Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 February 17: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 00:58, 17 February 2018

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 16 February	18 February >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aylesbury child sex abuse ring Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Banbury child sex abuse ring

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 09:43, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lily Blake Capwell

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

Ten years no references. I found no reliable ones. Rhadow (talk) 00:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:09, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:09, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:09, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 02:35, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Basically a plot summary. I am against merging because the material here is entirely unsourced.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:43, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not finding anything on search. Artw (talk) 16:28, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no where near showing the level of impact needed to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:11, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To be considered notable, a television character needs to be reliably sourceable to media coverage which suggests some real-world context for notability — it's not enough to just write an in-universe summary of her own story arc, if you can't demonstrate that she had any impact on real life. But nothing here demonstrates any real-world notability, and none of the content is sourced to justify merging. Bearcat (talk) 22:15, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above discussion. Aoba47 (talk) 01:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 23:09, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

United Airports Georgia

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

No references since 2011. No updates since 2012. ~~A BEFORE search turns up nothing useful.~~ Rhadow (talk) 00:47, 17 February 2018 (UTC) I can't speak for the Georgian language references, but the others look good. Rhadow (talk) 01:13, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the airports themselves presumably have articles or should, which covers all that really matters about the government owned company thst run them. Legacypac (talk) 00:51, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:07, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:07, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, if all the airports have articles, then wouldn't that make this more notable? The fact that the article hasn't been updated since 2012 doesn't mean that we should get rid of it, plenty of articles on Wikipedia have been basically "edited only by bots" for over a decade that are stubs. In it's current state it could be considered a list article which doesn't need to be referenced. --Donald Trung (No fake news) (Articles) Respect mobile users. 09:41, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. This article needs to pass organizational notability standards. SportingFlyer (talk) 17:45, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable organization, no references outside of the organization's webpage, sources on Georgian language webpage not much help either. SportingFlyer (talk) 17:45, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Airport authorities for countries are always notable and the stub-article can be improved. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:52, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Airport authorities are automatically notable, overriding WP:V? Rhadow (talk) 16:47, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've rewritten it and added references, which should be enough for a stub. It's a national airport operator, and thus notable. The article is mistitled - it shd be "United Airports of Georgia" - but I'll not move it at the moment. There is a problem locating press coverage (apart from most of it being in Georgian) in that the title is translated into English in many different ways: Georgian Airports Association, Union of Airports of Georgia plus many other variations, but nevertheless I have trouble believing that any effective BEFORE could have been carried out, as I deliberately limited my own search to sources using the official form "United Airports of Georgia", which any search would have brought up.Eustachiusz (talk) 01:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:36, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The issues have been addressed. Thank-you. I've moved the page and I belive this can be kept now. Legacypac (talk) 00:49, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article has apparently been improved. Without consulting previous versions, it seems fine, and is indeed functioning as a list-article and as a summary about the organization. It is useful to have in one place to be linked from each of the 5 airports that it owns, rather than having to restate the entire text in each of the 5 articles. --Doncram (talk) 08:38, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Teenage California

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

A variety of problems here. The organization appears to be a defunct WP:BRANCH of a national organization. The page has be tagged for notability concerns, COI concerns and [WP:V]] for 8 years but no one has addressed these real issues. The business is dead now, website gone, which is the primary source for the data. With a couple of exceptions where a subject went on to become notable, the winners are not notable and don't have pages about them or even refs to support the names on the list. In short, a minor business which operated in a limited geographic region and is no more notable than any of the other minor pageants around the world. Legacypac (talk) 00:25, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also this topic was deleted in 2007 as not notable and a 2011 discussion failed to find concensus. Inclusion standards for companies WP:NCORP have risen substantially in the last few years. Legacypac (talk) 00:28, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:04, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:07, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious but when does an organisation like this become notable? Because although most references are from 2011 the organisation was mentioned again in 2013. And I get several results when I search for it and if I had the time would have expanded the article with. Isn't notability established if independent sources refer to an organisation for a long amount of time? --Donald Trung (Talk EMOJI) (Articles EMOJI) Respect mobile users. 09:37, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks widespread and broad coverage to pass notability guidelines for an organization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:42, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Mahmudiyah rape and killings#Steven Dale Green. And locked Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:38, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Dale Green

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

Procedural nomination of declined CSD G4 (recreation). I am not taking a position on this myself either way. The article failed AfD in 2009 on the grounds of BLP1E. The decision was upheld at DRV in 2014 but with no objection to recreation with new material. As far as I can tell, the only things that are substantially different are that the subject is now dead and that there have been a number of writings about him both academic and a play inspired by his life. However, all of these still essentially stem from the one event. The passage of time and the changed circumstances call for a new review at AfD rather than a speedy deletion. SpinningSpark 00:10, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:11, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:11, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:11, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Locked redirect to Mahmudiyah rape and killings#Steven Dale Green Duplicative of that article's section and generally poor and unfocused writing in this article, which there is no need for a sole article of the subject. Nate • (chatter) 03:49, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Mrschimpf, you said the article has "generally poor and unfocused writing". But hasn't policy said that, with very rare exceptions, decisions on whether to delete, keep or redirect articles, should be based on the notability of the topic, itself? Doesn't policy call for weak articles on genuinely notable topics to be flagged for improvement -- not deleted? Unlike his comrades lots of RS have written about Green in contexts that transcend the Mahmudiyah incident. I suggest that is all that is required to establish his independent notability. Geo Swan (talk) 03:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Locked redirect to Mahmudiyah rape and killings#Steven Dale Green Concur with "Nate". No reason to repeat all this and risk having the accounts differ.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 16:44, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (locked) to Mahmudiyah rape and killings#Steven Dale Green. WP:BIO1E not independentally notable from Mahmudiyah rape and killings.Icewhiz (talk) 11:40, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Locked redirect per the preceding comments, with which I agree. A clear case of WP:BIO1E. Narky Blert (talk) 14:52, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I was the one who put in place an updated version of this article.

Unlike his comrades, I suggest Green is of interest to readers for reasons beyond his involvement with the Mahmudiyah incident.

There is a widely staged play whose main character is based on Green. Niteshift36, whose {{G4}} triggered this procedural AFD, called it a "non-notable play" in a talk page comment prior to their nomination. His or her opinion is at odds with the American Theatre Critics Association, who awarded the playwright a prestigious award. People may come to the wikipedia to read about Green, because of the play, and have little interest in the Mahmudiyah incident.

Unlike his comrades Green was allowed to enlist in the army after a criminal conviction, but only after a "Moral waiver". These moral waivers have generated controversy. Some readers may come here due to an interest in these moral waivers, and have little interest in the Mahmudiyah incident.

At his trial distinguished experts were at odds over whether brain scans showed he enlisted with brain damage which would have left him with impulse control issues. There are other serial killers who were later found to have brain damage, like Charles Whitman, the Texas Tower Shooter. For readers who want to read about Green's brain damage the Mahmudiyah incident may hold little interest.

Green was charged under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act. Charges and convictions under this act are very rare. ABC News reported he was the "first American soldier charged and convicted" under the act. Since Green is one of just a handful of individuals convicted under the act, reader may very well come to the wikipedia to read about those convicted under the act, and, for them, the Mahmudiyah incident may hold little interest.

When a topic is related to multiple other topics, merging the article on that topic into one of the articles it is related to, is always going to be the less optimal choice. Geo Swan (talk) 03:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Locked redirect. The first AfD was a proper close. While DRV didn't oppose recreation, but nothing more notable has actually happened. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aylesbury child sex abuse ring}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Banbury child sex abuse ring}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lily Blake Capwell}}