Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 June 20

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 19 June	21 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:52, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Klitenic

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

Lawyer with virtually no coverage outside trade press and where the sourcing isn't independent. Being general counsel for a government agency doesn't make one notable. Likely commissioned spam excluded by WP:NOTSPAM as a type of native advertising, so notability is a secondary concern anyway. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:06, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:40, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:10, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY DELETE: as blatant PROMOTIONALISM, whether by individual himself or someone in his orbit with a COI. Quis separabit? 18:56, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet either general notability or notability for politicians. The position he holds, while doubtless important, is not even in the line of succession for the DNI, so it probably doesn't qualify him under NPOL. The majority of the source citations on the page are not to reliable, third-party sources, and the ones that are reliable are mostly just brief name checks saying who he is and that he is being appointed; not the significant coverage needed for notability. PohranicniStraze (talk) 16:44, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Anthony Fantano. Sandstein 07:03, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The New CALassic

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

There are no reliable sources about this mixtape. The sputnikmusic review is by a user, not a staff or emertus, and all of the citations actually about the mixtape are from a primary source of the mixtape (audiomack), annotations from RapGenius, and twitter, which aren't independent sources. The two independent sources cited here aren't about the mixtape. The Spin one is about 3Pac and not the mixtape, and the other is about the making of the original instrumental that's not officially related to the mixtape. Overall, this is not a notable release and at best is a redirect to Anthony Fantano. editorEهեইдအ😎 16:08, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 21:36, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the artist's article and protect. No reliable sources that significantly discuss the album exist. The editor whose username is Z0 12:17, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:10, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:06, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Aaron

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

Notability concerns for this Youtube performer. I see nothing other than the one article [1] in English; I have not attempted WP:BEFORE in Tamil.

I believe the previous AfD was for a different person of the same name, but am not certain. The subject of the article has a Youtube channel here (Tamil), there is another Joshua Aaron performing in Hebrew. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:44, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:30, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:30, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability, fails WP:GNG & WP:NMUSIC. Just a run-on-the-mill YouTuber. The editor whose username is Z0 12:05, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:07, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Enigma^msg 23:43, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Woodcoin

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

Poorly sourced article about a non-notable cryptocurrency. MER-C 20:39, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 22:39, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 22:39, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 22:39, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only 2 sources, neither independent (own website, an "exchange" website). The more I dig the worse it looks, e.g. "Funkenstein the Dwarf". Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:10, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:07, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete awful spam. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:24, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The name of this page might be a plausible redirect to something. I ran a search for "wooden coins" (ie coins made of wood), and found this, for example, which claims that wooden coins were used in the Byzantine Empire and elsewhere. The expression "wood coins" does appear in sources in this sense (eg this). I suppose the page name might be a plausible typo for "wood coin". On the face of it, "wooden coin" and "wood coin" should redirect, and I can't understand why they don't. James500 (talk) 06:58, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Don't take no wooden nickels" is probably the best known usage along these lines, but I doubt if we need an article on it, or on wooden coins in general, AFAIK they were something like a coupon used for price discounts at an occasional event. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:37, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Enigma^msg 23:44, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren McMurchie

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL as she hasn't played for a senior national team or in a game between 2 clubs from fully pro leagues. Fails WP:GNG as none of the sources are anything other than routine coverage. Dougal18 (talk) 20:18, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Dougal18 (talk) 20:18, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:43, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:44, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:46, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:58, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Govvy (talk) 18:01, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. As noted above, sources in the article are routine reporting or primary sources which do not cover the player in detail. Fenix down (talk) 14:22, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:11, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Novi.digital

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

Promotional article about a non-notable SEO company. Likely native advertising: article creator Mwkilburn has no edits outside this topic. MER-C 20:09, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:48, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:48, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possibly speedy. Does not meet WP:NCORP; promo 'cruft. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:25, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:12, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Maher (lawyer)

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

No significant notability, outside perhaps of legal trade press. Article is (self?) promo bumpf. Heliotom (talk) 11:04, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - disclaimer, I saw the article because I was responding to a request for protection as anonymous users were removing the AFD template. I think there's enough referencing and independent sources (including The Times, Legal500, and Legal Business) to establish notability. Fish+Karate 12:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:50, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:50, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:50, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've cleaned the article up and removed the most egregious bumpf. I still don't think he really passes GNG, there's only one non trade press article, but as nearly every source referenced is behind a paywall it's hard to tell for sure. It still reads like a CV, which ain't a good sign.Heliotom (talk) 10:51, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notable. Satisfies GNG. There is no "legal trade press". Law is an academic discipline studied at universities and the Inns of Court, and a function of government performed by Parliament and the courts. Neither could be described as a trade. A solicitor is a court officer (ie a government official) [2], not a tradesman. Further, there is no sharp distinction between practioners and academics in this field because they are all "learned" and competent to write works of scholarship (at least in theory). Hence the textbooks are largely written by judges and advocates. Further, legal publications are aimed at university professors and students, and at judges and other government officials, litigants and anyone potentially affected by the law (which is probably everyone eventually) as much as at advocates. Traditionally they have been aimed at the educated lay public who happen to be interested as well. In any event "trade press" is not a valid argument against notability. Nothing in GNG or BIO supports this concept, which happens to be nonsense and clearly has a tendency to "smear" valid scholarly sources and is therefore a menace to the project. There are other s′′ources in GBooks and elsewhere (search for eg "Paul Maher"+solicitor), not presently included in the article. In any event, The Times is such an exalted source that it normally suffices by itself. James500 (talk) 08:22, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There certainly is a legal trade press, even if you're too pompous to acknowledge it. https://www.google.ae/search?q="legal+trade+press"&oq="legal+trade+press"&aqs=chrome..69i57j0.7215j0j7&client=ms-android-samsung-gs-rev1&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8.

The idea that a single mention in the Times qualifies a subject automatically for GNG is laughable. Heliotom (talk) 09:28, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(1) The number of sources that contain the words "legal trade press" is very small for this purpose. If a "legal trade press" really existed, we would expect a much larger number of sources, since there is a large body of literature on this area of bibliography. At best, this looks like a very small minority viewpoint. (2) Those sources don't look particularly reliable. There is nothing there by, for example, law librarians who are recognised as experts in legal bibliography, as far as I can see. Moreover, the sources are generally passing comments of a kind that don't look like they were intended to be particularly precise, much less to assert the existence of a major phenomena in a rigorous way that we could take seriously. There is very little by way of attempts at a definition, and no definition that includes biography. It is generally not even clear exactly what these sources are talking about. (3) The expression "legal trade press" seems to be a neologism that lacks sufficient sources to prove that such a thing really exists or even to establish what the expression means with a tolerable degree of precision. (4) This neologism appears to me to be a self-contradiction. The law is not a trade: [3] In fact, there are a stack of really convincing first rate sources saying that a profession is not a trade: [4]. Accordingly, there cannot be a "legal trade" to possess its own press. The neologism is nonsense. QED. (5) Ultimately, all of this is academic. "Trade press" is not a valid argument for deletion. There is nothing in the relevant notability guidelines to support such an argument. It has no basis in policy or guideline and this nomination is a waste of time. James500 (talk) 14:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go, from such an exalted source as The Times. That's all you need apparently. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/law-firm-set-for-collapse-after-troubled-takeover-x5xpp7xfh

all the article suggest at the moment is that he holds or has held a couple of senior positions in a couple of law firms. That does not make an individual notable

Heliotom (talk) 15:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC) Also, for fun, here are some famously unreliable sources. You're right, it clearly doesn't exist[reply]

The New York Times [5]

Bloomberg [6]

The American Bar Association [7]

The University of Law [8]

The mere appearance of an expression in a tiny number of sources does not prove anything. Especially when there are other sources that disagree, and provide detailed explanations as to why they disagree. Some people speak very loosely and vaguely, and it is not even clear that the tiny number of sources that use that expression are talking about the same thing. The way in which you are conflating those sources is precisely the sort of "original synthesis" that we don't allow on this project. If all those sources referred to someone called "John Smith" without giving any further explanation, the fact they use the same name would not prove they were talking about the same person. "Legal trade press" is a perfect example of an expression that is so vague that it is almost gibberish. The NYT and Bloomberg are not particularly compelling sources for this. They are not as reliable for this as, for example, a medical, legal or library science publication. The University of Law is a blog (that my browser will not load). The ABA Journal is just one article of the many articles by different authors in that periodical, and in several other articles authors writing in the ABA Journal say that the law is not a trade: [9]. In other articles they say the law is a profession: [10] (meaning I may now be able to invoke other sources that say professions generally are not trades). I could explain each of your sources away as a "slip of the pen". None of them attempts a justification or explanation of their use of the word "trade". They just name drop. And since there are lots of sources that contradict yours, the most you are doing is proving the existence of a (POV) body of opinion, that is not even established to be the majority opinion. James500 (talk) 20:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Denying the existence of something does cause it to cease to exist. Especially when what you’re essentially trading in is semantics from a past age where people cared much more about the difference between a profession and a trade. You’ll note everything from the ABA you cite comes from the 50s to 70s.

what you’ve not done while getting your knickers in a twist about the legal trade press is shown any real reason why Maher is notable. I don’t see much depth of coverage beyond saying he hold a senior positions in a law firm. That is not inherently notable.Heliotom (talk) 05:23, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Past age? No, not true. Here's one from 2015. James500 (talk) 08:35, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've found the trade press article, so hopefully we can get back to the actual point.Heliotom (talk) 09:16, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:05, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment yes I wouldn't have said I'd have taken James5000' argument. In any case, Industry publications make up a high proportion here. Working out which ones are posher versions of trade magazines and which ones are closer of focused news/journals (if any) is fairly important. This is particularly difficult without access to any of the sources. The Times source does read as if it is launching into SIGCOV rather than a summary piece, so AGF-ing that seems like a good source. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:08, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is a complete misconception. Most legal periodicals are essentially scholarly publications that are primarily interested in the law itself (eg legislation and case law). Dismissing legal periodicals as "industry publications" would involve dismissing publications such as the Cambridge Law Journal, published by the University of Cambridge. That is what is being collaterally attacked here. James500 (talk) 20:53, 12 June 2018 (UTC) I think I should also point out again that "trade press" is not a valid argument for deletion. Trade magazines are reliable independent secondary sources for the purpose of GNG. There is nothing in GNG that allows them to be rejected. Nothing. And that is the bottom line. James500 (talk) 21:06, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly you can only claim collateral source attacks if I don't happen to have included any consideration of classifications and quality. That is not the case. More importantly, "Trade magazines are reliable independent secondary sources" - skipping past the irony of the negatives of classifying everything in one go, that's a very broad statement. It is also false. It depends on the trade magazine, obviously, but many fail to be independent as they want to benefit the companies they talk about, and a heavily overlapping group are not reliable because that requires giving incomplete/incorrect facts. Nosebagbear (talk)

p.s. "And that is the bottom line." - not a great finisher for a discussion based process even if you'd made a Socrates slapdown. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:54, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

p.p.s Lastly - none of my response sets out which sources are which group, it hasn't yet been made clear. Why not pick a couple of the strongest non-news sources and make clear why they're so good. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:54, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's precisely one source - the Times - that is a reliable source, which is about what you would expect for the London office head of a mid-ranked US law firm. The reason we don't regard "trade press" (call it what you will) as generally being WP:RS is because most such publications are tiny affairs, run on a shoestring without fact checking, and are read only by a handful of people. Fiachra10003 (talk) 11:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Fiachra10003: The Law Society Gazette is the official gazette of a quango. It has a circulation of well over one hundred thousand. Its circulation approaches that of a national newspaper in the UK and significantly greater than that of national newspapers in, for example, Australia. There are something like 130,000 solicitors in England and Wales and they all get a copy of the gazette by virtue of having a practice certificate. Further, university (law) libraries generally have it, and the academics and students read it. To claim that is read by no one is precisely the sort of collateral attack that I was complaining about above. It is not run on a shoestring with no fact checking either. The publications of the governing bodies of professions are not trade press and generally have a level of scholarship at least equal to that the publications of universities (source: Piedmont College library website). As far as I can see, the Law Society Gazette is (within its area of expertise) actually a more reliable source than The Times. As for the claim that trade magazines are generally unreliable, Piedmont College library again says you are wrong. It says that trade publications are difficult to distinguish from scholarly publications. The University of Rhode Island library website talks as though scholarly and professional publications were entirely equivalent. I'm sure I could dig up more sources that say that the "trade" smear is nonsense. As for the rest of the sources in the article, there is no evidence that they are as you describe them. You claim no one reads them, but you have not produced their Audit Bureau of Circulation figures or OCLC library holdings or anything like that to prove it. As I have pointed out, the law is a very large profession in England (about 150,000 practising solicitors and barristers plus academics, students, judges, court officials, and many government departments; also many businesses are affected) and you would not expect the most popular titles to have a small readership. I should also point out that circulation is not a test of reliability. If it was, the Daily Mail (which we have banned) would be the most reliable source in England, and academic journals published by universities would be amongst the least reliable. The primary test for reliability is the credentials of the author, in which case the Law Society Gazette, at least, is an unequivocally reliable source. James500 (talk) 14:37, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fiachra10003's comment is only true in certain situations - trade mags having a biased purpose is a more common reason for concern. It was never claimed by any of us that large readership meant reliable source, so arguments meant defeating that are somewhat wasted.
You aren't going to manage a universal overturning of trade (or at least legal trade) publications judgements here for several reasons a) We don't have the consensus capability to grant it b) it's deliberately reticent but permissive as it stands, encouraging a judge on individual basis. Sourcing the basis for judging comparable sourcing is odd - not necessarily wrong, but tricky, since if that is allowed we risk a recursive loop as we judge what basis (pour example) the Piedmont College library has to make sourcing judgements that override other viewpoints. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:20, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Law Society Gazette is, in my view, a reliable source, but the article only mentions Maher in passing: "Rowe's head of corporate, Paul Maher, retains his role." WP:BASIC states that if "...the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." The Gazette is exactly that type of "trivial coverage". Fiachra10003 (talk) 17:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, for many years I managed a budget that included a significant expense line for trade publications. Every year, the question of which publications to spend it on was a challenge. Many such journals had only one or two reporters who would print what you told them, especially if you were spending several thousand dollars on subscriptions - and sometimes would print stuff that was completely made up. The reason we don't rely on these types of publications is because they lack the personnel and processes needed to report reasonably reliable facts. The New York Times, mentioned above, does have such processes: multiple layers of fact checkers and editors as well as mechanisms for correcting their errors. And they still often get it wrong. Fiachra10003 (talk) 17:27, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:BIASED "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective". We can't accept Fiachra10003's personal knowledge unless it has been published in a reliable source or can otherwise be supported by some kind of verifiable evidence (WP:IAC). In particular, we cannot assume that any personal experience that editor might have had is typical. According to The Brief, which seems to be a spin off of The Times, the periodicals called The Lawyer and Legal Week are actually the leading publications in their field. Reliable sources in GBooks and GScholar and elsewhere do cite them. They are included in Whittaker's Almanac. The Lawyer has been in publication since 1987. I think it would be better to find out how many reporters these publications have, than to make generalisations about the number that others have. I can't see anything in WP:RS that would justify the rejection of any of these sources or trade publications in general, without the production of verifiable supporting evidence. I can produce instances of periodicals said to be trade magazines being of demonstrably superior quality, such as this. James500 (talk) 14:39, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cant see anything in the article that indicates him being noteworthy for a stand-alone article, just one of many. MilborneOne (talk) 12:30, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. GNG does not require that a topic be unique or even unusual. "One of many" is not an argument that has any basis in policy or guideline. And it is not even factually accurate in Maher's case. The reality is that he is remarkable and exceptional in that he is was head of a massive billion pound global firm (Mayer Brown) and is now vice chairman of a similar sized firm. There are very few such people in Britain. As a general rule of thumb, these things tend to become notable around the $100 million dollar level, never mind ten to twenty times that figure. James500 (talk) 15:57, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Per Fiachra.∯WBG^converse 04:43, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:21, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Stench of advocacy here and fails WP:GNG. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:23, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:13, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Glaenzer

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

Delete Non-notable person. Retired from prior work and notability isn't inherited and therefore the companies they invested in do not confer notability on the investment firm. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP Misterpottery (talk) 10:33, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 10:54, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 10:54, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 10:54, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is pretty rubbish as is, but he passes GNG due to the SA case: Bloomberg, BBC, London Evening Standard (meh on RS terms), Tech Crunch, Telegraph, etc. NOTINHEIRTED is a poor essay, and NCORP doesn't cover BLPs. BLPCRIME is a consideration here for the rewrite. Thanks, ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 11:00, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:BLPCRIME would advocate for total deletion given insignficance of person Misterpottery (talk) 21:16, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. He was convicted. the relatively unknown part has no bearing on notability. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:39, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So anyone with any conviction should have a page? That doesn't make sense. @L3X1 and L3X1: Misterpottery (talk) 12:07, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it doesn't make sense. I didn't say "anyone with conviction can have a page". BLPCRIME does not cover notability, it is about the legal responsibility of editors to not further damaging hearsay. As Glaenzer is convicted in a court of law, BLPcrime does nto apply in this situation, and I apologize for even bringing it up in the first place. My bad.

Delete - I would think that absolutely everybody would be happy if this article disappeared. If WP:BLPCRIME doesn't do it, try WP:IAR. I just don't see how having this article improves the encyclopedia. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:57, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What? "having article…improve encyclopedia"? What's that supposed to mean? AFD≠cleanup. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:26, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:ANYBIO; notability is not inherited from the notable company. WP:BLP concerns as well, since the crime does not rise to the level of encyclopedia notability. Better off deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:11, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:15, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Roa

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

Founded a non-notable company. Promotional article for a run-of-the-mill businessman. Not finding independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails GNG. Edwardx (talk) 15:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 07:13, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a truly non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:17, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:07, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:15, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Allore Company

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

Non-notable business, fails WP:ORG, no lasting notability established by the references which are merely standard local news items. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:38, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 07:15, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:27, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enigma^msg 19:03, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is not noteworthy of wikipedia inclusion. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:55, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, and withdrawn by nominator. ~Anachronist (talk) 13:18, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PCO Imaging

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

Article created by a new account, which immediately created an article that gives the appearance of notability without actually providing any evidence as required by WP:CORP. No in-depth coverage, just small mentions here and there. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:42, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 17:10, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per WP:ORGCRIT Reference from the book is notable "Hyperspectral Imaging for Food Quality Analysis and Control" and few others References describe about the the article to fulfil Primary criteria Mangodona (talk) 19:55, 12 June 2018 (UTC) — Mangodona (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
WP:ORGCRIT requires significant coverage in multiple sources. That book, and other sources, provide just a trivial mention of PCO Imaging, not significant in-depth coverage of the company. As a paid editor, you have a conflict of interest. You really should have created this in draft space and submitted it for review, which is the only venue available on Wikipedia for editors with a conflict of interest to publish articles here. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:00, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Seems notable in few referencesWP:SECONDARY keep for now Heshiv (talk) 06:33, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Heshiv: Which references, exactly? I'm willing to withdraw this nomination if a convincing case can be made beyond a simple assertion. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:52, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Anachronist: Ref this one i found Heshiv (talk) 14:02, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Heshiv: That's a product announcement that gives zero coverage to the company, and not even much coverage of the product. That won't count. Anything else? ~Anachronist (talk) 13:46, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Anachronist: I found few more (significant coverage) reliable independent references but most of them are in german but published by German Newspaper Mittelbayerische Zeitung1 , 2, 3 and Nasa is also using their technology check this one Refso kindly have a look Heshiv (talk) 05:47, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Anachronist: Maybe also that article from Fairchild Camera and Instrument [11] or that scientifc one: [12] .. maybe we should really keep that article --Lauranos (talk) 12:49, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Lauranos: No. Both of those were authored by an employee of the company (Gerhard Holst), therefore they are both primary sources, which don't count toward notability. We need significant coverage by reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Neither of those two sources are independent. I ask again, what secondary sources provide any significant in-depth coverage of the company as required by WP:CORPDEPTH? ~Anachronist (talk) 13:46, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Anachronist: @Heshiv: Another additional References: The New Econonmy, Mittelbayerische Zeitung [13], Innovations Report, Brandeins, Institute for Laser Science: [14]... Keep--Lauranos (talk) 08:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK let's review the new sources provided in the most recent comments:
Mittelbayerische 1: Short regional coverage about a non-notable (as described by the article) award, in which it is unclear whether the contestants were students. I wouldn't say this confers notability on the company.

Mittelbeyerische 2: Regional coverage of the founder and the company, this is a good source. Bavaria is a small region, however; national coverage would be preferable.

Mittelbeyeriche 3: This is decent coverage of the technology PCO produces, with some coverage of the company. Again, regional publication. This source is OK, but it's a local source to the company so such coverage is routine.

NASA: Coverage of a product, not the company. This doesn't count.

The New Econonmy: This is an interview. It's a primary source, not independent coverage.

Innovations Report: This is a company and product profile written by the company. Not independent coverage.

Brand Eins: This one is good. I never heard of the publication but it's a good article.

Institute for Laser Science: Brief product announcement, likely written by the company. Not coverage of the company.

The sources listed give me the impression that the company is working hard at public relations, which is especially evident given that a company representative wrote the article. Nevertheless, it looks like we have two separate sources that give sufficient coverage (Mittelbeyerische and Brand Eins). Unless someone else comes along to object, I think the article can be kept. Today would be the day this discussion closes. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:02, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Anachronist: Nice review of the sources & i am agree with you & i think now we can keep the page Heshiv (talk) 09:28, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Anachronist: great source review... we should keep it :) Lauranos (talk) 09:41, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I got pulled away. The admin should have closed this rather than extended. I will close this myself as the nominator. ~Anachronist (talk) 13:18, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:15, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Krash Karma

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

I can't find any evidence this band meets inclusion criteria, the awards are loosely sourced and hardly notable and the article has only ever been sourced to non-rs. The single source available now is a hyper-local e-paper that is more fluff based on their myspace page than significant indepth coverage that has been subject to editorial oversight. Fails GNG. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:26, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment that was a fast WP:BEFORE in one minute or three, the Aquarian Weekly is a reliable source for music but agree more is needed, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 13:33, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why you assume I decided only today to AfD this. I have an entire list on a custom watchlist and notepad of articles that haven't ever been up to par. I did my before, I found nothing, I nominated. The reliability of the source you mentioned isn't the issue, it's the reliability of the piece itself and the fact that it's straight up puffery with no editorial oversight, taken from their defunct myspace page. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:36, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The second album Straight to the Blood was released via EMI Records, source: [15], Paint the Devil was released via Membran Records. --Goroth (talk) 20:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They even had a lot media coverage in German music press with reviews from Metal.de, Musikreviews.de, Stormbringer.at, Powermetal.de, and other media according to their press kit. They toured Europe and played festivals in Germany like Tells Bells in 2010, see [16]. Here is an interview with the band at The-pit.de. But the article needs to be re-written in my opinion. --Goroth (talk) 20:59, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how anything in their press kit helps. Releasing an album under a notable label shows significance but not notability. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:48, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:22, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:37, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enigma^msg 19:02, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks sources, fails WP:GNG. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:18, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I’m a bit hesitant to weigh in as I don’t read German. However, with unsourced name drops of NFL and movie soundtracks, there is clearly some disingenuous hype at play here. One keep vote claims their second album “Straignt to the Blood” was released by EMI. But my further investigation shows that it was in fact recorded for the label Split Nail Records, which as near as I can tell is the groups own self-release label (a google search shows no other artists associated with the label.) The EMI connection is merely through that companies massive distribution services (something many releases can claim) which is a world of difference from being on a major or significant independent label. All the German language sources apparently are niche on-line reviews of this same self-produced album, not a difficult feat per WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. Given no significant independent coverage and a lack of third party sources I say delete. Maybe with some legwork the article could be improved (the band has a modest social media following indicating a legitimate following within their genre) but it appears the band itself—per their website—have already accounted for everything that’s out there and it’s all pretty minor, routine and or self-promotional, per the nomination. ShelbyMarion (talk) 12:50, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:16, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SpectorDance Company

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

No indication of notability under WP:GNG, WP:NARTIST, WP:NORG. No sources located on Google, GBooks, GNews, JSTOR, or Highbeam that were not simply routine local sources, leaving the appearance in the NEARTS journal as the only reliable source. Awards mentioned are not significant/notable enough to confer notability by themselves. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:41, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 14:26, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 14:26, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:44, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enigma^msg 19:00, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete How it was surviving without references? Fact is it was created long ago, ma have something from the industry but I didn't found anything on reliable dance networks. Mia Watson (talk) 15:16, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SOFTDELETE per no input from other users. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:19, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

EntropiK

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

Not notable per WP:MUSICBIO. The band had a runner's up place in a competition for unsigned bands (The People's Music Awards), but that is not a major music award. No other coverage beyond mention in playlists for BBC radio stations, which were not for main rotation. The band has a profile on the BBC website, but that is not a selective listing. DferDaisy (talk) 01:10, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:49, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:49, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enigma^msg 18:59, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:34, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Muniyappan Temple Vennandur

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

Article makes no claim of notability; I couldn't find sufficient English-language sources to support the subject passing GNG. If there are other sources to support a claim of notability, I don't have the means of finding them. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:38, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:39, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:39, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:39, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sufficient coverage to establish notability. MT Train^Talk 08:13, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cant find anything in google. Fails WP:GNG Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:16, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Enigma^msg 23:44, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

615 (group)

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

This article is damn near impossible to search for sources reasonably but what I turned up, as expected was virtually nothing usable. I can find no evidence that 615 itself is notable or passes GNG. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:14, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:MUSICBIO. I thought it could potentially pass per #5 (record label), but on further investigation it appears not. I've also attempted to look for sources, but the ambiguous naming of the duo has thwarted any attempts - TNT^❤ 18:22, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:32, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:32, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find nothing beyond a few YouTube videos and entries at streaming sites. It appears that the group received no notice from reliable media sources during their existence. And just to make the search even harder, do not confuse this group with another Nashville band called Area Code 615 (band). ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:37, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Enigma^msg 23:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Myish Bogdasarov

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

As it stands the subject is a non-notable boxer but I am also calling hoax. Dates claimed and links do not correspond and there is no way the picture and the masked man skipping in the you tube video is the same person. Author had added references that had nothing to do with the subject.PRehse (talk) 18:05, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 18:07, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable boxer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:48, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not appear to meet WP:BIO. A websearch brings up nothing, and the only reference in the article leads to an irrelevant page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:36, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found no significant independent coverage and nothing that shows any criteria of WP:NBOX is met. I'm always hesitant to call something a hoax, but I will say the lack of anything online and his absence from any mention at boxrec does appear suspicious. Papaursa (talk) 18:29, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – on verifiability grounds, not notability (based on claims in article). /Julle (talk) 10:31, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:21, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Drew Scott (News 12)

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

Regional cable news anchor, fails WP:BASIC. For purposes of notability Newsday references in this article should not be considered independent since News12 and Newsday have the same owner. Rusf10 (talk) 23:26, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:16, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:16, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:16, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable local TV reporter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:29, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:43, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:22, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Order of Saint Nicholas Thaumaturgus (Ukrainian)

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

Most sources located about this award are trivial mentions - so-and-so receives medal of the Order, etc. Very little discussion of the Order in and of itself. The few articles that do discuss the order are direct copies of the WP article, so do nothing to demonstrate notability. Also, there are other Orders with the same name mucking up the results. Neither the Dutch nor the Ukrainian wiki articles are much larger, and neither have sources to use.

I'm limited in that I can't read Ukranian, so I can only do a cursory Google translated check, so I'm willing to withdraw if Ukrainian-speaking editors can verify that this meets GNG. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:56, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:06, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. How does this article relate to Order of Saint Nicholas Thaumaturgus (International)? SpinningSpark 22:18, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- They were both created by the same author, so my assumption is that he knows what he's doing and they are indeed separate awards with the same name. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is not always a wise assumption. The names of the awarding bodies (All-Ukrainian Foundation for International Cooperation and Foundation of International Awards) could easily be variations in translation. My impression is that they differ essentially only in whether they are awarded to Ukrainian citizens or non-Ukrainians and am thinking a merge is a possibility. User:Altenmann is still active, so a more definitive answer is possible. SpinningSpark 14:36, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment. The second order is a state award although minor. This one is by some civic organization nonprofit established by former first president of ukraine, so no merge the two. Uk wikipedia has the article about the nonprofit. So probably the best solution is to write up the same here and merge the order into the new page. Unfortunetely i have difficulties with editing now.I created the two articles specifically to avoid confusion of the two orders Because both are linked from wikipedia bios. Curiously, I googled right now and found the third one, issued by Ukrainian church authorities. What a mess. These post-communists (in fact renegades) being atheists in recent past, have a really limited catalog of useful saints.- üser:Altenmann >t 06:02, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:09, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Complete dearth of sources.Zero notability and all of them.∯WBG^converse 13:38, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:23, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ishanka De Alwis

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

Fails WP:NMODEL & WP:GNG, is only the winner of a non-notable modelling competition & competed in a non-notable international competition (in which she wasn’t the winner or even in the top 10). A search indicates the only sources are mentions in passing or primary sources (professional bios, press releases etc). No evidence of notability. Dan arndt (talk) 15:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:09, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:09, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:09, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete participated in a totally non-notable beauty contest, that is it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:04, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:46, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Son of Dracula (2009 film)

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

Film lacks signficant coverage to be notable. I can only find one review article from a site - [17] and a few passing mentions, it therefore fails WP:NFILMS.Hzh (talk) 14:56, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:18, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:18, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NF. BOVINEBOY2008 12:30, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. WP:SKCRIT#1 - no argument for deletion or redirection. (non-admin closure) Warm Regards, ZI Jony (talk) 18:56, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Klaus Krippendorff

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

No independent sources, fails WP:GNG. Google news and Google books doesn't seem to pull up anything that was both independent and in-depth. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:53, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, all claims in the article cite sources written by the subject himself, so nothing in the article is verified by our policies. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:58, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:18, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:18, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clear pass of WP:PROF#C5 (named professorship) and #C1 (huge citation counts in Google scholar with five publications cited over 1000 times, one of them nearly 30k times). —David Eppstein (talk) 15:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Passes WP:PROF#C1 with an h-index of 48 and over 45,000 citations [18]. Also passes WP:PROF#C3 for being elected an AAAS Fellow (verifiable here) and WP:PROF#C5 for holding a named chair [19]. The article could stand a thorough de-CV-ization, but that's a matter that can be addressed through regular editing, not a job for AfD. In academic biographies, sources affiliated with the subject (e.g., universities where they studied or worked) are considered acceptable sources for claims not likely to be contested (e.g., when they earned degrees). XOR'easter (talk) 15:37, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets PROF as well as GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets at least two points of WP:PROF; notable in his field. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:48, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In serious need of better sourcing, but notable and verifiable. /Julle (talk) 10:33, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At times scholars are less mentioned in mainstream media, but notability is met under [[WP:PROF#C1] with 45K citations. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:30, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Enigma^msg 23:46, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

India in Wimbledon 2017

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

Just trivial. No evidence that India's participation in Wimbledon 2017 was independently notable. T v x1 14:18, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 14:48, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 14:48, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I definitely feel like this is a bit over the top in terms of specificity, but do feel like an article such as India in tennis 2017 that would form a superset of this article might be justified. Setting a precedent for that would still result in thousands of articles though, so it's definitely something that needs fairly extensive discussion. Sellyme^Talk 11:07, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This page is really necessary as its really too specific. Animation is developing 11:00, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Completely trivial. Nothing significant about India's participation. Adamtt9 (talk) 17:00, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Despite the long discussion, the consensus to keep is very clear, 18 to 3. Sandstein 07:20, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Racial profiling in Israel

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

~~This page is a tiny fork of the Racial profiling article with no additional substantial information. Kigelim (talk) 13:42, 20 June 2018 (UTC)~~The user can't vote per WP:ARBPIA3--Shrike (talk) 17:23, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 June 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:01, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:53, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ as a Blatant WP:POVFORK of Airport security#Israel and Blatant WP:POVFORK of Racial profiling#Israel. Article creator appears to have "created" a paragraph already available on two other pages. And Note that looks awfully WP:POINTY that this is the sole Racial profiling in... article we have about a country.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:42, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah well, there's airport racial profiling in the United States. Not a WP:POVFORK anymore. Ethanbas ^(talk) 04:13, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as POVFORK. Shift content somewhere else if necessary. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:35, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not a WP:POVFORK anymore. Ethanbas ^(talk) 04:17, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Information in that article (a single paragraph) can be merged to Airport security#Israel or other articles related to this topic.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 21:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not just a single paragraph now, and the current text can't be merged into any other single article now. Ethanbas ^(talk) 04:20, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no need for this fork as info already included in two other articles. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:50, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is new content now. Ethanbas ^(talk) 04:17, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Copy pasted material, not a valid fork.Icewhiz (talk) 19:32, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is new content now. Ethanbas ^(talk) 04:17, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Struck !vote based on new content. I still suspect this is a POVFORK of something (Security screening in Israel?) - but I need to veriffy this. At the very least this will need to be renamed, but reserving judgement as I have not checked throughly yet.Icewhiz (talk) 18:04, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. The campaign against this article was either begun by, or participated in by a reader of my blog who announced today that there would be an organized campaign to delete it. I suspect that the blog post I wrote, which linked to this article spurred the campaign to delete it. Here is the quote that the commenter wrote in the comment thread concerning this article: "And you Israeli profiling article will be deleted soon. Can’t believe you bring Wikipedia as a source, especially a tiny little article that is clearly written by an anti Israeli." (Redacted) Editors should keep in mind that there is a campaign to suppress what he views as anti-Israel speech in suppressing this article.

I also note that Kigelim, the first to request deletion here, has a history of stalking articles I've contributed to and has false accused me of sockpuppetry in the past: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Richards1052/Archive

In other words, he is not a disinterested Wikipedia editor, but someone with an ideological agenda.

If this article is available in other formats in other Wikipedia articles, you should realize that when I did a Google search for sources on the subject, this article was the only Wikipedia article which was listed. I fear that deleting the article will render the subject more obscure and less accessible for journalists and researchers like myself. Richard Silverstein (talk) 01:15, 22 June 2018 (UTC)The user can't participate in this AFD per WP:ARBPIA3--Shrike (talk) 13:23, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Me, anti-Israeli? Ha-ha... Thanks for sharing the comment from your blog. I will add material to this article and then vote to keep. Ethanbas ^(talk) 02:04, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~@Ethanbas: The sort of unrelated sources you added and the minimal effort you have made when creating this article show your deep opinion on the matter.~~

@Richards1052: Your article clearly shows you don't understand what does Wikipedia is all about. Many, if not most, of the article you have edited, have been related to your blog. Kigelim (talk) 09:25, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. I have added a lot of new material, meaning that this article can no longer be considered to be a redundant fork. I'm happy to add 10,000 more bytes of text if you don't agree (: Ethanbas ^(talk) 04:25, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Substantial article. רדיומן (talk) 04:58, 22 June 2018 (UTC)The user can't participate in this AFD per WP:ARBPIA3--Shrike (talk) 13:23, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note Please note that there has been canvassing (Redacted).Icewhiz (talk) 08:28, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Racial profiling in the United States has been redirected to Racial profiling. Which makes the canvassing push to keep this article look awfully WP:POINTy.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:20, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - looks like a valid spin-off article off the main one. I note that earlier "delete" votes must have been based on some watered down version and the editors should revisit their votes in good faith.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:30, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note - it's strange that this article was nominated for deletion just now, even though it's existed since September 16th.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:34, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's understandable that moves were made to delete the article in an earlier, skimpy state of editing. Ethanbas has shown that abundant material exists on the topic. Following his lead, I also have begun to add some material. A cursory examination of sources proves the field is covered widely, and therefore deserves a stand-alone article.Nishidani (talk) 14:39, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Volunteer Marek and Nishidani. --NSH001 (talk) 14:59, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — the article is well-sourced and this is enough of an issue in many countries that I don't believe all racial profiling on earth should be described in a single overview article. -Darouet (talk) 16:08, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to be a POVFORK and possibly a coatrack, I echo Icewhiz's comments. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:00, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - obviously. Extensively covered in reliable sources, meets GNG by a mile and does not fail any WP:NOT criteria. nableezy - 17:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Darouet — the fact that some subjects still need development and new article creation (like racial profiling, domestic violence is another one) doesn't have anything to do with whether the topic meets WP:GNG, which it does. Seraphim System ^(talk) 18:03, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable and well-sourced. Landbroke99 (talk) 19:40, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, good sourcing and notable topic. Emass100 (talk) 06:18, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to be a valid spinoff; too much substance in this to merge the whole thing back into one of the suggested targets above. Multiple weighty sources discussing the subject. Vanamonde (talk) 06:57, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(voted keep below) Delete indiscriminate collection of minor incidents, coupled with a few general definitions which have nothing to do with Israel. wumbolo ^^^ 11:49, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, let's see. The article has an "Overview" section which discusses in detail the emergence of the practice. This is not "minor incidents" nor "few general definitions" and it has everything to do with Israel. Then it has a section on "Racial profiling at Ben Gurion airport". Yes, the first paragraph describes an "incident" but it's not a minor one. Are you really claiming that the Lod Airport massacre was a "minor incident"? Really? The next two paragraphs of the section describes academic views and security analysts views and discusses the efficacy of the practice. Not a "general definition" and since this is Ben Gurion airport it also has a lot to do with Israel. I think. Then there's a section on "Racial profiling in other context" which discuss where else the practice is utilized. Again, there's no "minor incidents" here, nor is this "few general definitions". Finally there's a section on "Emulation in United States" which provides further encyclopedic information. So, I'm sorry, but I don't understand your comment at all. It seems to be completely detached from reality.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:55, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:NPOV fails heavily on this one, throughout it all, and it starts with the title, which fails WP:POVNAMING and should rather be the neutral formula "Criminal profiling in Israel," but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, even when clearly the article utterly fails WP:BALANCE and WP:IMPARTIAL. It should also be mentioned that criminal profiling is legitimate in Germany^[1] and a majority of police officers in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada consider profiling to be useful, ^[2] so it'd probably be negligent of the Semites to not do the same as their Anglo and Germanic colleagues do. XavierItzm (talk) 12:12, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://www.bug-ev.org/en/topics/focus-areas/dossiers/ethnic-profiling/what-is-ethnic-profiling.html
^ Eastwood, Joseph; Cullen, Richard M; Kavanagh, Jennifer; Snook, Brent (2006). "A review of the validity of criminal profiling" (PDF). Canadian Journal of Police and Security Services. 4: 118–124.

Comment Offender profiling is not the same thing. Law enforcement can't take an "offender profile", like the decsription that "most serial killers are white males" and then cast a wide net and begin investigating white males, in general, without specific probable cause. That is when it becomes racial profiling. Racial profiling has been used, and in the United States, for example and it had led to 14th amendment challenges, and convictions being overturned in some states in the aftermath of Whren. They can use an offender profile to try to id a specific suspect after a crime has been committed, in pursuit of a criminal conviction subject to the the rules of criminal procedure. The article can be improved, it will be improved, the sourcing will be improved. I hope this sufficiently explains the difference betwen criminal profiling and racial profiling as distinct concepts.Seraphim System ^(talk) 12:42, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I indicated on the article's talk page, XavierItzm, your summary of what the articles say about Germany is completely erratic. Criminal profiling which has elements of racial, ethnic, religious or national profiling is formally forbidden in Germany and Europe. Your suggested name change would nicely gut the article of all the evidence numerous quality sources on Racial profiling in Israel cites. That indeed would be POV-pushing by suppressio veri. Nishidani (talk) 13:23, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seraphim System makes an argument about U.S. law which is entirely irrelevant to a foreign country. Seraphim System confuses ex-ante and ex-post criminal profiling. Seraphim System appears to believe only ex-post profiling exists ("to try to id a specific suspect after a crime has been committed") In reality, ex-ante (predictive) criminal profiling "can be effective law enforcement".^[1].
Nishidani is just flat out wrong. Nishidani seems to not realize that in Germany "the creation of criminal profiles is generally a legitimate method of prevention and investigation used by the police".^[2]. XavierItzm (talk) 13:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

^ Mareile Kaufmann (2010). Ethnic Profiling and Counter-terrorism: Examples of European Practice and Possible Repercussions. LIT Verlag Münster. pp. 16–17. Retrieved 23 June 2018. statistically proven to correlate with certain criminal conduct can be effective law enforcement tools
^ http://www.bug-ev.org/en/topics/focus-areas/dossiers/ethnic-profiling/what-is-ethnic-profiling.html

The quote continues

Profiling, however, must be led by the principles of the presumption of innocence and of impartiality, in order to fulfil the demands placed by the rule of law. Consequently, the indicators used to create profiles of suspects and perpetrators must be based on evidence or other sufficient information related to a specific crime. If, however, profiling is not based on substantiated assumptions, but only on the use of unchangeable characteristics such as skin colour or an alleged immigrant background, it represents a form of discrimination. In such a scenario, the terms ‘ethnic profiling’ and ‘racial profiling’ are used, synonymously. . . According to the FRA EU-MIDIS study ‘Understanding and Preventing Discriminatory Ethnic Profiling’, unequal treatment on the basis of ethnic background or religion is never legitimate nor lawful.

I.e. as in Canada, Germany regards criminal profiling as related to investigations that follow up a specific crime. It is, as I showed by citing the German court case verdict, German courts regard racial profiling as contravening European law.Nishidani (talk) 14:24, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You only appear to read the first paragraph or title of the sources you cite. In all of them, your simplistic assertions are contradicted, as shown (the Canadian article actually says criminal profiling is based on crime scene analysis, which means it is totally irrelevant to what we are discussing etc.) This is not the place to discuss this.Nishidani (talk) 14:17, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is not the right place for detailed discussion about the offender profile article which deals with multiple countries — I only raised the issue to explain that Racial profiling and Offender profiling — which always deals with a specific offender — would be two separate articles. This applies to the spinoffs as well.Seraphim System ^(talk) 14:04, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Airport Security in Israel as that is the main topic of this article. AadaamS (talk) 19:28, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the point of this article. Feel free to make a new article. Ethanbas ^(talk) 19:36, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but Rename to Security screening in Israel - which is clearly the topic of this article (and this article would be a POVFORK of, if we had it). Profiling in security screening in Israel is wider than just racial or ethnic in Israel - it is also based on age, travel group, behavioral metrics, and a number of other parameters.Icewhiz (talk) 19:45, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the material has nothing to do with security screening in Israel, but with racial profiling since the late 1940s, where the express intent was not 'security' of the state but he establishment of a ethnically defined majority. So a name change along these lines is pointless.Nishidani (talk) 08:31, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. And it would be interesting to have more articles like this for more countries.Wikisanchez (talk) 02:54, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. When I first heard about this article (by chance) I was dubious of the possibility of a good article despite the phenomenon being a fact of everyday life in Israel covered by many sources. But I changed my mind after seeing what is there so far and considering the possibilities for further improvement. I just suggested a whole additional section on the talk page. Whatever justification for deletion that used to exist does not exist any longer. Zero^talk 06:49, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. A few discussions have been started on the talk page. Let's wait and see if the article will be improved. wumbolo ^^^ 15:07, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep and Rename to Security screening in Israel, article is about the use of ethnic profiling in Israel, which sources show is used for security purposes.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:18, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, sources do not show that. The article is about racial profiling, it's purpose and perhaps more importantly, effectiveness, are debated, especially since there are arguments that it may actually increase risk. It's also not limited to "security screening".^[1] Israel's oft-repeated statement is that it's as issue of "nationality" and not "race" but this is not widely accepted as relevant, most sources continue to describe the practice as racial profiling. (As it effects Americans also, based on their race - Americans of one race are treated differently than Americans of another race). Seraphim System ^(talk) 10:30, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

^ Kober, Avi (2009-09-11). Israel's Wars of Attrition: Attrition Challenges to Democratic States. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-135-25552-7.

Although racial profiling can be used in security screening, they are obviously not the same thing. The title should fit the topic of the article, which is racial profiling. Zero^talk 14:56, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Airport screening procedures and racial profiling are not the same thing, Israel happens to use racial profiling at the airport, but also outside the airport - however, on balance, it is not necessary to use racial profiling in screening. Still, every country has security screening at the airport. In Turkey, no one can set foot inside the airport without going through a full security check.Seraphim System ^(talk) 16:00, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Israel uses profiling (a bit wider than just racial) in a number of security checks (and there is a full security check and an "extra full" one). The practice in Israel is closely related to various security activities (also outside the airport).Icewhiz (talk) 16:29, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure some editors will meet that concern by adding to the page materials like these:

Marc Tracy, Israeli Airport Security Now Checking Emails Tablet 5 June 2012
George Khoury, ‘This is our Israel, this is for the Jews. No Palestinian should come to Israel’: A Palestinian-American’s story of being detained at Ben Gurion airport Mondoweiss 29 July 29 2015
Nirit Anderman, 'Arab Actress Tells of Humiliating Security Check at the Airport,' Haaretz 29 July 2016
Bethan McKernan, 'Palestinian women sue Israeli airlines over 'unwarranted' strip searches,' The Independent 9 October 2017
Mariam Barghouti, 'Palestinian Women Are Harassed And Humiliated At Checkpoints. Here Are A Few Of Their Stories,' The Forward 17 October 2017 Nishidani (talk) 20:15, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based on the efforts of content contributors, but oppose any name change that misinterprets the subject of the article such as "Security screening in Israel".TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:23, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, have struck out my delete, well referenced article. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:37, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable, sourced, improved. /Julle (talk) 10:36, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
needs a title change Because Israel is populated by Arabs and Jews, most of whom are of broadly Middle Eastern origin, so that you usually cannot tell an Arab from a Jew by skin tone, facial features, height, hair type or any other visible physical characteristic. The profiling is done on grounds of ethnicity, citizenship status, and other aspects of personal status and background. This is NOT AT ALL like an American, French or German security office visually screening for people who look black, or look Mediterranean.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:27, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There may be some Western Ameri-centered bias in the academic language being used, but that is source bias that we can't correct on Wikipedia. The language "racial profiling" is more than sufficiently attested to in WP:RS to establish notability. Maybe this is more precisely a form of "religious profiling" where religious affiliation is also inferred based on nationality - but there are legal reasons preventing the adoption of this language in the US. There are exceptions under the 14th, but not the 1st. Some people have written papers arguing for them, but it's too soon to tell if they will gain any traction.Seraphim System ^(talk) 16:00, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this suggestion is the best one. Profiling in Israel would encompass everything and be more neutral as per EMG. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:14, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli profiling, all the best sources affirm, is not 'neutral'. And, nope. The sources say otherwise. You can't tell an 'Ashkenazi Jew' from a 'European' for that matter, something that's never stopped anti-Semites, or stupid people usually, from thinking they can spot a Jew in a crowd. Ask Seth Meyers. Or ask Mira Awad, the Palestinian-Israeli singer identified as an 'Arab' at Ben-Gurion until, when an admirer of her talent among the police recognized her, racheted her status up to Jewish by changing the earlier sticker branding her as an Arab, to make transit easier for her. Her photo doesn't look 'Mediterranean', whatever that means. Nishidani (talk) 16:15, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You prove the point that profile if done is ethnic or religious and not racial. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:22, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is perhaps not neutral, but it is perhaps a Risk-neutral measure.Icewhiz (talk) 16:25, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

struck my keep vote. Article title is hopelessly misleading. A clear abuse of Wikipedia.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:59, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Needs a title change. Racial profiling in English at least usually refers to when the discrimination occurs due to physical appearance under the influence of racism (including not just racism but potentially also Colorism). As I believe has been extensively discussed above, positing that Israelis tell Arabs apart from Jews by primarily their physical appearance is preposterous. If this were the case millions of Israeli Jews including many dark skinned Ashkenazis, yes they exist, would be victims of self-hating discrimination, and it is quite possible a majority of Israel's Jewish population could pass as Arab if we were going by appearance alone; on the other hand there is Mira Awad, Ahed Tamimi and all the other very light and/or Euro-looking Arabs that do exist in Israel and the territories, and we would expect them to get preferential treatment (but do they?). Just because some sources clumsily use an American term for another country -- occasionally for lack of a better alternative -- doesn't mean we have to lower ourselves to such a clumsy standard. I can think of some other alternatives: "Security discrimination", "Cultural profiling", "Community profiling", though it might be best to see what alternatives sources are already using.-- Calthinus (talk) 17:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are not using it clumsily by the way - Jews are protected as a race under US law, as a class, so discrimination againt Jews is racial discrimination (it doesn't have to be discrimination against whites as a class). Race does not mean skin tone, or physical appearance. There is a lot of background the authors of scholarly sources can be expected to be familiar with, and I don't really think the above suggestions are an improvement - for a number of reasons I think it would be best to follow WP:RS.Seraphim System ^(talk) 17:32, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the entire article is about security screening, even the misleadingly named subhead Racial profiling in Israel#Racial profiling in other contexts is entirely and exclusively about Security screening in Israel, a far more accurate and NPOV title.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:00, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is untrue, and asserting it constitutes a POV push to insinuate that Israel conducts its checks purely for security reasons, which, given the sources which illustrate many facets of these checks that historically arose to secure a Jewish majority, and expel Palestinians, something done for demographic strategies, runs in the face of the text as it now stands. 'Security had nothing to do with it from the outset, as the article shows. If this POV pushing to get the article name changed succeeded, i.e., the POV object of ridding the article of its primary focus, on racial profiling, the result would lead to the second step: ridding the article of much of its content. Clever (well, not really. Too obvious). The main architect of Israelo's colonization policies, Arthur Ruppin, whose ideas deeply influenced the postwar period's demographic plans, grounded his views in racial profiling (he even drew up a distinction between three Jewish 'races'!) Nishidani (talk) 20:44, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note I would say at this point I take back the AfD. People have added content that made the article worthy on its own. Just wanted to highlight that was not how the discussion started when it was a mere copy paste of a few sentences.

The commenter from the blog was incorrect to call Ethanbas anti-Israel. He just specializes is micro articles such as this one but many more as he writes on his page. User:Ethanbas.

Whether or not the name needs to be changed is a matter of discussion.Kigelim (talk) 12:03, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

17 editors have written Keep for an article entitled Racial profiling in Israel. There's no doubt here that the article will pass the AfD with flying colours under that name. If you want a different article, write it.Nishidani (talk) 12:31, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I want to point out that my keep !vote should not be construed as support for a specific name of the article. I have assessed whether I believe the subject in question merits encyclopedic inclusion or not. I don't feel competent or knowledgeable enough to have an opinion in the naming discussion. /Julle (talk) 22:04, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All I am saying, and I think Nishidani covered this in some of the above comments, is that most of the sources posted in this discussion and cited in the article use the term "Racial profiling" - often directly in the title of the source, and certainly in text of the source itself. NPOV is following the sources right? - and not accusing the sources of being POV because we disagree with them? I think this line of argument has been a bit frustrating, but is also becoming repetitive at this point with no change - most of this digression could be hatted to make things easier for the closing admin.Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:46, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of BNK48 members. Sandstein 07:25, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pimrapat Phadungwatanachok

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

Delete (or Redirect to List of BNK48 members) as the subject of the article does not likely pass WP:BIO/WP:MUSICBIO. --Miwako Sato (talk) 09:49, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WithoonS: Please do not delete this page, I created it to collect her personal information and actings for her fans which the article "List of BNK48 members" do not have it. This idol girl group is difference with general band, the most fans focus on individual member to follow and not the whole band. So, I think this article is useful for the fans, thank you and kindly consider to accept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WithoonS (talk • contribs) 14:08, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the coverage is decent. Dailynews [20], Judprakai section of Krungthep Thurakij [21], Praew [22], Campus Star [23], True Plookpanya [24], The Standard [25] --Lerdsuwa (talk) 14:43, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:27, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:12, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to BNK48 or List of BNK48 members. Unless she has achieved significant overage for activities outside of the band (joined a different band, has solo releases, independent work in other media, etc.), then band members are usually directed per WP:NBAND - (members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo release). The article needs to demonstrate that she has achieve things outside of the band to warrant a standalone article. Hzh (talk) 15:07, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Tony Lawson. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:02, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge Social Ontology Group

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

Article PRODded with reason "No independent references. Some group members have published books, but they're neither independent nor about this group. Group seems to be moribund, website doesn't appear to have been updated since 2014/2015 (lists books from that period as "Just published"... Like most research groups, this does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG." Article dePRODded by article creator with reason "The concern of the group not being current, and there not being adequate external sources, has been addressed through the addition of sources showing the wealth of current publications both by members of the group as well as other prominent researchers analysing its contributions." However, the references and sources added are either publications by purported members of this group or reactions to those publications (but not reactions directed to the group, just its individual members). Fact remains that this group appears to be ephemeral and is now moribund and that there are no independent sources about this group. Individual members may be notable (many of the stuff presented here as sources are also used in the bio of Tony Lawson), but notability is not inherited. Taken together, this fails WP:NCORP or WP:GNG, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 12:58, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 13:01, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 13:01, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 13:01, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 13:02, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable long running study group at Cambridge University involving numerous notable people. What is not notable here? If the group has gone dormant, all the more notable and less promotional. We are not a directory of active groups, and we don't delete pages because a subject is no longer active. The nom first gutted the page [26] before seeking deletion. IF this page should not exist, it should be merged to some subpage of Cambridge University but since that is such a large topic, this makes a reasonable WP:SPINOUT Legacypac (talk) 13:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single source about the group. My comment about the group being moribund just serves to show that this was an ephemeral phenomenon, that didn't leave much of a trace in WP:RS. (Of course being moribund does not disqualify it, but neither does this make it "all the more notable", that's ridiculous. And indeed, we're not a directory of active groups, nor are we a directory of groups that existed for a while and then disappeared without much trace). As for "gutting" the article before nominating it, have a second look. 1/ I removed a lot of unnecessary parameters from references. 2/ I removed a section of "notable speakers", which was only sourced to the group's own website and is just so much promotional name dropping, not contributing anything to notability (I also note that the lecture series predates the group by about 12 years, so the relevance of all this for the group is debatable). (This was re-added today). 3/ The publications were all listed in a section of the article, and added once more as their own "references". I reorganized that as is usual in articles on academics or institutions, listing the publications in their own section. Of course, a reference showing that these are, in fact, results of the work of the group and not of its individual members which they would have produced with or without the group anyway, would be very welcome. In short, the only information that I removed was the promotional name-dropping. If that is "gutting the article", then I admit to being guilty. --Randykitty (talk) 13:49, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as Randykitty has pointed out, there is no significant coverage of the group itself, just individual members. There are several passing mentions of the group in various scholarly acknowledgement sections and the like, but I can't find any significant coverage of the group and its impacts. There doesn't seem to be much material worth merging into a separate social ontology article (currently a redirect to Structure and agency), which is the other alternative I would consider. I do want to note however that notability is not temporary, and whether the group is defunct or not is not a deciding factor. MarginalCost (talk) 15:51, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tony Lawson, where it is mentioned. Cambridge Social Ontology Group is a center within a university and Cambridge Social Ontology could be considered a school of thought. But I haven't been able to find any significant secondary sourcing about CSOG itself, just primary interviews and position papers. Without secondary reliable sources, there isn't a basis for an article. However, CSOG is real enough, is a plausible search term, and seems closely identified with Tony Lawson. Hence redirect seem the best course. --Mark viking (talk) 00:46, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. It's a reasonable search term, but I don't see any case for notability (linking because Legacypac has apparently forgotten what it means!) Which is not surprising because these kind of groups come and go all the time. Tony Lawson seems like a good target. – Joe (talk) 09:11, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tony Lawson per the two !votes above. XOR'easter (talk) 19:20, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:03, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Richard J. Baum

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

Acting directors of US agencies are not notable (it is usually a sign of lack of notability if anything else unless it is acting for a senior cabinet post). Searches turn up virtually nothing that meets WP:N (all local, press release repeats, trivial, etc.) and even if it did, it wouldn't matter in this case as the article is likely commissioned native advertising, and is thus excluded from Wikipedia by WP:NOTSPAM. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:17, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:39, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:44, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:45, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:56, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:36, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being acting director of a government agency can certainly count as a notability claim if the person can be reliably sourced over WP:GNG for it — but nominator is correct that holding the role isn't an automatic guarantee of a Wikipedia article in and of itself. But far more than half the references here are non-notability assisting primary sources, and the ones that are actually GNG-worthy media coverage are just namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things, not coverage about him for the purposes of getting him over GNG as a person. Bearcat (talk) 17:50, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:11, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ujjawal Krishnam

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

Seems to fail notability? Few search results. I can't work out who is vandalising what. Matt 190417 (talk) 12:32, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I recognise that the article is only a week old, but I think it's generous to suggest more sources can be collected. Matt 190417 (talk) 12:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The subject of the article is also the user that created the article, see 14 June revision to User:AchaksurvisayaUdvejin, a fact conveniently removed right after he created a self bio. Jevansen (talk) 12:49, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Argument: Does it fail to satisfy the notability criteria? Vandalism can be found in recent edits where some irrelevant comments have been made in the context of the subject — Preceding unsigned comment added by AchaksurvisayaUdvejin (talk • contribs) 12:56, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:GNG. Matt 190417 (talk) 13:03, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. To answer the question, yes most definitely. Doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC, WP:JOURNALIST or the General Notability Guidelines. Jevansen (talk) 13:07, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 June 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:44, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Also to note that AchaksurvisayaUdvejin, judging by his talk page, has created similar articles that have not survived AfD before based on notability guidelines. Matt 190417 (talk) 12:55, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment's reply If earlier articles made with this account didn't survive the criteria, it doesn't meant that all will not. Expected to not judge randomly.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AchaksurvisayaUdvejin (talk • contribs)
  - That much I agree. We should judge only the individual merits of the page. Matt 190417 (talk) 13:03, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: I have discussed with experienced editors and consulted them before putting this article. As far as notability is concerned, the subject does satisfy so. And remaining question of subtle phrases and extension, it is already a stub on roll. Deleting wouldn't be fine, consideration of it as stub, as persistent, may help. Thanks..— Preceding unsigned comment added by AchaksurvisayaUdvejin (talk • contribs)
    Comment: We, here, are editors and it is more about enriching the encyclopaedic entity. There must be sanguine flow on the par edge of distinction. We should debate and try to resolve the issue. I stand with my point. The page has been earlier reviewed and administrator allowed it, but recent edits(reverted ones) have certainly been disruptive. Please see to the edits and derogatory remarks on the subject.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AchaksurvisayaUdvejin (talk • contribs)
    
    Comment on notability: Notability is not transitory, so at the time page was made, it was reviewed and accepted and even admin intervened. The present circumstances of tossing page in AfD only means for discussion. The writer has credibility/notability not only by some references but by his writings. And subject satisfies the criteria of category very well, as reviewed by earlier patrollers and administrator.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AchaksurvisayaUdvejin (talk • contribs)
    Having written a few articles does not in itself satisfy notability criteria, which are laid out by WP:NACADEMIC and WP:JOURNALIST. The article has not been listed in AfD before, so as far as I understand, this is the first community review of the article. I recognise that the article may well have been accepted by previous administrators. If so, then this should survive AfD. Also, please see WP:CRYSTAL insofar as 'transitory' notability is concerned: Wikipedia must reflect past and present notability rather than future potential notability.
    
    Also, when contributing to talk pages, please sign off your comments with four tilde (~) at the end, so that it is clear who has said what. Matt 190417 (talk) 13:36, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:30, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:30, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep|Notability as a scientist: The subject is a published researcher and also satisfies Wikipedia's policy on arxiv repository, as cited. Wikidata of research gate profile and google scholar profile all do support special position of the subject, and hence must also be considered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AchaksurvisayaUdvejin (talk • contribs) 13:36, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have COI, i.e. DOI of scientific publication and also Harvard-ads feature of my article. Already, Cornell's arXiv repository features the article, we may improve the article that way. There appears so sudden reason for deletion. We may put the bitter talk aside and find out how to improve the article while relaxing the deletion. If that wouldn't satisfy notability criteria of academia, it will further be nominated and there is no escape. Hope, we work for good. AchaksurvisayaUdvejin (talk) 16:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AchaksurvisayaUdvejin You should not be editing this article. Please see WP:COI. If you have a conflict of interest (which you do, because the article is about you), you should not be going anywhere near it. Matt 190417 (talk) 16:29, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough coverage in reliable sources to pass WP:NBIO. Also, the COI hasn't been declared. MT Train^Talk 13:39, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent reliable sources. --regentspark (comment) 13:58, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep| On the day the article was created, I well mentioned in the talk page that improvement is needed and in case what is verifiable is needed that is the first job of those who claim it to delete before trusting the verifiable sources.

Find COI here on abstract page to trust in source https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324121976_On_detection_and_annihilation_of_spherical_virus_embedded_in_a_fluid_matrix_at_low_and_moderate_Reynolds_number Administrator must take into account these all before deciding, sometimes truth is shadow by ultimate darkness but a single ray is enough to nullify falsehoods — Preceding unsigned comment added by AchaksurvisayaUdvejin (talk • contribs) 14:06, 20 June 2018 (UTC) [reply]

I have struck this out as you are allowed only one keep/delete comment per AfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Source Here is another independent source from Harvard which featured the paper http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/bib_query?arXiv:1712.02126 — Preceding unsigned comment added by AchaksurvisayaUdvejin (talk • contribs) 14:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- AchaksurvisayaUdvejin, the links provided by you merely shows that he has a published paper. Practically every professor has one or many published papers but that is not enough to demonstrate notability. You need to find independent sources that assert notability. Please read WP:PROF.--regentspark (comment)
  - Reply on notability: The subject has other papers as well, in addition one can visit google scholar's verified page of the subject.
  Notability is seconded by resources on columnist part as well. it feels egregious that on every argument there is another loophole and I have to clarify every time.
  Admin must consider snowball clause. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AchaksurvisayaUdvejin (talk • contribs) 14:21, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  It does not matter how many papers the subject has written, or that the subject has written any one individual paper, unless the subject can meet any one of the following criteria (copied from WP:NACADEMIC) as a result of the papers:
  
  1. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
  
  2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.
  
  3. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the IEEE).[2]
  
  4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.
  
  5. The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon).
  
  6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.
  
  7. The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.
  
  8. The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area.
  
  9. The person is in a field of literature (e.g., writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g., musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC.
  
  Those of us who have argued in favour of deletion have not introduced new 'loopholes'. We have cited, on multiple occasions, the same notability guidelines and criteria, principally WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG (as well as WP:JOURNALIST). Matt 190417 (talk) 14:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  Reply on notability: The subject well satisfies WP:PROF as most of the criteria are supported by the fact. Secondly, not every academician wins a Nobel and this may sound ridiculous. For other accolades, please visit wikidata supported Researchgate and other profiles for confirmation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AchaksurvisayaUdvejin (talk • contribs) 14:32, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "independent source from Harvard" isn't. It's an entry in a database that includes everything posted on the arXiv. XOR'easter (talk) 22:57, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:35, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please note: This is not a voting round and only a discussion to extend the encyclopaedic gamut. Howsoever, the views are welcomed but staunch sidelining is derogatory.

Admin is requested to pay attention to the fact that notability is strongly made on academics part and as far as these claims of non reliable sourcing on column part are there, notability of the platforms must be observed. This snowball fight must end soon and that for betterment for the Wikipedia community. Please consider POV and checklist the criteria. Thanks.AchaksurvisayaUdvejin (talk) 14:56, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not transitory and a question to be tossed again and again: At the time page was made, administrator as well as the reviewers reviewed it and didn't put on speedy deletion. The page persisted but the recent vandalism gathered attention of editors and so discussion is triggered but that nowhere crosses the mark on the paradigm of notability and concern. Points have been very clear and defence has been well put. Admin is requested to do consider the mentions. Thanks. AchaksurvisayaUdvejin (talk) 15:01, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. His Google scholar profile shows only four papers, all uncited and I think all not reliably published, a clear failure of WP:PROF#C1. No claim of notability other than through academic publication is made by the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:37, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment's reply on citation: The geneticist and Nobel prizewinner Oliver Smithies, who died in January aged 91, was a modest, self-effacing inventor. It was typical of him to trot out the tale of one of his greatest flops: a paper1 about measuring osmotic pressure published in 1953, which, as he put it, had “the dubious distinction of never being cited”(taken from https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-017-08404-0 ). The seriously ridiculous statements bing made here.

Admin must pay attention to dubious statements being made as a stake to delete the article AchaksurvisayaUdvejin (talk) 15:45, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:CRYSTAL. The subject's paper is uncited and the paper has not given him a Nobel prize yet. When the subject wins the Nobel prize for his uncited paper, he becomes notable, and then we can create the article. Until then, the subject is unnotable and the article ought to be deleted. Matt 190417 (talk) 16:01, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- That was just an instance, Matt! Not a place for humour where discussion is on track for some good.
An important nexus on vandalism The subject is more about protection against vandalism and improvement of POV but minimum criteria of notability of academics is well reciprocated. Admin Eppstein himself reverted a blunder made on the page by anonymous ip, hence I urge for protection and improvement of page considering minimum notability criterion which even Eppstein marked in last line than abrupt deletion. There is no blabber about the subject and as it is a stub, it asks for the improvement against deletion. The concise documentation on reliable sources is only present and so satisfies the stub criterion. Keep AchaksurvisayaUdvejin (talk) 16:05, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On Notability I think, Matt, you should first need read the Wikipedia criteria that WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A BATTLE GROUND.

I think, you are very distant from science.
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2014/04/23/academic-papers-citation-rates-remler/ AchaksurvisayaUdvejin (talk) 16:12, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- We are littering this page and talking across each other. We are going around in circles citing the same points. I will make no further comments. Matt 190417 (talk) 16:15, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per David Eppstein above, fails all WP:PROF criteria in my eyes. Ariadacapo (talk) 17:02, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A gateway towards resolution: As Editor has well marked the position on notability criteria, there is no meaning in moving in circles. As Matt tried improving the article after he found it protection nomination page where I had nominated the article, instantly the references could have made him nominate it for a discussion and now I have also mentioned some other sources, i.e. COI of publication and also Hardavrd-ads references, that can also be compiled. DOI can be added in the references. This point I have made clear at the moment I made a draft, created the article and mentioned the constraint in the talk page which administrator at that time understood well and approved the page. It is only the abrupt vandalism which put the page in the limelight but that was for all good. We better focus on improving the article by summing up references than engaging in a battle for no good reason. Thanks to you all. AchaksurvisayaUdvejin (talk) 16:35, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:COI to understand what I meant by it earlier. MT Train^Talk 17:02, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have stated in both contexts- conflict of interest(WP:COI) as well as certificate of insurance(DOI). I will refrain from editing the COI subject as it is closely related. But I strongly believe, article must be put for improvement and categorization than an abrupt deletion- keeping in mind minimum criteria of notability to acquire space on Wikipedia is satisfied.AchaksurvisayaUdvejin (talk) 17:29, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 19:02, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Canvass Comment - just a note to @AchaksurvisayaUdvejin:, I've dropped a longer message to your talk page, but please don't canvass editors to join your viewpoint on the AfD. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:12, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was certainly not a canvass comment to influence discussion but to garner various viewpoints. Secondly, every kind of notability will fail to hit the ground when consensus appears to be biased and to counteract view point at every instance instead of judging neutral. Even after that, I believe that an experienced Wikipedia on the proximity of neutrality will take decision on the mentioned conditions of the defence. AchaksurvisayaUdvejin (talk) 23:55, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AchaksurvisayaUdvejin I have already asked you to read WP:Good Faith. Please refrain from accusing other Wikipedia editors of "hate talk", "verbal fight[ing]", "biased", not "judging neutral", etc. As you might say, it does great harm to the community when there is such great absence of trust. MB190417 (talk) 05:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If there is an evident absence of trust, that is in your case who flagged it for speedy deletion directly despite of knowing that page has been already reviewed and one administrator also interfered earlier.Don't move in circles, you are trapped in your own statement. The way the page has been marked demonstrated a direct vandalism where now you are playing with words ad have no evidence to contribute something productive knowing that somehow criteria is satisfied. Please refrain from abrupt unjustifiable differences and withdraw. AchaksurvisayaUdvejin (talk) 05:20, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note: Speedy deletion is not the same as PROD is not the same as AfD. This page has not been marked for speedy deletion. This is the first and only AfD this page has encountered. The procedure for AfD is an entirely separate procedure to administrative approval of a page's creation. MB190417 (talk) 06:29, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not a method to discuss about the article,you could highlight it on talk page as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AchaksurvisayaUdvejin (talk • contribs) 06:44, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability indicated by sources present, nor in any sources that could be found. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above by David Eppstein. MB 20:01, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient citations to pass WP:PROF#C1, and no other indications of notability. There are times when a not-very-highly cited scholar can be notable on other grounds, but by all indications, this isn't one of them. Being an "editor" at Academia.edu doesn't appear to be a substantial recognition [27]. XOR'easter (talk) 22:53, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On verification: Author is not self published, his works have been published by reliable third party sources which make an eminent mainstream media platform in the country. But these will not be highlighted because consensus prefixed to move in some biased direction. I am exhausted and terrified. I better rest my case. Now whether article survives or it doesn't, it nowhere matters anymore. It will not lower the credibility and notability of the subject, but the proliferation of staunch deleters is non less than a vandalism in some cases. I will do an injustice if I don't count this one among some. Adieu. AchaksurvisayaUdvejin (talk) 01:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Mr. Krishnam is an undergraduate student according to a note in an article he wrote as recent as May 30, 2018. [28]
Ujjawal Krishnam is an undergraduate research scholar in the department of physics, at the Maharaja Sayajirao University Of Baroda.
— Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 01:49, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because undergraduate?: How does that matter? Can't an undergraduate be an author, researcher? What a hilarious take!

Truly, democracy dies in darkness! AchaksurvisayaUdvejin (talk) 02:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 03:27, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find any reliable sources in the chatter above, and I did my own internet search as well. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:31, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- And undergrad students do not meet WP:NSCHOLAR-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:05, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BeenAroundAWhile just a few google searches? I request you to visit scientist stubs to learn more about category and defence of stub! AchaksurvisayaUdvejin (talk) 05:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation on counter arguments: As noted by Wikipedia community, a person who doesn't meet additional criteria may still be notable. And the subject satisfies the basic confrontation against for what Wikipedia is not

WP:BASIC Sources reflecting the notability and genuine presence of the subject.

WP: PERSON WP:PROF Researchers, scholars referred as academics are notable in the world of ideas without any biography or secondary source.

WP:AUTHOR As Subject has contributed significant columns on mentioned topics, as in bibliography of article, which are notable reliable platforms and obviously they are not self published or dubious blogs.

This hints towards a clear consensus clarifying the persistent doubts. AchaksurvisayaUdvejin (talk) 08:10, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and David Eppstein. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 10:28, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NPROF is very far from being met, and the person also doesn't meet WP:GNG. --bonadea contributions talk 11:26, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Jevansen, et al. Note the article's creator is currently blocked for making legal threats and probably for all their antics in this AfD and obvious canvassing. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:04, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nomination, bonadea, and David Eppstein. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 12:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete utterly non-notable, WP:COI article. Plus claims that this person is an editor at Academia.edu seems mostly a self-provided blurb uncritically accepted by a publication. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:55, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG, a gsearch brings up nothing of note, extremely difficult for an undergrad to be wikinotable but who knows in the future... a definite case of WP:TOOSOON. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:22, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, self-promotional vanity article that fails WP:GNG and everything else that applies. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:25, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vain illiterate who claims to be a columnist. E Eng 14:55, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails all possible notability guidelines. WP:TOOSOON — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 15:22, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can we invoke the WP:SNOWBALL clause here? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:29, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking more WP:AVALANCHE. E Eng 15:52, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I expected opposition to speedy deletion, PROD etc. from article creator and unregistered IPs, hence why I nominated for deletion instead. MB190417 (talk) 15:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete Does not meet any inclusion criterion you could care to name. Self puffery.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:03, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:58, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ates Gürpinar

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN as amember and spokesperson of a local political party which need substantial national or international coverage to merit a page in Wikipedia. At the moment is just a candidate for the Bavarian state election, 2018 which will be held on Oct 2018. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:18, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it seems you are right.. Sorry, it seems I didn't read this correctly, and assumed that "office" would also be valid for elected positions inside of a state-wide party. Kristbaum (talk) 13:02, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even the head of a state-level party is not notable, being just a member of that party's board clearly not, unless we are in a uniparty country where the real political power is held by the party not elected officials, which is not the case of the Federal Republic of Germany (if we were dealing with the German Democratic Republic it would be a different story).John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:31, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just to make that clear, I'm for Delete too. (He is the legal co-head of the statewide party, they just use a different naming scheme). Kristbaum (talk) 09:06, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:57, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

World Ice Hockey Elo Ratings

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

Sources provided are primary / home page. A WP:BEFORE found no independent reliable source to pass notability; only this [29] written by a non reputable site by a General Electric statistician [30]. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:01, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:02, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:02, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom and as entirely promotional. (And that being said, a purported rating system which rates as 36th in the world a "national team" from a dependency of 6,000 souls which played a single exhibition game ten years ago is -- to put it bluntly -- profoundly fucked up.) Ravenswing 14:49, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As creator of the page, if this page is deleted then World Football Elo Ratings should be deleted as well. They are the same thing with different sports produced by the same guy. I agree with Ravenswing about Saint Pierre and Miquelon men's national ice hockey team. They are no longer a team that plays internationally therefore is classed as a former national team. However I didn't want to remove them from list as that would not accurately reflect the sites list. Which again is how World Football Elo Ratings operates. Johkey3 20:12, 20 June 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johkey3 (talk • contribs)

Comment: Feel free to file an AfD on World Football Elo Ratings, if you wish! Ravenswing 02:29, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't believe World Football Elo Ratings should be deleted. Just merely displaying the hypocrisy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johkey3 (talk • contribs) 09:36, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: If you believe there's hypocrisy inherent in you defending one article and not the other, I shan't gainsay you. But that being said, you haven't actually advanced a valid reason to save this page, and suggesting that the other article has the same sloppy methodology and lack of reliable sources isn't helpful. Ravenswing 13:23, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a ridiculous rating system that no one uses. Uses one primary source that is horribly flawed. There are teams in the list that aren't even national teams ranked ahead of teams that play in the world championships. And there are different ELO tables for nations if you look around the web, not anymore valuable, but at least not fictional.18abruce (talk) 08:40, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not finding anything that indicates this is notable and passes the GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 11:52, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant independent coverage to show WP:GNG is met. The fact that it's horribly flawed, as other editors mentioned, shouldn't impact its notability but the lack of coverage is crucial. Papaursa (talk) 18:07, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, subject fails WP:GNG guidelines. Flibirigit (talk) 12:51, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:57, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Over the Top (puzzle)

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

No evidence of any notability. Earlier PROD removed without any improvement in the article. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 11:57, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:02, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:TOOSOON. Experimental design not yet in production. SpinningSpark 12:50, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article, redirect to Oskar van Deventer. Hellbus (talk) 09:53, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep.Mainly based on BillHPike's !vote, which has been hardly rebutted.(non-admin closure) ∯WBG^converse 13:15, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Center of Concern

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:RS The Banner talk 21:29, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, I have seen the earlier nomination but I have based my nomination on my own research about the subject. Apparently, nobody who said that the article needed improvement, acted on his/her words and the number of independent sources is still remarkably small. The Banner talk 21:32, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:27, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:27, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The following represent a few recent news items on the Center: NCR, CISION, Globe 2Go. Jzsj (talk) 06:05, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- One about an event hosted in the building of CoC, and two about people related (present and former directors) to CoC, but nothing about CoC itself. The Banner talk 08:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The editor whose username is Z0 11:55, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NORG with significant, continued coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. See the previous AFD or Newspapers.com search results. I've added a few citations to the article. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 15:15, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I do not see any rebuttal of sourcing to relist any further.For the record, whether it stands out from the thousands of other outreach programs is irrelevant as long as the passage of GNG is unchallenged/met. (non-admin closure) ∯WBG^converse 13:12, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jesuit Outreach, Segundo Barrio

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

fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 21:41, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:26, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:26, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This diverse program extends its influence back to Mexico and Central America, whence the refugees come, and forward to all the places in the USA where they have settled over the years. It's notabililty is adequately attested to by all the independent references given. Jzsj (talk) 10:29, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your emergency addition of sources. Unfortunately, it still does not prove the notability of the organisation and why it stands out from the thousands of other outreach programs. The Banner talk 10:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - This program by its extent of outreach and programs over 126 years (and still very active) exceeds all other programs for welcoming immigrants entering the USA through the Juarez portal. There may be a few others among the "thousands" of outreach programs that are also notable, but that does not detract from its notability. Check also the backpack drive in El Paso, for the benefit of Sacred Heart School. (Maybe you can add this to the article since I didn't want to offend against my school ban.) Jzsj (talk) 12:17, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Interesting that you claim that the outreach-program is just as old as the parish running it. And indeed, most of the story is about social activities of the parish and not about the outreach program. The Banner talk 13:07, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jesuits, by the nature of their founding, do not run ordinary parishes in a diocese, but generally only have those attached to their universities, mission parishes where the church is just getting established, or those where there is some social justice imperative (as with St. Matthew's parish in entirely Black North St. Louis). From the article we learn that from the start Sacred Heart served immigrant Hispanics from Mexico and this commitment grew as the need increased, to the present day. All social justice programs in a parish can be denominated "outreach", as a parish's primary work is spiritual ministry. Jzsj (talk) 16:10, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Banner we could care less if it "stands out from the thousands of other outreach programs." No such policy.– Lionel^(talk) 13:44, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per WP:HEY. Way to go JZSJ.– Lionel^(talk) 13:35, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Aha, an opinion piece. Not an policy... The Banner talk 19:30, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. – Lionel^(talk) 13:36, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as multiple reliable sources references have been added to the article that show that the subject passes WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 17:52, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Despite appearances, this has the feel of a special ministry in a single parish. The fact that the article is well-referenced does not mean that the subject is notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:09, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What makes this much more than a parish ministry is the fact that it begins in Juarez, Mexico, and serves people passing through the border portal to all parts of the USA. Most of the people served will never be parishioners of Sacred Heart parish. And as a Jesuit ministry it draws on resources of the whole Central and Southern province of the Society of Jesus to serve all immigrants from Central America and Mexico who come through El Paso. Also, it is assisted by the City of El Paso as a common effort to welcome immigrants. Jzsj (talk) 18:32, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The editor whose username is Z0 11:55, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:55, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cherprang Areekul

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

A previous AfD was closed as Keep, citing that notability is not an issue as the coverage of the individual in local news are sufficient to establish that the person is notable. However, the coverage in the media as an interview is not sufficient to demonstrate the notability. Notability guidelines about musicians provides that the article about subject talking about itself cannot be used as a source to determine the notability of the subject. The AfD in Thai Wikipedia also closed with redirect as the work of Cherprang alone is not sufficiently merit her own article. Harley Hartwell (talk) 10:10, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:19, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:19, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Citing what happen at Thai wikipedia is not a reason for deletion, which I think it's too slow to react to notability over there. She got regular news coverage from top-tier news source, related or unrelated to the band, and lots of those she appeared alone in the news piece, easily satisfies GNG. Google news search of her: [31] --Lerdsuwa (talk) 15:13, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - normally a member of a band is redirected to the article on the band per WP:NBAND, however, she has a major role in a film, and with significant individual coverage, she has enough notability to satisfy WP:GNG for her own article. Hzh (talk) 22:02, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 11:49, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep multiple significant individual coverage and film lead shows independent notability and passes WP:Basic, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:23, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – per comments above. Seems notable. Interqwark ^{talk contribs} 05:11, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Her notability is established and warrants a stand-alone article per every applicable policy. --Miwako Sato (talk) 12:33, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:55, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zahid Hussain (journalist)

AfDs for this article:

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

Renominating per WP:NJOURNALIST; first AfD was inhabited by socks. First nom pointed to a bio asserting he is "award winning". What award? Does it meet requirement "has won significant critical attention" per NJOURNALIST? ☆ Bri (talk) 18:40, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:05, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:05, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:05, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral for now. While the subject is a prominent Pakistani columnist but unfortunately he fails to meet WP:NJOURNALIST and even basic GNG. I'm also unable to retrieve any information about the type of award he received. I think I'm willing to change my !vote to Keep if someone create stand-alone entries on the books - the subject authored. Yet to see if they merit one. --Saqib (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here are some links I found:
Journalist Zahid Hussain's new book (this is a newspaper article title used by the Dawn newspaper and then the article goes on to talk about his book in depth.
'Frontline Pakistan' launched in UK (The book, "Frontline Pakistan: The Struggle with Militant Islam", written by Pakistani journalist, Zahid Hussain, has been widely appreciated by the academic, political and diplomatic circles of Britons...). This is a 'quote line' from the newspaper The News International itself.
Saba Imtiaz (13 December 2010). "The Relentless Rise of Islamic Militants in Pakistan: Up in the air". The Express Tribune (newspaper). (This newspaper starts the article by saying, "While veteran journalist Zahid Hussain's articles are always worth a read,...". Then the article talks about the book written by Zahid Hussain in most of its article.
Zahid Hussain's book and profile as a journalist on Simon & Schuster website

If given a chance, I can go ahead and edit to incorporate these above links into his article plus anything else I find. Ngrewal1 (talk) 16:10, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ngrewal1: See if you can create pages on the books authored by the subject, if they pass relevant WP:N guidelines. --Saqib (talk) 16:38, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib: Sure. I can try, Saqib. Need some time, though. Ngrewal1 (talk) 17:00, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:35, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One sock was on the last AfD, it was still a 2/1 close (socks plural?). Looks like GNG or/and WP:NJOURNALIST are met. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 10:20, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, there was one sock at the last AfD. I was thinking of the two identified socks involved in the article itself, including its creator. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:21, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:24, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This was a tough decision, but there does seem to be enough evidence out there on the web for the subject to scrape by on experience and a consistent track record of recognized work in journalism. Of course, most of that evidence isn't apparent on the article here; it really needs a bit of work. The subject in and of himself, however, seems to be notable enough for inclusion. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:20, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:53, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Duedil

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

A directory-like listing for an unremarkable private company. Significant RS coverage not found. What comes are is passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. A sales brochure / investor prospectus, with mission statements. Created by Special:Contributions/Thomro with no other contributions outside this topic. Does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH / WP:NCORP. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:57, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thank you for your feedback. I have updated the page accordingly, removing promotional language and adding further reference articles, including those from The New York Times and The Financial Times. Please advise if there is anything else that should be changed to improve the quality of this article. (talk) 12:04, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:39, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing special here Misterpottery (talk) 14:06, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:22, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:36, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of names for cannabis. The argument(s) to merge and keep have been excellently rebutted. (non-admin closure) ∯WBG^converse 13:05, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thai (cannabis)

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

Cleaned up for unreliable sources as part of a general cleanup of marijuana varieties. None of the sources passed muster beyond user submitted review-type sites, and nothing really indicated WP:GNG for a variety either, which has been a recurring problem in marijuana variety articles (or varieties in general). Only source that appeared hopeful was this, but it only gives the variety passing mention at best and focusing more on trade in Thailand instead. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:13, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also add on that there's been an effort to clean up Cannabis_strains#Varieties and only include notable varieties there. Very few pass muster for WP:MEDRS or other significant mention in sources as it is, and this variety looks like it would fail to stand on it's own even at that broader page. It's just another that's primarily only referenced in generally non-reliable marijuana enthusiast forum type sites rather than those that establish GNG. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:18, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment note this recent version with more content and references (some of which obviously shouldn't be used, though removing all of them seems a bit too dramatic). power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:04, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removing those sources has actually been part of pretty standard cleanup in these articles for awhile now. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:20, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:14, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:14, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative keep. Has an entry on OxfordDictionaries.com.[32] Covered by the Westword~~[33]~~[34] (a general reliable source, I think, though not MEDRS); mentioned by The Diplomat[35] (several paragraphs in an article by the Thai Stick book author on the Thai marijuana trade); the Thai Stick book has a chapter titled "Thai Sticks", which covers the subject in more-than-passing detail. The Mammoth Book of Drug Barons[36], published by Hachette Book Group, also covers its history. Covered by High Times,[37] which I think might be regarded as reliable for this sort of info? I'm not at all familiar with the subject matter, but from skimming through the above sources it appears that the Thai stick was among the most popular forms of marijuana in the 1970s' United States. The historical aspect alone should make it a notable subject. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:18, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those are actually good examples of some of the broader issues why this is better for AfD rather than PROD, etc. compared to other variety nominations, so I'll dig into these a bit. I'm wary about dictionaries indicating notability, but the overall issue is that there's either tangential or non in-depth mention, or else it's just talking about marijuana from Thailand rather than a specific variety.

For Westword, I'm not seeing any mention.
The Diplomat appears to just to referring to marijuana from Thailand. Nothing about a specific variety. I'm not a fan of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments, but this source at best seems to be a case for a cuban cigar treatment where it redirects cannabis strains instead. Given the metric for sources we've been using for including varieties at that page though, it doens't seem like this one would pass there either though.
I linked the Thai Sticks book above in case anyone wants the link. From what I've been able to read in that through google, it's just more marijuana from Thailand rather than a variety, and really only the focus in a single book. Anyone can write a book, and the title of the book might accidentally make it seem like it's giving a particular variety notability.
The Mammoth Book of Drug Barons mostly seems to cover more marijuana from Thailand in general.
High Times is regularly deleted from marijuana articles as an unreliable source, or at least not of WP:DUE for varieties.

So basically the problem is that you can skim and see the term Thai sticks pop up on occasion internet searches while trying to exclude simply Thai and cannabis showing up on the same page, but nothing of sufficient depth that would work for GNG for at least a standalone article. We don't even have listing in any publicly available seed/plant catalogues, and that's already an extremely low bar for a variety being notable. If we had notable varieties like other crops, a good metric would be registration as a variety patent, etc., but I'm not seeing anything like that either. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:04, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Sorry, wrong link (blame the infinite scrolling web design). It should be this one. You do have a point in that most sources cover the subject more with the scope of marijuana imported from Thailand (and undergoing a specific production process) rather than a variety/strain, so I would also support renaming the article to something more reflective of that scope. But I still think coverage in some form is warranted. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:37, 9 June 2018 (UTC) PS In other words, suggest reverting the June 2017 additions and renaming the article back to Thai stick. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:47, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like the best case scenario would be create something like Cannabis production in Thailand, but that would seem to be independent of this particular AfD. Thai (cannabis) wouldn't have anything that could be merged over to such an article in terms of reliable sources, though Thai stick might be redirect someone could create for that new article. For the article at hand though, that leaves us with a potential redirect to cannabis strains, but there's nothing on the particular strain that would pass muster for mention there either. That's how I ended up at delete at least as opposed to redirecting as we've done for other more well sourced strains/varieties. Kingofaces43 (talk) 13:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:36, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with article on Cannabis - this article is only a sentence long, and a merge with a more general article should not prove too difficult. Vorbee (talk) 07:58, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to bludgeon this AfD, but as discussed above, a merge wouldn't be feasible. The single sentence deals with strain information, but this wouldn't even meet the WP:DUE threshold we've been using over at Cannabis_strains#Varieties. This topic is a poorer quality than some of the other varieties that have been removed there even. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of names for cannabis, where Thai sticks are mentioned. I don't see enough coverage of "Thai sticks" in reliable sources to write an article (though there's quite a bit in sources like High Times), and Thai strains clearly aren't a stand-alone topic. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:03, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lodha Group

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

WP:ARTSPAM about company lacking significant coverage in reliable sources independent of subject. Sourced from company web page and press releases. Does not meet WP:NCORP or WP:GNG -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:37, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 11:25, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 11:25, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - could this be redirected to Mangal Lodha? - Sitush (talk) 11:46, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:15, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No Notability, may be WP:TOOSOON. Merging is a NO in my opinion. Accesscrawl (talk) 12:45, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with above, fails WP:SPIP and fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:15, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See coverage on Reuters or The Times of India.Jklamo (talk) 08:24, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in my opinion it is notable regionally, some news sources are independent as per WP:GNG. If so, it's a keep. Mia Watson (talk) 16:43, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

`*Delete does not meet predent standards at WP:NCORP, which is the current interpretation of the GNG for corporations. DGG ( talk ) 04:51, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:44, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Daneta Wollmann

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

Despite what the lede sentence says, she is not a US District Judge. She is a Magistrate Judge, a subsidiary official who hears the preliminary steps of cases and disposes of minor matters. There's an immense difference, Officials at this level have never been considered to be presumed to meet the notability requirements DGG ( talk ) 09:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree no evidence she meets the notability requirements Million_Moments (talk) 12:03, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete actual district judges are notable, magistrate judges are not. Don't get me started on how unequal our coverage of judges is between the US and Nigeria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:22, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) ∯WBG^converse 13:02, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Strelecky

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

Unsourced article with WP:FLOWERY language. » Shadowowl | talk 09:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - has been a promotion piece for seven years, but was cut down to a neutral stub earlier this year. A couple of different accounts have popped up to restore the advertising language (quite frankly, the article could be speedily deleted as an advert) but when sifting through the revisions and looking for independent sources, I can't find anything pointing towards notability. In a way this is a good illustration of why people shouldn't try to use Wikipedia to promote themselves - this person has had their promotional bio on Wikipedia for several years, but there is still no actual significant coverage of them in any independent sources. With all the (unspecified) claims of best-seller status (local, regional, a specific bookshop, a newspaper, a country version of amazon.com...? no way of telling) I would have expected quite a bit of independent coverage, but I find only one item, this piece from Hamburger Abendblatt. One such piece is not sufficient - and the fact that there is only one makes me suspect that this is based on a press release, but my German is not good enough to tell churnalism from journalistic writing. The host of SPAs restoring the promo piece is another thing, there is definitely a COI/probable UPE issue here. --bonadea contributions talk 10:13, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Change that to a weak keep based on the dw.com reference. I agree with power-enwiki below that it is very peculiar indeed that there are not more sources - his books are self-published but even so a national bestseller would normally have some more independent coverage. "Bestseller" is a tricky concept which marketers like to apply to books that sell better than other books in one individual bookshop, for instance, but the dw.com source does seem to confirm that it is a bona fide national bestseller. --bonadea contributions talk 09:18, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not finding any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, fails WP:GNG. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Promotional article. Edwardx (talk) 10:52, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:51, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Apparently he had the third best-selling book of Germany in 2017 [38] (and top 10 since 2015 with the best-selling paperback non-fiction of 2015 [39]), and received significant coverage in German sources- [40]. Should qualify under WP:GNG. Hzh (talk) 16:13, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I am unable to confirm that foreign language sources discuss him as the main subject. I will WP:AGF. Ping me if the opposite is determined.=TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:40, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a top selling author in Germany meets NAUTHOR. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 18:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:05, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is very bizarre. The article is a disaster, but being the author of a multi-year best-selling book in Germany meets WP:NAUTHOR#4 , and the DW reference is reliable for that. I don't see quite the coverage I'd expect for that; possibly I'm not using the right search terms to find German references. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:25, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:19, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. There may be a notable topic here somewhere (of which I'm not convinced) but this article ain't it. No sources except for the subject's own book, etc. Just promo 'cruft at this point and no value to the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:45, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:44, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom 2030 FIFA World Cup bid

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

This article is a case of WP:TOOSOON. There is no official bid as yet, we don't if any such bid might be by England alone or UK-wide and the article is based entirely on newspaper speculation regarding "secret talks" and quoting some views on a hypothetical bid. It has also been a magnet for WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, with people creating lists of potential venues based on combining current ground capacities with FIFA requirements. An article is only justified if / when an official bid is announced. Jellyman (talk) 09:16, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:19, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:19, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, because we don't know what kind of bid would be made (England alone, or jointly with neighbouring countries), if any. WP:CRYSTAL. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:30, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:46, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - far too speculative. Giant Snowman 09:47, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. Far too soon and speculative, although the content would make a good starting point if the bid does go anywhere. Nzd (talk) 10:05, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Vorbee (talk) 10:48, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Number 5 7 11:03, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:50, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's a hypothetical bid, not officially announced, and no information is really known about it, including whether it would be just England or the entire UK. Even the sources used are mostly just speculating on what a UK bid would look like and do not really have any confirmed information. Article can be re-created when an official bid is announced and more information is available. Tillerh11 (talk) 17:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL, Toosoon, etc. Govvy (talk) 20:14, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is far too soon. The idea at the moment is more or less hypothetical and there is not enough reliable information to justify an article at this stage. The 2030 FIFA World Cup article give the topic the appropriate level of coverage at this time. Dunarc (talk) 20:29, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The first sentence contains the word "possible". That alone is speculation. Everything else follows from that. HiLo48 (talk) 01:18, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:25, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - classic case of WP:TOOSOON, per nom and above. Inter&anthro (talk) 15:41, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - from what I can see most of it has been copied from England's 2018 World Cup bid anyway. Stevo1000 (talk) 15:09, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:TOOSOON to say that the U.K. will still exist in 2030. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:33, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - total speculation, no formal bid has been launched. Fenix down (talk) 14:21, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON Hhkohh (talk) 14:24, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. And SALT, since this is a second recreation of a copyvio. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:07, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Centre for Social Action

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

A WP:BEFORE shows no independent or in-depth coverage to establish notability. MT Train^Talk 08:45, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:46, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:46, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is about to be improved. Some news videos and articles will be cited, will take about 24 hours. Do not delete just yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sriram akash (talk • contribs) 09:17, 20 June 2018 (UTC) Will follow guideline Wikipedia:Notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sriram akash (talk • contribs) 09:19, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further edits were made where citations were added from sources other than the organisation's website.Sriram akash (talk) 10:01, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. This is at least the second time the article's creator has posted the article, largely a copyright violation; see [41], for example. Also spam. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 10:04, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Bcash

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete Promotional and fails WP:GNG. This source (in chinese) [42] shows the characters 广告 which translates to paid advertisement. Maybe the english sources are also paid advertisements. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:32, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[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 Island View Residential Treatment Center. There are no valid arguments against a merge, irrespective of the notability of the target, which is debated at a simultaneous AfD. (non-admin closure) ∯WBG^converse 13:49, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elevations Residential Treatment Center

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

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

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

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

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

Keep and merge with Island View Residential Treatment Center. This article is a WP:CFORK of the latter, created in apparent good faith in 2015: [43]. Both articles have contentious edit histories, but that's not a reason for deletion. Article creator has been removing material about the centre under its former ownership and name, e.g. [44],[45], [46], when in fact there should be a single article about the centre. Definitely notable per WP:GNG and WP:CORP, with significant coverage online in WP:RS. TMG^talk 08:45, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Ref#2 is self published / website.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ref#12 not available.

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

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

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

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

Ref#17 org's own website preview.

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

Ref#19 is another blog Press release.

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

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

Ref#22 just like above.

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

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

Ref#25 same as above.

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

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

Indeed, references should be improved, but as I wrote above there are WP:RS online, e.g. [47], [48], [49], [50]. It looks sufficient to me.

You wrote above that #11 is passing mention and the news is about an incident that happens to be of a student of the org, not of the org: it's an article from Deseret News on the state requiring them to improve their suicide prevention after some poor kid hanged himself there [51], which is pretty significant coverage of the organization. TMG^talk 10:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You also wrote above that #12 not available, it's a broken link to a Salt Lake Tribune article: here's the fixed link [52]. I'll fix it in the article now. TMG^talk 10:46, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The references that you gave do not have in depth coverage of the organization, they do have coverage of various incidents where the org has passing mentions. [53] ref that you gave says "That culture is visible even at Aspen’s most upscale residential programs, such as Island View..." such phrases make it clear that these are being taken as examples. This doesn't make the org notable. Similarly the unfortunate incidents about suicide or cases that justify negative perspective of such centers are also about those incidents. They dont make the org notable enough or a notable business. [54] this broken link that you fixed (thank you) too is a bare mention. They are very few to start with. The article is beefed up with various press releases and that doesn't create good faith. That would be a debate for Island view, but since the article itself says that the org had different owners and different name (just the same location), the merger doesn't make sense. You can give your arguments on the island view deletion if it is nominated (it should be nominated). But as far as Elevations go, I dont think it should stay live or be merged. Wikipedia should not be supporting PR. --Nzteoli (talk) 10:55, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The case against forking, and for a merge now, is evident from this article's first edit: [55] TMG^talk 11:18, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Delete: This page is not accurate and does not have sufficient evidence or unbiased links. This article has had thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them and have failed.206.207.225.112 (talk) 19:25, 25 June 2018 (UTC)— 206.207.225.112 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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 FIA Formula 2 Championship. Merge from history as desired. Sandstein 18:25, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2019 FIA Formula 2 Championship

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/2019 FIA Formula 2 Championship

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:40, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CreditCards.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:40, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Wren

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:39, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Berdichevsky

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

List of shootings in Sweden

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

School of computing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete per nom and general consensus that is does not pass WP:GNG. We should not redirect this to the dab article if it is deemed non notable. Ajf773 (talk) 20:27, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We always redirect plausible alternative capitalisations. If this is not notable it should be redirected to the dab page. There is no reason in principle why we shouldn't have articles on individual university departments. Quite a lot of them, at the better universities, satisfy GNG. But this department was founded this year. James500 (talk) 03:15, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[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 Pegasides. To begin with, clear consensus to not delete. The general feeling is that what folks like Ovid write about tends to be notable by default. But later in the discussion our resident classicists point out, and apparently uncontroversially, that this is actually a content fork of Pegasides. It can be worked out editorially whether anything in the history of this one-sentence stub is worth merging. Sandstein 18:37, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pegasis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wait, where does one cite Plutarch? I must have missed it. The Encyclopedia of Fairies in World Folklore and Mythology cites Ovid and Parada, and the other one is Parada, who seems to cite Quintus Smyrnaeus.^[1] But Ovid seems relatively clearly to be referring to Oenone (seem my comment). --tronvillain (talk) 17:13, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ah, it's the Emathion entry that cites "Romulus" in Plutarch's Lives, but that appears to be to establish Emathion as father of Diomedes, since it doesn't mention Pegasis. Perhaps it's different in the original, but the various translations I can find actually say things like "Some, that Romus, the Son of Emathion(4), whom Diomede fent from Troy",^[2]^[3] "some, Romus, the son of Emathion, Diomede, having sent him from Troy",^[4] and "or Romus, the son of Emathion, whom Diomedes sent from Troy".^[5] --tronvillain (talk) 18:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Redirect: There doesn't appear to be enough here to establish notability, but there's already Pegasides where it says "Pegasides are connected with the term Pegasis, which means all that descended from Pegasus or originated from him."^[6] And as it also mentions there, Ovid's use of "Pegasis" is to Oenone (or Eonone).^[7]^[8]^[9] It might be worth mentioning on those pages though. --tronvillain (talk) 15:55, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The two references that existed on the page appear to both depend on the single line from Quintus Smyrnaeus, "Next his weapon pierc'd Atymnius, whom the nymph with golden locks, Bright Pegasis, to brave Emalion bore, