Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 June 20

Guide to deletion

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 Island View Residential Treatment Center. There are no valid arguments against a merge, irrespective of the notability of the target, which is debated at a simultaneous AfD. (non-admin closure) ∯WBG^converse 13:49, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Elevations Residential Treatment Center

Elevations Residential Treatment Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I nominated it for WP:PROD but an IP user removed it, incorrectly, saying that the article was notable because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. So I have nominated it for deleting under AFD process.

However, it does not pass WP:GNG; There is nothing extraordinary about this business - it doesn't qualify as a highschool rather its clearly a non notable business. The sources in the article are not enough to pass notability criteria. Some are bare mentions, others are self published and yet others are about incidents - but no indepth coverage. I noticed two sides (both very likely COI) debating various positive/negative facts but the topic itself isn't notable and the page has no place on Wikipedia. All sources are passing mentions, nothing indepth and the former institute at the same location appears to be a different business from different owners - also probably not notable but the current brand isn't notable anyway. So as I read on wikipedia policies, notability can not be inherited to this new brand. If other such centers have pages, they too can not be held as reason to keep this page. We must gauge notability. Nzteoli (talk) 07:37, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 08:36, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 08:36, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

• Keep and merge with Island View Residential Treatment Center. This article is a WP:CFORK of the latter, created in apparent good faith in 2015: [1]. Both articles have contentious edit histories, but that's not a reason for deletion. Article creator has been removing material about the centre under its former ownership and name, e.g. [2],[3], [4], when in fact there should be a single article about the centre. Definitely notable per WP:GNG and WP:CORP, with significant coverage online in WP:RS. TMG^talk 08:45, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Island View Residential Treatment Center is not notable either. Look at the references of the Island view article:

Ref#1 is "Certificate of Incorporation", incorporating doesn't mean it is notable. Ref #2

Ref#2 is self published / website.

Ref#3 says it is about the org's closure.

Ref#4 is not available (404 error), it is another feed item like above, clearly not a reliable source. It seems to be a self published blog.

Ref#5 is another feed item like above, clearly not a reliable source. It seems to be a self published blog.

Ref#6 is a visit report / email that has been published on a blog that further states on their home page that "Categories above include Paid Advertisers." The post evidently a paid post.

Ref#7 is a clear cut Press released on the same blog as ref#6, making it further evident that the blog is advertising island view. Not reliable.

Ref#8 is a preview of Island view's own website.

Ref#9 is from Securities and Exchange Commission, registering a company doesn't make it notable.

Ref#10 is an op ed, mostly negative, nothing that establishes notability.

Ref#11 is passing mention and the news is about an incident that happens to be of a student of the org, not of the org.

Ref#12 not available.

Ref#13 a US court case, does not even remotely establish notability.

Ref#14 another self published / "about us" preview.

Ref#15 not available, title says it is a visit report.

Ref#16 not available but the link from utah govt site seems to be unrelated ref bomb. It would not be a secondary source anyway.

Ref#17 org's own website preview.

Ref#18 a US court case, does not even remotely establish notability, no depth of coverage. Not a secondary source anyway.

Ref#19 is another blog Press release.

Ref#20 a US court case, does not even remotely establish notability, no depth of coverage. Not a secondary source anyway.

Ref#21 this one is about litigation against Island view, even the negative coverage / passing mentions do not amount to the depth required for WP:GNG.

Ref#22 just like above.

Ref#23 WP:FAKE does not mention island view or elevations.

Ref#24 it is the same as Ref#21.

Ref#25 same as above.

Ref#26 looks like a paid / advert review that is no longer available on site.

Above analysis of references prove lack of notability of Island view. The pages should not be merged because Elevation appears to be a brand at the same location by different owners ie. a different organization. Now that both topics are not notable, merging is a futile exercise. Both should be deleted. As far as this discussion goes, Elevations has not established notability and as I have read on wikipedia, this discussion has to be finalized on facts. --Nzteoli (talk) 09:52, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, references should be improved, but as I wrote above there are WP:RS online, e.g. [5], [6], [7], [8]. It looks sufficient to me.

You wrote above that #11 is passing mention and the news is about an incident that happens to be of a student of the org, not of the org: it's an article from Deseret News on the state requiring them to improve their suicide prevention after some poor kid hanged himself there [9], which is pretty significant coverage of the organization. TMG^talk 10:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

You also wrote above that #12 not available, it's a broken link to a Salt Lake Tribune article: here's the fixed link [10]. I'll fix it in the article now. TMG^talk 10:46, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

The references that you gave do not have in depth coverage of the organization, they do have coverage of various incidents where the org has passing mentions. [11] ref that you gave says "That culture is visible even at Aspen’s most upscale residential programs, such as Island View..." such phrases make it clear that these are being taken as examples. This doesn't make the org notable. Similarly the unfortunate incidents about suicide or cases that justify negative perspective of such centers are also about those incidents. They dont make the org notable enough or a notable business. [12] this broken link that you fixed (thank you) too is a bare mention. They are very few to start with. The article is beefed up with various press releases and that doesn't create good faith. That would be a debate for Island view, but since the article itself says that the org had different owners and different name (just the same location), the merger doesn't make sense. You can give your arguments on the island view deletion if it is nominated (it should be nominated). But as far as Elevations go, I dont think it should stay live or be merged. Wikipedia should not be supporting PR. --Nzteoli (talk) 10:55, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

The case against forking, and for a merge now, is evident from this article's first edit: [13] TMG^talk 11:18, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - nominator User:Nzteoli, I notice that your third edit, half an hour after account creation yesterday, was to prod the article. Prod was contested by an anonymous editor; you then took it to AFD, but since then you have made almost no edits other than to this AFD. May I ask if you have any professional or personal connection with the subject?

Also, are you connected at all with the accounts Special:Contributions/Cmaebrowns or Special:Contributions/RosieM007? They are WP:Single-purpose accounts which have been repeatedly removing material in this article about connections between Island View RTC and Elevations RTC, and uncomplimentary claims about the centre before and after its name change. The use of WP:Multiple accounts is acceptable in some circumstances, but if you are using multiple accounts to edit, or have a professional or personal connection with the people who are using them, then please say so. Thanks, TMG^talk 12:46, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not editing the article (even yet), and I have more edits on other articles than I have here. I in general got interested in the topic and then I noticed that the two centers (or one with two names as you say), were posted on wikipedia but not notable. There are only two sides I saw in the edits, one was adding PR and other adding negativity and both have a conflict of interest. I on the other hand have requested for deletion of the article for its lack of notability. Those other people certainly can not be me and neither do I know them. Still, thanks for your concern and allowing me to clear my self from doubts by asking the question. Yes, I've been new on wikipedia and it was difficult nominating this page after the Prod process was objected (I messed the articles for deletion nomination up and had to correct it, hopefully it is showing up everywhere now)... but it's not that complicated, fortunately. I do have experience in treatment sector but I'm not claiming my experience over you to delete this article, I'm pointing out sources that are evident that the topic is a total PR. Let us keep this on topic instead of going into deletion of Island view or my history so that we can see what other editors have to say. I do recommend you change your vote to delete as well if you feel convinced that these centers should not just as yet be on wikipedia (maybe later when they are worth the site, they can. Wikipedia is a very good reference for professionals and should stay clean I have tagged a few other articles too, no one objected there). --Nzteoli (talk) 05:45, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

• Keep as standalone article and improve. Surprised I was not notified of this AfD considering I'm the creator of the article. Anyway, either the article should be deleted OR kept and improved. It should NOT be merged with Island View. That discussion was held previously in the talk pages. Despite one Huffpost source (um, is that really an RS?), Elevations is NOT Island View. And many of those who have a POV on Island View would like to migrate that view over to Elevations. There is no documented "Controversy" at Elevations, and that section needs to be cleaned up. If the article is kept, I will undertake that task. GetSomeUtah (talk) 17:40, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

• Delete: This page is not accurate and does not have sufficient evidence or unbiased links. This article has had thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them and have failed.206.207.225.112 (talk) 19:25, 25 June 2018 (UTC)— 206.207.225.112 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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 FIA Formula 2 Championship. Merge from history as desired. Sandstein 18:25, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

2019 FIA Formula 2 Championship

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/2019 FIA Formula 2 Championship

2019 FIA Formula 2 Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

As per WP:TOOSOON; the article contains nothing more than the standard lead for Formula 2 articles and no specific details Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Delete or merge with FIA Formula 2 Championship - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. By the end of the year 2019, it might be all right to have this article. Vorbee (talk) 07:54, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: the usual policy at WP:F1 and WP:MOTOR is to hold off creating an article until unique information emerges—for example, a calendar is published or a new team joins the championship. That usually happens around mid-September to early October. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:59, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:48, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

• Delete. We don't have any confirmation about 2019, nor Calendar, nor teams. Corvus tristis (talk) 11:01, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: I made a mistake with the markup when I nominated this AfD and I don't know where I went wrong. Would someone mind taking a look at it, please? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Corvus tristis (talk) 04:49, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

• Merge: to have a section where bits and pieces relevant to the 2019 F2 can be collected --Baerentp (talk) 09:58, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
• Delete-CRYSTALBALL stuff.∯WBG^converse 12:58, 28 June 2018 (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.

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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:09, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Ana Garcia de Cuenca

Ana Garcia de Cuenca (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Dubiously notable. Three local refs, all deadlinks. I didn't find anything better on a BEFORE search. Article is full of sketchy assertions of Nobel Prize nominations and prophecies from god, none of it verified.

This is a translation of the Spanish Wikipedia article, which amusingly is tagged as being written "from a fanatic's point of view". Couldn't agree more. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:01, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 07:46, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 07:46, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 07:46, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

• Delete There is a total lack of sources that are reliable 3rd party ones that show that her actions actually had an impact.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:14, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲_水 09:40, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

• Delete per ;PMC lacks independent sources fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:15, 4 July 2018 (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.

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. Yunshui ^雲_水 09:40, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

CreditCards.com

CreditCards.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Obvious COI. Sourced to themselves, and devoted to listing (and advertising) their own surveys. DGG ( talk ) 06:13, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

• Delete. Not only are there very few substantial secondary sources relating to creditcards.com, the subject of the article lacks notability, the article itself is written like an advertisement, and parts of the page is simply listing. Egroeg5 (talk) 07:21, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:48, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:48, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:48, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:48, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

• Delete Only mentions. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 11:59, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Mentions and opinions, only 2 sources that are acceptable as good references. Mia Watson (talk) 16:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
• Delete per Egroeg5. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:37, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
• Delete promotional and fails WP:GNG. Junk Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:13, 22 June 2018 (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.

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. Yunshui ^雲_水 09:40, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Doug Wren

Doug Wren (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article is sourced to IMDB and nothing else. A BEFORE search was largely fruitless due to how common the name is, however, there is no indication of notability in the article. Playing a lead in only one film does not meet the inherent notability required of WP:NACTOR which requires a leading role in two or more productions. Chetsford (talk) 05:19, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:49, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:49, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

• Keep --- Although he is essentially a journeyman actor, I believe that he deserves a mention on this site. If other blips on the radar can get stubs, why not this guy? Although I will agree, better sources are required for this article to be more credible. --- Ducktech89 ^(talk)

• Actually I take it back. Upon closer inspection, this article is lacking in references, notability and anything that would make it notable. I change my mind, this article is poorly constructed and should be deleted. --- Ducktech89 ^(talk)

• Strong delete The backbone of Wikipedia is verifiability, and this article lacks even one reliable source. Next, the fact that horrid articles on totally non-notable people exist does not mean we need to keep any such case. People are not notable just because they had a credited role in a commericial distributed film, and that is the only threshold that would ever make Wren notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:54, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
• Delete - Clearly not notable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:26, 23 June 2018 (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.

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. Yunshui ^雲_水 09:39, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Daniel Berdichevsky

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Daniel Berdichevsky
• Articles for deletion/Daniel Berdichevsky (2nd nomination)

Daniel Berdichevsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

promotional biography, from the first sentence onwards. If there is any underlying notability , it would need complete rewriting from scratch DGG ( talk ) 03:24, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:49, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:49, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:22, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
• Delete The article is too promotional in tone, and it is not clear that the subject meets WP:PP guildlines. Egroeg5 (talk) 07:08, 21 June 2018 (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.

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn following additions. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:19, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

List of shootings in Sweden

List of shootings in Sweden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Wikipedia is not a crime blotter; a list of every shooting in Sweden would be indiscriminate. No blue-links are present on this page. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:00, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

• Keep. The fact that there are no notable shootings currently listed doesn't mean there aren't any, e.g. Assassination of Olof Palme, 2009–10 Malmö shootings, 2015 Gothenburg pub shooting. Afd is not for cleanup. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:32, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

• I've now added a bunch. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:13, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

• Keep. Unless it goes under WP:TNT of course. Thank you, Clarityfiend. It's really sad that others slam on an AfD entry because they can't contribute themselves. 🖍S (talk) 07:17, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:50, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:50, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:50, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:50, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

• Keep as a valid navigational aid, first and foremost thanks to Clarityfiend's additions. Sam Sailor 13:07, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
• Keep, following ClarityFiend's edits, it is a pretty standard sort of list, cf. List of shootings in Texas, List of shootings in California.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:56, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
• Snow keep: clearly relevant. The article can be improved, of course. Do that. I hate all the Wikipedians who are too lazy to improve an article and just want to delete everything they do not like.--APS^talk 14:13, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
• Keep A valid list article that aids in navigation. Dream Focus 15:55, 20 June 2018 (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.

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

The result was no consensus defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a speedy renomination given the lack of clear voting in this discussion. However after two relists, it's time to close this AfD. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:17, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Oyako Day

Oyako Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

not clearly notable, sources are tenuous, akin to WP:NEOLOGISM Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:40, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 06:23, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 06:23, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 06:23, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. Assuming that it would be 親子デー, I looked for this and found lots of oyako days, this one not among them. But instead it's 親子の日, whose website is here; or in English, here. ja:WP has a (non-) article about it (as is normal in ja:WP, this is a series of lists uninterrupted by any citation of a reliable source). -- Hoary (talk) 23:23, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲_水 09:39, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment (again). As is normal in Japan, there's little available without payment on the web that isn't either (a) merely promotional or (b) mere bloggery and similar chit-chat. But yes it exists and yes it's written up in Mainichi Shinbun: for example, in an article here that we can read the beginning of without paying and all of if we do pay. I'd guess that somebody interested could find enough material via 毎索, the Mainichi Shinbunsha database, to put together a short article. However, that person isn't me. ¶ Now that we know what this is called in Japanese, and therefore how to look it up in Japanese, the situation may have changed since Kintetsubuffalo nominated it for deletion. (If Kintetsubuffalo then knew its Japanese name, they didn't say so.) I'd be interested in a new comment from Kintetsubuffalo. -- Hoary (talk) 22:27, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 04:01, 5 July 2018 (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.

