents, this one is an outlier. The usual pattern there is human error or equipment failure + resulting risk situation + operating procedures applied to control the risk + satisfactory outcome. In the subject incident, once the situation had developed there was nothing anyone could reasonably be expected to do. (The Report explores this point in depth.) 185 people were endangered and the outcome was a matter of luck. In this case good luck; slightly less so in the similar Emirates Flight 407 Melbourne accident in 2009, said to be "as close as we have ever come to a major aviation catastrophe in Australia". (Both pilots they re were requested to resign the following day, and did so.) The UK Report is notable - and makes its 'parent incident' notable - for including a feasibility study on means of warning pilots when a take-off run is under-performing and recommending development of Takeoff Acceleration Monitoring Systems (TAMS).

– 20:25, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

If it’s felt there’s a consensus to delete, I hope we’ll keep a copy in someone’s User space. (We’ll need it eventually, when we’re documenting the emergence of TAMS.) But applicable guidelines etc are as follows:

GNG(1): If a topic has received significant [suitable] coverage .. it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article ... (News coverage round the world has been identified - it was felt tht there were too many sources cited.)
GNG(2): .. even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability. (The article’s not finished yet - it’ll be good to be able to focus a bit more on that.)
WP:AIRCRASH is not relevant to the question of article deletion ("should not be used to determine whether a stand-alone article should exist or not"). Its function is to assist with cruft control (presenting "generally accepted criteria for when to add mention of aircraft accidents to articles"; my emphasis) and "it is recommended that it not be cited at Articles for Deletion discussions"
WP:NOTNEWS has no relevance. It’s the ongoing significance of the Report (and therefore the incident) that is the basis for inclusion. None of the four classes that "Wikipedia articles are not" applies.

– SquisherDa (talk) 21:44, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete did not receive lasting or sustained coverage - all of the articles, which I believe would ordinarily be good enough for WP:GNG given their international scope in a range of respected newspapers, all ran the story on 22 November 2018, and all of the articles state essentially the same thing - the news is that a report came out. Doesn't appear to be an event that has sustained lasting coverage, a requirement for an article on the site. SportingFlyer T·C 10:25, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Sustained lasting coverage [is] a requirement": can you point us to where this is said to be a requirement? (in guidelines / policies / essays, I mean)? Some of what’s been said above seems a bit impressionistic, and I’m hoping to relate the discussion to principle, as far as may be helpful. – SquisherDa (talk) 10:35, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, part of WP:EVENT, and WP:SUSTAINED, part of WP:GNG. Both are guidelines, not policies, so perhaps the word "requirement" was a little strong... but then again all of the notability requirements are "mere" guidelines. Rosbif73 (talk) 11:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NTEMP ("Notability is not temporary") addresses this exact point. This incident, and the Report, put a peg in the ground. The next event in the story will be either introduction of a new warning system (TAMS), a front-page accident + recriminations (or, if it’s too soon, regrets tht the lesson of this Report couldn’t be acted on faster), or a third Awful Warning (following Emirates Flight 407 and then this incident + this feasibility review). Whichever it is, the call for TAMS made in this Report will be a milestone in the narrative. – SquisherDa (talk) 01:29, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NTEMP applies to topics in general, but by definition cannot apply to events, which aircraft incidents inherently are. You're making a good argument for transferring some of the content of this article into the TAMS stub, but not for maintaining it as a separate article. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why? NTEMP is only three sentences long in the WP:N guideline, but I don't understand "but by definition cannot apply to events". Where are you seeing that? RecycledPixels (talk) 05:54, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the guidelines again, and SportingFlyer's explanation below, that was something of a misunderstanding on my part. I was seeing a logical contradiction between WP:NTEMP and WP:SUSTAINED, and interpreting the latter as effectively excluding events from the scope of the former. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:30, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a relevant incident with WP:RS and no need for continued coverage WP:NTEMP Lightburst (talk) 19:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets GNG. Once a subject is notable it is always notable. The nominator also is not sure if this is notable. Nominator does not put forward a strong rationale for deletion. Wm335td (talk) 20:33, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Already !voted delete above, but this was such a non-notable incident, I cannot find any contemporaneous news articles from 21 July 2017. Aviation Herald, which is pretty on top of things, only created their article on 25 July 2017 and rated it an "incident," of which they rate several every day, and of which very few are notable. [3] The only news here is the release of the report, which received heavy media coverage, but again, we are WP:NOTNEWS. Compare to the Qatar Miami flight or the Emirates Melbourne flight, both of which received international news immediately following their issues. SportingFlyer T·C 10:38, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Hradecky (The Aviation Herald) doesn’t mark Serious Incidents as distinct from Incidents - but doesn’t seem surprised there was a Special Bulletin as well as a final Report. Chris Brady (Boeing 737 Technical Site; ref in article) regarded it as a "significant" Serious Incident. Yes, the aircrew obviously hoped they’d get away with it if they kept quiet; even the airport didn’t mention it until they noticed one of their little lights had had a bad day (and then just left a note in someone’s in-box rather than actually phoning!) But once the AAIB got on it they gave it the works - SB, 84-page Report, specially-commissioned "how could that happen??" analysis, contextual list of 33 takeoff horror-stories over the last 10+ years. They saw the point OK. Please can we? Pretty please? Cos we’re an Encyclopaedia?? The Report’s the main thing, of course. – SquisherDa (talk) 12:12, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’m still saying Strong keep (and oppose merge) - on the same basis as before, above the line, and after reading what Rosbif73 has been saying, also above the line, rather carefully. @Rosbif73, that’s two interesting points! I’m a bit puzzled by the first, tht NTEMP doesn’t apply to events . . why not? (Yes, NTEMP appears in Notability and not in EVENT: but EVENT is supplementary to Notability. EVENT says, as Background, tht it "was formed with the intention of guiding editors in interpreting the various pre-existing policies and guidelines that apply to articles about events, including WP:GNG." So what’s in Notability applies to events; and what’s said there at NTEMP seems plain enough; and I wouldn’t doubt tht it’s intended to apply? - "once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with [GNG], it does not need to have ongoing coverage"?)

What EVENT does say, at Lasting effects, is "an event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable", and that’s really what I’ve had in mind all along (though I hadn’t seen the guideline) in emphasising the Report and the finding of feasibility within it. That leads to your second idea, of 'folding' the incident article into the new TAMS stub. I’d certainly prefer that to deletion!! The idea is addressed generally in NOPAGE, "Whether to create standalone pages." The emphasis there is on "how best to help readers understand" the topic. Clearly, the TAMS context will help a reader understand why the incident is notable. But as regards understanding the incident itself, I think stand-alone is the right thing. There are aspects the reader is much more likely to grasp if reading an article fully focused on the incident itself. That’s because of the limitations imposed by OR and RS. In particular, it’s obvious, reading "between the lines" of the Report, tht both pilots were trying to enter the wrong Outside Air Temperature into the Flight Management Computer. It wasn’t just fat finger trouble. Both their figures came from the Flight Plan. They plainly thought that was where they were supposed to be getting the figure from. The chilling implication is tht a simple misunderstanding would have resulted, if there had been a brick shed near the perimeter fence, in a front-page air accident. (A fuel fire could have made it a disaster with three-figure casualties.) The Report can’t say so, because it is strictly fact-based (and the Cockpit Voice Recorder information wasn’t available). We can’t say so, because that would be OR, unless we can find a source; trawling through web forums etc might deliver one, but probably not sufficiently RS (for such an important point). So the reader is left to fill in the blank h/h-self. For this and other details s/he will benefit from the best possible focus.

