Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 April 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion‎ | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DarjeelingTea (talk | contribs) at 07:48, 29 April 2017. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< 28 April 30 April >

Purge server cache

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

The result was Speedy Delete. CSD G11 (blatant advertising) Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:07, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Williams (marketer)

Pete Williams (marketer) (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)

Seemingly WP:PROMOTIONAL BP with lack of RS. Independent search finds no better sources. DarjeelingTea (talk) 07:48, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:35, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:35, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— Diondodds (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

as a new user how did you find this AfD? LibStar (talk) 15:50, 4 May 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) 00:18, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alaska Society for Technology in Education

Alaska Society for Technology in Education (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)

Only Google news hits are from local newspapers ("Juneau Empire", "Arctic Sounder"), or are press releases. One trivial mention in a US News & World Report article, no substantive discussion in reliable independent verifiable sources. Article has no references of its own. KDS4444 (talk) 07:34, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 1 May 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) — Yash talk stalk 06:16, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semih Çalışkan

Semih Çalışkan (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)

Per WP:DEL8 non-notable Turkish author with one book; fails all points at WP:AUTHOR. Mathglot (talk) 19:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This author is the subject of a good bit of independent coverage in reliable news outlets and is the author of a best-selling novel in Turkey. While the author's media coverage may not be in English, that doesn't matter with regards to establishing his obvious notability.--SouthernNights (talk) 17:26, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mathglot (talk) 21:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Mathglot (talk) 21:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:53, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One of the nice thing about Turkey is that they use the Latin alphabet, here's a gNews search on him:[1]. I ran a couple of them through google translate and despite the garble factor it is easy to see that he is, indeed, a hot young novelist. (I actually did not intend that double entendre, but it works: he fills a dinner jacket to advantage.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:47, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not bothered by the fact that there are no English references, nor by the fact that Turkish uses Latin (I read non-Latin scripts as well). What I am bothered by, is that nobody is citing any policies or guidelines in their responses, which to my way of thinking, makes them all WP:ILIKEIT which are not countable votes. Please go back to WP:AUTHOR which has four bullet points; and this author, as I see it, meets none of the four criteria, therefore is not notable. I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise, but please cite policies, not preferences, and maybe I'll come around; thanks. Mathglot (talk) 10:49, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:18, 7 May 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 no consensus. Not much discussion, and after having been relisted twice, there is currently no consensus about the notability of this subject. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 TT me 01:45, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Art Lord & the Self-Portraits

Art Lord & the Self-Portraits (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)

A defunct band that appears to have only one significant mention repeated three times (the last three refs) All the remaining refs are drive by tags in articles about a successor group. No evidence of any significant notability. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   19:46, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:46, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:46, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article was originally a re-direction page to Future Islands—the bands successor group— which I've been trying to raise in quality from Start Class. The section on Art Lord & the Self-Portraits developed to such lenght, it was starting to clutter the article. Most of their members are the same, but they are two different bands with different characters: Art Lord & Self Portraits is satirical and for laughter, Future Islands is serious and approaches themes such as suicide. Seemed confusing to have one page of intro on a band with a totally different tone, yet that information needed to exist somewhere to give context to Future Islands.
I thefore created a stub, moving the section on the Future Islands article as it was at the moment. I was still working on both articles when the Art Lord & the Self-Portraits was called for deletion (less than 3hrs later). Regarding the lack of significant mentions, the band was active between 2003-2005 with a reunion in 2013, and since it is difficult to find online articles older than a decade, and the successor group exists for 11 years already, most online still existing interviews about the band were indeed given by Future Islands. Also, I was still in the process of adding and organizing references. I have now developed the article a bit more and should it sill not be considerent sufficient, I am ok with merging it back into Future Islands and make it a redirection page again. Wapunguissa (talk) 06:28, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:43, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:52, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've continued to develop the article and believe the number of references is sufficient to justify a stand-alone article. Since the last relisting, I realiezd Art Lord & the Self-Portraits had were proeminent to the Greenville music scene at the time[2] and should be added to the Musical Groups of North Carolina category, while Future Islands tends to be listed on Musical groups from Baltimore. So by merging the two we are taking away a relevant band from the NC category. Also, the band has a large enough discography—4 albums and 3 compilations—which are cluttering the Future Islands discography: Easy Cure which I used to sustain the merging never released a record. Wapunguissa (talk) 01:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Velella: The article has already been relisted twice with no comments then my own which is discouraging. I believe WP:BEFORE C.2 (If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article.) should have been applied given the fact that the article was nominated only a couple of hours after being created from a redirection. I was thus forced to developed it quickly, though I'm still finding information about the band (and refs) through my research which I haven't had time to bring in it. Wapunguissa (talk) 16:11, 6 May 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 no consensus. WP:NPASR – Juliancolton | Talk 02:47, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet Talker Tour

Sweet Talker Tour (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)

No evidence that this venue listing article has any value or notability. Only two refs one of which is an own web-site and the other an apology for not appearing. Hardly the stuff of notability. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   19:42, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:48, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:48, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:49, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Improve Although the page itself only uses two sources, there are actually quite a few sources that reference the Sweet Talker Tour even with just a cursory search on Google. The page is written poorly and they don't use the requisite sources, but, with improvement, it certainly passes WP:GNG. Gargleafg (talk) 03:37, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:51, 29 April 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 no consensus to delete. Merging and/or renaming can be a subsequent discussion, there does not appear to be consensus on these points here, but three relists is enough.

I'll point out (this is not part of the close) that Back Channel (Port of Long Beach) would be unnecessary disambiguation. A title such as Back Channel, Port of Long Beach may be more advisable. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:23, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Back Channel

Back Channel (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)

Prod removed citing, WP:GEOLAND, however as per #4 in that guideline (which is the pertinent citation), reads, "If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography." The commonality of this feature's name makes researching it difficult, but I cannot find the type of info necessary to meet the requirements of GEOLAND. Onel5969 TT me 17:19, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:41, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:51, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Thanks South Nashua. I am now on board! - Ret.Prof (talk) 11:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The MapCarta link seems to be a circular reference to Wikipedia. There is no mention of this feature in the Port of Long Beach article. I don't see how it really meets GEOLAND; can someone point to more information beyond statistics and coordinates? If there is so little information to support an encyclopaedic article maybe it should simply have a passing mention in the Port of Long Beach article? I am struggling to find any information of value. Poltair (talk) 21:04, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:51, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Port of Long Beach Here is the GNIS entry: [3]. It does seem to be a short canal connecting the Middle Harbor with the Inner Harbor. Looking at google maps: [4], you can see probably a dozen different channels, harbors, slips, basins, etc. that make up the Port of Long Beach. I see no value in having an article on each of these. MB 03:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 04:04, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (Added subsequently: If Kept, the article may be renamed to Back Channel (Port of Long Beach) to specifically refer to the Port rather than give an allusion of being a generic name. This is as per the quite logical points raised below by Power~enwiki. Thanks. Lourdes 00:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)) The Back Channel has been covered as being one of the tightest crossways in the Port;[5] the $1.3 bn bridge construction on the Back Channel has also been quite noticeable[6]; the back channel hosts the important Pier S Marine terminal;[7][8] the back channel is also considered amongst the most important regions of the Port, apart from the middle and inner harbor;[9] the back channel forms one of the five main navigable corridors of the port;[10] satisfies WP:GEOLAND. Lourdes 09:53, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are sources enough to establish notability under Geoland. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 12:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see how this is notable; the name is almost purely descriptive in nature, and the Back Channel at the port of Long Beach is not more important than any other one. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:22, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello Power~enwiki, the name Back Channel is a proper name, and not just a descriptive one (see the sources I've provided above). As per our notability guideline WP:GEOLAND, "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc." The sources I've provided above are beyond statistics and coordinates. If you believe the other channels are also as notable, then someone should make articles on those. Why do you then believe the Back Channel is not notable? Would you say it doesn't qualify under GEOLAND? Your reply would be helpful in understanding your position. Thanks. Lourdes 17:15, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Back Channel is a generic term, regardless of how it is used for this body of water. It can refer to back channels on the Mississippi River [11], for example. I don't think it meets GEOLAND; it says "Named natural features are often notable". Often is not always. As a compromise, I would reluctantly support renaming the article to something like "Back Channel (Port of Long Beach)", but still feel deletion is more appropriate. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:27, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Power~enwiki, I think you have a fair point there. The renaming is something I hadn't thought of, and adds a new perspective which I agree with. I've added this detail to my !vote above (that if kept, the article should be renamed to what you have mentioned). Thanks. Lourdes 00:28, 9 May 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. MBisanz talk 12:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Harriet Grant

Harriet Grant (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)

No claim of notability outside of being a famous person's wife and a small role in one notable event. Hirolovesswords (talk) 04:27, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:50, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:19, 7 May 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. postdlf (talk) 19:03, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of sister tennis players by nation

List of sister tennis players by nation (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)

Fails WP:LISTN, there are no sources that group sister tennis players together that I can find, thus the article is WP:OR. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 17:19, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:11, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:11, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:11, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would also support renaming the article to something like List of tennis players who are sisters - the current title seems off. Hmlarson (talk) 20:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources are not specific to tennis, they support the inclusion of List of professional sports families - not the tennis players. I can't find any sources listing tennis playing sisters, which means that it fails WP:LISTN. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 15:37, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I can and provided two tennis-specific references as examples to get started. Article could use expansion, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 05:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The only source that covered a general overview of siblings was USA Today. This discusses the idea of tennis double siblings, not sisters. WP:LISTN requires for the idea of tennis sisters to be discussed as a set or group, and I can find no examples of this. Further, the one source is not enough. as required by LISTN, to be sources. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 16:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:41, 29 April 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 Alsagoff Family#Syed Ahmad ibn ‘Abdur-Rahman. (non-admin closure) ansh666 03:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sayyid Ahmad ibn ‘Abdur-Rahman As-Saqqaf

Sayyid Ahmad ibn ‘Abdur-Rahman As-Saqqaf (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)

There seem no grounds on which this person is notable in themselves. They existed, were a merchant, married someone's daughter, had children. Sources mention him only fleetingly, eg as his wife's husband (and using different spelling of name, Alsagoff, which is not mentioned in the article). Possibly include a brief mention of this person in Alsagoff Family with redirect, but stand-alone article does not seem appropriate. PamD 17:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, it is now even bigger than the article about his father, and it includes a picture that has a connection to him. I do not think that putting all this information into another article would be attractive to readers or editors of that article. Leo1pard (talk) 04:19, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:40, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Contesting the deletion – Is this article not too informative or big to be merged with another article, redirected to another one, or deleted, now? Leo1pard (talk) 05:38, 30 April 2017 (UTC) Only one !vote is required.[reply]

  • Delete The article says a lot about his family members, some of whom may have been notable (though others were not), but this notability is not inheritable. Of him, the article says he was a merchant. That's it in total. Nothing to suggest he was special as a merchant. Emeraude (talk) 14:24, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Or even redirect Sayyid Ahmad ibn ‘Abdur-Rahman As-Saqqaf to Alsagoff_Family#Syed_Ahmad_ibn_.E2.80.98Abdur-Rahman, we do have redirects to parts of articles in Wikipedia. Leo1pard (talk) 13:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Singapore's 100 Historic Places. National Heritage Board and Archipelago Press. 2002. p. 30. ISBN 981-4068-23-3.
  2. ^ Azrah, Edian (2003). "Hajjah Fatimah". Singapore Infopedia. National Library Board. Archived from the original on 2014-12-24. Retrieved 2017-04-13.
  3. ^ "Masjid Hajjah Fatimah". National Heritage Board. Archived from the original on 23 November 2015. Retrieved 11 November 2015.
  4. ^ Corfield, Justin (2010). Historical Dictionary of Singapore. Scarecrow Press. pp. 20–. ISBN 9780810873872.
  5. ^ Illustrated Magazine (1992). Singapore: Days of Old. Illustrated Magazine. pp. 56–. ISBN 9789627093190.
  6. ^ Arndt Graf; Susanne Schroter; Edwin Wieringa (2010). Aceh: History, Politics and Culture. Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. pp. 34–. ISBN 978-981-4279-12-3. (PDF version).
  7. ^ "Hajjah Fatimah Mosque". Singapore Infopedia. National Library Board. Retrieved 2017-05-06.
Leo1pard (talk) 08:29, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:19, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted that edit: see WP:EDITATAFD which says You should not turn the article into a redirect. A functioning redirect will overwrite the AfD notice. It may also be interpreted as an attempt to "hide" the old content from scrutiny by the community.. PamD 06:51, 7 May 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) 19:01, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Kittrell

Claire Kittrell (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)

Non notable subject with a few references to unreliable youtube and twitter. Also refs to few other unreliable websites. Notability is not inherited. Article refers to comments made on a twitter account that may or may not be written by article subject. Ar best the twitter comment is self published, at the worst it is considered unreliable because it is not known for certain who posted the comment on unreliable twitter, whether it be the subject or another party. Article and subject fails WP:GNG and has not proven N notability. Article was tagged for notability, but another editor objected and quickly removed the tag citing some alphabet tag. I have heard that failing argument before, thus bringing to AFD to attempt to gain a consensus decision from any group of editors. Antonioatrylia (talk) 18:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:10, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:10, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:10, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:40, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:25, 6 May 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) 00:19, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mastiksoul

AfDs for this article:
Mastiksoul (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)

Non-notable musician. Fails WP:GNG, WP:MUSIC - TheMagnificentist 21:32, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:45, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:45, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:38, 29 April 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) 00:20, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ademe Cuneo

Ademe Cuneo (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)

Does not establish notability meeting the standards set for runners. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NTRACK. JTtheOG (talk) 05:40, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete he is an 18 years old runner, but hasn't accomplished anything notable so far which would warrant a WP article. He has participated in a number of regional running events according to his profiles on various running webpages, but none of those fulfill the criteria outlined in WP:NTRACK and he also never won any of those. He reached the 2nd place in the Athens marathon but thats not enough to pass the threshold. He fails the general criteria as laid out in WP:GNG likewise. There is basicially nothing on him out there in RS. There are some mentions in a handful of non-RS blogs, but thats definitely not enough. Apart from that his name only appears in listings of running event participants. The article should therefore be deleted since it fails WP:NTRACK clearly and also lacks any sources sufficient for WP:GNG. Dead Mary (talk) 16:09, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:10, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:10, 29 April 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) 00:20, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cybersecurity CS5L CMM

Cybersecurity CS5L CMM (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)

Delete as yet another recreation of deleted content. This article, with varying names, has been deleted at least four times, but the editor keeps bringing it back.

The article is also sitting at User:Mmalizola/sandbox. StarryGrandma (talk) 05:36, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Additional comment. The editor and author of this concept has this posted all over the web. But the article here is not a copyright violation since it was at Articles for Creation long before it was online anywhere else. StarryGrandma (talk) 06:15, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (Possible CSD G4): A WP:OR article previously deleted after multiple AfD discussions. (I have linked these on the article Talk page, including a 3rd AfD in which I recalled participating.) I see no reason to overturn previous AfD consensus. AllyD (talk) 07:39, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:44, 29 April 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 Pharmacy. I'm redirecting rather than deleting because of the large number of incoming links and the old age of the article (it's been here since 2006 so may well have incoming external links as well). Really, that's something the proposer could have done without bothering with AFD. I'm completely ignoring the the comment that it should have been speedy deleted A10 for the same reason - A10 can only be applied to recently created articles. It is also necessary to preserve the history if any of the material is merged elsewhere, as some participants have indicated they want to do. SpinningSpark 22:55, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pharmacy practice

Pharmacy practice (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)

There's no reason to have a separate "pharmacy practice" article, when the subject of pharmacy practice is already discussed in the "pharmacy" article.

By analogy with the "medicine" article, there is no separate "medical practice" article; rather, "medical practice" redirects to the "medicine" article.

Therefore, I propose the deletion of the "pharmacy practice" page, and redirecting to the "pharmacy" article. Biochemistry&Love (talk) 05:18, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge - I might have had a different opinion had this article been written as an appendix to the Pharmacy article; even with such consideration it doesn't appear that there is enough reason to separate this information from that topic. In my opinion, this is an inherent aspect of the field. Therefore I suggest that some of this article's information can be incorporated into Pharmacy so long as it's well referenced, and whatever remains redundant be deleted. Per Wikipedia Guidelines give guidance to how specific aspects to broader topics might be written and only be required to provide reference to a main article. In this instance one must consider WP:OVERLAP/WP:NOTDIC to determine whether or not there is significant disparity, as well as substantial need for a separate article. unak1978 21:20, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, Unak78. How does this sound?
Biochemistry&Love (talk) 03:10, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:20, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
-That's a good point. After all, nothing was actually cited there. If deleted, I think I'll just cross reference the list to make sure anything worth noting isn't already included in pharmacist#Nature of the work. E.g. the pharmacist article doesn't mention IV compatibility checking. Biochemistry&Love (talk) 03:26, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
-The pharmacy article has no mention of over the counter drug recommendations. It doesn't outline what pharmacists do in each practice area (e.g. "disease-state management," "drug abuse prevention," and other interventions). These are concepts that should be included in the pharmacy article. Granted, there are no references in the pharmacy practice article, so we'd need to find verifiable sources for these concepts. ―Biochemistry🙴❤ 21:31, 11 May 2017 (UTC) (signed as "Biochemistry&Love" above)[reply]
Aricle Pharmacy already includes such section. This page is a pure content fork and should be deleted, unless we want to split content from main page to this page (I do not think that be reasonable). My very best wishes (talk) 14:53, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While Pharmacy#Types_of_pharmacy_practice_areas does mention the different practice sites, it fails to discuss what pharmacists actually do in each practice area. For example, in the Community pharmacy section, the focus is on the practice site itself, rather than what the pharmacist is doing at that site. I agree that saving the Pharmacy practice page isn't useful, and I wouldn't want to split content from Pharmacy and it, but I think there are some concepts (that definitely need to be expanded upon) in Pharmacy practice that should be spliced into Pharmacy--precisely in the section you quoted. ―Biochemistry🙴❤ 19:03, 14 May 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) 00:20, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rhian Brewster

Rhian Brewster (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)

This footballer fails WP:NFOOTBALL as a player that has not played in any WP:FPL (fully proffessional league). Fbgpwns5277 (talk) 04:27, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:42, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:42, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:42, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:29, 29 April 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. WP:RFD is the correct venue for these discussions. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 07:13, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sevalal

Sevalal (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)

content merged with banjara (article) ... no need for this page India1277 (talk) 04:08, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:43, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:43, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the redirect. When content is merged, the redirect on the merged article must be kept to preserve the content's attribution history per Wikipedia's copyright policy. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 1 May 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 no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation herein. North America1000 01:57, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Entangling Love in Shanghai

Entangling Love in Shanghai (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)

no citation India1277 (talk) 03:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:15, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:17, 13 May 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) 19:02, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Scheu

Steven Scheu (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)

Does not meet GNG, NGRIDIRON or NCOLLATH John from Idegon (talk) 00:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 00:21, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 00:21, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 00:21, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 00:21, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 03:40, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:14, 6 May 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  14:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cornell International Affairs Society

Cornell International Affairs Society (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)

Non-notable student organization. All references are either self-published (Medium) or from student papers. In short: fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 03:39, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:13, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/cornell-university-2711
  2. ^ http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2015/10/cornellians-teach-model-un-two-nyc-high-schools
  3. ^ http://bestdelegate.com/cornell-model-united-nations-conference-cmunc-2012-liveblog/
US News is trivial mention. Cornell Chronicle is not student run, but it is the in-house newspaper for Cornell, so roughly the equivalent of a PR source. Being noted on a model UN organization's blog also doesn't satisfy our general notability guidelines, and the coverage combined is certainly not up to the standards or WP:ORG. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:27, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, you originally marked it for deletion because "All references are either self-published (Medium) or from student papers," which is no longer the case. It seems to be up to the standards set out by WP:ORG and is certainly a notable organization from the viewpoint of someone involved in the Cornell community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.84.125.23 (talk) 18:41, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The new sources added are pretty far from what we would normally expect from an organization under WP:ORG: they are trivial or non-independent mentions in publications that would not be considered reliable sources. The same case for deletion remains: this is a student organization that is very good at what it does apparently, but is not notable in the sense of the word that we use it on Wikipedia. It could very well be noteworthy at Cornell, but that is not the same as saying it should have a separate page in a general reference encyclopedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then you ought to go through and delete hundreds of student organizations that are similarly notable. Georgetown's International Affairs Relations Association only has references from Best Delegate, their own website, and their school paper. Yale is pretty much the same. No one has ever questioned those. You, Tony, just happened to find this page when there were very few references and now have placed a target on its back despite it being up to par with similar organizations. Wikipedia is not a finite or physical encyclopedia; something that is notable at Cornell, notable in the Ithaca community, and notable in the Model United Nations world has a place in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.84.125.23 (talk) 18:58, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:ORGDEPTH. There is significant coverage from reliable sources such as Oprah and problems originally cited by the complainant have been resolved (can't keep changing the benchmark). References are comparable to existing articles for similar organizations. Colestefan (talk) 19:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, mine is also an argument regarding WP:ORGDEPTH, as I explicitly stated. There is significant coverage from a variety of reliable sources. Period. You first said above that "All references are either self-published or from student papers" which is simply false now. When possible, editing should be done to improve the page instead of cavalier deletion as per WP:DEL-CONTENT. This has been done, so I rest my case. There is not consensus on this. Colestefan (talk) 19:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:33, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:33, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ken, we could mention every source in the article in this Afd, but that would not be productive. The article and its 17 sources speaks for itself now. They are independent of the subject, because it wouldn't make any sense to include all of this information in the Cornell page, thus it should have its own. 128.84.125.2 (talk) 02:28, 13 May 2017 (UTC) Austin[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 15:54, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • L3X1 can you explain how it meets NORG and GNG as your edit summary implies? The only source that gives it in depth coverage is Cornell's equivalent of a PR press. The other sources are a passing mention in the US News profile of the school and a blog post about a conference they hosted from a Model UN training organization. The only independent professional journalism source in the article is about a high school going to a conference, not actually about the student organization. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:35, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really Tony? What you're saying is simply false. If you look at the sources there is more than that. From your original reasons to deletion to now, you've been underselling the sources in order to help your case. Do you have some kind of vendetta against this org? It seems like you're not arguing in good faith.
  • No, I don't have any sort of vendetta against this organization. I believe I randomly discovered it in the new pages backlog. I'm actually quite open to withdrawing an AfD if I have missed something, and have done so several occasions in the past. My only dog in this fight is that including non-notable organizations undermines the credibility of Wikipedia. A student organization with the level of coverage this organization has does not meet our guidelines, and they are typically deleted. L3X1 is the first non single-purpose account to express an opinion otherwise at this AfD, so I was asking them to elaborate given that their rationale was not very lengthy. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:08, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tony, I should be able to respond in less than half an hour. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 21:11, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tony, I'm not a single-purpose account. As for "to express an opinion otherwise," that's clearly a tactic to make it seem like the "consensus" is on your side and it's not appreciated. As previously mentioned, this is an argument based on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but since you brought it up by saying "A student organization with the level of coverage this organization has does not meet our guidelines, and they are typically deleted," I'll mention it again. Similar clubs at Georgetown and Yale, with a similar level of coverage (arguably less), have not been deleted, so again it seems you're lying to help your case. And agreeing with the previous anonymous poster, you continue to undersell sources in order to help your case. The independent professional journalism you mentioned talks about the student organization and the conference they run. Colestefan (talk) 21:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • TonyBallioni They are referenced (in the title) as their president being the chair of UNESCO. They have also done a lot of work with the UN 2, 3, 4.CMUN coverage 5. Combined with the various posting by sources affiliated with Cornell, I believe there is enough coverage to count as Notable. While it is very hard to completly satisfy both the independent requirement and the GNG, what I read both int he article and in other non-RS covers for it. Personally, I would edit out the Structure sections, as it is a unnessecary list. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 21:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • L3X1, that is Model United Nations: a student competition where high schoolers and college students that is not actually connected to the UN. The actual head of UNESCO is Irina Bokova. The other sources are either an advertisement for their conference, self-published (keynote speaker's personal website, and Odyssey.) The final source you provided is about a high school student winning an award, not about the organization itself. Thank you for responding (even if we disagree on this.) TonyBallioni (talk) 22:02, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, L3X1. I concur with your general sentiment and would also like to add, with regards to the GNG, that the organization is the successor to the organization that "attended the first [ever] Model Assembly of the League of Nations (at Syracuse University) in 1927 and subsequently hosted their own assembly, believed to be the second ever conference, the next year," backed up by two sources. I agree that the structure sections could be changed. Colestefan (talk) 22:06, 15 May 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 delete. There was not even an assertion of significance. —C.Fred (talk) 03:50, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Massimo Vignali

Massimo Vignali (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)

no citation India1277 (talk) 03:34, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 03:45, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 03:45, 29 April 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 History of Bielsko-Biała.  Sandstein  09:21, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bielsko municipal election, 1936

Bielsko municipal election, 1936 (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)

Non-notable local election. PROD was declined with the following reasoning: "Elections in German-speaking parts of Poland during the 1930s are of more historical interest than typical local elections, so this has plausible potential utility". No explanation on the Talk page as to why they are of greater historical interest.

The only source on the page is in German, and is a book with no preview. While this is perfectly within policy it is not helpful for the average enwiki editor in terms of determining notability. Can't find any other books mentioning these elections as being abnormally significant. Admittedly though I don't read German so there could be German sources I'm missing. Finally, I am not opposed to merging; if there were a general article about similar elections I would merge and redirect, but I don't even see any other similar local election articles. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:45, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:45, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm the admin who declined the PROD request on this. In response to "No explanation on the Talk page as to why [elections in German-speaking Poland in the 1930s] are of greater historical interest", I would have thought that would go without saying, but if you're really not aware of the background: "the rights of German-speakers in Eastern Europe" was the proximate cause of the Second World War, and these immediately pre-war election results are the closest thing we have to a survey of what level of support Naziism had in the areas Hitler claimed to be liberating. (In this particular instance, while support for pro-German parties outnumbered that for the pro-Poland bloc, the Young German Party—aka the Nazis—didn't have majority support in the German community.) I'm not saying these elections necessarily each need their own page, but the WP:PROD process is for uncontroversial deletions which, given the potential utility of this information, clearly isn't the case here. ‑ Iridescent 09:01, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:11, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Soman: Your thoughts as author? The article itself doesn't provide any context about the election. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 19:08, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What level of local government was Bielsko municipality? Based on other countries, if this was a second tier level of government, the article would almost certainly be deemed worth keeping. Number 57 21:07, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Notability isn't really the question when it comes to elections. I would be happy if the material could be merged into a larger article on the 1936 municipal elections, but I'd advice against deletion considering that the factoid given here can be difficult to recreate later. --Soman (talk) 13:12, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with the information, I just don't know that each individual election from the period is independently notable. If there had been an article to merge to, I would've done that. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:13, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:17, 13 May 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) 00:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maryland Doctrine of Exclusion (1638)

Maryland Doctrine of Exclusion (1638) (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)

No reliable, historical sources for the Doctrine itself. Quote does not sound contemporaneous at all. No mention in History of slavery in Maryland, which says "the first Africans were brought to Maryland in 1642, as 13 slaves at St. Mary's City, the first English settlement in the Province." Qzd (talk) 02:13, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The only source cited in this article is a broken link. The books where I have found the doctrine quoted appear to be from self-publishing companies, not authoritative sources. The language of the doctrine refers to "Blacks" although that would not have been the term likely used in colonial Maryland. In addition, the doctrine is attributed to the "Colony Council", whereas the legislature of Maryland at the time was known as the General Assembly (see [12]). No doubt many white Marylanders of the 17th century and later would have supported excluding black people from the fruits of white society, but I haven't seen a reliable source to confirm that they enacted that idea into a law in 1638. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:43, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
this site and several others have the exact quote. Does this have a genuine basis? I suspect that primary sources on colonial history are published, so that it should be possible to verify whether this is genuine or a hoax. However, I have to say that the terms "black" and "white" so not sound contemprorary. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I, too, have spent some time without finding a reliable source for this doctrine. I also spent some time going through the acts of the Maryland general Assembly in 1638 (which at that time comprised "the governor and council, and a general assembly of all freemen" [13]). I did not find any such act. I did find two acts which dealt with liberties of free Christians, indentured servants and slaves but neither contain language as in the article. An Act for the liberties of the people and An Act Limiting the times of Servants. I'm leaning towards failing WP:V or hoax. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 15:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I am pretty sure the "Act for the liberties of the people" is what is being referred to in this article. Here is a study guide which emphasizes the exclusion of slaves in the bill. George Washington Williams, in 1882, makes a related argument alse here. To add to the results found by IP, I would add the 1664 "An Act Concerning Negroes & other Slaves" which ensures slavery for the children of slave fathers (I didn't find an act to ensure slavery for the children of slave mothers, but if I looked harder, perhaps I would find it) and is considered the act that legalized slavery in Maryland. Any one of these existing laws could make for suitable wikipedia articles, I'm not sure. The proceedings of the colonial Maryland Assembly and a lot of other documents are searchable at the Maryland State Archives, if anyone wants to search further. Oddly, the History of Slavery in Maryland "starts" with the first record of slave arrivals from Africa in 1642, four years after the acts listed by IP. This start date is the date Maryland sources give as well. Perhaps mention of the 1638 acts should be made at History of Slavery in Maryland as the 1664 one already is. In any case, this title is OR and treating this as primarily a bill excluding rights rather than primarily a bill of rights is POV, so on both counts, I think the article should be deleted. I could see the article being renamed and rehabilitated as the article on the 1638 Act for liberties of the people, but my preference would be for a new article on that act. Smmurphy(Talk) 17:07, 1 May 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) 00:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AVI Sound International

AfDs for this article:
AVI Sound International (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 don't see it satisfying WP:COMPANY. No real improvement since the first Afd way back when. Even the one review states the company "has flown under the radar of the masses for so long". Clarityfiend (talk) 02:05, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:46, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:46, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:25, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- unsourced corporate spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I removed the unsourced claims and other puffery. Topic fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing++ 11:42, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The first AFD closed no consensus, and even that was primarily due to low participation rather than any particularly strong evidence of notability — the only keep vote present there was from an SPA who worked only on articles about loudspeaker manufacturers, with a rationale that amounted to pleading for time to strengthen the sourcing without actually showing any concrete evidence that improved sourcing was actually possible. And no improvement took place afterward either, as that participant made only four further edits to Wikipedia after that discussion concluded of which none were to this article. The depth of sourcing needed to make it notable simply is not there, and nothing stated in the article entitles it to a free presumption of notability in the absence of a WP:GNG pass. Bearcat (talk) 13:26, 5 May 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 Information management. Consensus is that this could be merged somewhere else, but there's no clear agreement where to and seemingly no great enthusiasm for doing it. This redirect is an interim solution.  Sandstein  10:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Data gathering and representation techniques

Data gathering and representation techniques (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)

No context for this at all, which means it contains pretty much no useful information. This is made worse by the completely mangled English ("The probability distribution techniques are utilized to portray that shapes compatible with the information created amid a quantitative risk analysis" - what?). I don't see that any of this article is useful. Black Kite (talk) 01:10, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I declined a Prod request on this and a number of similar articles that cited the rough English, as I did not believe it to be totally incomprehensible. But most of these articles don't have enough content to make them worth keeping. Additionally most lack sufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources to establish a credible claim to encyclopedic notability. It might be worth an attempt to combine some of the others into a single AfD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:01, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, tentatively, to some general project management article ...see my comment, next. --doncram 21:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The article has too general a title. It is apparently an attempt to cover the topic of data gathering and representation FOR PROJECT MANAGEMENT, but it doesn't say so in the title and further it fails to go into anything project-management related (perhaps where data is about tasks and sequencing matters and so on, as needed for PERT/CPM modeling). It reminds me that I participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (2nd nomination), where "Keep" was the decision taken, and correctly so. It was agreed that it is okay/good to cover, within Wikipedia, the body of knowledge about project management that has been developed. With caveat: as long as it is written and organized encyclopedically, and that includes using article titles that make sense. It could be reasonable to have an article like this split out of bigger articles, but I don't currently see where this fits in, and since it has little real content I would be inclined to merge it back to wherever it does fit in. If there is a whole series of articles that have been split out unnecessarily, or set up independently, could we discuss that here, now? Rather than encouraging a slew of AFDs on them, I bet they could be addressed by editing, perhaps involving some merger proposals. And there could be some overall organizing discussion at some central location, perhaps Talk:Project management? I don't see a WikiProject specifically focused on this topic area (it seems to fall within WikiProject Business, WikiProject Computing / Software, WikiProject Engineering, and WikiProject Systems. AFDs would be unnecessarily adversarial, I think. Ad Orientem, could you comment more please? --doncram 21:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:58, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:11, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:17, 13 May 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) feminist 02:26, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet potato salad

Sweet potato salad (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 that I can read the refs since my knowledge of Arabic is limited, but I see no claim of notability and I Wikipedia is not a recipe book TheLongTone (talk) 15:21, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TheLongTone. In fact, this salad is very popular in the Arab world, especially in the Maghreb and in the Levant specifically in Lebanon, as you can see there are around 330,000 searches about sweet potato salad in Arabic, I know it is not notability as Fattoush, Tabbouleh and the traditional Arab salad but there are many types of Arab salads. Wikipedia is not a recipe book. Well, I know that the article contains the ingredients, but I will be developing it in the future as other users will contribute to its development.--Canbel (talk) 15:47, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:00, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The references are easily readable for anyone using Google Translate: they do all seem to be of the online recipe or how-to-prepare video type. Maybe see if there are book references that describe it as a notable Arabic dish. Also puzzled as to why this doesn't exist in the Arabic language Wikipedia if it's so notable--or does it? Is there a Wikidata entry for this? I can find no match. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:05, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't know if it an Arab dish because it is also found in the sites in English, but it is not known what is its origin, even if it is a global dish, is still an Arab recipe. The Arabic Wikipedia lacks a lot of articles. Such the Matbucha available in eight languages but not available in Arabic. I suggest renaming it to Batata hulwa salad as to pronounce in Arabic.--Canbel (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, even searching for that name, I just can't see enough significant, non-trivial coverage to merit an article, sorry. Delete per nom. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:30, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG as reliable sources are lacking. The sources cited are, as noted above, recipes and/or "how to" articles/videos. Searches turn up mentions of versions of this dish in what may well be reliable sources, but which are clearly not the Middle Eastern version. Geoff | Who, me? 19:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is a general, encyclopedic topic. The existence of multiple recipes out there attests to the notability of the topic; we can have an article describing what it is, without descending into becoming a recipe book. The article can/should be expanded to cover non-Arabic versions of sweet potato salad. --doncram 20:42, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed Arabic sources into English sources. A reliable source of Arabesque book.--Canbel (talk) 00:10, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the links to recipes.--Canbel (talk) 12:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:GNG as reliable sources are lacking. I like Arabic food and wanted to Keep the article if possible. It does not seem like sweet potato salad is a common dish name like the far more common "macaroni and cheese". There were too many slight variations of the term sweet potato salad in the sources given (such as "moroccan-ish sweet potato sunshine salad"). It seems like it is not a very popular/notable food dish. Knox490 (talk) 14:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:54, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:10, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A quick internet search reveals plenty of articles on the dish and/or its variants which more than clearly establishes notability; it's also a dish that someone might hear a mention of on TV or the radio and think, "What's that?" and do an internet search wanting to find the answer. Libertybison (talk) 22:05, 8 May 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 Forewick Holm. Mackensen (talk) 02:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sovereign State of Forvik

AfDs for this article:
Sovereign State of Forvik (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)

Completing nomination on behalf of an IP editor, whose rationale is below. On the merits, I have no opinion. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The related article is Stuart "Captain Calamity" Hill, which has also been nominated for deletion. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would favour a merge of both articles to the islands page Forvik, there is more information than needed with the two pages that are for deletion. --Pennine rambler (talk) 18:24, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As with the Stuart Hill page, this is a non-state created and recognised only by the author of this page. It is delusion. Obviously for deletion. 109.151.239.156 (talk) 10:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Stuart "Captain Calamity" Hill. At the point that this (second) nomination for deletion was made there was a lot of dubious material in the article including many overstated claims. I have gone through and cleaned a lot of it up. The content had also been duplicated across several connected articles- Forewick Holm, the Sovereign State of Forvik and Hill himself. With some of the poor-quality material stripped back I think that this does not meet the proposed criteria for a standalone article that is set out at WikiProject Micronations. There was some coverage that went beyond the local area- several UK newpapers ran stories. Some of these were about "Forwick". Although the starting point for coverage of Hill's activities had been several years before this with his widely-reported nautical misadventures in 2001. By the time was inviting press attention in 2008 he already appeared eccentric and had a nickname. Some of the coverage was also reporting the story along the lines of "Hill plans to...". But, after a burst of coverage mid-2008 (much of which was making fun of him) there was little further coverage beyond local sources. I think there are various reasons: it became apparent that Hill might not actually own the rocky outcrop, it was not particularly habitable, his stated plans weren't plausible and his efforts appeared to be geared towards seeking confrontation with the authorities. The reports of Forvick are all essentially dealing with the fantasy of a single person, Mr Hill. There was some further mentions of Forvick in the papers after 2008, but these were appearing as part of reports about Hill's antics, protests and encounters with the court system. Looking back at the 2008 discussions on the article's talk page and at AfD it seems clear that there were several editors who could articulate reasons why the material shouldn't stand alone as an article. The case for keeping this content as a separate article hasn't improved over the past 10 years. Drchriswilliams (talk) 13:38, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Whether the coverage of Forvik is in connection to Hill's "antics"or not is immaterial. The WP:GNG asks for significant coverage in independent, reliable sources and this article has sources demonstrating such. That's all that's required. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:40, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No AFDs should be done "on behalf of" someone else, which wastes AFD editors' time and attention, with no accountability. Deletion nominator is UltraExactZZ, who presumes to have no view of their own, and provides no rationale for deletion, should be accountable for this waste of time. --doncram 15:28, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Completing nominations for IP editors is a legitimate part of an admin's job. Rather than a delusion, as the IP nominator calls it, I consider this micronation a fringe assertion. As I said in the previous AfD, a merge to Forewick Holm makes sense. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:22, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Merge to Forewick Holm. The article seems to have plenty of sources and could exist as a stand-alone article meeting GNG. Forewick Holm certainly meets WP:GEOLAND and will unquestionably continue to exist without challenge. Since it would be very short article with everything related to "Mr. Calamity" stripped out, it's probably best to cover his antics there to minimize overlap. I don't see a good reason for a separate article, especially due to the fringe nature of it. MB 04:18, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge a condensed version to Forewick Holm. There is justification for keeping two articles on one, uninhabited island among the many uninhabited (List of Shetland islands) islands in the Shetlands.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:45, 15 May 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 no consensus. North America1000 01:52, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Parris

Ben Parris (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)

Of the seven references currently provided in this article, the subject is not mentioned anywhere in references 1 or 2; #3 and #4 are both profiles rather than news articles; #5 is a link to a publisher's website; #6 is a primary source; and #7 is a personal blog without an editorial staff or oversight. There is lots of evidence that this person exists, but there does not appear to be enough evidence to substantiate a notability claim. Article was created by an SPA. KDS4444 (talk) 20:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have to agree that there's limited evidence of notability. The main item would be the author's book, Wade of Aquitaine, except it was self-published 9 years ago, and despite claims of initially being highly ranked on the Kindle, only has 22 reviews at this date. If you take away the book, it's even harder to demonstrate Mr. Parris' notability. I'm putting a delete vote on the book article as well. Timtempleton (talk) 23:43, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a biography of Ben Parris, which can be found at this link--(one of the references): http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?Ben_Parris He is notable, not only for his novel, but he has won national awards. SFrancis1608 (talk) 11:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please provide a link to any reference that mentions a national award and Mr. Parris' name. The article as it stands only asserts this, but provides no evidence of it being true. KDS4444 (talk) 14:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What do you do when the online source that the article relied upon for years is no longer maintained? There must be many articles for which references aren't maintained--does this mean that they are no longer notable? I can provide you with a greatly reduced version of a bit of the information, about the Unisys Prize for Online Science Education 2002: http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=edtech&month=0204&week=a&msg=pLLX/s639z6aldCAVzBdgg&user=&pw= but the reference wasn't maintained. SFrancis1608 (talk) 19:28, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Director of the "Long Island Museum of Science & Technology" certainly sounds like a claim to notability, except I can't fina bluselink. The place doee have a webpage [14] but no gNews hits [15], and to have been subsumed by or merged into the Cradle of Aviation Museum. Taking a fresh tack, I ran a Proqeust news archive search on "Ben Parris" Bingo! He and his museum were notable, Newsday: "LI Science Museum's Parris Becomes a Space Ambassador" Jackson, Tommi, 07 Oct 2002: p. A34. [16]' "COOL2KNOW," Washington Post; BY CARYN EVE MURRAY. Newsday, 13 Feb 2008: B.3. , [17]. More sources found. There's enough here to keep, article needs a good editing/editor.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:08, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:19, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:29, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:18, 13 May 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. SOFTDELETE per relatively low participation herein. North America1000 02:01, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rana Roy

Rana Roy (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)

Singer and actress who seems to be notable at first glance, but it isn't clear that she actually meets any of the criteria in WP:MUSICBIO or WP:NACTOR. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:54, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
She does meet the guidelines. Is currently still a working actor in numerous notable TV shows with significant roles. You can see her on the TV show Underground currently airing now as well as upcoming on a very significant role on NBC's The Night Shift. Previous to this she has also appeared in NBC's The Michael J Fox Show, ABC's Black Box, MTV's Mary+Jane as guest starring roles and Switched at Birth as a recurring role. The page needs updating which will be done in the coming weeks. Please take this off the Articles for deletion. A2b3sing (talk) 21:17, 23 April 2017 (UTC) — A2b3sing (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Appearances and one-off roles aren't "significant". Not all recurring roles are significant either. Please specify exactly what criterion in WP:NACTOR this person meets, and why. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:25, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:18, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:09, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:16, 13 May 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 clear that this subject does not meet the notability guidelines. As for redirecting/merging, there is no target to merge to and the current article does not mention the film in any detail worth creating a stand-alone article from. If and when an article about the film is created, this can be recreated as a redirect. And if someone really needs the text to create such an article about the film, I'm willing to provide a copy for this purposes if asked. Regards SoWhy 12:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eunice Wu

Eunice Wu (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)

Non notable film maker. No mentions in press, search pulls up non RS primaries, fails GNG and all 4 criterion of WP:NFILMMAKER L3X1 (distant write) 16:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to figure out whether it could redirect to some article regarding California Proposition 8 (2008) or Post-election events of Proposition 8 (2008) but it is not mentioned in any of the articles. Same with film festivals. If it won some film festival award maybe it could redirect there? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:13, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:13, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:14, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:16, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 13:26, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 4D 2K and a move.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 18:22, 10 May 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 no consensus. After being relisted thrice, multiple dispositions about whether or not to keep, redirect or delete the article have been presented. Multiple cities experienced record breaking temperatures as well. (non-admin closure) Jax 0677 (talk) 01:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Pakistan heat wave

2017 Pakistan heat wave (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)

Yeah, another extreme weather event. Can't see that this one is particularly notable. TheLongTone (talk) 15:06, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
After two weeks, we have not seen reports of large-scale "death and destruction". —Patrug (talk) 00:38, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:15, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article indicates that "A severe heat wave with temperatures as high as 50°C hit Pakistan.." That is 122 degrees fahrenheit for American editors. The title of “Record breaking Heat wave of April 2017 in Pakistan” is unencyclopedic. Encyclopedic titles are Detective Joe Friday like “Just the facts, Ma’am” titles. The article should remain retitled “2017 Pakistan heat wave”. A 2015 Pakistan heat wave that hit 45 49 celsius killed 800 2,000 people so there is no telling how many this heatwave will kill. The heatwave is currently building as reported by major news sources.[18] [19] Major news source reporting and the severity of the heat wave give the article WP:GNG. desmay (talk) 01:12, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Those "major news sources" do not support the current content of the article. After two weeks, we have not seen reports of an unusually severe death toll. —Patrug (talk) 00:38, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Interesting enough" is not the criterion for stand-alone Wikipedia articles, and in the last two weeks the article's content has not been "updated" at all. —Patrug (talk) 00:38, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Exceptional all aspects of society affecting events are ofc notable. However, these kind of articles may be merged into one, if reports are scarce. And there may be future articles or studies discussing impacts (mortality, power plants, water, crops etc). prokaryotes (talk) 12:52, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
After two weeks, "reports are scarce" indeed, and we still see no evidence of "exceptional" impacts affecting "all aspects of society". Yes, this should be "merged into one" location: List of extreme weather records in Pakistan. —Patrug (talk) 00:38, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To assess latest sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Now 15 of the 17 sentences are just recitations of temperature measurements from local news sources that routinely report the weather every day. These sentences provide no significant info beyond the table of recorded temperatures. The only non-local source, a premature story from Al Jazeera, does not support any of the content in the Wikipedia article. The only claimed fatalities, 4 unknown seniors, with unknown causes of death, are not reliably attributed to the heat wave. This is simply not encyclopedic content for a stand-alone article following WP:GNG, WP:SUSTAINED, and our WP:NOTNEWSPAPER policy against routine news reporting. Nothing changes the above recommendations to merge into List of extreme weather records in Pakistan, which is where such events are properly recorded. —Patrug (talk) 05:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, or Keep - I would argue that a temp of 124 F is notable per se, and should be included in the contemporary encyclopedia of record. Where it goes doesn't matter as long as it's searchable. Bearian (talk) 00:08, 24 May 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 no consensus. No further discussion despite three relists (a !vote without explanation does not count as discussion). The assumption of G5 eligibility is not sufficient grounds for deletion and other reasons for deletion were not mentioned either by the nominator or the sole delete-!vote. SoWhy 10:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Goddard

Graham Goddard (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)

Page previously deleted as unambiguous promotion. Was recreated by a sockpuppet, which escaped notice for a while and has had enough edits by unrelated users to warrant a discussion. The recreated version is substantially similar to the deleted version, though not identical. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete under WP:G5. With the exception of a sole IP edit (quite possibly block evasion itself) all other edits to the page have been typo fixes, dab fixes, template additions and other minor edits. There's nothing that wasn't created by the sockpuppet that's worth keeping. Yunshui 雲水 12:43, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and fix the promotion as necessary, as we could use more coverage of Trinidadian artists. Hyperbolick (talk) 15:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:07, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:07, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:14, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:09, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:15, 13 May 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 ZDT's Amusement Park. Kurykh (talk) 00:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Switchback (rollercoaster)

Switchback (rollercoaster) (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)

Merge into its parent article, ZDT's Amusement Park. Very little published information available, which is not likely to grow at this point (as is the case with roller coasters which get the most press at the time of release). This demonstrates low notability as well. There was a misconception years ago in WP:WikiProject Amusement Parks that every coaster needed to have its own article. That is definitely not the case. GoneIn60 (talk) 10:04, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge [was "Keep, tentatively"]. There is significant information in the largish infobox, which I fear would be lost if a merge was done (the suggested target article has one infobox for the overall park, and I suspect the merger would not add an infobox for this one ride. There is a significant assertion of notability for this ride, as having the world record for steepest wooden roller-coaster. I don't see what would be gained by forcing a merger. A friendly alternative to an AFD would have been to edit at the suggested target article, demonstrating what would be done there, and asking at Talk page(s) about merging, even making a merger proposal. An AFD is by definition unfriendly, is headed towards forcing a change which would destroy the vision that other editor(s) were trying to develop. Here, the topic seems significant and I don't see that a forcing-type judgement by external editors will help development of content. Note, a decision to "Keep" here still allows constructive discussion and perhaps a merger to take place, by discussion at article Talk pages. --doncram 01:46, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:12, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
doncram, I appreciate you taking the time to weigh in with your thoughts. I think as experienced editors, we realize there is often more than one way to approach a situation like this one. I would generally agree that discussion on the talk page of either the article in question or the target article of the merger is a good alternative (or at least a good first step prior to an AfD). In articles dealing with lesser-known topics that generate very little traffic, going that route often results in a fruitless endeavor. Currently, the amusement park article as well as the coaster article average less than 10 views per day over the last 3 months (9 and 6, respectively). Fully aware of this, I chose to take it straight to an AfD. It is a good point, however, and I'm glad you raised it.
As for the concern that significant details in the infobox would be lost in a merger, I should point out that this can be accomplished in as little as two sentences. Here's an example of what can be merged into ZDT's Amusement Park:
On October 17, 2015, the park introduced Switchback, a wooden shuttle roller coaster that features a record-breaking, 87-degree incline. Manufactured by The Gravity Group, the 63-foot-tall (19 m) ride drops riders 58 feet (18 m) and reaches speeds of up to 40 mph (64 km/h).
All significant details would be retained, while the irrelevant specs – capacity, # of trains, etc. – would be dropped. Many roller coaster articles cite RCDB.com for those statistics, and they are rarely reported in other sources. If they are desired after the merge, the amusement park article can be modified by interested editors to include a ride chart with detailed descriptions, such as the tables on display at Kings Island#Areas and attractions.
A good litmus test of when a roller coaster should have its own article is the amount of coverage in the days, weeks, and months leading up to and following its release, particularly outside of its jurisdiction. This is a crucial period of time when editors can glean information about marketing, reaction, and other aspects which help demonstrate a reasonable level of public engagement and anticipation. There just isn't much outside of a general announcement that's regurgitated in a few sources, so future expansion beyond a stub isn't likely. That crucial window of time has come and gone. Unfortunately for coasters in this situation, expansion isn't possible unless an accident or unexpected event that receives national attention occurs on the ride. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:52, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for extensive response, changing !vote to "Merge" above. --doncram 21:19, 29 April 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) 01:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stevie Lynn Jones

Stevie Lynn Jones (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)

Seems too soon to have an article. Her only borderline-notable role was in Crisis, which unfortunately got cancelled after just 13 episodes. All her other roles were single episode guest appearances, brief cameos, and short films. She has not won or been nominated for any notable awards yet and coverage is minimal at the moment. If she gains notability in the future, someone can always recreate this article The Legendary Ranger (talk) 21:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:47, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:48, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:48, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:48, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:08, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:15, 13 May 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2017_April_29&oldid=777788460"