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. There is a general consensus that coverage is insufficient to ring the WP:N bell. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:13, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Denis Law (politician)

Denis Law (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Tagged for notability ever since it was created, over a year ago. As mayor of a city of about 100,000, WP:POLITICIAN says he is not inherently notable, but could be notable if he has received significant press coverage. The footnote elaborates, "A politician who has received 'significant press coverage' has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists."

Searches of the usual Google types, Gale, HighBeam, JSTOR, Project MUSE, ProQuest and Questia turned up one solid piece in The Seattle Times,[14] a re-election announcement in the local Renton Reporter,[15], a 250-word AP article announcing the sale of his publishing business,[16] and routine coverage of the "said the mayor" and "was in attendance" variety. Unless better sources can be found, I don't believe this clears the bar of notability. Worldbruce (talk) 02:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 02:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 02:21, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I made some edits to the article to add references and clean up the article. --Enos733 (talk) 15:26, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
• Delete nominator is right there's a couple okay sources, but the sourcing's really scarce. He doesn't have presumed notability because he's a mayor, even of a six-figure population city. A couple sources I thought would be okay ([17], which is actually already in the article) aren't significant. SportingFlyer talk 15:29, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Very little coverage outside of brief mentions, and not inherently notable as a local official per WP:POLITICIAN. Not enough sourcing to establish notability. Tillerh11 (talk) 17:45, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
• Delete. Renton is certainly large enough that a genuinely substantial and well-referenced article about a mayor could be kept, but it is not large enough to hand all of its mayors an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL #2 just for existing. The amount of sourcing shown here is not enough to get him over the bar, however — it simply amounts to the expected and routine local coverage that every mayor of everywhere could always show, with the only source that looks even slightly out of the ordinary on the surface (because the citation is to the Associated Press rather than a specific newspaper in Renton's local media landscape) being one that just namechecks his existence in the process of being primarily about something else besides him. So it doesn't assist his notability at all, and none of the other sources are "out of the ordinary" enough. Bearcat (talk) 17:59, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to know what we should be expecting of coverage about an independently elected Mayor of a large suburban city (over 100,000). WP:POLOUTCOMES suggests that we expect more than name-check coverage of mayors cities of regional prominence (undefined, but previously considered to be greater than 50,000 [but that standard has been significantly degraded over the past couple of years]). In this case, as noted, the article contains a couple articles that go toward being significant coverage (about his life), and numerous articles that describe his record as Mayor (from the local weekly - the Renton Reporter). While we might tend to discount this local coverage as WP:ROUTINE the volume of coverage is significant, especially considering the size of the city and the subject's tenure. What we don't appear to have is any nationalization of coverage about the subject, or a second long-form profile. --Enos733 (talk) 18:59, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Generally, what's most important isn't necessarily the number of sources in and of itself or even how much they do or don't nationalize, but how much actual substance they enable us to say about the person beyond just technical verification that he holds the mayoralty. For example, Brian Bigger doesn't actually cite many more sources than this in its current form (nine to seven isn't that big a difference, although the fact that two of them are extralocal helps) — but even if more expansion is still needed there, the sources that have been chosen already support a much more substantive article with much more useful and relevant and encyclopedic detail than this one contains. Sources that nominally verify the fact that a mayor won the election simply don't do as much toward making a mayor notable as sources that are actually about him and his agenda and his successes and failures in the mayor's chair. Nationalizing sources certainly help, but they're not a mandatory condition — a mayor can clear NPOL #2 on purely local sources too, if there are enough of them present to support a genuinely detailed article that says much more substantial things about him than just "was elected and then reelected and then reelected again". For another example of a mayor who is well-sourced as notable despite her sourcing not going very non-local and her city not being much larger than Renton either, see also Nancy Diamond — again, the difference is that her sourcing is being used to support genuine substance about her political agenda as mayor, not just to verify and reverify that she existed as a mayor. Bearcat (talk) 20:03, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

To restate, to meet WP:NPOL, an article about a mayor of a city of regional prominence would need adequate sources (in total) that provides a framework to create an article to sufficiently describe the subject and/or their agenda/actions as mayor. Those sources may be purely local, but national sources help. --Enos733 (talk) 20:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Baiscally, yes. More than anything else, the real test for whether a mayor is notable enough isn't really the number of sources or their geographic range per se — those can be factors, but they neither make nor break the deal all by themselves (for example, a nationalized source can still just be a glancing namecheck of the mayor's existence in an article about something else, and having one full-on biography of the mayor published in book form can potentially count for more than ten newspaper articles.) The ultimate test is whether the sources support enough substance about the mayor to make the article worth bothering to read. Bearcat (talk) 20:50, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

• Delete The article shows no sustained, indepth coverage of the type that can actually build a meaningful article. The fact that this guy was able to be reelected to office unopposed at one point I think says it all that this is just not an important executive office.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:48, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
• Keep I think that there is the sustained coverage of the subject in the Renton Reporter, chronicling the subject's career. Over the past week, I've been adding bits and pieces to the article, adding sources and details as appropriate. As Bearcat mentioned above, for a mayor of a city of regional prominence, the test is whether there is enough substance to write a complete article. There are (at least) ten search pages of articles about the subject, from his support of a bus rapid transit system in Renton to support the relocation of the Renton library (and a smaller list of articles describing Law's actions in the Seattle Times. The subject also regularly writes an op-ed for the Renton Reporter, and that material, while cannot be used for notability, assists with putting substance in the article. --Enos733 (talk) 02:38, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't think the Renton Reporter articles show notability at all, as those are articles that you would expect to be written of any mayor in any town. SportingFlyer talk 02:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

The difference is that that for cities of regional prominence, as Bearcat and I discussed above, the expectation is an ability to write a substantive article about the mayor, including his life and career. Under those circumstances, the volume of local, independent reporting is something that should be considered in evaluating the merits of the AfD. As I alluded to, there is also a decent amount of coverage of the mayor (and the mayor's actions in Renton) in the Seattle Times. And while some of the coverage is of the more routine nature, but included is also coverage of the mayor's state of the city addresses (which show priorities and accomplishments), and actions and issues that the city and the mayor were involved in. --Enos733 (talk) 03:25, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

The coverage being predominantly or exclusively "local" isn't the dealbreaker in and of itself — nationalized coverage helps a mayor's notability, certainly, but it's not a mandatory condition that all mayors have to have to qualify for articles at all. Even the Bill de Blasios and John Torys and Sadiq Khans and Eric Garcettis of the world still get the bulk of their coverage in the local media rather than national or international sources, because local media are whose job it is to cover the mayor pretty much daily instead of just once in a while when something especially huge happens. As I explained above, the make-or-break condition for a mayor isn't really the localness or non-localness of the sourcing per se, but the ability to cite enough of whatever coverage exists to write a genuinely substantive article that's actually useful and informative and worth taking the time to read, instead of just a boilerplate "John Smith is a mayor who exists, he used to run a hardware store, he has two kids, the end." The problem with most mayors of cities this size isn't that nationalizing sources are a base requirement that a mayor can never be notable at all without having — the problem is that editors often don't put in the effort to do anything more with the article than "he exists, here's one source which nominally demonstrates that he won the election and a couple of others in which his name gets mentioned in a tangential context that doesn't actually add any value to the article beyond reverifying that he's the mayor, the end". Local coverage can be enough for a mayor, as long as you actually use enough of it to create a substantive article about his political impact, rather than relying solely on election results and articles about him cutting the ribbon to officially open a dog park — the question of whether the sourcing is localized or nationalized carries more weight in some situations (e.g. small towns) than others (e.g. cities that are large enough to claim some degree of prominence in their own right), but isn't necessarily always as important as the question of whether it adds anything substantive to the article or not. Bearcat (talk) 17:05, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Enos733, thanks for that. I'm not fully convinced that this has quite crossed the line into keepability yet, but you're definitely moving it in the right direction by starting to add some content about significant things he did in the position. I'm open to flipping to a keep if that can be expanded a bit more. Bearcat (talk) 17:37, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I found a few sources about his publishing career. I also found a dead link suggestive of a long-form profile in CityVision, the publication of the Association of Washington Cities. --Enos733 (talk) 17:46, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Enos733 (talk) 17:30, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲_水 09:38, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

• 'Delete Renton may be bigger than the usual small city we see in these mayoral AFDs, but when all is said and done, it's a suburb/fringe of Seattle, and this fellow got the typical and local coverage of a term in which nothing really remarkable happened that would make him more generally notable. Mangoe (talk) 12:31, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Wikipedia's notability criteria exists so we can write a whole article about a subject - WP:WHYN. I do not believe it is our job to determine whether the subject did something remarkable or not, nor should we consider geography as a reason to include or exclude a topic. I'm not sure why I'm so passionate about this article, but I feel if this article (in its current form nearly 500 words about different parts of his career [and more that could be added], and greater than a WP:stub) is deleted, then we must reconsider WP:NPOL and should rewrite WP:POLOUTCOMES as it relates to local elected officials (and even then, there we come back to the relationship between WP:NPOL and WP:GNG), as there are lots of local mayors (including those that Bearcat mentioned above) that would merit reconsideration under a new formulation. --Enos733 (talk) 18:30, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 04:04, 5 July 2018 (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.

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

The result was delete and redirect to School of Computing. Redirected to dab page as alternate capitalisation Yunshui ^雲_水 09:37, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

School of computing

School of computing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article has no indication of importance and is a subset of the Federal University of Technology, Akure article. In addition, this article's title is too broad for the topic covered and the primary editor has disclosed a COI (see talk page link below). I recommend moving the page's relevant contents to a subsection of the Federal University of Technology, Akure article and deleting this page. Conversations regarding deletion can be found here at the article talk page. —zfJames Please add {{ping|ZfJames}} to your reply (talk page, contribs) 01:44, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

 Comment: Page content has been currently duplicated to Federal_University_of_Technology,_Akure#School_of_Computing per discussion on the Talk:School_of_computing page

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:51, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:51, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:51, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

• Delete. We don't generally have articles on individuals schools and departments of larger institutions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:03, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: If the article is deleted, School of computing could be a dab page (though the possible targets don't look very promising themselves). Chris857 (talk) 16:31, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I just discovered the dab page which has been around since 2009. School of Computing. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:48, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

• Delete The article does not use any independent sources, therefore it does not pass WP:GNG. The title is also a little misleading and does not properly indicate what the subject of the article is. Tillerh11 (talk) 18:02, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
• Retarget to School of Computing which lists multiple ones. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I would be okay with deleting and then re-creating the redirect for the capitalization. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:59, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:44, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and general consensus that is does not pass WP:GNG. We should not redirect this to the dab article if it is deemed non notable. Ajf773 (talk) 20:27, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
• We always redirect plausible alternative capitalisations. If this is not notable it should be redirected to the dab page. There is no reason in principle why we shouldn't have articles on individual university departments. Quite a lot of them, at the better universities, satisfy GNG. But this department was founded this year. James500 (talk) 03:15, 22 June 2018 (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.

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 Pegasides. To begin with, clear consensus to not delete. The general feeling is that what folks like Ovid write about tends to be notable by default. But later in the discussion our resident classicists point out, and apparently uncontroversially, that this is actually a content fork of Pegasides. It can be worked out editorially whether anything in the history of this one-sentence stub is worth merging. Sandstein 18:37, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Pegasis

Pegasis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The subject is a little-known fictional entity written about by Ovid long ago. I couldn't find enough coverage to pass WP:GNG and WurmWoode refused letting this be a redirect, so I'm asking for deletion. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:24, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:25, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:25, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

• Keep: sources both seem solid, and scope for people believing her to be a typo is so great that it seems useful to have a brief article on her, with sources, to show otherwise. PamD 11:23, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, that was my edit summary, I was not expecting so much huhu for attempting to repair a mis-redirect— @Troutman's reflexive revert, to a horse, which she is not, w/o prior discussion came across like a knee jerk WurmWoode^T 17:54, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

• Keep and expand. Fictional entity written about by Ovid. Artw (talk) 13:59, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
• Keep The two references in the article are modern sources. One of them cites Ovid and the other cites Plutarch. There are thus at least two classical sources, not just Ovid. Quintus would appear to be a third. I also found in Stories of Ancient Greece an intersection between the stories of Pegasis and the actual Pegasus to add even more to the confusion. That book appears to have material that could expand the article beyond the current stub. SpinningSpark 14:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Wait, where does one cite Plutarch? I must have missed it. The Encyclopedia of Fairies in World Folklore and Mythology cites Ovid and Parada, and the other one is Parada, who seems to cite Quintus Smyrnaeus. But Ovid seems relatively clearly to be referring to Oenone (seem my comment). --tronvillain (talk) 17:13, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I got it from the convenience link in the cite (which I have only just realised is a different website from the cite which is to a book). The entry there is "Emathion 5. Father by Pegasis of Atymnius 3 and Diomedes 4 [Plu.Rom.2.1; QS.3.300]". The abbreviation "Plu" means Plutarch no? SpinningSpark 17:34, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Ah, it's the Emathion entry that cites "Romulus" in Plutarch's Lives, but that appears to be to establish Emathion as father of Diomedes, since it doesn't mention Pegasis. Perhaps it's different in the original, but the various translations I can find actually say things like "Some, that Romus, the Son of Emathion(4), whom Diomede fent from Troy", "some, Romus, the son of Emathion, Diomede, having sent him from Troy", and "or Romus, the son of Emathion, whom Diomedes sent from Troy". --tronvillain (talk) 18:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. Chris, I am not surprised your redirect was reverted. I assumed you had redirected to somewhere where the subject was actually discussed, like a poem of Ovid. In fact, you had redirected to the unrelated Pegasus. This nomination strikes me as being simply spiteful in not getting your way as indicated by your talk page comment. SpinningSpark 14:47, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

@Spinningspark: First, please assume good faith. Accusing me of nominating articles out of spite is not only wrong, it demonstrates you falsely believe you hold the moral high ground. Second, I merely returned this to the redirect Psantora created in January 2009. Restoring the redirect was my effort to avoid deletion by keeping this as a relevant search term, since the entity itself is not generally notable. WurmWoode, in their indignation, seemed to feel that this fictional character "deserved" better than a redirect. My comment to them was meant to indicate that I could have explained my rationale in more detail (although my edit summary explained GNG wasn't met), Finally, I don't see the significant coverage of the subject that GNG requires. Some of the sources presented (including the ones you mentioned) might be primary sources as I don't know which author invented those characters. I'm disappointed that you chose to make a veiled personal attack rather than a policy-based rationale. That you don't like my nomination or that you think I'm wrong is not grounds to make accusations, especially in your role as admin. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I did assume good faith, I assumed you had redirected to somewhere where the information could be WP:PRESERVEd. This turned out to not be the case. My keep rationale was made before I read your talk page comment and was entirely unconnected with it. Your argument that you were merely restoring an original redirect is disengenuous. That redirect was created before any information on Pegasis existed on Wikipedia and so restoring it was effectively deleting the article. You claimed in your message to WurmWoode that "[r]edirection was an alternative to deletion". Well no it wasn't. Not in any meaningful sense. By trying to identify the "inventor" of the "fictional character" you are showing an ignorance of classical mythology. Nearly all characters in classical mythology are rooted in an oral tradition that predates the written record by many centuries. "Primary source" in this context is meaningless. SpinningSpark 16:30, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

• Keep Being written by Ovid a long time ago is a reason to keep, not a reason to delete. Andrew D. (talk) 23:29, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

"Being written by Ovid a long time ago is a reason to keep" Please show us where in WP:N it says that. If your point here at AfD is to say ILIKEIT, you should probably just stay off of AfD. Your behavior confuses new editors that don't know better. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:25, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

My comment reflects the nomination. "Turn-about is fair play". Andrew D. (talk) 16:44, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

• Redirect: There doesn't appear to be enough here to establish notability, but there's already Pegasides where it says "Pegasides are connected with the term Pegasis, which means all that descended from Pegasus or originated from him." And as it also mentions there, Ovid's use of "Pegasis" is to Oenone (or Eonone). It might be worth mentioning on those pages though. --tronvillain (talk) 15:55, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

The two references that existed on the page appear to both depend on the single line from Quintus Smyrnaeus, "Next his weapon pierc'd Atymnius, whom the nymph with golden locks, Bright Pegasis, to brave Emalion bore, Where deep Granicus rolls his lucid stream.", which hardly constitutes extensive coverage. --tronvillain (talk) 16:12, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

• Redirect to either Atymnius or Emalion, or make a disambiguation page reflecting the fact that "Pegasis" is an epithet referring to anyone or anything associated with Pegasus or fountain nymphs, as well as the mother of Atymnius and Diomedes (not the famous Diomedes, apparently). The Quintus Smyrnaeus reference is the only one I could find that specifically names the mother; the others are either oblique references to the other members of this family, or other uses of "Pegasis", as in Ovid. One of the two modern dictionaries cites two sources: the other one, and a work attributed to Ovid under the title of "Ovid", which is clearly a mistake; but I couldn't find any other references to "Pegasis" in Ovid; just the one describing Oenone as a Pegasis, or fountain nymph—i.e. an epithet of hers, not her name. I would skip this source, since it doesn't add anything to the other two, or to Ovid, if you add the use of "Pegasis" as an epithet. The Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology has an entry, but it doesn't add anything that hasn't been discussed here; I checked under each of the names (Pegasis, Emalion, Atymnius, Diomedes) just to make sure I'd looked at all of the possible references. I might still cite it as a general reference for the term as an epithet, although it doesn't have anything to say about the specific Pegasis we're discussing. P Aculeius (talk) 19:16, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

• A disambiguation page would work for me as long as any encyclpaedic information is first merged to Pegasides or elsewhere. SpinningSpark 21:30, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

• Redirect to Pegasides (the plural form of the same word). A disambiguation page Pegasis would also work, but scarcely anything on it could be claimed as notable, and I don't feel confident that footnoted disambiguation pages are a long term stable solution to anything. Therefore, since the page Pegasides already makes good sense and explains things, information on individual nymphs whose name was (apparently) Pegasis can be confidently added to it. (I gather there was originally a redirect from Pegasis to Pegasus, but I don't know any reason why.) Andrew Dalby 14:55, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

References

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. All three "keep"s are by accounts of 6, 22 and 53 edits respectively, which raises some ... doubts. Sandstein 18:32, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Bcash

Bcash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

So far as I can tell, the subject is new software in the cryptocurrency realm. It's hard to find any coverage outside of niche websites and certainly not enough to pass WP:GNG. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:17, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:19, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:19, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:19, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:19, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

keep: It's not hard to search info about it in thousands of sources in google. For example here is the video of its public presentation in Coingeek 2018 conference --Malkavian (talk) 01:49, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Reddit, blogs, and other questionable websites. Please let me know when The New York Times writes about this. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:58, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

If we have to remove all articles about bitcoin nodes or even about software if New York Times doesn't talk about it in a month after its creation, we have a lot to remove. Moreover "bcash" word was used for years as a disrespectful name trying to redirect people interested in Bitcoin Cash to the subreddit r/bcash where they are trolled and misinformed on purpose. People who do this even think that "Bitcoin" is a name of their property, while it's not a trademark or registered in any way. They only do this to Bitcoin Cash and not to Bitcoin Gold, Bitcoin Private or other variants, probably because of fear to its competition as Bitcoin XT did in the past (being attacked too). --Malkavian (talk) 02:29, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we have a lot of articles written within a month of the products creation that aren't mentioned by reliable sources. These should be deleted ASAP. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:42, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

This software is equivalent to Bitcoin Core or Bitcoin Unlimited one, it's an alternative to these. --Malkavian (talk) 07:44, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: The above comment represents the second !vote by the same editor. Polyamorph (talk) 08:25, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Keep: Previously, it was redirecting to Bitcoin Cash, and this is a mistake. Some people try to refer to Bitcoin Cash as "bcash" in a disrespectful way, so these trolls will continue creating the page again and again with the same redirect and confusing people. Maybe a disambiguation page would be a good solution, because it has different meanings for different people. Also it could refers to some international companies. Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a weapon for misinformation. Is better a short article than a mistaken redirect. Rutrus (talk) 02:10, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

misinformation certainly. We don't need misinformation A to offset misinformation B. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:42, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Then telling people that Bcash is a coin since its beginning, before even Roger Ver supported it, shouldn't be done. Bitcoin Core have great FUD and censorship campaign since 2015, but here neutrality should be used. Going to add info about that Bcash use.

Delete- obviously this has nothing to do with creating an encyclopedia. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:42, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is not an argument. Actually, its written in an informative and encyclopedic way. It's created today, so, let the community improve it. Not to talk about the discordances is the way to not create an encyclopedia. Rutrus (talk) 03:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually, perpetuating some feud on wikipedia is unencyclopedic and a waste of everybody's time. Polyamorph (talk) 08:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Note - note an editor originally placed the AfD notice on this page: BCash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I've placed the AfD tag on both pages. Polyamorph (talk) 07:04, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

And AfD note wasn't removed. Afterwards it was marked as copyright infringment and marked for express delete. That matter was replied, but it was deleted hours later. --Malkavian (talk) 07:44, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are trying to say. Polyamorph (talk) 08:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood you. But I placed AfD notice for BCash article and not for Bcash, which I edited. --Malkavian (talk) 10:47, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

• Delete Available sources do not meet WP standards for establishing notability. Would advise the entry’s creator to read WP:GNG policy as well as WP:NOTFORUM.Innisfree987 (talk) 07:10, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
• Sanctions warnings handed out. Do not perpetuate the Bitcoin/Bitcoin Cash dispute here otherwise you will be sanctioned. MER-C 08:17, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
• Delete not enough coverage in reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG. Also delete the redirect. Request page protection to prevent further recreation by new users. Polyamorph (talk) 08:38, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

If the page were to be deleted, the idea to protect it is definitely something I can get behind. TZander (talk) 17:41, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

• Delete - lacks the significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability.-- Whpq (talk) 11:25, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
• Keep I added several sources, proper ones. Not reddit or such. This may go a long way towards starting to make this a proper article. Practically speaking the 'keep' for this article should not be judged on its own. I agree its a little sparse at this point and while I feel with the new sources we are better at matching the requirements, I do understand the arguments people made for deletion. But we should look at the almost violent and ongoing disruption elsewhere on wikipedia as well. Keeping this page and inviting people to provide more real sources to this page will help immensely with the edit war going on on the Bitcoin Cash page which has been locked twice now and there is no reason to think people are going to be convinved. A focus of a lot of (reverted) edits is to add and remove the title "bcash" to the Bitcoin Cash page. See the talk page there. My argument; judge the merit of this page not just on its content but also as a way to stop the edit war there. TZander (talk) 17:40, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts; however if memory serves, those are the same sources the deleted version of this entry had. (If an admin could look, that'd be appreciated.) They remain insufficient. If there's vandalism/edit-warring elsewhere, that's not a problem we solve by tossing out our content policies. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:49, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I wrote previous version before it was deleted in hours for copyright infringment!!?? and I haven't time to add references, I only added some external links --Malkavian (talk) 19:55, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I've replied on Malkavian's talk page. Innisfree987 (talk) 05:27, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

• delete and salt promotional dreck that fails NCORP unambiguously. There are general sanctions on crypto pages exactly because of stuff like this. Jytdog (talk) 18:30, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
• Comment. If this is deleted (I have no opinion on whether it should) then the title should be recreated as a redirect to Bitcoin Cash (which is commonly called "BCash" or "Bcash"), this can be protected if the article is likely to be recreated. Thryduulf (talk) 10:21, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

That is exactly the origin of the war. A majority of people want to impose "Bcash" as an alias of "Bitcoin Cash". It is a pejorative name used in thousand of twits or reddit messages to disturb. Usually goes with these other words: "btrash", "bscam", "bcrash", "bcrap". You can try to search "bcash btrash" and the same for the other words, in twitter. Nobody that likes Bitcoin Cash call it bcash, only people that fears of it, as the bigger competency of Bitcoin, the one they likes. --Malkavian (talk) 11:10, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:RNEUTRAL redirects from widely used non-neutral terms are a benefit to the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 23:11, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

• Delete Promotional and fails WP:GNG. This source (in chinese) [18] shows the characters 广告 which translates to paid advertisement. Maybe the english sources are also paid advertisements. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:32, 22 June 2018 (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.