If I understand you aright, your views have evolved as we’ve discussed this. I’m grateful to you for what you’ve said. May I suggest you amend your 'vote', above, to reflect what you think at this stage?

– SquisherDa (talk) 11:16, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's a bit of confusion here regarding policies - WP:NTEMP simply says, once an article establishes notability, nothing that happens in the future can take away that notability, though notability can itself be revisited. What we're looking at here is WP:SUSTAINED, which this badly fails. If you look at the timeline of what happened here: a plane takes off a bit long; four days later, a write-up of this occurs on an inclusive specialty aviation website; a year later, a report is released; the release of the report gets picked up by worldwide news coverage; no further coverage of the incident at all (all news sources are between 322 and 324 days old, according to one news aggregation service. That's not WP:SUSTAINED) Those keep !voters claiming the airline changed their policies haven't shown any sources, and the fact that this could have been a serious incident - well, it wasn't, and the lack of sustained coverage shows it, and we shouldn't have an article on it. SportingFlyer T·C 02:41, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought I mentioned that. The final accident report was my source for the policy changes I mentioned above. RecycledPixels (talk) 05:23, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I removed your bolding on vote words here to prevent confusion. However strong your position, you only get to vote once. Putting more votes up without striking previous votes just confuses the Admins at closure time. Rockphed (talk) 17:13, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, thanks + sorry. (I wasn’t trying to double-vote: at the time, I was thinking everything would start again at the line.) – SquisherDa (talk) 18:27, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per SquisherDa. Bookscale (talk) 11:15, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It is a bad sign when the majority of an article is WP:SYNTH. Furthermore, this is, while an interesting incident, also what looks like a WP:MILL incident. Aside from the flurry of coverage right after it happened and some articles right after the report was published, it doesn't look to have attracted attention. Rockphed (talk) 17:13, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you mention WP:SYNTH?? What you say, it’s "a bad sign", is kind of an understatement. SYNTH would be especially out-of-place in an article like this (= on this kind of topic). There’s none in there. (I’ve remarked above on "the limitations imposed by OR and RS.") What are you seeing tht makes you mention it? – SquisherDa (talk) 21:49, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You mention "reading between the lines" of a source above. That is either Original Research or WP:SYNTH. The sentence that triggered my synth sensors in the article is "The incident was reported in industry and enthusiast sources,[2][3][4] (identified in one as "significant"[4]) and, following publication of the Report, in mainstream media around the world.[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] ". No source says that. No source even implies either of the two halves of that sentence. In order to have that sentence in the article, you need to synthesize 12 sources. Rockphed (talk) 15:40, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, Rockphed, gotcha, thanks for getting back on this. I understand you better now. (I was put off track by your phrase "the majority of an article" ("It is a bad sign when the majority of an article is WP:SYNTH.") I don’t know if you’ll wish to withdraw it?)

I think we agree on OR / SYNTH being out-of-place in the article. That was the point at the front of my mind when I wrote the phrase tht caught your eye, "reading between the lines". (You’ll see that if you revisit the context, "it’s obvious, reading "between the lines" of the Report, tht both pilots were trying to enter the wrong Outside Air Temperature into the .. Computer. ... We can’t say so, because that would be OR.") This limitation on what we can say (in the article) is a serious one. We can be explicit here, or on the Talk page; in mainspace OR is the reader's privilege and is forbidden to us as editors. That tends to mean, in this situation, tht we can include in the article the facts tht we consider make the Incident important - and even in doing that we have to be careful - but we can’t say tht they are reasons for considering the Incident important! (Another example: it strikes me, at least (you too? - maybe not?), tht one of the reasons the AAIB gave the incident such thorough full-dress attention is tht it so nearly went unreported. Cost considerations in the industry now mean two air-temperature adjustments are routinely applied to engine-thrust at takeoff. I think the AAIB suspect tht there are more of these wrong-setting occasions than they hear about, and they felt this incident was an important opportunity to avoid a catastrophe tht might otherwise come soon. Here I can say so: not in the article.)

On the SYNTH you say is in the article, "The incident was reported in industry and enthusiast sources,[2][3][4] (identified in one as "significant"[4]) and, following publication of the Report, in mainstream media around the world[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]" . . er, no, I submit. It might be SYNTH if we said "The incident was reported in three industry and enthusiast sources,[2][3][4] .. " (though CALC there must mean tht counting like that is OK). Maybe you feel tht around the world in "in mainstream media around the world[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]" is SYNTH? If so we could drop the phrase. Dropping it doesn’t affect the article’s notability: it only affects how explicit we can be within it about why it’s notable.

You also suggest this might be a WP:MILL story - that is, a frequent / unremarkable occurrence. It doesn’t seem the AAIB think so, from the scale of their investigative and reporting activity. And their Report lists only 33 incidents / accidents over twelve years (though they may suspect they tend to go unreported; but note the 33 include underperformed takeoffs from other causes too). These incidents are important because they’re hugely dangerous: not because they’re frequent, I’d suggest. More would be obvious, as go-arounds or crashes, if they were. Even in kindly terrain an underrun will sometimes cause a crash after becoming airborne - just because of damage from meeting the perimeter fence.

– SquisherDa (talk) 01:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A bad day at the office for a couple of people, making a mistake that happens regularly; could have been a bad day for several hundred people but it wasn't. There will always be reports generated by incidents like this (that's what investigative bodies are meant to do, they don't just roll for crashes) and in this day and age just about everything gets coverage by media hungry to fill their websites with stories, which is why there was a lot of coverage (all running essentially the same story) one day and then there was none... YSSYguy (talk) 05:14, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - your comment makes no sense at all - what Wikipedia policy are you relying on to argue delete? Bookscale (talk) 12:28, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then: "non-notable incident, a brief flurry of coverage prompted by the release of the investigative report; does not meet the General Notability Guidelines". YSSYguy (talk) 22:47, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Except it did receive coverage, so it does meet GNG, so you can't argue that. Bookscale (talk) 11:34, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think YSSYguy is arguing that it didn't receive coverage in reliable sources, but that it doesn't meet WP:EVENT, specifically, WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. There were, in this case, 2 spikes in coverage. One in a couple industry sources immediately after the event. Another in mainstream sources immediately after the government report on the event was published. There is also a mention in a single scholarly paper of the flight, but I do not have access to the full paper to see how in depth the coverage there is. In the free version, it is given a single line in a single table. The initial coverage reported the bare facts of the event (that an airplane had overrun the runway and hit a light). The coverage after the report gave the expanded details (and almost look like they are copies of a press release) including the exact sequence of events of the incident; they then repeat the recommendations of the report. If you would like to reframe your objections to his argument in terms of WP:EVENT, that would help this discussion move forward. Rockphed (talk) 12:20, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I can argue that; house fires, car accidents and crimes all receive similar levels of coverage to this event. Let's say someone robs a bank and steals several thousand dollars/pounds/euros; the robbery is reported in the media and if the person is apprehended, tried and convicted, that is reported as well — the reportage does not automatically make the robbery notable. YSSYguy (talk) 12:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the bank robbery example is a good illustration of why WP:EVENT does support keeping the article. If it was a bank robbery of a local branch of some bank somewhere, coverage would not extend much beyond the local news, and thus I'd be arguing that the incident would not meet WP's notability standards for an article. This aviation incident did receive global independent news coverage- the article presently includes news reports from England, Canada, US, Australia, and China. That touches upon the "geographical scope" section of EVENT. The long-term effects of the incident, as I mentioned in a comment far above, are that new safety and training procedures were implemented at the airline and Boeing made sent out new safety notices to all operators of the 737 around the world. There's also repeated arguments that WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE should apply more than WP:NTEMP. I wish those two guidelines weren't so obviously contradictory, but I think the pendulum swings away from CONTINUEDCOVERAGE because the incident has already been included in the code7700.com reference (dated September 2019) linked from the article as a case study, demonstrating continuing coverage of the incident. RecycledPixels (talk) 18:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even though CONTINUEDCOVERAGE's name suggests opposition to the article, in fact it is supportive of keeping it! - "coverage does not need to be ongoing for notability to be established", and "events .. only covered .. without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an .. article" (whereas this one has attracted extended analysis, in the commissioned study the AAIB appended to their Report, as well as the Report’s analysis of the incidence of similar events, their earlier SB and the code7700 discussion). There’s even a mention of case studies, as in the code7700 piece: not yet a matter of "multiple" sources, but of course "editors cannot know whether an event will receive further coverage or not"!

Similarly, SUSTAINED's name strongly suggests it'll argue for deletion, but in fact it has little to say (my emphasis): "brief bursts of news coverage may not' sufficiently demonstrate notability." (In this case it was a worldwide brief burst.) SUSTAINED then continues with thoughts limited to new companies and future events - not relevant to this article.

– SquisherDa (talk) 20:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This was not a noticeable accident. It wasn’t an accident at all, and it nearly went entirely unreported. It is notable, not noticeable. RecycledPixels was perfectly right to think tht (my paraphrase!) come 2024 people aren’t going to be chatting with friends about that time aircrew screwed up their takeoff settings and an approach light got dinked. This is not a Watercooler Crowd Event. But people into aviation safety will be having conversations (in 2024?) along the lines of “That abort yesterday was TAMS-to-the-rescue, according to some of the maintenance people!" / "Yeah, good thing they brought in TAMS. Took long enough. It was after a top-tier safety authority read the industry’s horoscope for it, after an underpowered takeoff in Ireland. It had been going on for years. And they’d had some proper scares. Emirates, for one, at Melbourne. The Australians didn’t think that was very funny." / "I’m remembering now. Belfast, weren’t they putting three different air-temperatures into the FMC?" / "Well, yeah, they were supposed to. Just not those ones. They took off well under 2/3-thrust. Could have spoiled their whole day. Everyone was very lucky."

Seriously, the Report is aviation safety history. Too much of the Delete argument above is based on phantom "myriad" events etc; all the details in my imagined conversation (up to the present!) are verifiable, and several additional points of relevance to the current MCAS story could be added to it. Can we please keep the article?

– SquisherDa (talk) 15:01, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001. Sandstein 19:10, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Scot

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable, fails WP:GNG. We can't have an article on every persecuted person. Störm (talk) 08:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.There are some mentions in passing, even years after (ex [4]), but they are in passing. I can't find a single source that describes his case in-depth outside of the ONEEVENT articles back from the incident in early 2000s like [5], but SMH is a good newspaper and there might be more in the Australian media from back then. Also Google Scholar search for "pastor Daniel Scot" [6] suggests his case was mentioned, at least in passing, by several scholars. If someone can find several paragraphs discussing him it would be helpful, through one may wonder whether this article shouldn't be rewritten from a biography into an article about his court case. Please ping me if there are further comments/sources and you'd like me to consider voting based on them. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:12, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:15, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:15, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Soft delete. A search via ProQuest pulled up very little bar one short article (and a couple of Letters to the Editor of The Australian that refer to the Scot case), which I've added to the article, but I'm not sure it's enough to justify the page...Cabrils (talk) 06:17, 4 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabrils (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:10, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 as a suitable alternative to deletion. The legislation is the basis for Mr Scot's notability (he being the first person sued under that legislation). If an article was created on the case involving him that would also be appropriate, but no such article currently exists. Bookscale (talk) 11:03, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Bookscale (talk) 11:05, 11 October 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Bookscale (talk) 11:08, 11 October 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Merge and redirect. Agree with this helpful suggestion from Bookscale. Cabrils (talk) 00:41, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cabrils: Bear in mind only one bolded !vote per person is allowed. Please strike the "soft delete" above if you have changed your position. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:57, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites: Thank you! My mistake-- removed my previous comment as suggested. Cabrils (talk) 22:51, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cabrils: Thanks. But you removed it entirely rather than striking. :) See WP:REDACT. Basically, if it's been a while or if discussion has continued after/in response to a comment, it's best to strike it rather than remove it entirely. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites: thanks again! I didn't know about WP:REDACT and now I do! Hope this is looking better now. Cheers. Cabrils (talk) 03:18, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect seems like a sensible approach. Doing a look for sources finds a few, but not very high quality, and not sufficient to justify a stand-alone article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:57, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:09, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bhau Kalchuri

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

Fails WP:GNG and/or WP:ANYBIO. Nothing in reliable independent sources apart from a Telegraph Obituary. Seeking redirect to Meher Baba.

It may be prudential to mention that Asian Tribune is quite afar from a reputed reliable source. It started as an Asia-specific daily from Thailand before suddenly choosing to heavily engage in partisan journalism along the Sri-Lankan civil conflicts. After being subject to several legal proceedings in SriLanka, it folded up it's print-business from Thailand and moved to Sweden, whereupon it was found guilty of intentionally defaming a journalist (who refused to be a part of their plans to engage in partisan journalism in lieu of money). ∯WBG^converse 18:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 18:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 18:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 02:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing in GBooks or GScholar. Some mentions in passing (particularly in the niche outlet Asian Tribune) and obituaries in news, but I don't think that's sufficient. No reviews of any of his works, seems to fail NAUTHOR. I wonder if his name can spelled differently and he got some coverage in non-English Indian media? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:23, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing as to "भौ कालचरी" .... ∯WBG^converse 13:38, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, after extended time for discussion and revision of the article as originally nominated. bd2412 T 21:15, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Noh-Varr

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

Another character in a comic without any secondary sourcing or other indication of notability per GNG (existence does not equal notability). There is one single mention of him being, like, "sexy" on a 2013 list written up by ComicsAlliance, which does not strike me as a particularly important award, ranking, or organization. Drmies (talk) 18:06, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:10, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the sources in the article, but failing that merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: N. BOZ (talk) 23:12, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. Ranked #2 on the list of the "50 Sexiest Male Characters in Comics" by a niche website is the very definition of grasping for straws. Fancruft. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:55, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The current reception is fluff. It needs some actual references to establish notability. TTN (talk) 11:16, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe keep based on this article in The New York Times. For once I found something on a comic character of value. I would appreciate comments from User:TTN, User:BOZ, User:Piotrus, User:Drmies 4meter4 (talk) 19:37, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an NYT account so I can't see the full piece, but from what I could see before the filter blocked me from seeing the rest, it looks like that could easily be a key step in the right direction. BOZ (talk) 20:24, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how one newspaper article, with what is likely just a brief mention, would change things here. Drmies (talk) 21:03, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I only got a partial view, but there is a section of the article devoted to the character (Noh-Varr is the bolded and larger text title of that section). This is a text quote from what I could see, "Noh-Varr joined the Avengers as Captain Marvel and later became known as the Protector. As a space-faring Kree, the triple-jointed Nor-Varr has a fluid view of sexuality. “We consider these things carefully,” he once told his Young Avengers teammates. “I was aboard an exploratory vessel, after all. Exploratory does have multiple meanings. The Kree are efficient like that.” There is text after that but it's blocked from my view. It looks like the article is about the various versions of Captain Marvel. This isn't my area. I only get into Marvel at the movies. I leave it to you all to decide where this content is best housed at wikipedia.4meter4 (talk) 22:05, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BOZ and 4meter4: The trick with some press filters is to stop the page from loading fully (click the x button in the browser, worked for me here, Chrome, no special plugins). In either way, all this has is a single paragraph that goes as follows: (cut, I didn't realize it was already quoted above). I don't see anything more later in the article, it has just one more section about another superhero. I am afraid this doesn't go much beyond the usual in-universe character biography peppered with few quotes. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:29, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only content you missed from what you quoted. It comes directly before the content you saw:

[Image]
[Caption:] It took Nor-Varr nine years to temporarily graduate from Marvel Boy to Captain Marvel. Credit Marvel Entertainment
This alien hero crash-landed on Earth in 2000 and quickly found himself at odds with Doctor Midas, who was obsessed with the energy that gave the Fantastic Four their powers, and Hexus, a corporation that became sentient (and evil).

Technically, the source doesn't meet the WP:GNG criteria to determine notability. It is significant, reliable, and independent, but I think it comes in as a Primary source, not Secondary, since it just summarizes who he is and what happened in the comics. That said, GNG is a guideline and not a rule, and on a personal level I still feel that it is a worthy source to establish notability when talking fiction since by definition popular culture is only notable if people are talking about it, and the New York Times talking about a topic carries significant weight. Even if people discount it as a source to determine notability strictly adhering to WP:GNG, adding it as a reference to applicable content would go a long way in still demonstrating that significant coverage from a major, reliable outlet exists. -2pou (talk) 08:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Note: Late add, and this one closes soon. 2pou (talk) 08:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wait a second here... What do you mean "(existence does not equal notability)"? That is in direct contradiction to the Wikipedia Notability test. Just two sections below WP:GNG, WP:ARTN leads with "Article content does not determine notability" and goes on to state, "if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability." In essence, this is saying, especially in this case (as I will point out next), the article may just need improvement, not deletion.
I get it, and I'm in agreement that there is a lot of bad articles that shouldn't exist, but this one... Are people doing due diligence WP:BEFORE nominating or suggesting deletion? I don't know anything about this character, but the AfD autogenerated template provides all those Google search parameters, and this article title is unambiguous. I simply clicked on the "Scholar" search to "Find sources", and the first three attributable options (throw out the HTML link) are all attributable to authors, reliable publications, provide analysis as secondary sources, and have significant coverage of Noh-Varr. ([7], [8], [9] - and they're all available (or at least the content in question) for free).
Next a simple search for "Marvel Boy CBR" can get you to the tag page where these three articles can be found: CBR1, CBR2, CBR3. All three provide great breakdowns, whether on story or art. Art analysis is valid given the medium of the character.
Finally, I don't understand the attacks on the existing secondary sources... No, a sexiest character list is not exactly intellectually deep material, but it is still coverage that meets GNG as it is significant (direct), secondary, reliable, and independent. Knocking it as niche is unjustified--clicking the source's wikilink shows that the source was an Eisner Award winner for Best Comics-Related Periodical/Journalism. George Clooney has a mention of his sexiest man award on his article... Alone, does that make something notable, no, but there is a quoted review as well, also coming from an Eisner Award winner for the same journalism category. Yes, it's a little clunky since the comment is about a series, and not the character, but the series in question is directly attributable to the character, which comes back to what I said before:
The article needs improvement, not deletion. (I just wasted too much time on this character I've never read a story on...) -2pou (talk) 08:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2pou, the article was just expanded significantly. BOZ (talk) 03:16, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Marvel Comics characters: N. Fails WP:SIGCOV, and no real world notability. Even the "Sexiest" listing is a trivial listing.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:36, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This can probably do with some more discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:27, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per 2pou. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge with Captain Marvel (Marvel Comics) - Just as notable as most other comic book character articles. Just because whoever wrote it didn't bother with sourcing does not mean they do not exist. Dark Knight 2149 20:47, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:07, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. – Joe (talk) 13:49, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kalki Avatar and Muhammad (book)

AfDs for this article:

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

queried speedy delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:07, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:11, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalki Avtar aur Muhammad sahib (book). Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 15:10, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the new creation of the article, I have added 18 more references than the previously deleted version. In my eyes, according to RS and notablity of wikipedia policy, they are reliable and notable. Lazy-restless 13:08, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:38, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per additional RSs since the previous nomination ended in delete. There is not a deletion rationale advanced by the nominator. Wm335td (talk) 20:51, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:06, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment can the nominator please say what they think is wrong with this article? Some of the references look a bit ropey but without examining each one in detail there seem to be enough to indicate general notability. Mccapra (talk) 10:59, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:08, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hat of Casts

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

This band is only covered in primary sources and a passing mention on Last fm.com. No reliable secondary sources significantly cover this band. Fails GNG, NMUSIC, and WP:BAND. Appears to be WP:TOOSOON. Steve Quinn (talk) 09:06, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by the nominator. This might be an attempt at advertising as well. {wp:notpromotion}. The band is new and has not gained traction as a successful band, but someone also created a page for their uncharted EP - which I believe is advertising [10] or an attempt at promotion. And, I am dealing with that article as such. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 09:14, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, with sources being primary except for Billboard which is behind a paywall. Hughesdarren (talk) 09:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re: the Billboard reference; to get listed on "bubbling under the top 100" is not a significant achievement--it essentially acknowledges what hasn't charted. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:01, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:04, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:04, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:04, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by the nominator. On the Billboard page [11], there is no listing of the band or their EP. Steve Quinn (talk) 12:06, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant coverage per WP:MUSIC. SL93 (talk) 00:22, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, song only barely charted and sources do not seem to exist. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:28, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This should be moved to Draft:Hat of Casts. It's certainly WP:TOO SOON. Doesn't seem like an advertising attempt, but this band is not yet notable enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.26.147.163 (talk) 02:03, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 08:26, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Square One (1997 film)

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

no evidence of notability presented Tknifton (talk) 19:56, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comment actually now I think about I could have nominated for speedy deletion or prodded it rather than bringing it here. But now its here I may as well leave it here unless anyone else agrees with a speedy delete. Tknifton (talk) 20:06, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:20, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The topic does not have significant coverage in the sources provided (or from a WP:BEFORE) search, so delete Taewangkorea (talk) 23:36, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the film has won a couple of awards, at the San Diego Film Festival and the St. Kilda Film Festival, with some coverage here and [12] to verify that. @Dutchy85: - do you have any more info? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:19, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for drawing to my attention Lugnuts... I've added a few more references. This was a minor work I feel but still had a life... but over to other editors to see what they think... Dutchy85 (talk) 08:08, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: The references listed by Shellwood are a single sentence description of the plot (which is, frankly, a better plot summary than is currently in the article) and half an explanation of the film on an Australian government website. Both do mention the awards. It won 2 awards, but I am unconvinced that there are more sources than those 2. My efforts to find more sources on google do not give any reliable, independent, results. I haven't found anything from the two film festivals that gave awards, so those might be decent sources. Of the sources in the article itself, none rise to significant. Rockphed (talk) 15:10, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:38, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: A ProQuest search of Australia and NZ newspaper articles only resulted in 2 articles, one of which was the obituary for the film's director and I have added it to the page (the second reference was trivial). I would be inclined to delete it but don't hold a strong view. Cabrils (talk) 00:52, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:08, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The film has significant coverage (an in-depth analysis) in Barrett Hodson, Peter Mudie (2001). Straight Roads and Crossed Lines: The Quest for Film Culture in Australia from the 1960s?. Bernt Porridge Group. p. 189-190. That in conjunction with the other added references and award wins is sufficient to meet WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 02:55, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was TNT. There is consensus among participating editors that while the article's topic (Crime in the Netherlands) is notable, this article is actually a list of non-notable crimes and thus there is a consensus to delete. This AfD does not prevent any interested editor from starting an article which gives an overview of Crime in the Netherlands. Barkeep49 (talk) 12:25, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Crime in the Netherlands

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS #2, WP:NOTDIRECTORY #7. Page is an indiscriminate list of individually non-notable crimes which occurred in the Netherlands. No contextualisation or summary information is provided. An article on Crime in the Netherlands might be possible, but this is not it; start again per WP:TNT. Ryk72 ^talk 07:40, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Ryk72 ^talk 07:40, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It are not all non-notable crimes. Should it be better to call the page: List of major crimes in the Netherlands, instead of: Crime in the Netherlands? Lukasvdb99 —Preceding undated comment added 07:51, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:54, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – (I'd be OK with userfy/draftify if someone wanted to work on it). Crime in the Netherlands should be a prose article, not a list, similar to Crime in France or Crime in China, or any of the other Crime in... articles. A list of major crimes in the Netherlands should start as a section of the Crime in Netherlands article, and not as a stand-alone list. See WP:LISTCRUFT. The article in its current form violates WP:NOT, and I agree with the nom that WP:TNT is necessary. The article should be removed from mainspace until it's written in prose. – Levivich 16:32, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, is it good when I add more info tho this page about crime in the Netherlands, like in the examples of other countries you gave, and make a separate article with the list of major crimes? But I need some time to improve this page, so don’t delete it yet.-Lukasvdb99 17:30, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a current day version of the The Illustrated Police News or the local crime roll in your local newspaper. This should be an examination of crime overall in the country, not a list of crimes. Nate • (chatter) 18:51, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I believe "Crime in -country-" articles are essentially a good idea if the articles are properly referenced, written in prose, and depict major crimes. This is however a mere listing of whatever happened in the Netherlands last month. I would vote for delete in its current form, but I still believe someone will be bold and turn this at least to a decent stub or start-class article.--Darwinek (talk) 00:00, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is an article-worthy topic, but this is simply the wrong approach and it would need to be so heavily edited to change that that it would be functionally equivalent to just deleting it and starting over. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:29, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and change to overview the topic, like said above--Seacactus 13 (talk) 22:42, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but it needs a lot of work. Oranjelo100 (talk) 23:16, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not an article about "Crime in the Netherlands" but a list of quite "normal" crimes. It is not a viable topic and I believe it might violate WP:BLPCRIME to name non-notable people as (even suspected) perpetrators. An article about "Crime in the Netherlands" should be started completely from scratch and I don't think this should be kept in any namespace. -kyykaarme (talk) 09:14, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to List of 2019 crimes in the Netherlands or something along these lines. The current name is unacceptable for reasons of recentism. Format is also a problem, as mentioned by others before me. gidonb (talk) 00:19, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why? I don't believ we have list of crimes by year for any other country, which we shouldn't because Wikipedia is not the newspaper. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:31, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The chronological scope is way too narrow to call this crime in the Netherlands. Per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, we do not learn from the existence of other articles that an article should exist. Likewise, from the lack of other articles, we should not conclude that such articles shouldn't exist. Even so, there are plenty of terrorism by year articles. If I recall correctly, not only terrorism by year articles, also for distinct other crimes. WP:NOTNEWS does not prohibit such lists or summaries, including in the (for me preferred but not justified by this list) series of crime by country. Among other concerns, Not News does raise concerns of recentism, just as I did. gidonb (talk) 02:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The page is also, in its present state, and unambiguous copyright violation. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:36, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Kiandjan

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

I have searched in English And French and can find no solid in-depth coverage that is not a blog, interview, online portfolio or advertisement for an event. The current article sources are the same. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:43, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:43, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:01, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:01, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The subject of this article does not pass WP:ARTIST nor WP:GNG nor WP:BIO notability criteria. There is nothing remarkable or significant enough to warrant an encyclopedia entry. The referencing is from auction houses, blogs, online-portfolios, interviews, listings and other primary or promotional sources. After searching online, I found nothing of substance. Netherzone (talk) 15:51, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Artnet source does fit with WP:ARTIST 2-a rule. Howareyoutheyus (talk) 18:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC+1)

Collapse discussion of how notability works

Aside from the fact that the ARTNET reference is just an auction result page with no independent reporting... WP:ARTIST 2A says "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique." Just inventing something does not count: there has to be extensive independent recognition by others that it is significant. If 2A were true there would be lots of writing about the new concepts, theories or techniques, and there is not. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:31, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First, Artnet is the most prominent rated artists database for collectors, it's not "just an auction result page" at all. Secondly, how could you say his work isn't "originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique" ? It obviously is. That's why :

- his lithographs are worth 1800 € on the art market ;

- Le Journal de la Maison has featured his work on cover ;

- Monopol Magazin has talked about him.

Howareyoutheyus (talk) 22:10, 10 October 2019 (UTC+1)

That's you drawing a conclusion about how notable he is based on several trivial mentions. We do not give value to any of those things for notability. If several art critics or reviewers or museums say he is notable, we conclude he is notable; we do not actually do it ourself. Notability is mostly about counting sources. Please read WP:RS.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:23, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ThatMontrealIP It's not my conclusion at all, it's WP:ARTIST 2A rule's conclusion. Indeed, you'll figure out that any artist featured on Artnet is obviously "known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique" when you know what that database consists in. Also, the sources are reliable according to WP:RS. Howareyoutheyus (talk) 11:29, 11 October 2019 (UTC+1)

Are we talking about the same Artnet source? All I see is a one page auction result that gives very basic details and says "Subscribe now to view details for this work, and gain access to over 10 million auction results." We do not put any value on that here. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 12:20, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ThatMontrealIP Please be fair and mention the right source which is the artist page, not the piece's. And as you may know, some promintent artists including Pierre Kiandjan are rated on art market because their work is well-known by collectors and experts. Then those rated arists are recommanded to Artnet by art market professionnals so that Artnet add them within its database. You're arguing there's one piece published, but is a 150 words article on Wikipedia less important than à 1 000 000 words article ? I don't think so. As it is on Artnet. While I've given to you enough reliable arguments regarding WP:ARTIST and WP:RS criteria, you're still persisting with your initial point of view and have kept for hours seeking "basic details" that could rule in your favour, I'm not sure such an insincere behavior fits with moderators tasks. Howareyoutheyus (talk) 15:54, 11 October 2019 (UTC+1)

Howareyoutheyus You may be misunderstanding the policies and guidelines, I hope this helps to clarify. Artnet is a paid subscription database directory that tracks auction sales, it is not a reliable source for the importance of an artist. It does not matter whatsoever if one of his lithographs sold for $1,800 at an auction; that does not establish notability. An in-depth article or review in the New York Times or Le Monde or Le Parisien is a reliable source that can count towards notability. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions of artists sell work, and exhibit work, and have mentions in publications. Not all of these very ordinary occurrences are important enough to establish notability. If an artist simply has a mention in a publication, rather than an in-depth article or review written from an art-critical or art historical perspective, it is not considered important enough to establish notability. Listings and blogs are often something clipped from a press release, they are not in-depth coverage. They are simply informing the public of an event. If an artist shows at non-notable galleries, or, in the case of Pierre Kiandjan, in furniture and design stores, that is not the same as showing at the Museum of Modern Art or another notable museum. Whether it is a one-person show or a group show is also taken into consideration, as is whether that artist is in the permanent collections of important notable museums - and these need to be backed-up by references. You claim that Mr. Kiandjan's fame is indicated by being "featured" on the cover of a magazine - this, with all due respect, is untrue. The magazine cover is for apartment design, and there happens to be a small work of his leaning on a desk; there is no mention of Mr. Kiandjan - he is not the feature of the magazine cover. Netherzone (talk) 14:41, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Netherzone First you're wrong because Pierre Kiandjan is mentionned by Le Journal de la maison, unless you didn't want to see that mention. You've done another big mistake : be careful not to mix artists just selling art you're talking about and known artists on the art market, they're absolutely not the same. Artnet is a notable artists database, however you agree or not. Moreover your speech about in-depth articles is paradoxical : an article in Le Parisien - in-depth or not - is less reliable to establish notability than belonging to Artnet database. Howareyoutheyus (talk) 17:21, 11 October 2019 (UTC+1)

Howareyoutheyus Sorry to disappoint, but this is not an in-depth art-critical, art-historical article or review on Kiandjan. The article is about the apartment and the apartment designer. It discusses Xavier de St. Jean and Azimut Studio for interior decoration. It is not about Pierre Kianjidan. For example, “The owner wanted a kitchen dining room, a living room, two bedrooms with dressing room, a bathroom with separate toilet, a laundry room and a floor under the slope to create a guest room or office.” It then discusses construction and insulation materials used in the apartment. The only mention of Mr. Kiandjan is embedded in captions of two of seven photos: “Custom carpentry and standard cabinets make the most of the wall surface playing with the raster effect. Sofa "Facett", Ligne Roset. Paintings by Pierre Kiandjan including "Rouge Express" (left).” The other caption: “The bathroom combines black and blue. Color tiles and material at Ceramica Paris. Round mirror by Hay. Artwork of Pierre Kiandjan.” I think you may be misinterpreting the guidelines and policies for what constitutes notability. Netherzone (talk) 15:55, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Netherzone After having told that an article by Le Parisien can establish notability, you don't recognize the same about a featuring on another big French national magazine cover... That's not very logical. In addition, why don't you admit that Artnet is an official media about art market sales and then a reliable source ? Howareyoutheyus (talk) 23:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC+1)

Delete I see no significant coverage in independent reliable sources, nor does the subject meet any of the subject-specific notability criteria: not widely cited, no significant new concept/theory/technique, no major body of work, no exhibitions, no significant critical attention, no collections.
- http://www.artnet.com/artists/pierre-kiandjan/ is an auction site, and confirms one sale.
- http://www.40fakes.com/2016/10/pierre-kiandjan/ is a blog, not a reliable source
- http://www.fubiz.net/2016/02/19/color-mixed-illustrations-playing-with-optical-illusions/ is a design agency's blog, not a reliable source
- https://www.juxtapoz.com/news/painting/pierre-kiandjan-paints-color-illusions/ is a very short paragraph, not bylined, that is mostly a slideshow of his work.
- https://www.lejournaldelamaison.fr/le-journal-de-la-maison/reportages-maisons/appartements/122985-122985.html does not mention the subject
- https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2016/12/kiandjan-illusions-on-exhibit-in-paris.html mentions eight new exhibitions, a bit of an exaggeration, it's really 8 works on display in two furniture stores. Those are not significant exhibitions
- http://www.blunblun.com/pierre-kiandjan is primarily a link to an interview with lots of images, it is not a reliable source; see http://www.blunblun.com/press
- https://www.digitalartsonline.co.uk/portfolios/pierre-kiandjan/ is a portfolio/interview, not a critical assessment of an artist's work
- https://www.kaltblut-magazine.com/found-on-the-internet-pierre-kiandjan/ makes some a claim: he reinvents optic art, but unfortunately does not tell us how he does that. If Kiandjian had really reinvented optic art (I think they mean Op art?) then the art world would have taken notice and we'd see many more sources discussing his supposed innovation
- https://www.discogs.com/fr/Alex-Gopher-Back-To-Basics-EP/release/8258619 shows that he has created cover art for a CD, but offers nothing beyond that
- https://etapes.com/une-selection-de-vinyles-graphiques-et-intemporels/ shows that same CD, again without any additional information. Vexations (talk) 20:52, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Op Art was invented in the ~~1960's more than two~~ early 20th c. many decades before this artist was born. Netherzone (talk) 23:34, 13 October 2019 (UTC) Addendum: The point I was trying to make is that there is no proof whatsoever that PK "reinvented" Op art in the 2010's. Netherzone (talk) 15:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment took me to our Op art, article, which says Op art is primarily Balck and White! I tend to define it much more broadly, for example I've always thought Claude Tousignant is basically an op artist... and maybe even Albers.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:10, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Collapse yet another discussion of how notability works

Vexations A CD ? It's a collaboration with a French Touch legend... Howareyoutheyus (talk) 11:51, 14 October 2019 (UTC+1)

Howareyoutheyus, Sorry, an EP, not a CD. As for the collaboration with Alex Gopher, it does not affect Kiandjan's notability, although "legend" seems like an exaggeration, given the unconvincing sourcing of our article on Alex Gopher: wordpress.com, discodemons.net (dead), discogs.com and soundtrackinfo.com, none of which indicate that Gopher himself is notable. Vexations (talk) 13:26, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Vexations, your latest assertion is a bit confused because it has two possible meanings : either you're telling he's not notable then you couldn't be more wrong, or you're telling that his article only needs to be updated to reflect more his effective notability and then confirming that such a collaboration is a reliable source. (talk) 16:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC+1)

Howareyoutheyus respectfully, the discussion of Alex Gopher's notability should be taken to the talk page of Gopher's article. If I'm not mistaken, I think Vexations may have been making a point that WP:NOTINHERITED. An artist designing an EP cover for another artist does not establish notability; hundreds of thousands of artists have done so. Also, a friendly reminder to please remember to sign your posts using four tildes (~). Netherzone (talk) 15:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Netherzone By saying "none of which indicate that Gopher himself is notable", Vexations was obviously only - and wrongly - talking about Gopher notability, nothing else. Also, such a collaboration isn't displayed within WP:NOTINHERITED forbidden arguments. Howareyoutheyus (talk) 17:51, 14 October 2019 (UTC+1)

@Howareyoutheyus:, if you had bothered to read WP:RS and WP:N as suggested, we would not have to waste time explaining this to you over and over again. these policies explain why this artist is not notable. Independent, in depth sources do not exist. Every source you have brought up is just a trivial mention. Anyway, you have made your point. In a couple of days this will be deleted and we can all move on.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:55, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was pointing out that notability cannot be established by association with someone who is not notable himself. That resembles the explanatory notes at WP:NOTINHERITED, except that in this case, my objection is even stronger. Not only is "Gopher is notable, Kiandjan worked with Gopher, therefor Kiandjan is notable" an argument that should be avoided, but the argument that Kiandjan is notable because he worked with Gopher neither valid nor sound because one of the premises is false. Arguing that Gopher is notable doesn't makes any difference for this AfD, because even if it were true that Gopher is notable, we'd still reject the conclusion that Kiandjan is notable because consensus is that that kind of reasoning is not valid, regardless of the truth of the premises. The way to establish the notability of a subject is through independent, reliable sources. If they exist, I will revise my assessment to a keep, and I'm confident that all the other experienced editors here will do the same. Vexations (talk) 20:01, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vexations Your hasty rejection of Gopher's notablity proves that you're easily rejecting too fast anyone's notability. The collaboration with Gopher isn't just "working with" but making a record art, and no rule prevents this argument from being a reliable source. Also, you can't fairly question Kiandjan's notability till you haven't reasonably refuted that Artnet is a reliable source and a featuring on Le Journal de la Maison's cover is at least as reliable as an article in Le Parisien, that Netherzone quoted as an exemple of reliable source. Howareyoutheyus (talk) 00:18, 15 October 2019 (UTC+1)

Howareyoutheyus Artnet is a generally a reliable source, but we're not categorical about sources. Each time we evaluate a source in context. In this case artnet does not offer significant coverage. The only information we can get from artnet is that a 2014 work by Kiandjan was sold at auction on December 7, 2018. While such sources can be occasionally used to verify the details of an article, they do not establish that the subject is notable; there is no analysis by an expert (a reputable critic, scholar, art historian) that says anything about the work. Coverage needs to be significant. As far as my supposed inability to assess a subject's notability goes, I'll refer you to my AfD stats. Without considering "No Consensus" results, 94.4% of AfD's I participated in were matches , and that's not because I vote late to artificially inflate my score. I do my research. Attacking my integrity and competence is bordering on a personal attack and I suggest you withdraw it if you want to keep your editing privileges. I'm more than patient with people who are new to AfD and not yet familiar with our policies and guidelines, but unless you agree to WP:AGF and strike your comments about me, I'm done here. Vexations (talk) 22:28, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Vexations, Keeping an improvised and hypothetical point of view and looking for any possible argument that could support it doesn't fit with WP:AGF. Indeed, while my arguments are steady, yours are fluctuating. Also fortunately, not every sold artist can be featured on Artnet, but only notable ones, and it's an absolute rule. As I already told before, fact than one piece is displayed isn't less important than two or more for the same reasons as a 150 words article on Wikipedia isn't less important than à 1 000 000 words article. Howareyoutheyus (talk) 11:55, 16 October 2019 (UTC+1)

@Howareyoutheyus: please stop wasting everyone's time with the same argument over and over again. See WP:IDHT. You are being disruptive, which often leads to an editing block.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:59, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:07, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes our notability guide. An artist is known for their work. Check out the WP:RSs on the article for our subject on the French WIKI. Perhaps an ambitious editor could add some of these sources here. Lightburst (talk) 02:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lightburst:, we have seen those and they are largely not RS. Please explain, if you can, which ones you consider to be RS. I read French so those are OK to use as examples. If you can just link to one or two in-depth sources, rather than trivial or self-published sources, that would be really helpful.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:25, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

more of the same

@ThatMontrealIP: Netherzone has questioned Widewalls source telling it might be a self-published one, but it's not regarding WP:RS. Widewalls is a magazine about modern and contemporary art. Howareyoutheyus (talk) 11:55, 18 October 2019 (UTC+1)

Howareyoutheyus That is yet another misrepresentation. Widewalls is a vanity blog site where an artist can upload their own information as self-promotion. It is yet another primary source, which is not a RS. The blog "article" was published the day you added it to the WP article, and if you scroll to the bottom of the the blog it clearly states: "Text and images courtesy of the artist." - If the text is provided by the artist it is not a NPOV independent secondary reliable source. It is simply a blog for artists to advertise themselves, it is not critical/arthistorical in-depth coverage. Netherzone (talk) 11:28, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to reinforce the important part there, Widewalls source says Text and images courtesy of the artist. All images Copyright © Kiandjan. All rights reserved. Howareyoutheyus, do you have any sources that you didn't write?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Netherzone: Let's check each of your latest arguments one by one. First, as telling "Widewalls is a vanity blog", you're judging its content than describing its editorial line, and it's fortunately not because a source doesn't please you that it's not reliable. Secondly, I've added that source the same day it's been published because that same day, Kiandjan has made a featuring about it on IG. Thirdly, where have you seen that artists upload their own information on Widewalls ? "All images Copyright © Kiandjan. All rights reserved." only means that the artist authorises magazine's editors to publish some pieces, but it doesn't mean at all that the artist has uploaded anything. Then for the same reason, dear ThatMontrealIP, this legal mention doesn't demonstrate any kind of COI, while you're still manifestly willing to prove your first hypothesis about it. Howareyoutheyus (talk) 21:58, 18 October 2019 (UTC+1)

In my experience, nobody but the article subject has such a deep interest in arguing for a page. You have wasted a lot of valuable editor time. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:00, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ThatMontrealIP: It's not a sufficient argument. Anyone has fortunately the same right as you to support different ideas. Howareyoutheyus (talk) 22:26, 18 October 2019 (UTC+1)

Absolutely, but we identify those people by the fact that they have an interest in more than one article.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:39, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Howareyoutheyus You are not being truthful, the blog post on widewalls clearly states that TEXT AND IMAGES were provided by Pierre Kiandjan, therefore it is a self-published primary source, and not a reliable source. BTW, did PK give you the photographs to upload to commons, or are they your own, or? It is WP policy to acknowledge a WP:COI. If you were here to build an encyclopedia, you would have long moved on to other tasks. Netherzone (talk) 22:23, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Netherzone: Of course editors are asking for biographical information, but no section allows to "upload" any content on Widewall unlike what you've just said because this magazine has an editorial line. While your question looks like a weird intentional trap, I'm answering anyway : he did not and they're not, by the way that's why those contents have been deleted. Also, uploading content on WP neither prove COI. Howareyoutheyus (talk) 11:14, 19 October 2019 (UTC+1)

Delete. As the nomination points out, "no solid in-depth coverage that is not a blog, interview, online portfolio or advertisement". – Athaenara ✉ 19:20, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:00, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

East China University of Technology

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

No citations. All links are non-third-party (official websites and ads). Apparent COI from NPOV and use of "we." From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 03:19, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 03:19, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 03:19, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 03:19, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is apparently bypassing AfC process by re-creating page rejected from draft. See Draft:East China University of Technology. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 03:27, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Certainly has WP:NPOV issues and is most likely COI. Ay least would need a major rewrite and more sources if it were to stay. Hughesdarren (talk) 03:33, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and tag the article with any concerns, e.g. primary sources. This appears to be an accredited, degree-granting university that actually exists. Did the nominator do WP:BEFORE? News and independent web site mentions (not significant coverage, but it probably adds up to something): 4icu, publications listed on ResearchGate, US News ranking, mention in a news article, mention in China Daily, mention in news article on pulse.ng (Nigeria), summary of paper by someone at ECUT. And that is just from a quick news search. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:28, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Worth noting that the US News ranking which linked above is for ECUST in Shanghai rather than this institution. AllyD (talk) 07:24, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a verifiable accredited public university. As with many university articles, it heavily depends on primary sources. Article needs lots of improvement, but notability is beyond doubt. -Zanhe (talk) 06:44, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Accredited degree-awarding tertiary institution. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:33, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a verifiable accredited public university and accredited degree-awarding. --SalmanZ (talk) 23:56, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:07, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

YSN Flow

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO and WP:MUSICBIO. Little biographical detail in reliable secondary sources. This article gave a brief bio, but not enough to establish notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:16, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:52, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:52, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 03:10, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It is probably too soon for an article on this rapper. He has a semi-hit single that has gotten a few introductory reviews in reliable publications ([13], [14], [15]), but he has not been reliably covered as an artist in his own right. Otherwise, all that can be found are the usual retail/streaming/social links. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:49, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:SNOW keep. bd2412 T 05:04, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statue of Thomas Cass

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

Only one source; fails WP:GNG. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 03:05, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong and speedy keep (note: article creator). Did you even try a Google search before nominating for deletion moments after creation? I've already added enough text and sourcing to meet notability criteria. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:16, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are a large number of sources that discuss the subject, although some are brief. The subject is a well known artistic object within a nationally recognized historic site. While good faith is not in doubt, the nomination appears to have been premature and done without due regard for WP:BEFORE. I would encourage the OP to withdraw their nomination. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:40, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above. WP:BEFORE does not seemed to have been followed. Gleeanon409 (talk) 03:52, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Coverage in the New York Times. AnUnnamedUser, please read WP:BEFORE. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:33, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above comments. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:38, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the sourcing in this article was, to be frank, almost as bad as on the fictional characters, no-hit wonders, and professional puffery that normally populate AfD. To be fair, the NYT article is actually fairly extensive, both describing the statue and some of the circumstances surrounding its installation, but as referenced in the article it was impossible to access. It didn't even include such helpful things as a non-hidden version of the date of publish. I have fixed that. Nevertheless, one reference notability does not confer. I have, however, found sources ranging from Boston to Columbus Nebraska (which might be a re-print of a national agency) describing the statue, the process of its commission, creation, installation, and unveiling, and public reaction to it. Considering that I had to modify the search terms to find anything useful and that the sources in the article before I messed with it were all either bad or inaccessible, I think that excoriating the nominator for a lack of WP:BEFORE is out of line. Rockphed (talk) 13:17, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:36, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:36, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:36, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GNG, article has been subsequently well sourced since nomination. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:41, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. There are lots of sources for this. Nom failed to do WP:BEFORE ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:27, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:18, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to SMW Volunteer Slam. Sandstein 19:06, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer Slam I

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

Impressive article, but in the end this seems to be a non-notable event. More than 25 years afterwards, it seems that it hasn't been mentioned in any books, hasn't received attention in newspapers, ... All we have are a few pro-wrestling websites writing at length about it, but such fan sites, even semi-professional ones, are normally not considered sufficient to establish notability. SMW is described as a "minor regional promotion" in the "Historical Dictionary of Wrestling"[16], which doesn't give confidence that a single event from that promotion could be notable barring special circumstances. The "Encyclopedia of Professional Wrestling" doesn't mention the "Volunteer Slam" either.[17] Fram (talk) 13:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:58, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:58, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:58, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I agree this event is not major, but I think it could be merged into SMW Volunteer Slam and be included with the other events. I would suggest the creation of a List of Smoky Mountain Wrestling events similar to List of House of Hardcore events, and include details from all of their events there rather than forking them off into individual articles. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 14:05, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:43, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:33, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to SMW Volunteer Slam. Seems the most logical choice given how little after-the-fact coverage it got. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:55, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Autobots. (non-admin closure) ミラ P 16:24, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mudflap (Transformers)

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

Non-notable fictional character TTN (talk) 10:41, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 10:41, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 10:41, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 10:41, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Autobots where there is a mention of the character. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:45, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:24, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mere existence is no longer accepted as justification for keeping articles about high schools, and the consensus of other comments is that there are not sources to support notability under the usual standards. RL0919 (talk) 06:29, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vikas Bharati Public School

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

Fails WP:ORG Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 16:26, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:27, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:27, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per time-honoured precedent. Most high schools have historically been kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists, as evidenced by thousands of AfD closures. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:11, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:17, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Either it meets WP:NORG or it doesn't. We can't start making exceptions for high schools, but not colleges, or public colleges but not private colleges. Alternate proposal might be to add WP:Notability and WP:Primary tags to the article and re-submit to AfD in 6-12 months. If it's a keep, it's the softest of all possible keeps. Doug Mehus (talk) 02:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think there are any WP:42 available (at least I can't find any). The only mentions in secondary sources I am seeing are about crimes that faculty and staff were accused of. Rockphed (talk) 12:26, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the Feb 2017 RfC, secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist. There are no reliable independent sources. SD0001 (talk) 14:44, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SD0001, Can you wikilink-ify the Feb 2017 RfC, if possible, as this would be helpful for the future? Thanks. Doug Mehus (talk) 14:47, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SCHOOLRFC. SD0001 (talk) 14:51, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:06, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your Neighbourhood Credit Union

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

Another provincially-limited, local credit union which is an ultra stub-class article that relies entirely on primary sources, and which press coverage is limited to non-existent. A Google web search for the company revealed that all results were either directories, the company's own website, government regulator listings, and news coverage, to the extent it exists, is limited to product announcements, senior executive hires, or small credit union mergers. In short, trivial matters. Thus, it fails WP:NCORP, lacks WP:CORPDEPTH, and is another textbook example of WP:CORPSPAM despite however many assets it may hold. Doug Mehus (talk) 00:42, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 00:46, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 00:46, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 00:46, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NCORP; there are no secondary reliable sources available. The only source provided is from their own website, and most results online are just passing mentions, or their own website. Obvious WP:CORPSPAM. Luke ^Talk 19:20, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:06, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TCU Financial Group

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

Another provincially-limited, local credit union which is an ultra stub-class article that relies entirely on primary sources, and which press coverage is limited to non-existent. A Google web search for the company revealed that all results were either directories, the company's own website, government regulator listings, and news coverage, to the extent it exists, is limited to product announcements or senior executive hires. In short, trivial matters. Thus, it fails WP:NCORP, lacks WP:CORPDEPTH, and is another textbook example of WP:CORPSPAM despite however many assets it may hold. Doug Mehus (talk) 00:27, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 00:31, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 00:31, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 00:31, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NCORP, as you mentioned. Hasn't been covered by any secondary sources, and has no press coverage. Luke ^Talk 05:17, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:23, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ShareTheMusic

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

Non-notable website. Somewhat promotional/"about us" tone, was clearly created by a COI editor (named "stm team"), no significant coverage in external sources (references are Alexa rankings, a blog-like "startup review" which doesn't actually say much about the company, and a bunch of press releases). Fails WP:NWEBSITE because of the lack of sgnificant independent coverage. The mechanism that is used here might actually be notable if it had external coverage (particularly of the legality), but no such coverage appears to exist. creffett (talk) 00:20, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 00:20, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 00:20, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Aside from Alexa and 2 press releases, there are hardly any sources cited, none of which are RS. Also, there is even a section titled "Legality" which just seems like it is arguing on enwiki that it is legal; hardly encyclopedic. Given that it is currently #4.2 million on Alexa, and has very little to no coverage by RS is pretty convincing that it is not WP:NOTABLE. Mgasparin (talk) 08:21, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N; there are almost no reliable sources, and, aside from social media and their website, there are no relevant sources online. Luke ^Talk 00:52, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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