Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/United States of America: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 07:16, 11 March 2017

WP:AFD/USA

This is a high level category for deletion sorting. It is strongly recommended you do not add discussions directly to it. Instead, please add them to a more specific category, such as a state and/or relevant subject area. Please review the list of available deletion categories.

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to United States of America. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|United States of America|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to United States of America. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Americas.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

Purge page cache

watch

General

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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:35, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HipVoice

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

Doesn't pass WP:CORP and WP:PRODUCT. Written like a company brochure so this also violates WP:PROMOTION. Xaxing (talk) 07:08, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Xaxing (talk) 07:15, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Xaxing (talk) 07:16, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG as I am unable to find substantial coverage of the firm in reliable, independent sources. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:29, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Cory Booker. Kurykh (talk) 00:26, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Political positions of Cory Booker

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

Content fork from Cory Booker. Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 18:59, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:01, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:01, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:01, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Cory Booker. I don't know why this should be a separate article.Sdc3000 (talk) 06:29, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or consider merge / redirect to Cory Booker The article is properly structured, well-sourced and part of a well-populated Category:Political positions of United States Senators that includes about 20 other such articles, though some have been turned into redirects. This could stand on its own but no objection to a merge / redirect with no prejudice towards eventual recreation as a standalone article. Alansohn (talk) 16:04, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Cory Booker per above. If his positions become more nuanced and extensive or otherwise more notable on their own, it might be worth an article then. For now, it's fine as a section within Cory Booker. South Nashua (talk) 15:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Given the concerns raised about recentism it may be appropriate to revisit this outcome in a year or two. Note that the article was moved to 2017 dismissal of U.S. attorneys during the discussion. Mackensen (talk) 16:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy

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

WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM. Not everything the Trump administration does is a "controversy" requiring an article. This is not on par with the Bush dismissal of U.S. attorneys in 2006. In fact, this is not unprecedented. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:05, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:05, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is not a controversy, nor is the page written from an unbiased point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OCPlanner (talk • contribs) 11:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. *sigh* Why must we immediately nominate articles for deletion? This is clearly a notable incident that is receiving significant coverage. Let the article snowball... ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:09, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Then we'd be creating articles about all sorts of trivial things and spend most of our time parsing what should be kept and what should be deleted. Really this is WP:TOOSOON to be creating an article. And I have to note that Another Believer is the article creator. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, sorry, I should have noted that I created the article. Thanks for doing so. I disagree with your reasoning entirely, though. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:15, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge with Presidency of Donald Trump, I believe this is too trivial and has happened multiple times in the past: see [1], it is not unprecedented; we don't have articles for all of those events (except for the midterm dismissal), it is common for Presidents to dismiss Attorneys once they take office. MB298 (talk) 01:36, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:03, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:03, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:03, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – This looks like a routine procedure every time a new administration comes in, fashionable anti-Trump hyperventilation notwithstanding. — JFG ^talk 07:36, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Passes notability, plenty of WP:RS. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:26, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Reliable sources do not guarantee notability. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete – This is not a controversy. Former President Clinton directed the late, former Attorney General Janet Reno to do the exact same thing that Trump had Jeff Sessions do. It is simply part of the tradition of passing the control of government from one President to the next. If it deserves coverage then it should be merged into the article about the Trump Admin or the article about the Justice Department or the article about Presidential transition, etc. But wherever it is moved or merged it needs to have its name changed to something that is not so blatantly a violation of NPOV.--SlackerDelphi (talk) 14:17, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What specific speedy delete criteria do you believe applies? Neutrality^talk 22:56, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here are a couple more sources that demonstrate that this is not a "controversy": [2][3] – Muboshgu (talk) 19:32, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I am open to different page titles, and the article does mention that Sessions' move is not unprecedented. That doesn't change the fact that the move received plenty of coverage to justify a standalone article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:11, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is lots of coverage, I agree with that. But, most of it is of the WP:SENSATIONAL variety. I think we all have our guards up so high because of Trump and all of the things the Trump administration is doing, and the media is part of it, breathlessly reporting everything in sensational ways. Many things (cough*Muslim ban*cough) deserve it, but asking the U.S. attorneys to resign at the beginning of the administration is not that. The last three presidents did the same exact thing, except they were a bit more deliberate about it. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:28, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sure, some are sensational, and we can include media's reaction in the article, but many of the sources are also just sharing news. The administration's decision impacts many people and jurisdictions, hence the widespread coverage. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:52, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - There is a plenty of coverage, but that fact alone does not support notability of the article. The topic is banal and commonplace. It is worth a mention or two in the Trump article or in the DOJ article, etc. But an article all to itself is not justfied. Also, the name of the article speaks to the fact that it is not deserving of an article topic. The word "controversy" is not really used in the reliable sources. Why the use of the word "controversy" when the Slate magazine article, not a hotbed of conservative thought, calls the whole thing much to do about nothing. It seems a bit like the title is a stretch to justify an article where no one exists. We can't name an article a controvesy when Slate specifically states that it is not a controversy and only the article creator really thinks it is a controversy. It needs to be either merged or moved or fully deleted, but kept as an article? No.--SlackerDelphi (talk) 21:10, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        As I mentioned, I'm open to other article titles. I went with the current title based on the name of the 2006-related article. How about just "2017 dismissal of U.S. attorneys"? I'd move the page but I'm not sure this should be done during an active AfD discussion...? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:18, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ABC/AP report: It is not unusual for U.S. attorneys, who are appointed by presidents, to be asked to resign when a new president takes office, especially when there is a change of party at the White House.--SlackerDelphi (talk) 21:15, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we've established that the move is not unprecedented. An event does not need to be unprecedented to be notable. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:19, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I created a discussion on the article's talk page re: the word "controversy". ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:49, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Presidency of Donald Trump: There is a Trump controversy several times a day and this one happens to occur whenever there is a new administration. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 22:52, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unprecendented press coverage. While the dismissal of attorneys has happened in the past, the amount of controversies does make this particularly notable. Eccekevin (talk) 22:54, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The forced resignation of Preet Bharara alone is very interesting, since he very effectively prosecuted Wall Street post 2009. Re notability: there are plenty of articles about boats that are only notable because they sank. No clamor there. Tempest in a teapot? time will tell. Twang (talk) 23:00, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think this meets the hurdle, mostly on the Preet Bharara element. It's true that mass dismissals have happened in the past, but as the sources reflect, the specific context and timing of this one make it distinctive. (And, as pointed out above, an event does not need to be unprecedented to be notable). Alternatively — and this would require a lot more work but would be superior and better for the reader — I would suggest a merge/redirect into a future article on United States Department of Justice during the Trump administration, which could cover this and a lot more ground (marijuana policy, crime policy, the Sally Yates dismissal, etc.) without overwhelming another article. Neutrality^talk 23:04, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This has significant media coverage for the surprise of the announcements of the resignations of 46 US Attorneys at once, many were not expected to resign on Friday, and the firing of Preet Bharara is significant in itself as he had been asked to stay on previously and has now been fired, similar to Sally Yates, whose dismissal has its own Wikipedia article. Since Attorney General Janet Reno did something similar in the past, perhaps the article should be moved to "2017 dismissal of U.S. attorneys" as has been mentioned earlier, however this article does not merit deletion as it passes WP:NOTABILITY from media coverage. Zbase4 (talk) 23:10, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
After reading the arguments presented, I am changing my vote to keep. MB298 (talk) 00:34, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Whether this is unprecedented or not is irrelevant. The point is it has received extensive coverage from reliable sources. I think it's too early to nominate this for deletion, since this is still receiving continuous coverage. Let's wait until this ends, see if it will still deserve an article and then maybe merge it to Presidency of Donald Trump or First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency. But for now, I'd say keep it. Also, per other comments, I support removing "controversy" from the title. κατάστασ η 01:25, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but consider removing "controversy" from the title. However I think that might be a discussion for the article talk page.ErieSwiftByrd (talk) 02:27, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A couple editors have made this suggestion, and I (article creator) don't object. You can comment on the article's talk page, or if it's not against rules to move an article during an active AfD discussion, that'd be fine. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:39, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Recentrism, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Eric Holder has been quoted as saying in regards to firing attorneys in the past,"Elections matter. It is our intention to have the U.S. attorneys that are selected by President Obama in place as quickly as we can."^[1] There is a fake news epidemic in the mainstream media and the "2017 dismissal of attorneys controversy" is a perfect example. Eoswins (talk) 02:51, 12 March 2017 (UTC)— Eoswins (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep for now. Let the article evolve on its own, it looks like a good merge candidate after a few days of article development. Octoberwoodland (talk) 06:02, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.vox.com/2017/3/10/14890546/trump-us-attorneys-resigned

Keep and rename the now vaguely-named article on the similar Bush firing of attorneys called "Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy" at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy to "2006 Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy" -- and, in agreement with ErieSwiftByrd, choose another word instead of "controversy" for both articles. cat yronwode, not logged in. 75.101.104.17 (talk) 06:10, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is most certainly NOT a controversy (note naming already violates Wikipedia NPOV) and is a routine procedure that was done in the past under a number of previous administrations. Wikipedia has no place for the newpaper sensationalism like articles. (see this as well) --CyberXRef^☎ 07:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Comment I am inclined to keep per the amount of coverage this topic has received, but would also like to say it is probably to soon to tell as this even happened yesterday and it might take a day or two to see what impact this event will have. Inter&anthro (talk) 07:25, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Comment This event is controversial in large part due to the public blessing that Trump and Sessions gave Preet Bharara during Trump's first days as president elect (as noted by almost every news story). Given the high profile cases that Bharara is investigating and prosecuting, and the fact that Trump's allegations of wire tapping within a jurisdiction Bharara would investigate, elevate this to full controversy, and worthy of its own article. Spawn777 (talk) 10:10, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:EVENTCRITERIA. "Routine kinds of news events [...] – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." I don't think there's an enduring significance here, those people were going to be replaced anyway, and previous presidents have done so too. HaEr48 (talk) 16:15, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Question: There are now 2 merge banners at the top of the article. The discussion at Talk:United States Department of Justice during the Trump administration seems unnecessary and should be closed -- the target page is just a redirect, so if we want attorney dismissal content to live there, we could just move this page. Is there an admin who can assist with the closing of this merge discussion? Also, several people have opposed usage of the word "controversy" -- I am fine with removing this word from the article's title, but can the page be moved while there is an ongoing AfD discussion? I'd move the page myself but I want to follow rules. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:04, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Striking out the note re: 2 merge banner, which have been removed. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:09, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep , although the title may be modified: It is already as a reference in google news...

Keep. Obvious WP:GNG pass. The actual text of NOTNEWS says to treat recent news like any other article. There is more than enough notability for this. The only quibble I have with it is that I want a title without "controversy" - for example, by amputating the unneeded word at the end of the title. It's a notable dismissal of US attorneys even if there were not a single person arguing about it. Wnt (talk) 19:21, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but I agree with Wnt on all counts. So I suggest changing title to 2017 dismissal of U.S. attorneys. Orser67 (talk) 19:25, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per WP:EVENT, this is notable because, "An event is presumed to be notable if it receives significant, non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time. Coverage should be in multiple reliable sources with national or global scope." This clearly has widespread non-routine coverage and affects federal law enforcement throughout the United States. There is no requirement that an event be unprecedented (we have articles on every Super Bowl, and every presidential inauguration), although some parts of this do seem to be unprecedented. It just has to be notable. At least two aspects in particular are receiving non-routine coverage: 1. Preet Bharara was fired (he did not resign). 2. There are earlier reports that he was previously asked to stay on. No strong preference on the title. Mattflaschen - Talk 22:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, "presumed". That means it's not a guarantee.
Keep - Keep per more than sufficient coverage and WP:LASTING. The title may need to be altered, but per the sources, the dismissals are controversial. And that controversy is WP:Verifiable.StonefieldBreeze (talk) 23:45, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- How is WP:LASTING demonstrated? This hasn't led to anything further than the dismissal of the attorneys. There's no indication this will be investigated, because it's the prerogative of the POTUS/DOJ. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:48, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's clear this won't be deleted. I won't withdraw, though. If this isn't merged, I may renominate for deletion in a year or so, when the recentism has faded, because I think that's clouding the judgment of many of these votes. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:48, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a routine event. Every president asks U.S. Attorneys appointed by the previous administrations to resign. Bill Clinton asked 93 U.S. Attorneys to resign. Articles like this dilute the credibility of Wikipedia. To maintain its reputation Wikipedia needs to refrain from publishing subjective material. The only news worthy element of this routine event is Preet Bharara's refusal to resign like the other 44 and the 93 who resigned at Clinton's request. But is grandstanding by someone who is widely known to have political ambitions worthy of a Wikipedia article? I think not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.226.211.67 (talk) 09:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC) — 93.226.211.67 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 07:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Agree with the above comment - every president does this - Clinton, Bush, Obama did it. Because news groups are blowing it out of proportion for political reasons does NOT make it worthy of a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia should be objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.156.40.38 (talk) 11:41, 13 March 2017 (UTC) — 165.156.40.38 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 07:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Delete This is a routine non-event. Janet Reno and Eric Holder both did it. Or move to Preet Bharara page as he drove any ostensible controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tfrichardn (talk • contribs) 12:42, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- while I understand the motivation for delete, I also think there is merit in documenting the people from the previous administration that a president fires in the first 100 days. Why are we stopping with lawyers though... I think eventually if this article is to pass the Ten Year Test it should document EVERYONE that was let go from the Obama-to-Trump transition, not just lawyers. Peace, MPS (talk) 14:23, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment that's a pretty good idea for a list, imo. I wonder if we could find any comprehensive sources for that. Orser67 (talk) 21:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seconding suggestions to move 2017 dismissal of U.S. attorneys, and move Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy to 2006 dismissal of U.S. attorneys. -Apocheir (talk) 14:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This event has inspired controversy, so it is controversial. However, I am not certain if it is sufficiently notable. (To put it another way, will the average well-informed American remember this in 12 months?) Usually the USAs are dismissed at the start of a new administration, but not usually in this fashion. The last 2 presidents did not repeat the mass purge that Janet Reno did at the start of the Clinton administration, but requested resignations as replacements were appointed. Some of these firings and resignations were under somewhat unusual circumstances. The situation with the Manhattan USA is somewhat unusual, but by itself that could be on his page rather than requiring its own page. I think someone may have slightly jumped the gun on posting this article, but that's debatable. I would not jump to deleting it so quickly, but if the turmoil turns out to be little more than it seems so far, then the information on this page can be added to other pages and the article deleted. If this controversy turns out to be bigger then the page is warranted. At the time that it first emerged, nobody thought that Whitewater would take 8 years to resolve.--AlanK (talk) 15:36, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A fairly glaring case of WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS. Clearly fails WP:10YT and WP:SUSTAINED. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:34, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Notice – Given numerous comments along these lines, I have boldly shortened the title to 2017 dismissal of U.S. attorneys, per consensus and WP:NPOVTITLE. No prejudice about the AfD outcome. — JFG ^talk 21:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thank you! I went ahead and marked two talk page discussions re: the word "controversy" as resolved. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:34, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to wikinews, which is what stuff like this is meant for. If no consensus to get rid of this article, at least get rid of the "controversy" title which is not justified unless we are going to add it to every article title for a government action criticized by the opposition. NPalgan2 (talk) 22:01, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NPalgan2: "Controversy" had already been removed from the article's title. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:02, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* Oops, I forgot that the AfD title wouldn't update. But if this incident does not clear the bar of being called a controversy, what's the point of a stand-alone article? NPalgan2 (talk) 03:13, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think that the people who are stating that it is not controversial really mean that it should not be controversial. In fact, it is getting significant press coverage and merits coverage here. However, getting rid of the word "controversy" in the title was a good move. History will determine what lasting effect, if any, it has.
Keep Removing the word "controversy" was helpful and should be done retroactively for the 2006 article and housekeeping done to assure that Wikilinks are preserved. Those earlier removals, in the middle of the second GWB term, seven on Pearl Harbor Day a decade ago, were extremely controversial and memorable, some clearly done with palpable and specific political motivations (i.e., to effect the illegal major suppression of voting rights, for instance, and in possible retaliation for the prosecutions of corrupt Republican officeholders such as the just recently released Rick Renzi), and involved extensive congressional hearings and the arguably perjurious testimony by the sitting U.S. Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales and DOJ officials Bradley Schlozman and Monica Goodling. Cleaning house in a more orderly fashion, but done largely for reasons of political patronage is radically different than simultaneous cashiering a notable number of such officeholders mainly effectuated to cover up actual or intended criminality, or involving intended black-letter DOJ policy violations. The firing of David Iglesias, Carol Lam, Bud Cummins, Todd Graves and Paul Charlton, all Republicans, were particularly notable and sordid, yet most were given months to "clean out their desks." Preet Bharara is not the only USAAG in the midst of important prosecutions, but i.e., so is the USAAG for the Southern District of Mississippi who is handling a wide ranging ongoing political corruption case, apparently with yet undisclosed indictments. Activist (talk) 04:12, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I note that about 20 out of 30 editors support keeping the article at this point with no one opposed to dropping the word "controversy" from the title. Activist (talk) 04:37, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now The changing of the guard is normal, dismissal with immediate effect is absolutely unprecedented. Even Reno's resignation request order had a grace period (granted, one that not all elected to take). Wholesale removal of half of the US Attorneys is not exactly normal. Therequiembellishere (talk) 18:21, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Satisfies WP:GNG; made global headlines, was unprecedented in the approach that was taken. —MelbourneStar☆^talk
Keep. This is a well-sourced article about a notable topic. The bold change of title is welcome. Not all reporting of the event is sensational. Not-unprecedented isn't an argument: the fact it isn't unprecedented is covered in the article and anyway, because of the Jeff Sessions Russia (controversy?) thing, significant actions of his are more like to attract "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (WP:GNG). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:53, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. Right now, this is news coverage. If it later proves to have enduring notability, then we could revisit. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with the removal of the unnecessary word "controversy" from the title, and also with the suggestion to rename Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy as 2006 dismissal of U.S. attorneys for disambiguation. This does not seem to be a routine action, at least not in the way it was done, so it is notable historically as well as by the extensive media coverage. It raises questions about the independence of U.S. attorneys (as do dismissals by earlier presidents on both sides of politics), which we cannot discuss as WP:OR but could cite from secondary sources and academic publications. Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:34, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It was treated in the global news media as a notable and highly noteworthy event. Mothmothmoth (talk) 16:12, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments/Questions: 1) Can an admin close this discussion already? Clearly, this article should be kept. 2) Many editors have expressed the need to move the Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy to 2006 dismissal of U.S. attorneys. However, this move impacts other articles, too: Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy documents, Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy hearings, Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy timeline, Dismissed U.S. attorneys summary, as well as Category:Dismissal of United States Attorneys controversy. Does a separate discussion need to take place specifically for these articles (and category), or is an admin willing to move all of these pages together? I'm not sure how this works, but there seems to be a pretty clear consensus to move the Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy article for disambiguation purposes and consistency. FYI, one editor has questioned if "U.S. attorneys" should be replaced with "United States attorneys" in the articles' titles, so that's another thing to keep in mind. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:47, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- We need to consider merging, and definitely not follow that example this time! For Pete's sake! Jack N. Stock (talk) 16:54, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a "keep" consensus. I agree with Octoberwoodland below that it looks more like no consensus to delete. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:58, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This Afd should be closed as "no consensus". From the current votes, it's clear the article should be kept for now. Octoberwoodland (talk) 18:53, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I'd say this is an overwhelming vote to keep the article, but I'll let a closing admin decide. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:59, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It should be a no consensus, which has the same effect as a keep, but this isn't overwhelming at all. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned above, I anticipate renominating this for deletion in several months or a year, when the WP:RECENTISM has faded. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:11, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That would be the second unnecessary deletion discussion, but you do you. :p ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eh I'm not seeing new news coverage on this topic or any suggestion it has WP:LASTING notability, so again we disagree. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:18, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- most of those dismissed are notable individuals. Separately, Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy exists and is not at AfD. I would support a move to 2017 dismissal of U.S. attorneys as more factual. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:57, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @K.e.coffman: Regarding your WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, the 2006 U.S. Attorney firing was unprecedented. A new administration often (see Clinton, Bush, and Obama) cleans house of the USA's appointed by the last president. They don't do it in the middle of the administration because of politics. Also, the fact that many of these USA's are notable does not make their dismissal a notable event of its own, it means their bios can cover the content adequately. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:18, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. See WP:SOFTDELETE. Kurykh (talk) 00:48, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Creative License

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

No real notability. There is one significant article in the Boston Globe but it is mainy a bit of colour about taking something local to New York fringe festival. Awards it was nominated for are not notable. Boneymau (talk) 23:29, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 23:30, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 23:18, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:22, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:40, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Allegiance Communications

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

This article doesn't pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Nothing remarkable about it to be on Wikipedia. The content highlights usual announcements about mergers and acquisitions which any other company of this clout would be doing. Xaxing (talk) 05:48, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Xaxing (talk) 05:48, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Xaxing (talk) 05:48, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Xaxing (talk) 05:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 00:30, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A defunct operation which was acquired and merged into another business (which itself does not have an article so is not a Redirect target). I am seeing nothing beyond routine announcements to indicate that it achieved notability. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 07:52, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Not huge evidence of notability, but I think it just makes it, and anyway the only possible alternative would be "no consensus", which would lead to the same end result. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:33, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Love for the Elderly

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

promotional article for very local organization. The Glamour and USA Today articles is just mention in a general article--Glamour 1 of 31, USAToday, 1 of 10. Huff Post is worthless for notability. That leaves only local sources for a local organization. DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:28, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With (claimed) volunteers in 56 countries, the organization may not be that local, but even if it were - being featured on national TV (Rede Record in Brazil [4] and an interview with Harry Connick Jr in the US), in addition to cover story on American Profile [5] and regional coverage, are sufficient per WP:ORG. As for style and content, it truly needs some work, but that's nothing irreparable. -- IsaacSt (talk) 11:56, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:50, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Love for the Elderly has been on international television like Rede Record and regional coverage as well which abides by WP:ORG. It also operates globally to impact senior-aged citizens. --Mayamarks (talk) 03:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:42, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:44, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) J 947 18:18, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Juli

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

Does not meet notability criteria. Tumblehome (talk) 01:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 March 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:19, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 06:10, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 06:10, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 06:10, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:37, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep under WP:GNG, supported by the following sources:

Mainstream sources:

Groves, Nancy (12 November 2010). "Money talks: Artist Sara Juli discusses cold, hard cash in new show". The Independent. Retrieved 11 March 2017.
"A Truly Generous Performance". The New York Times. 12 February 2006. Retrieved 11 March 2017.
Hoffman, Barbara (13 February 2006). "SHE'S IN THE MONEY – PERFORMANCE ARTIST HOPES CASH REGISTERS WITH AUDIENCE". New York Post. Retrieved 11 March 2017.
"Take It, It's For You". The Story. 22 August 2013. Retrieved 11 March 2017.

Sources from important publications in the American modern dance scene:

Zimmer, Elizabeth (20 October 2016). "Sara Juli: Tense Vagina". Village Voice. Retrieved 11 March 2017.
"Sara Juli". The New Yorker. 14 October 2016. Retrieved 11 March 2017.,"Dance". The New Yorker. 27 October 2008. Retrieved 11 March 2017.
"The Money Conversation: Sara Juli in conversation with Juliana May". Movement Research. 16 May 2016. Retrieved 11 March 2017.

Local/regional sources:

Lockhart, Jessica (26 October 2015). "Dance review: 'Tense Vagina: An Actual Diagnosis' is an actually hysterical performance". Press Herald. Retrieved 11 March 2017.
Broili, Susan; Herald-Sun, Special to The (23 June 2016). "REVIEW: Juli tackles taboo subjects at ADF". The Herald-Sun. Retrieved 11 March 2017.
Howe, Brian (22 June 2016). "Sara Juli Talks About What We Don't Talk About When We Talk About Vaginas". Indy Week. Retrieved 11 March 2017., Woods, Byron (24 June 2016). "Dance Review: Sara Juli Will Tickle You at Motorco. No, Actually Tickle You". Indy Week. Retrieved 11 March 2017.</ref>
"Sara Julis The Money Conversation". Australian Stage Online. 2 October 2007. Retrieved 11 March 2017.
Wesley, Flora Wellesley (18 November 2010). "Sara Juli: The Money Conversation". Retrieved 11 March 2017.
Billings, Randy (7 March 2017). "Interpretive dancer pretends to vomit, among other things, at Portland council meeting". Press Herald. Retrieved 11 March 2017.
Interview on Maine's Coast 93.1

FourViolas (talk) 15:19, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes CREATIVE with reviews of work in major publications. For those who like WP:HEY, I added some of the sources that FourViolas found to the article. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:05, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep with reviews in the New York, NYT, Village Voice. --Theredproject (talk) 14:31, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly passes WP:CREATIVE as per above editors. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:32, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete -- text has been added to Ksenija Pavlovic and redirect created. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 19:34, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Pavlovic Today

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

Deprodded without rationale, or improvement. Can't find enough in-depth sourcing from independent reliable sources to show it passes WP:GNG. Lot of hits on News, but all from this site itself. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:05, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:05, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG on external sources. I thought about nominating this one before.South Nashua (talk) 15:43, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThe Pavlovic Today is a young and reputable publication and is in the White House Press Corps. Deutsche Welle is mentioning the publication and is enough of an extrenal in-depth source. The publication is listed on google news. Call for deletion seems like a suppression of free and independent media, the article can be expanded and improved, but its deletion is pure censorship — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pablop2017 (talk • contribs) 14:25, 15 March 2017 (UTC) — Pablop2017 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Note to closing admin: Pablop2017 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 00:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one source is not enough for something to pass the general notability guidelines, and that is all we have at present.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:44, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ksenija Pavlovic.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Ksenija Pavlovic in lieu of deletion. Cunard (talk) 05:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Journalism ethics and standards per consensus and page creator's agreement. Concerns on title capitalization are minor and do not justify deletion; the lowercase version also exists, will be redirected as well. — JFG ^talk 18:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Ethical Journalism

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

We already have an article on Journalism ethics and standards. This article's stated purpose is to cover "the current practical application of ethical-journalism", a violation of WP:RECENTISM. (Notable contemporary controversies about journalistic practice, such as GamerGate, should be treated individually). The article itself consists entirely of improper synthesis of primary sources discussing the current U.S. President's conflict with the American press, leading to a WP:COATRACK and essay-like article. I can't find evidence that the term is used to mean anything distinct from what is covered at journalism ethics and standards, or that anything in this article is worth merging elsewhere. I recommend a redirect. FourViolas (talk) 19:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:24, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is already such an article regarding the ethical standards of journalism, and yes, the new article, Ethical Journalism does concern itself primarily with the supposedly "recent" claim made by several notable figures and organizations that responsible (ethical) journalism in America is essentially now dead, (please note the Washington Times claim to that effect as cited in the article.) This claim however, is not a new claim, but has been clamored about over alt-right news sites for at least 7 years that I know of, but only now has it finally arisen to the status of being fully and publicly endorsed by the POTUS himself. Thus, this article is not really covering a truly current or merely recent event, but it is covering a certain sort of a "conspiracy theory" that has been in the wings for at least 7 years, and probably much longer.

Regarding your claim that the article is already covered by the article on journalistic ethical standards, or that it should only properly be covered there, I have actually been in contact with the creator of that article, who has most certainly already read my request here concerning this article (read it, based on his contributions log), and I am awaiting his recommendations regarding this question.

It is my humble opinion that Wikipedia harms nobody, and answers the questions of many, by being willing ot fearlessly include an article that addresses and focuses specifically on this one very major question that recent events have laid in front of us. That is the question, Is Ethical Journalism still alive and well in America or not? Obviously this question holds very deep undertones about the survivability of democracy itself. I fear that if we might prove to be too fearful to attempt to fairly address this question here in a format that attempts to offer reasonably unbiased answers to the public, such as Wikipedia, and in an article that specifically focuses on this one question, then other media such as the traditional news outlets which have already been vigorously attacked, may be unable to satisfactorily answer it either.

Should these attacks against traditional American journalism itself, somehow succeed, do you honestly believe that we at Wikipedia would then somehow miraculously be immune from the next wave of attacks, should we ever publish anything that the POTUS might disagree with? I beg you to please pause and to think honestly on this rather serious question for a moment. I would ask you to please have some small measure of patience regarding this question, and to please await the answer of administrator Beland, the creator of the article on the ethical standards of journalism, before reaching any conclusions here. I will most probably accept whatever administrator Beland advises.

Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 19:51, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect - Totally agree with the nominator's rationale. This issue is already discussed at Presidency_of_Donald_Trump#Relationship_with_the_media. I don't think anything from this article is useful to add there, but that section could probably use some additions for context and balance - what is Trump saying the media got wrong, what do the media think of those accusations? -- Beland (talk) 19:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Beland. I have said above all I will say on this question, and will now stand fully aside in silence here (unless specifically requested by Beland for a comment) for the rest of this discussion, to allow the consensus process to do whatever it will here (though I may still suggest to others that they might find this conversation to be of interest.) Scott P. (talk) 20:00, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your attitude, and I hope I haven't hurt your feelings—I know deletion discussions can be upsetting. FourViolas (talk) 21:49, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:12, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:12, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:12, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator has made a credible claim that this article is about more than simply ethics in journalism -- I have added this discussion to the above deletion sorting pages, accordingly, in order to get the greatest number of participants, interested in relevant subject areas. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:13, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Journalism ethics and standards. If we want to have an article about journalistic ethics in the 21st-century US, or anti-journalism conspiracy theories, or Donald Trump's attacks on the press, it should not have the title "Ethical Journalism". In addition, I share FourViolas's concern that the article seems more like a persuasive essay than an encyclopedia article. At best, it could be rewritten significantly and moved to Donald Trump and the press or something like that. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:22, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Journalism ethics and standards. This is an essay and coatrack, comprised of cherry-picked examples, that highlights topics that are already covered. It reminds me of a class assignment, where each student writes an article on journalistic ethics. Each student would offer different takes on the same very broad topic. There are many sub-topics that could plausibly be covered under the term "Ethical journalism" (wartime journalism, privacy and sources, fake news, propaganda, etc. etc.), and countless examples from history that could be arbitrarily highlighted for each subtopic. It is quite a stretch to think that somewhat googling "ethical journalism" is looking for anything related to Trump, U.S. politics, or even American journalism at all (Wikipedia is international). Even with a more specific title and narrower scope (e.g. "journalistic ethics in U.S. politics", this patchwork article would be problematic. Comparing current New York Times practices to its 2004 style manual is awfully close to WP:SYN. Compiling quotes (primary sources) from past presidents also seems more synthetic than I'm comfortable with for an encyclopedia article. While I don't think this article (by any name) is appropriate for an encyclopedia, it might have a place at Wikibooks, Wikiversity, or other alternative outlets. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:43, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious WP:COATRACK, no value as a redirect because of the capitalisation. — Charles Stewart (talk) 17:53, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen, After reading all of your helpful and thoughtful comments here, I think I may have gotten the message. The page was simply not npov, it was an essay. Ok. Unless anyone objects, I would like to set this page as a redirect for now to the main Journalism ethics and standards page, and then possibly at sometime in the future, if it can be figured out how this topic could somehow be suitably covered without a single mention of the name, Trump, either directly or by direct implication, then to re-propose it? Deal? Scott P. (talk) 07:06, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Scottperry:: I'm not sure all the commenters here are male, but in any case, what usually happens with these discussions is that an uninvolved administrator comes along in a few days and reads all the comments and opinions and declares what consensus seems to favor, and implements the deletion or redirect if necessary. -- Beland (talk) 07:08, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(@Beland:) Yes, and whenever this discussion is closed, I will probably assist in "untangling" the page from template-space, and if applicable, moving it to "project-draft-space." Scott P. (talk) 18:07, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and do not redirect because of capitalisation per Charles Stewart, above. Laurdecl ^talk 02:03, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why is that a problem? WP:POFR says redirects from likely alternative capitalizations are appropriate. Given that "journalism ethics and standards" is very unlikely to be a primary search target, capitalizing common redirects seems appropriate—WP:Redirects are cheap. FourViolas (talk) 03:25, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 06:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

USS Barracuda (SP-23)

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

Considering it was never even acquired, let alone commissioned, I see zero claim to notability. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:59, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What a sad little story, with no notability or educational value whatsoever. Jack N. Stock (talk) 07:24, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I'll repeat my comments from a recent debate over deleting a similar article: A few years ago, to improve Wikipedia′s rather sparse coverage of the U.S. Navy in World War I, I embarked on a solo effort to develop an entire series of articles on the vast section patrol program of incorporating civilian ships and craft into the Navy. (Wikipedia's coverage of the U.S. Navy is very biased toward the American Civil War, World War II, and very recent naval operations.) I wrote hundreds of articles covering the various boats and ships, and Wikipedia's coverage now is more or less complete, subject to new sources of information arising. A few of the ships and craft appear in Navy and other records under the name and SP numbers they would have had if they had been commissioned, but they never were. For the sake of completeness and to eliminate all confusion, I included these in my project when I could find out enough about them to do so. Their notability derives from the association with the section patrol program, not from their individual histories. It always disappoints me to see the nomination of real history articles for deletion when Wikipedia retains so many trivial articles on science fiction characters and video games and whatnot, but if this really is taking up too much room on a server and needs to be deleted, then please ensure you retain the knowledge imparted in the deleted article by including all relevant information on a shipindex or other page elsewhere in Wikipedia so that knowledge of the vessel is not lost. If you are not going to do that, then please leave the article alone. Mdnavman (talk) 12:47, 8 March 2017 (UTC)mdnavman[reply]

I agree with you on the fictional cruft, I've always thought there should be a fiction Wikipedia separate from the real enyclopedia. If you want to work on making a list that has images and info on the different SP ships I'd down to help. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:35, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Mdnavman's comments above, one way to handle this would be to have a list of ships in this situation (eg, registered for possible service with the USN but never acquired) - the sourcing seems more likely to establish notability for such a group rather than the individual ships. Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:32, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:32, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not a U.S. warship.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 18:01, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- an unremarkable civilian vessel, I'm afraid. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:16, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: They also serve who only stand and wait. Jack N. Stock (talk) 20:32, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I disagreed that the consensus was delete and myself !voted keep at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS Wistaria (SP-259). However, I think the case is weaker for this article than for the Wisteria, and can't bringmyself to !vote keep, unless I saw more evidence of notability. Smmurphy^(Talk) 23:01, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As this was a small watercraft never actually acquired or commissioned by the US Navy there's no reason to think that sufficent sources are available to establish notability. The article's title is misleading. Nick-D (talk) 10:49, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I see no claim to notability, nor sufficient referencing to show it. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:40, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable for stand alone article; trivial. Kierzek (talk) 14:44, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Don't think there's enough to establish notability. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:43, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:17, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:06, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ellen Mellody

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

This is more of a CV, scraped from various brief mentions, than a claim of notability. Mellody has indeed been a backroom staff member of various high profile politicians and, as press spokesperson, has been quoted in a number of articles. But there is no coverage about her that I can see. I'm a bit bewildered to understand why the article was passed from Articles for Creation. Fails WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 05:32, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:16, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:16, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:16, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:16, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't think it's fair to say she was "backroom" staff; there are many, many news reports in which she is quoted. However, I agree that none of the journalists were interested enough to write about her background in detail. I was keeping this alive in Draft space because it seemed that she might soon have more exposure, either through her work with Hilliary Clinton or through her work with a marijuana promotion organization. However, since the election neither of these seem likely; the sourcing of the article probably won't improve for some time. I decided to set it free and let others decide its fate.—Anne Delong (talk) 04:33, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The coverage is all in passing mentions, not showing actual indepth coverage of her.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:52, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:33, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ricochet (website)

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

Nearly exclusively self-citations Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 12:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:53, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:53, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:53, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:53, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:53, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NWEB. Practically all sources are self-citations. AusLondonder (talk) 08:56, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Age of Ferguson

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

Non-noteable neologism. Jtrainor (talk) 23:03, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/userfy. At first I thought it could be redirected to Shooting of Michael Brown/Ferguson unrest, but it is more about Body worn video. While the term is used, I don't see it properly defined anywhere - this seems to be a WP:OR essay/synthesis that has no place on Wikipedia (it reads as and pretty much is a blog essay, not encyclopedic content). Compared to Ferguson effect, for example, the difference in notability is quite clear. PS. It is worth noting this article is likely a student assignment (Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Cal State San Marcos/Sociological Advocacy (Spring 2017)). I suggest the article is userspaced, instead of deleted, so that the instructor can grade it properly. PPS. Ping instructors/ambassadors: User:KSDark, User:Adam (Wiki Ed). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:18, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/userfy - As per Piotrus. The title is not an accepted term and the article is non-encyclopedic and reads like an essay. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wikipedia does not have an opinion section for original research like this. MiracleMat (talk) 01:12, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:18, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Williams Street Swap Shop

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

Non-notable talk show lacking non-trivial, independent support. reddogsix (talk) 17:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This article is for a valid show produced by Williams Street that is aired Monday-Friday on their home page and is a valid production. This page acts as a primer to the show to allow those that have not been following the show to become acclimated to the backstory and cast of characters. EDIT: It is created in the same spirit as the page devoted to FishCenter Live which is another flagship show of Adult Swim's streaming content. User:CAIRat (talk) 18:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find no significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. What I did find were mentions and ~~less~~ press releases. --Whpq (talk) 18:46, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have added multiple outside references to this show including Variety. CAIRat (talk) 19:28, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is no more than simple listing of the show. A listing in anything is hardly non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 19:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - (Moved from main article page as entered by another user) It's a show. Law in order is a show. You have a law and order wiki, so if you remove this you're employing a double standard that makes no sense. You consideration of it's triviality is an opinion as I personally find Law and order to be a trivial and unimportant show, but darn do my ice age parents sure love it. So please, reconsider, a lot of us would appreciate this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CAIRat (talk • contribs) 20:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The difference with Law and Order and this show is there are a great number of references in existence about that L&O. There are none about this show except trivial ones. Just to make sure, no one is calling this or any other show "trivial and unimportant." I am glad your parents like it, but popularity has no bearing on Wikipedia based notability. reddogsix (talk) 22:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:07, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:32, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:32, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it is only streamed online means that it would not meet WP:TVSERIES. And it fails WP:GNG. Delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:40, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It was announced on March 13. 2017 that the Swap Shop would be aired at 4am on Thursday (March 16, 2017). Much in the same vein as they have done in the past with FishCenter Live. I am hoping that having the show OTA will give it an added degree of consideration for retention. EDIT: I am aware that it has to be a recurring segment to meet WP:TVSERIES and am working to verify the airing schedule in hopes of achieving that notability. User:CAIRat (talk) 17:19, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:23, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Williams Street Swap Shop is now airing pre-recorded, condensed episodes on the air on Adult Swim as part of their "Williams Stream" programming block that airs Tuesday-Saturday at 0400. The Swap Shop is included in a weekly rotation of shows along with 3-4 other programs from the [as] Streams. I would argue that this now makes it eligible to meet WP:TVSERIES and, as such, it looks to meet the eligibility requirements as it is aired on a national network and, while only just starting to air on television, it has been around for well over a year in other media and, judging from future channel listings, will continue to air for the foreseeable future. If this doesn't put this issue to rest, please comment below with what else I need to submit to maintain this article. Thank you! User:CAIRat (talk) 17:03, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - "Generally, an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio or television stations (either national or regional in scope), or on a cable television network with a national audience." Emphasis added. Given that this has not actually become a regular series that has a broadcast history, and lacks any sort of coverage in reliable sources, I am no inclined to change my view that this show meets notability. It may become notable over time as it airs; that would be when an article on Wikipedia would be appropriate. -- Whpq (talk) 23:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 00:43, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dialog magazine

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

Article created and dePRODded by apparent COI editor. PROD reason still stands: "Non-notable magazine, only source is press release and book by magazine founder." Hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 22:46, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article by User:Dialogeditor1 on a recently launched new magazine. No evidence of attained notability provided and, while the common name is awkward for searching, my searches (Highbeam, Google) on variants including location and founder name are not identifying anything better. Fails WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 08:35, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As the original PROD-er I stand by the rationale. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 19:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:58, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:14, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. While it started in 2016, it appears to have to few issues to have made any impact at all; I found no news sources about this periodical outside of press releases. Bearian (talk) 15:58, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My unfruitful searches indicate that it is WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:34, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG DarjeelingTea (talk) 17:29, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:13, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:53, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UnSettled: Inside The Strange World of Asbestos Lawsuits

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

There are some mentions found on News, and while 2 are more than trivial, they don't rise to the level of passing WP:GNG. And the documentary clearly doesn't pass WP:NFILM. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:24, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There just isn't enough out there to show that this movie passes notability guidelines. It exists and can be watched, but there's very little out there about it. The Buzzfeed article was actually submitted by one of their random users, so that would be considered a WP:SPS at best since Buzzfeed doesn't factcheck its user submissions like they do the posts written by their staff. The only thing that I could find that was halfway usable was the Legal NewsLine piece that's already in the article. Everything else is either a press release reprint or a WP:TRIVIAL mention. If someone wants to userfy this they can, but it just doesn't pass NFILM right now. To be honest, it might never pass - documentary films like this are kind of niche and they tend to either make it big ala Tickled or SuperSize Me or they don't. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:35, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I've worked a fair bit in the documentary film area and in fairness there is a large middle ground between big hits and insignificant films: this just doesn't seem to have made it into that large mid-range, even. Delete Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:12, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tokyogirl79. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:33, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. sources fail WP:CORPDEPTH too badly to use them to show notability ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:53, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Outright Libertarians

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

Absolutely no indication of meeting WP:GNG let alone WP:ORGDEPTH. Me-123567-Me (talk) 00:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:35, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:35, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:35, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep – More sources can be found here and even more here. That is over 2,100 book sources and an extra 51 for news! J 947 02:21, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many of those book references seem to be referring to lower-case outright libertarians — not the proper noun, but the adjective followed by the common noun. Others are inclusions in lists. The news articles are mainly mentions, like "Baker is... [among other things] ...the secretary of the National Outright Libertarians Organization" and even some of those are about local politics, which doesn't provide much notability. There doesn't seem to be depth of coverage, even with the recent election. Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- There's still enough for me to strongly keep. J 947 17:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems like a reasonable article about a legit org. The Advocate, vice.com and Nashville refs are enough to establish notability. Station1 (talk) 08:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per snowball clause . Passes all inclusion guidelines. DrStrauss talk 12:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DrStrauss What guidelines would those be? AusLondonder (talk) 16:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of those "sources" are not actually about this organisation. Those that are about this organisation are purely trivial mentions. Coverage of an organisation opening a Nashville chapter is not sufficient to demonstrate notability. See WP:ORGDEPTH which states "The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements" AusLondonder (talk) 16:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While it gets lots of mentions, they are not in-depth at all. The organization exists, true, but does not appear to pass WP:GNG, and certainly doesn't pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:17, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nominator has withdrawn the nomination, and there are no delete !votes. Primefac (talk) 03:20, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeshivat Shaare Torah

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

Okay, this article has coverage in newspapers or other sources all of which only mention this school passively and as part of an event centred around another subject. Subjects do not inherit the notability of other subjects (see WP:INHERIT.) Given that sources which can be found do not give notability to the school itself, but rather another event entirely, then these are not sufficient sources to pass WP:GNG or WP:GEO. As subjects on Wikipedia do not inherit notability from others, this article documents a non-notable organization and thus should be deleted. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 18:53, 5 March 2017 (UTC) _{[nominator has withdrawn nomination]}[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 18:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 18:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 18:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 18:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 18:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:57, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. _{[Note to closing admin: This vote is made by the creator of the article]} Shaare Torah is a school that in its decades of existance has had thousands of students. It's inherently notable, as all such educational insitutions serving thousands of people would be. Ezzi386 (talk) 22:50, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ezzi386: So essentially your claim is that this school is worthy of attention or notice; That it is striking? One would notice no great quantity of modesty here. You have given me some information which can help build this article if it is indeed notable. That is it has "thousands of students." Has the school had any notable graduates of those thousands of people? Furthermore, you mentioned that the school is old so perhaps the article can go into its history therefore establishing more reason for it to be considered worthy of attention. If you are able to expand this article into something informative about how it is notable rather than just assuming its notable because it is a school then it would be a greater part of making Wikipedia more informative for everyone. I am quite interested to read about this schools striking history and would be very happy to rescind my nomination once the article itself demonstrates notability. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 23:26, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep while the advertorial tone is a problem, because it includes secondary/high school level it would seem to meet WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and be inherently notable, as Gnews reveals sources that verify its existence. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shawn in Montreal: The link you just provided has a statement: "The results of this February 2017 RFC describe how school AFDs should be evaluated and are summarized below.Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist." →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 00:56, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I've cited that so many times I didn't realize the Rfc had closed with it being revised (albeit clumsily: why leave criterion 2 intact and then add a 4th criterion at the end, negating it?). Anyway, thanks for the head's up. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shawn in Montreal: It is not your fault that you are only human. I keep coming across your name because you tidy up AfD and add categories which really seems to help thank you for doing that. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 01:21, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. I'm actually glad WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES no longer grants high schools automatic notability. But I guess we should prepare for a land rush of high school nominations? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shawn in Montreal: I guess that means a lot of category adding for you :-O. I do not even remember how I came across this article to be honest. I have no interest in schools but I guess we can compare Wikipedia to Youtube here. You can go from a video about how to plant a tree to a video with someone eating a squid alive (usually accompanied by a warning "graphic video" introduction for those who would not assume such information from the title of the video.) →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 01:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Necrothesp: I'm confused. You're an administrator here and I'd like you to expand if you could: doesn't the recent Rfc outcome as noted at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES mean that this past precedent no longer holds? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:58, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think it does. That wasn't the wording of the RfC: it was to adopt a new notability guideline ("...the proposed change will not be adopted", to quote the closers). And note that I do not cite and never have cited SCHOOLOUTCOMES. The intention of the RfC closers was clearly not to open the floodgates to deletion of secondary school articles, as they clearly stated ("Editors should not flood AFD with indiscriminate or excessive nominations"), and neither was it to destroy an existing consensus or give some sort of victory to the deletionists. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the speedy reply. I'm confused, then. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES should not be cited even though the proposed change won't be adopted -- and the practice therefore remains in place for high schools, even though we can't cite why? I know that's not what you're saying -- but it's how it sounds to me. If WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES cannot be cited at Afd then imo the precedence, based upon it, has expired. From what I can see, this school falls fails GNG. Delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:28, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The precedent is that established over hundreds of AfDs. In what possible way does one discussion destroy all that precedent? -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because the result states now that "Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist," which is what SCHOOLOUTCOMES often boiled down to, for secondary schools? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:22, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not really an answer to my (albeit rhetorical) question, I'm afraid. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:14, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I don't know what you're after but the Rfc closure seems clear. Thank you for your initial reply. As far as I'm concerned, this is a sea change for high school notability, going forward. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:23, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And I disagree. Let's leave it at that. Deletionists, fill your boots! Have a field day! Destroy the project! Frankly, what's the point? I'm seeing less and less reason to be here, sadly. Petty "rules", petty "enforcers". Very sad to see where Wikipedia is going. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:10, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question@Necrothesp: What do you mean by "deletionist." Sorry if it seems naive but I would rather not assume what you mean and be wrong. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 20:15, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I mean someone (and there are sadly too many on Wikipedia) who delights more in deleting existing content (citing some non-existent "rule" to justify their behaviour) than in creating new content. Someone who comes to the project for the joy of destroying others' work rather than to create their own and to look down their nose at anyone who disagrees. The sort of people who actually come to an encyclopaedia and say that their main reason in being here is to delete content and reduce the size of Wikipedia (yes, I've actually seen that written). Don't get me wrong, I don't believe Wikipedia should be full of rubbish and I've deleted plenty of it in my time here, but neither do I believe that valid articles should be deleted just because they don't meet the letter of some rigid, monolithic "rule". I do not see how that is benefiting the incredible project that most of us are surely here to further. Over the years I have seen a massive increase in these "rules" and the number of editors who only seem to come here to "enforce" them and it's really not an edifying experience. This is not, incidentally, an attack on anyone who has posted here, in case it is mistakenly taken to be so. But there are certainly editors out there who will be crowing over the "deletionists' charter" that the RfD may be taken to be and will take full advantage of it to attempt to destroy others' work. It is sometimes hard to assume good faith after reading some comments posted on AfDs and easy to lose faith in what we are doing here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Necrothesp:

Thank you for taking the time to explain that, I understand the term better now. With specific regard to this article. Have you noticed that this is a private school which students pay to be enrolled? And that the articles tone seems to be geared towards advertising its mere presence rather than quantify any encyclopaedic content? I would say that sometimes, it is human nature to personify an issue such as an AfD beyond the situational facts. When one examines this article, there is a single issue which I think would be worth considering; Is the article representative of content which ought to be on an encyclopaedia which anyone can edit. The boldened writing brings attention to a major factor here and that is Wikipedia can be edited by anyone and thus, theoretically, anything anyone could ever want to inform people about could be included. However, there are practical implications of allowing anything anyone wants to be written on this platform, mainly that it would become an indiscriminate compilation of informative text. Some of that indiscriminate text would be information designed to mislead or act as propaganda for certain causes. If this was to take hold Wikipedia would go from being a platform of knowledge to a platform of indoctrination.

Now there are two central viewpoints which are shown by my notion. Those who want Wikipedia to be a platform for indoctrination and those who want Wikipedia to be a platform for knowledge. Those who edit with a certain cause such as shown in this article wish it to become a platform for indiscriminate information which acts merely to show something exists and promote its existence rather than provide any useful knowledge about it. That in my mind is a step into the direction of Wikipedia becoming a platform for indoctrination and not knowledge, thus it is my belief it should be removed from Wikipedia.

There is a simple criterion which I followed when reading this article in its entirety; Did the article teach me anything? The simple answer was “no.” It showed me something, that is that the institution it speaks of is a private Jewish school which occupies a certain address in New York. Being shown something is invariably different from being taught something, some things both show and teach you things but this merely shows. Now I do not think Wikipedia is a mere stage, billboard or theatre and that is why I have nominated this article for deletion.

→ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 22:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that we have never considered state schools to be more worthy than private schools and I see no good reason to start now. I also have to say that I see little in the way of advertising in the article. It is in no way attempting to "indoctrinate" anyone. It is, to my mind, an article entirely appropriate for an encyclopaedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Necrothesp:

I do not think you have understood the point which I was trying to put across here. “Note that we have never considered state schools to be more worthy than private schools and I see no good reason to start now” inferences that I made an argument as to why private schools are less notable than non-private schools. This is no way relevant to the points I made.

I’m going to try and simplify this. What makes schools exempt from WP:GNG This school is not covered by any coverage in any sources other than its own self-published sources which are not deemed reliable per WP:SOURCE.

A recent RfC closed with the summery that a school’s mere existence should not establish notability, which de facto is a reaffirmation of Wikipedia’s notability guidelines. It is not a debate about “deletionist” or “creationist” as Wikipedia is not a social experiment, it’s using rules and guidelines set in place by consensus built on experience from editors with a vast array of experiences on Wikipedia.

There is no debate as to if or not this article passes WP:GNG – it does not – and it is not likely to given that I can find no sources about this school other than self-published, however, I might be wrong and am open to being wrong. I am quite perplexed as to why an administrator is arguing against Wikipedia core policies, it does not make sense to me. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 01:45, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. "Have you noticed that this is a private school which students pay to be enrolled?", you asked. Sorry, but how could I take that as anything other than an argument that it was a special case because it was a fee-paying private school? If you weren't making that case then why did you ask the question in the first place? Since it would be utterly irrelevant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:10, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Necrothesp: What do you define notable to be? →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 09:31, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator states "This school is not covered by any coverage in any sources other than its own self-published sources which are not deemed reliable per WP:SOURCE." This statement is false. It took me only a minute on my smartphone to see that this school has received coverage in reliable, independent sources such as The New York Times, The Gothamist, another New York Times article, Community magazine, Guidestar, and Charity Navigator. The school is also discussed in a book called "The Daily Halacha: A Compendium of Practical Halachot and Illuminating Insights from the Weekly Parasha", and in one Hebrew language book. Given that this is an Orthodox Jewish topic, a search of Hebrew language newspapers should be completed as well, many of which are not available online. There is a broader philosophical issue here as well. Wikipedia's Five Pillars are the philosophical underpinning of this project, and at the beginning of that document, you will find these sentences:

"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers."

Consider the 1901 edition of the World Almanac, now in the public domain. This single volume reference work contained nineteen pages about U.S. universities. Wikipedia is not confined to a single volume, we do not need to purchase barrels of ink or railroad cars full of paper, and we currently have well over five million English articles. We can easily and appropriately expand our coverage from U. S. universities to all verifiable degree awarding schools worldwide. Arguments that this content is "indiscriminate" are invalid, since this is precisely the sort of content historically included in specialized encyclopedias and almanacs. Arguments that make a distinction between public and private schools are also unpersuasive. This is not "Public-institution-pedia". We should keep articles about degree awarding schools if these articles comply with our three core content policies: Such articles must be verifiable, written from the neutral point of view, and include no original research. No school is inherently notable, but we should not be deleting articles based on a nominator's failure to find sources which exist. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:52, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: Hello, Cullen I have found what you have written extremely interesting. In fact, I understand your philosophy but find myself unable to agree in this case. My first point is based on an argument that coverage by the media does not give inherent notability on its own and especially in the case of for-profit companies like this one.

I further argue that there is a definitive difference between coverage and notability. This is based on the logical deduction that news-papers and other news sources write stories about people and issues of interest all the time and often do so indiscriminately, they are not required to establish the notability of their stories and the interest in publishing is with the publisher alone. Small so called “one hit headlines” are common with the inclusion of otherwise non-noteworthy subjects which assert the importance of an event over the importance of the subject itself be it an organization or a person. In these situations, as shown in the sources you have provided, the events themselves would be notable as articles whereas this does not give intrinsic notability to those involved in the event. Surely it would be an idiocy to include organizations or people on Wikipedia simply because they attended an event are have been mentioned passively by a reporter or that the organization happened to be involved in a circumstantial event centred principally around other subjects. This is that argument that notability is not inherited.→ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 10:37, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-Coffee, your assertion that this is a for profit organization is utterly false as shown by two reliable sources I provided showing that this school is a registered non-profit. You failed to address my argument about almanacs. Have you searched New York's Hebrew language newspapers? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:54, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: Sighs. Cullen, my friend, which part of this article includes content which is supported by reliable sources? →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 16:25, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to sigh at me, Wiki-Coffee. There is also no requirement that reliable sources be in the article at this time. I have shown that some sources exist. You failed to find those sources. Instead of sighing, try answering my questions, dealing with the profit/nonprofit issue, the almanac issue, the Hebrew language source issue, and so on. I will expand and reference the article later today Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:30, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: Firstly, my name is Solomon, pleased to e-meet you. Secondly there is a reason I am not addressing your issue with regard to almanacs and that is because you are drawing parallel to another book which is not Wikipedia and does not have the same editing guidelines as Wikipedia. Furthermore, there does need to be reliable sources which back up each and every word in a Wikipedia article otherwise said content can be removed. The sources you have provided would give this school inherited notability which is not permitted per WP:INHERIT. Your arguments are non objective and you seem hell bent on wanting to keep this article whatever Wikipedia policy has to say about it. Your arguments thus far are not at all based on Wikipedia's inclusion policies and are instead, on the face of it, based on your own personal opinions. If you have anything other than personal opinions to tell me I would like to hear it, especially if its qualified by a Wikipedia policy. The personal views are usually disregarded in AfD debates by closing administrators in favour of those views expressed which are grounded on some Wikipedia policy. If you can provide me a solid argument which is supported by Wikipedia's inclusion policies as to why this article should continue to exist then I will rescind my nomination. I have zero interest in this article remaining or being deleted either way so my mind is yet still to be changed. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 19:47, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: To clarify:

The sources you have provided are focused on an event or subject other than the subject of this article. They passively mention this school in the way of validating its existence as a part of an event, but not the focus of the event itself. The sources do not confer notability directly to this subject therefore for them to be used as sources would be using another subjects notability thus in contrary to WP:INHERIT.
Your argument that because the 1901 edition of the World Almanac contains schools that this means schools are automatically notable on Wikipedia is not supported by Wikipedia's current guidelines for notability.
There is currently not a single sentence in this article which is supported by reliable sources. Self-published sources are not deemed reliable sources.

→ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 20:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-Coffee, the article now has eight references and is in full compliance with our core content policies of verifiability, no original research and the neutral point of view. It is you, not I, who have brought falsehoods to this debate, such as the size of the student body, the false claim that the school is profit making, and the claim that no independent sources exist.Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:42, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've added the information and citation that the school is a 501(c)(3) charitable organization. I'll leave it for others to add further citations, and withhold judgement. It's important that we avoid false premises in these discussions. Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. I do find it odd that the RfC says WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is correct but we can't say why. So I'm saying why anyway and invoking WP:IAR since "Keep but I can't tell you why" is not how we build an encyclopedia. Smartyllama (talk) 14:32, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Technically speaking, Smartyllama, SCHOOLOUTCOMES is now on the list of "arguments to avoid at AFD". It's still a valid statement about the result of AFDs, but creates a catch-22 and thus should not be used as a reason for deletion. Happy to discuss it further on a separate venue.

GNG, of course, is still completely valid. Primefac (talk) 14:43, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Smartyllama: Could you explain how this article, in its current or future form conforms to WP:GNG with consideration of WP:INHERIT? I am genuinely interested as to how one could say it does conform to these guidelines because it will inform my view on other issues. Thank you :-D. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 15:51, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/23/nyregion/23grate.html indicates that this isn't actually a high school (it's described as a half-day school with just 60 students at the Village Pump), but rather an educational organization with several components, including a private K–8 school with hundreds of students. I therefore don't think that "it's a high school, so vote my way on it" is a relevant line of argument. I have found some minor sources in local press: http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/news/ywn-videos/286186/watch-yeshiva-headmaster-defends-security-guard-who-roughed-up-man.html However, in ten minutes of searching, I've not been able to find independent sources that provide a basic description of the organization (the sort needed for WP:WHYN compliance). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:01, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In my opinion, this discussion has been badly contaminated by a series of falsehoods that Wiki-Coffee has been spreading about Yeshivat Shaare Torah, both here and at WP:Village pump (policy). This editor has stated the school's enrollment is 60 half day students. That is false. The fact is that this organization operates a preschool program, a boys elementary school, a girls elementary school, a boys high school and a girls high school, with a combined enrollment of well over 1000 students. The editor claims that it is a profit making business. That is false. The organization is a registered tax exempt non-profit educational group. The editor claims that the only sources available about the organization are self published. That is false. I have added eleven independent references which verify the claims made in the article. Anyone who wants to cite Yeshivat Shaare Torah as an example of why we need to delete articles about secondary schools should rethink their position. Instead, it is an example of failure to properly research the topic before nominating an article for deletion, and a willingness to rely on falsehoods in an enthusiastic drive to delete. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:30, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: Sighs Okay.

60 students - source
The source you provided here says it's name is YESHIVA SHAARE TORAH INC. In the United Kingdom Incorporated companies are different from charities and have a completely separate registration process and are separate legal entities. I am from the UK so I go by that, If I am wrong about this and in the USA Incorporated companies can still be charities then I apologise.

Finally, how does this have anything to do with my nomination reason for this article? Have you read it? →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 02:11, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Look at your source, Wiki-Coffee. Look at the grade range, where it says "PK". That is the abbreviation for "pre-kindergarten". You are looking at a listing for one of the five schools this organization operates, the one that provides half day programs for 2 to 5 year old children, and you are applying those attendance figures to all five schools. Careless and false.

It is routine that non-profit charitable 501(c)(3) educational institutions in the United States charge tuition. I graduated from one such school, the University of San Francisco, and I assure you that they charged tuition. Your observation that this religious school charges tuition is neither surprising nor in any way relevant to whether or not this article should be kept.

Your attempt to apply UK law to US charitable institutions is evidence that you lack competence to evaluate the notability of US nonprofit schools and charitable institutions, at least until you do some serious reading about how charities are organized in the US. Non-profit corporations are common in the US. I look forward to the apology you promised.

Yes, I read your original nominating statement and also your refactored version after I pointed out that your original statement was based on falsehoods. Both versions of your deletion argument are stunningly unpersuasive. Next time, try to do some serious research on the topic before trying to delete an article. And try really hard to ensure that you do not spread falsehoods about the topic. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:00, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Wiki-Coffee:, whatever your view on this article, you have done it a favor by nominating for deletion! Comparing the article prior to nomination to now, it is a transformation. There were some mistakes, but let's all assume good faith. Jack N. Stock (talk) 03:07, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: I did not apply UK Law to US Law, I merely assumed that a "incorporated company" was a company not a charity and that is how it is in the United Kingdom. This being a for profit institution or not is not at all relevant to the reason I nominated for AfD. It's an issue of terminology and not competence. You clearly do not like that I have nominated this article for deletion, and for that I am sorry. Furthermore, I apologise for incorrectly deeming a charity a for profit organisation as I judged by the standard of UK Terminology for what INC means. You have taught me something about US Law on charities, so I appreciate that. Conclusively, even if you disregard the notions that this school is a for-profit organisation and that it has more than 60 seats how does that at all address my points in the AfD nomination. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 03:11, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jacknstock: That is good, it needed some TLC ;-). →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 03:11, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. Much as I am reluctant (despite being long-standing coord of WP:WPSCH) to keep schools under any whim - for example the way OUTCOMES is often misused although it simply and perfectly summarises how a proven vast majority of school AfD are closed - the strengths of the arguments here are clear and Cullen328 summarises well how this particular article should be kept, while Necrothesp clearly outlines how accepted procedure should be applied. These two seasoned editors have not come here from a personal judicial background simply to argue Wikilaw for the sake of Wikilaw and turning a particular AfD into a debate that some would seem to use to turn Wikipedia policies and guidelines into inflexible fiats which even policy itself guards against.

A recent RfC mentioned OUTCOMES, which was , BTW, not even part of the RfC proposal statement, and there are many ways in which the same precedent expressed in that 'essay' can be successfully applied without mentioning the word 'OUTCOMES' which has been branded as a rude word and which Primefac elucidates: It's still a valid statement about the result of AFDs,. And on these principles alone I'm sure that learned Wikipedians such as, for example DGG, could add further valid commentary. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:16, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rescind nomination - After just having re-read the article in its entirety I believe that sufficient content and sources have been added to pass WP:GNG. The nomination does not appear completely fruitless as Jacknstock has mentioned - it seems to have bought some light to the article and now has actually taught me something rather than simply showing me something. On this basis the validity of my AfD nomination no longer stands thus I move to withdraw it. Thank you. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 03:17, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 10:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Obama-Trump feud

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

Very short article exploring a series of spats between the former and current presidents of the United States, and created by a new user in the wake of the latest claims made by Donald Trump. This is a classic case of WP:NOTNEWS–even the media has reported on the lack of reaction to the allegations, and we can't create an article about every single thing that Trump says or does. This topic could be suitably covered in other articles. This is Paul (talk) 16:29, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article was created after the latest accusation by Mr. Trump because this feud has been going on for over 6 years. I cannot possibly write all of them out myself but I point major benchmarks out. This tense relationship is one of the most well-known conflicts in the world.HigginsWashtenaw (talk) 18:10, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but if you think this subject deserves an article of its own, the onus is on you to demonstrate its importance. That means taking the time to do the research; it's not good enough to say "I cannot possibly write all of them out myself". At present all of these incidents are mentioned elsewhere. Bringing them together under one roof requires something a bit more substantial than you've got. This is Paul (talk) 18:36, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:30, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:30, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:30, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A drama magnet and WP:SYNTH that cobbles together a) a series of apparently baseless claims that Trump has made about Obama over the years and b) the fact that during the presidential campaign Obama publicly remarked that he believed Trump to be unsuited for the job of president into c) this made-up "feud." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:34, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the opening statement is utterly unsupported, and it's a typical example of SYNTH (imagine an "Obama-Bush feud" article) that tosses together a handful of different quotes and controversies. This really doesn't contribute anything that isn't covered in other articles - Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016, etc. GAB^gab 19:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unenclyopedic WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Fails WP:NOTNEWS. AusLondonder (talk) 16:49, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"keep" at least until we can merge it it into another article? It's not just new but a long term annoyance worth documenting! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:21C9:6300:941A:369C:19D4:8E1A (talk) 11:45, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Lepricavark (talk) 14:25, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There's probably enough material to start an article about the phone-tap allegations, as that doesn't seem to be going away, and may or may not have repercussions. But an Obama-Trump feud article is a non-starter. This is Paul (talk) 18:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Clear delete, WP:SYNTH nonsense. ansh 666 05:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I started a space for the Donald Trump wiretapping claim. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 05:37, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is just... no... ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:31, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SYN.LM2000 (talk) 19:03, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SYNTH.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:53, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think it's really original research, sure some of the stuff can't be reliably backed up but the article didn't seem to me to be trying to present to this fact, merrily as the opinions that these two individuals were holding, and the fact that these individuals hold these opinions, is at least reliably documented, or maybe I misunderstand how the original reasearch thing works here?( how do I sign my queries/comments/votes) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:e000:21c9:6300:d468:789b:85c1:e96f (talk • contribs) 02:19, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You sign by adding four tildes ~~~~ after your comment. Please don't remove comments of other editors. Politrukki (talk) 10:16, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I don't know why we can't just rework this article until it meets the standards of Wikipedia...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:e000:21c9:6300:d468:789b:85c1:e96f (talk • contribs) 02:19, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this article fails WP:OR and WP:NOTNEWS because it is a synthesis of original research and Wikipedia is not a paper source. An admin should consider closing this early per WP:SNOW. - tucoxn\^talk 17:30, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:53, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – consists of material combined together in a WP:SYNTH manner. Second WP:SNOW. Politrukki (talk) 10:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Langdell

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

Subject fails to meet WP:BASIC, WP:MILNG or WP:GNG. I believe it fails on WP:BIO1E as well. Jack Frost (talk) 02:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:01, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:01, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:01, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Being the oldest is an accident of time. Langdell does not meet WP:SOLDIER or WP:GNG; this is not a statement of disrespect.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 16:49, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect name/title; not notable and trivial as a stand alone article; addendum: agree the name should be made a redirect to USS Arizona Memorial, as suggested. Kierzek (talk) 20:49, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Perhaps worth a note on USS Arizona (BB-39) --Lineagegeek (talk) 17:14, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - at newspapers.com, 47 newspapers published his obituary (106 results, but many are from the same paper). To me, this is pretty close to notable, and I'd advocate for the article's creator to be given a little time in case there is more material. I think it might be appropriate for this title to redirect to USS Arizona Memorial (where there is currently an image of Langdell). Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:56, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comes close to meeting WP:SOLDIER too, for having "played an important role in a significant military event". Deserves at least a mention in the USS Arizona (BB-39) article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not entirely sure how being there equates to "played an important role"! That would mean anybody who was present at a major battle would pass. Hardly. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:45, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not even the last survivor. Junior officer who just happened to be present at a major event, just like millions of others throughout history. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:46, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete or redirect per my comment above, with no prejudice to developing into an article should more sources be found later. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:04, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 13:13, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DElete unless expanded to show he did something notable. The article is just an obituary of a NN sailor. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Yash^talk stalk 05:51, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Larson

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

subject fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. Only primary unreliable sources could be found about the subject —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 07:47, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 07:48, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 07:48, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did some research before deciding on this one. I found good sources and added them. There is a mention in the New Yorker. There is a review on the Oregon Public Broadcasting site. Even better, a review in Artforum. A publication called "the New Replublic" saw fit to do a feature on one of her projects. Finally, a museum in New York called The Met has her in their permanent collection. I have never been to Metropolitan Museum of Art, but I hear it is quite a big deal and I hope to visit one day. Oh, Keep. 104.163.140.193 (talk) 08:42, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just added the Museum of Fine Arts, Houston to the permanent collections list. This means that with the Met collection included, she satisfies WP:ARTIST.104.163.140.193 (talk) 08:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: held in multiple major collections so passes WP:ARTIST. PamD 09:14, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: two major collections does it for me. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 09:27, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Maybe it's WP:TOOSOON but having her work at MOMA and the Whitney demonstrate that she has real promise! (Joking of course - except about the keep - she also meets GNG.) JSFarman (talk) 15:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a snow keep? 104.163.140.193 (talk) 04:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Due to the corroborative work that has taken place. — O Fortuna!^{Imperatrix mundi.} 11:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it's time to close or withdraw this. (formerly 104.163.140.193)96.127.243.41 (talk) 08:24, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) J 947 02:18, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The World Tomorrow (radio and television)

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

This article has been the subject of some pretty bizarre argufying over the claim that the 2004 reboot is different. Looking into these claims, I checked the sources. Only one of them meets WP:RS, and it's an obituary of Art Gilmore that namechecks this subject. The other sources are either primary (e.g. trademark filings cited as sources for the existence of trademarks) or not independent, being affiliated with Herbert W. Armstrong. The sources do not establish WP:GNG. Guy (Help!) 14:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete: I just did a search and found a few secondary sources for the Julian Assange TV show on Russia Today[6] and for Bruce McCall’s cover story in The New Yorker[7] but all the references to the show by the church seem to be from church publications. I am not seeing any independent evidence of notability. Plus, the article is a magnet for disputes after one or more church splits, each side claiming to be the true continuation of the original church and the original radio show. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:58, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - where appropriate - into the Armstrong article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:41, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Sadly, the only good way to take care of this dispute is to "send it to a nice farm". KATMAKROFAN (talk) 23:32, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I found some third-party coverage here and here and others through Google Books... I'm not saying that there's enough to meet notability guidelines (nor that there isn't), just noting the existence of such. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:57, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:57, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:57, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:57, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I grew up watching The World Tomorrow with Garner Ted Armstrong up in Montreal. This ~~was~~ may possibly be a notable show. I can find such book refs as this, this, this, this, this, and this -- all from page one of the Gbooks results. There's no shortage out there. I'm searching for "The World Tomorrow" + "Garner Ted Armstrong", btw. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at those references. They are the types of mention that WP:GNG says do not establish notability. You need to show significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. "Significant coverage" means that the source addresses the topic directly and in detail. "Significant coverage" is more than a trivial mention, which is what the sources you found (and which I had found when I did my search) contain. They do justify a prominent mention of The World Tomorrow on the Garner Ted Armstrong page, which we already have. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:21, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that taken as a whole, there's more than trivial coverage here. But the fact that program was clearly internationally syndicated -- since I watched here on a Montreal local station for years -- means that it meets WP:TVSERIES, as well: "Generally, an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio or television stations (either national or regional in scope)." Of course, the "network" would in this case not be literal, it would be some combination of individual stations in what must have been first-run syndication, but international in scope. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:49, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it was syndicated per se; it seems more like a show that would've simply purchased airtime, like a half-hour ad, and that puts a strain on its appearance in various markets as an indicator of notability. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. I hadn't considered that. It's quite possible I suppose, as part of the church's outreach. It aired on Sunday mornings. I'm moving to weak keep, above. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:09, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at episodes of the current series bearing the name (I am among those unconvinced that it's the same show in a technical sense) on YouTube, I see that they are 28-minutes-and-some-seconds long... i.e., there's no room for ads in the middle of the episode. That means that they are almost certainly brokered programming; a current half-hour meant to have ad placement would be about 6 minutes shorter. From my very slight memories of the earlier version, it was likely the same. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who watched the show on the local station in Saskatoon, Canada, I can attest to the fact that I don't recall them ever having paid commercial ads within the show, just ads for World Tomorrow publication. However something that needs to be pointed out is at least in the 1970s Sunday-morning religious programming - at least on Canadian TV stations - never aired with regular advertising. I don't think the stations allowed it. So Day of Discovery, Rex Humbard, and any of the others that aired at that time aired without standard commercials. One other point: paid programming usually didn't warrant its own TV Guide listings (referring to the magazine), but World Tomorrow did, albeit it was identified as "Garner Ted Armstrong" as per the standard format where shows hosted by people were usually listed under the host's name (i.e. Johnny Carson, not "Tonight"). My vote on this is to keep though having just dipped my toe into this article there are definitely some edit war-related issues happening. 23skidoo (talk) 06:47, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While I certainly cannot speak to the specifics of the Canadian situation, brokered programming is the default for such broadcasts in the US; their regular presence in a time slot may be more what got them in the listings than the question of whether they were paid programming. (Certainly, we've had listings for things like Easy Money (TV series), a primetime series where an outside organization leased time from a network.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 07:06, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As NatGertler says I don't think this was syndicated. It was paid placement. Guy (Help!) 18:08, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Effectively an infomercial? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When a church buys air time, runs no commercials other than encouraging people to join the church. and the church just happens to teach "triple tithing" (giving 30% of your gross pretax income to the church)[8] I think "infomercial" is a fair description. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:26, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They could have made it look more like a normal show by instead running commercials for the Vegematic or the Pocket Fisherman during breaks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The Library of Congress mentions The World Tomorrow on their website as an example of an evangelistic TV show in their holdings; it's a passing mention, but carries at least a little weight with the LOC considering this something worth pointing to as an example. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:19, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, but it doesn't meet the requirements of WP:GNG. I have seen claims by affiliated churches[9][10][11] and by a critic[12] that republican senator Bob Dole ordered preservation of the World Tomorrow television episodes in the Library of Congress, but I cannot find a reliable source confirming that claim. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I expect it's true, but not that impressive; that would seem like a politician writing a letter on behalf of a constituent/contributor. It's not on the same level of something being named to the American film preservation list or somesuch. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:38, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep User:Shawn in Montreal memory is reliable. This program was a bid deal back in the day. Editors have run into our endemic problem: searches fail to readily produce sources on stuff that happened before the internet. I am basing my keep on a paywalled Proquest news archive search. Paywalls contribute to WP's unfortunate presentism bias.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:59, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added 2 sources. Copious, reliable, in-depth sources come up on a news archive search of "The World Tomorrow" + Armstrong. An editor with access to a news archive and time could readily make this into a good article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:13, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here are those additions:[13] Because they are paywalled, I would ask E.M. Gregory to reproduce the wording where he believes that the requirements of WP:GNG have been met here ("If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. 'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail... Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention..."). Reproducing such material is allowed under fair use. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the pair of NYTimes obits, pere & fils. + some of the hits you'll find on High Beam above. Just for starters.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I added a search bar to enable other editors to find sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:48, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per some of the digging done by User:E.M.Gregory, and numerous mentions, albeit in many cases brief, made available by some of the free search tools, which in combination with sources biased both pro and anti Armstrongism, and the literal reading of WP:TVSERIES, and though it isn't necessarily policy-based, the anecdotal evidence presented by other editors of the program's cultural significance (WP:IAR).Roberticus talk 22:04, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 21:56, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I'm not against merging (I'm an inclusionist), merging this into an already large article about the author would be cramming too much into one small space. Easily notable: WP:RS. Even less-well-known authors are notable, so much more Armstrong.96.59.183.125 (talk) 00:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep somehow -- This seems to be the lead broadcast ministry of Armstrong, who was on the fringes between evangelical Christianity and heresy. Radio Church of God, which he established from this program, still exists (though renamed); that link is a redirect to Grace Communion International. If it is merged, that (rather than Armstrong) should be the target. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment' Wow! It's pretty embarrassing when your program is more noteworthy than you. (And it would be kept, with you merging into it!) Ha ha hah... Well, I guess Armstrong isn't going to complain to much about it. In all seriousness, I like your logic: His program may be his identity, so maybe it should be kept, and him merged into it. But in any case, either he or his program should be kept. Maybe not both, though, since a redirect and/or reference could be used.96.59.169.231 (talk) 13:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. (soft) slakr^\ talk / 08:42, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dress Like a Woman

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

Nominating per WP:NOTNEWS. There is no enduring notability here and probably could be condensed into a single line mention in a related article. —Non-Dropframe _talk 22:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:55, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:55, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:55, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Implicit stereotype for now, per the standard result. It exists as a meme, and might continue, but this is an unsourced essay. Bearian (talk) 14:45, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the newbie is trying to construct an article, but is unsure how to do so; see Talk:Dress Like a Woman. Perhaps we can consider the userfy option? I alerted the relevant Wikiproject. Bearian (talk) 14:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 05:21, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No problem with userfying if that's less bitey, but I don't hold out hope that this will make any kind of substantial article. Also consider writing a WP:NOT about how Wikipedia is not a collection of the most popular hashtags of the week. Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability and that's exactly what this is. TimothyJosephWood 15:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are reliable sources on this: see [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]. Bondegezou (talk) 12:08, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:12, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:12, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 02:27, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carolyn B. Przekurat

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

I was able to find her husband's family paid for biography in a local Albaqueque News paper, and her sisters paid for obituary in the Deseret News in Salt Lake City. From that I learned her maiden name is Bjorkman, and she evidently usaully goes by Carrie. I did find a directory listing calling Carolun Przekurat a New Mexico licensed dietician. There is this article [19] on nutrician services for alcohol/substance abuse clients that has Carolyn Przekurat as 6 listed of 8 authors. Here [20] we find her on a list of 101 confirmed public health service people, with the postion of dietician director. At best we have one source that might pass the GNG, although I would have to do some other searches to find the LDS Church news source to assess things like how large it is, but even if we assume it adds towards GNG, GNG requires multiple sources which we lack. Everything else is even less clearly a reliable source, or just a directory listing. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:38, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 📞 What I've done 02:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:03, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:03, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I find a small amount of passing coverage in newspapers.com, but nothing in depth. She seems to have an entry in: Who's Who in the West, 25th edition, 1996-1997. Marquis. New Providence, NJ, but I do not have access to that and am not sure it would establish notability. I don't see anything in other databases (Genealogybank, google services) Looking at other versions of her name, I also see some results for a Carol, but not clearly the same person and nothing in depth. Here is a link to the LDS page which is broken to me in the article: http://web.archive.org/web/20160304220923/http://www.ldschurchnewsarchive.com/articles/24048/Dietician-named-to-top-post.html. I am commenting rather than giving a !vote because the position of chief dietitian officer is a fairly significant post (you can get an idea of the org chart looking at: https://www.usphs.gov/aboutus/leadership.aspx) and might even satisfy WP:NPOL #1 and WP:POLOUTCOMES bullet point 1, but I can't tell. Otherwise, I'd !vote weak delete. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:05, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:24, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:50, 15 March 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. There's very little out there about her and she does not satisfy NPOL #1. A "chief dietician officer" is a technical advisor, not a legislator. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:27, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:37, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bibop Gresta

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

Neither the article nor a Google search indicates independent notability. Not enough information to be encyclopedic and not a useful stub. (External link is not in English.) Appears to have the objective of SEO by putting the name in Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zero evidence of notabilty. Unsourced BLP. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:33, 2 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

The article now has sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:46, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessperson. We need several sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NEXIST. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:46, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 16:46, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See source examples below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:46, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:BASIC, although possibly on a weaker level. Here's a few sources, found by using the GNews link above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Wired
Park Record
CNBC
Entrepreneur India
Computer News Middle East
The Hindu (1 ¶ of non-interview content)

Interviews (these don't serve to establish notability, but serve to denote media attention the subject has received.

Economic Times (interview)
Business Standard (interview) (subscription required)
Huffington Post India (interview)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:16, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To give editors more time to evaluate NA's references.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:41, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is sparse to say the least (and needs expanding), but he's got 1,370 google-news hits ([21]) , including some covering him as a subject and multiple quotations of him. [22] [23] [24] There is possibly much more coverage in Italian - seems he was a TV producer and host, and at age 28 sold a company to telecom italia. He has an IMDB entry - (credits in a few movies and TV shows - Italian - I can't ascertain significance) [25] Seems Bibop was a nickname (or TV/movie character) - he was originally Gabriele Gresta And now styles himself as Bibop G. Gresta Icewhiz (talk) 17:00, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In-depth sources are required. There are none. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:29, 14 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

In this case I would say there is an abundance of sources, including in depth ones as clearly evident from a quick source search. What is lacking is editor interest (myself included) in actually expanding this entry from a stub.Icewhiz (talk) 21:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source pre-Hyperloop - he was the subject of an hour-long TV documentary ("Life of Bipop") on Rai 2 (one of the main Italian TV channels). Can be seen here [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] Icewhiz (talk) 06:47, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Current in-depth sources are hard to spot between the weeds (I'm sure there are more out there) - as he's covered a few times per-week in relation to various Hyperloop projects - these flood any search results (interviewing on India, Dubai, US, whatever). He does have 300k twitter followers and pre-hyperloop coverage (mainly in Italian - he was a DJ/producer, then a VJ lineup of MTV Italy's launch in the late 90s, and then did digital media and other stuff + startup incubation + softwaredev ). My comprehension of Italian, however, is not great. There is some more i-depth coverage in GQ-Italy - [32] Icewhiz (talk) 07:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete I found no reliable sources..Marley.600 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:42, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What about the sources noted above in this discussion? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:17, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Certainly notable enough because of the Hyperloop projects alone, and there is ample coverage of his prior activities. Much more notable than many one-hit wonders… Obviously, the article needs work to become a passable biography; expand, don't delete. — JFG ^talk 05:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sparkwave

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

PR-like content which fails WP:WEBCRIT —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 11:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 11:46, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 11:46, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the sources are independent from the subject so it passes the WP:GNG and should be kept and secondly it is not web content so it does not have to meet WP:WEBCRIT. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}) 14:11, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@KAP03: Which of the cited sources can be considered a reliable source? —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 16:22, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. KAP03's article seems to be a neutral description of the game, and the references are on par with long-standing Wikipedia standards for other games, e.g. X-Man, Overload. This is a computer game, we're not going to be able to reference papers in Nature. The writing quality could be improved, but it deserves to stay. --pmj (talk) 03:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of these sources are unreliable and should be removed. See WP:VG/RS. czar 21:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the problem is that, perhaps except for the very last citation, a lot of the articles seem to be from gamer blogs and websites that might not be considered reliable. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think there maybe one good RS from Wikiproject list. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:29, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Shawn in Montreal: Isn't the TouchArcade source considered reliable as it is listed as such in WP:VG/RS. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}) 02:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that's the one I spotted. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:29, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is that enough to establish notability? —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 07:42, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ONESOURCE? Not for me. But then it's also mentioned in the Macworld roundup and that is mentioned on the list -- through not the British version, it seems. I don't work much in this field but based on my rule of thumb that "multiple" sources = at least three I'd say it falls short at this time. Delete. But I see it has not been added to the video games deletion sorting page. That may get some more knowledgable eyeballs on this. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:40, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:41, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per czar, above--a lack of independent reliable sources means the article fails to meet the bar of the WP:GNG. Review the list here, where I can see one in-depth, one not-quite passing, and more in-passing or user-generated hits. --Izno (talk) 13:16, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:16, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Shawn in Montreal, Izno, Czar, and Oluwa2Chainz: If we are going to delete this article as it does not have any useful results in Sources for Video Games why don't we delete Mini Metro (video game), a WP:GA as the query "mini metro" in the link Sources for Video Games gives 0 results. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}) 00:51, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you have an error there: it has plenty of hits. Also look at the article in question and where it's reviewed: multiple reliable, major review sources czar 01:00, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most notable coverage is brief in TouchArcade and Macworld. Rest is unreliable. Without major coverage in notable sources, this game is not prominent nor covered enough for us to do justice to the topic. czar 01:03, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not only does it need to appear in multiple reliable sources, but in-depth as well. This does not. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Unlike with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Trump election victory speech, 2016, there are no editors here advocating deletion. Since Cunard makes a good point (without opposition) that the proposed merge target is not suitable (or rather a merge at all is not the correct way to go), there is no consensus whether to merge at all and if so, where to. But a merge can be discussed at any time and this AfD does not create a precedent to keep this article in the current form. So Why 10:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama election victory speech, 2008

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

This speech is not notable on its own. The election victory was notable. There is incredibly little in this article in terms of actual analysis of what was said, or that wouldn't be better off discussed at the appropriate articles, such as United States presidential election, 2008 and Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008.

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Trump election victory speech, 2016 for a comparable discussion. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:25, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008; not independently notable and much of the content is uncited and / or original research. Anything useful can be picked up from the article history (if at all). K.e.coffman (talk) 18:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or merge with Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. For the same reason I voted to redirect Donald Trump election victory speech, 2016: most sources are about the victory itself and not the speech. The speech is not sufficiently notable; the victory is. κατάστασ η 20:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Speeches of Barack Obama with a mention at Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. As above. Neutrality^talk 20:43, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to speeches of Barack Obama per nom. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:49, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was an event rather than a speech.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:16, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. I think this victory speech was probably more notable than most during presidential campaigns given the broader cultural implications of the first African-American president, but the speech on its own might not be able to stand. South Nashua (talk) 17:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Merge per my arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Trump election victory speech, 2016 immediately below. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:04, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep Donald Trump election victory speech, 2016 and Barack Obama election victory speech, 2008 or delete both or redirect both, because both have approximately the same amount of WP:RS and seem of equal significance/insignificance. I think it would make us look unfairly biased to keep one and not the other. I am open to changing my mind if I can be convinced the Barack Obama election victory speech, 2008 was more significant than this one. I personally don't think either speech was significant or worth the time it takes to listen to, but we have to decide based on the WP:RS and not our own opinions, so I'm going more with the comparable WP:RS. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:15, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of significance: Richard Nixon's "I am not a Crook" speech has to be more significant, and we do not have an article on that. We do have Richard_Nixon's_resignation_speech. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:07, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't understand why this is even an issue. There are 25 sources on the article, most of them from top news sources such as the New York Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, ABC, CNN, and so on. It was obviously covered everywhere, and the fact that this was the first time a person of African descent had been elected the leader of the US (or, indeed, any major majority-white nation) is significant. Perhaps the article doesn't have in-depth analysis, but why does it need to? It covers what was deemed worth reporting at the time, such as the references made and the context. When the lack of articles for other speeches is brought up, it just makes me think that, yeah, there should be a page for the "I am not a crook" speech and such. Brettalan (talk) 02:20, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Brettalan: "the fact that this was the first time a person of African descent had been elected the leader of the US (or, indeed, any major majority-white nation) is significant" Yeah, and that's all covered at Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 and United States presidential election, 2008 and is quite separate from his victory speech, which received a little coverage, but not enough to justify an article. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:55, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Is everyone urging for deletion so old (or so young) that they can't recall the widespread, ongoing coverage? Bearian (talk) 20:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bearian: We all remember the election coverage, but we don't see evidence of "widespread, ongoing coverage" of the speech. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:40, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the speech received widespread coverage, so it meets notability criteria. The article is a non-stub, with 24 cited references from good quality sources. This article cannot be merged without losing material. Maintaining a low-level detailed article on the speech as well as higher-level articles on the 2008 election and Obama's speeches is in keep with Wikipedia's summary style. I don't see a rationale for deletion other than deletion for deletion's sake.--Bkwillwm (talk) 20:27, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Berry, Mary Frances; Gottheimer, Josh (2010). Power in Words: The Stories Behind Barack Obama's Speeches, from the State House to the White House. Boston: Beacon Press. ISBN 080700104X. Retrieved 2017-03-05.
  The book notes:
  When CNN flashed the news over giant video screens in Grant Park, the crowd erupted in cheers. A television camera caught a glimpse of Oprah Winfrey and Jesse Jackson; both had tears running down their cheeks. Within minutes, at around eleven, Obama received congratulatory calls from Senator McCain and President George W. Bush. In the New York Times, Adam Nagourney wrote, "People rolled spontaneously into the streets to celebrate what many described as ... a new era in a country where just 143 years ago, Mr. Obama, a black man, could have been owned as a slave." He called Obama a "phenomenon" and referred to his election as "a national catharsis".
  Obama's acceptance speech was a stem-winder. The Obama writers had outdone themselves—and they'd done it as a team. Favreau penned the first half, and the entire group, including Adam Frankel, Sarah Hurwitz, and Ben Rhodes, wrote the remainder together.
  It was a sober statement. Given the grave economic crisis, Obama did not want pageantry and bombast. He didn't want to spend those sacred minutes crowing. So, despite the evening's $2 million price tag, there were no fireworks, as some had hoped for, and no recount of the landslide. Instead, Obama framed the moment and discussed its significance. He reached out to those who hadn't voted for him—and let them know that he would be their president, too. Obama knew that would be the key to his success as commander in chief; he was now the president of all Americans.
  Obama declared, "It's been a long time coming, but ... change has come to America"—an allusion to the Sam Cooke song "A Change Is Gonna Come." He spoke about Ann Nixon Cooper, a 106-year-old African American woman, who voted that day in Atlanta, as representative of that change. In her lifetime, Cooper had seen Pearl Harbor and Selma, but she never thought she'd see a black president. Just minutes before Obama declared victory, Favreau hid underneath his desk to find a quiet spot and called Cooper. She couldn't believe her ears when he told her that the president-elect would talk about her experience in his victory speech. Change had come.
  Obama also spoke of the travails ahead, acknowledging the onerous challenges he was inheriting. Too many Americans had lost their jobs, their savings, and their homes; millions more were without health care. Brave soldiers were risking their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama knew that "our union [could] be perfected." But it wouldn't be easy. Echoing Martin Luther King's "I've Been to the Mountaintop" speech, Obama insisted, "The road ahead will be long, our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year, or even in one term—but America, I have never been more helpful than I am tonight that we will get there."
2. Alter, Jonathan (2010). The Promise: President Obama, Year One. New York: Simon & Schuster. pp. 38–39. ISBN 1439154082. Retrieved 2017-03-05.
  The book notes:
  It was time to give his speech. Barack Obama summoned Axelrod, who jogged to catch up to him in the tunnel as he strode toward the stage. "I just wanted you to know," Obama said, "there was a good fireworks display planned, but I killed it. Too frivolous for the times."
  Within minutes he and his family stepped forward, separated from the entire world by two-inch-thick bullet-proof glass. He began by savoring the historic "defining moment":
  If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible; who still wonders if the dream of our founds is alive in our time; who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer. ...
  It's been a long time coming, but tonight, because of what we did on this day, in this election, at this defining moment, change has come to America.
  But he made a point of emphasizing the long struggle to come:
  I know you didn't just do this to win an election and I know you didn't do it for me. You did it because you understand the enormity of the task that lies ahead. For even as we celebrate tonight, we know the challenges that tomorrow will bring are the greatest of our lifetime—two wars, a planet in peril, the worst financial crisis in a century.
  Out in Grant Park 250,000 people were more interested in the history than the challenges ahead. They celebrated with no arrests, which was almost unheard-of on festive occasions in the city. For older Chicagoans the location had a special resonance. In 1968 police had clubbed antiwar demonstrators across Michigan Avenue from the Conrad Hilton Hotel, the same area of Grant Park where Obama now gave his victory speech. The violence at that year's Democratic National Convention split the Democratic Party and helped elect Richard Nixon, who came to personify an ugly chapter in the American story. Forty years later the party's wounds seemed finally healed and some of Chicago's tortured racial history joyously transcended, at least for one night. Retired cops and long-ago hippies and their children and grandchildren all gathered in the park, this time on the same side of the barricades.
3. Maxon, Seth; Stahl, Jeremy (2017-01-10). ""Hell Yes, I Remember That Moment". In 2008, hundreds of thousands gathered in Chicago's Grant Park for Barack Obama's victory speech. Here's how a few of them felt about Obama then, and feel about America today". Slate. Archived from the original on 2017-03-05. Retrieved 2017-03-05.
4. Rahman-Jones, Imran (2016-11-09). "Trump v Obama: How their victory speeches compare". BBC. Archived from the original on 2017-03-05. Retrieved 2017-03-05.
5. Snowdon, Kathryn (2016-11-09). "Barack Obama And Donald Trump Acceptance Speeches Seen Side-By-Side, Eight Years Apart". The Huffington Post. Archived from the original on 2017-03-05. Retrieved 2017-03-05.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the subject to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose a merge per Wikipedia:Summary style. There is sufficient material in the article to justify a standalone article. It would be undue weight to merge everything in Barack Obama election victory speech, 2008 to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008.
Cunard (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article contains numerous 2008 news sources already in the article. I have provided news articles from 2016 and 2017 that discuss Obama's 2008 victory speech. I have also provided two 2010 book sources that discuss it.
Cunard (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, in my opinion, an undisputedly notable, speech of the first African American President's election victory. Sources do in fact highlight this as a specific speech. It is independently notable of his election campaign. The speech has been analyzed by academics and is therefore notable as well. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 19:52, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, I and others have disputed that, so it's not "undisputed". – Muboshgu (talk) 20:07, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is my opinion. AfD votes are opinions based on the guidelines created to determine whether or not a subject is notable for independent coverage. I believe speeches which have been analyzed by linguists and academics are notable. When specific segments of a speech are compared to others it may by notable. I believe that the first victory speech of the first African American president should be clearly notable for independent coverage. I hope that clarifies any misunderstanding. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 20:10, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's verifiably false this is "undisputed" as I and others have disputed it. But this is a digression I will not continue. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:17, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) J 947 18:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Traxler

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

Nothing substantial could be found about the subject. She fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 15:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 15:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 15:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As the original author of this article, can someone please explain to me why it is in the Consideration for Deletion status. This person and all content is fully legitimate. In reviewing the deletion guidelines, perhaps I need more documentation... I will do additional research and try to wire more.... any additional insight is appreciated... Thanks-- GG (limestone9) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Limestone9 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Limestone9: In order to pass WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG, two guidelines that I urge you to read carefully, we need to have sources that are not only reliable WP:RS, but that are secondary - see the section in Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources in the use of secondary sources to establish notability. Stuff like published reviews of her work and profiles of her in publications other than her local newspaper. Read the guidelines I linked to and WP articles on other contemporary poets and you'll get the idea. Note that you can ask to have this article moved to your userpage, where you can keep it while you search for such sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:14, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see references to works published by university presses, a fellowship to a Harvard-Radcliffe institute, recognition via a then-Poet Laureate of the U.S., all of which tick off boxes under WP:CREATIVE. I believe this adds up to "...has won significant critical attention...". Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 00:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 00:16, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:TomAverill Please keep this page. As a Professor of English at Washburn University, as a Kansas writer myself, as a web designer who will link to this page as soon as it's up (see Map of Kansas Literature), I feel this is a great resource. I know the subject, and recognize everything on the page as valid and valuable. —Preceding undated comment added 17:21, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Keep Please see the sources and reviews I added to the article. She's covered over time as a person in the news and her work has been reviewed in literary and library journals. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 01:13, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep User:R Robinson I came across this page while doing research for a project focused on contemporary Kansas writers. In following several of the provided references, I found all accurately supportive to Traxler’s work and to Wikipedia guidelines. In comparison to many of the other writer’s that I reviewed in Wikipedia, Traxler’s page is more thoroughly developed, including with legitimate cites and references to her many notable publications, awards she has received and Universities she has been associated with. the content and references also clearly demonstrate that she has received accolades from distinguished writers, including a former US Poet Laureate and Kansas Poet Laureate. I believe Traxler’s page easily meets WP:Author, WP:Creative and other Wiki criteria. Please keep. R Robinson —Preceding undated comment added 15:27, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep User:limestone9 As the initial author of this article, I am hoping it has now been further developed (and favorably discussed) to the point that it more clearly and successfully meets Wiki criteria so as the deletion tag might be removed. Including Patricia Traxler along with the other notable Kansas and U.S. current-day women writers in Wikipedia, hopefully can be seen as a solid addition. limestone9 (talk) 13, March 2017 (UTC)

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

Sorted by State

Due to overflow, this part has been moved to: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/United States of America/sorted by state

[1] ttp://www.vox.com/2017/3/10/14890546/trump-us-attorneys-resigned

[1]

@@ Line 18: / Line 18: @@
 == General ==
 <!-- New AFDs should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/HipVoice}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Political_positions_of_Cory_Booker}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2017_dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy}}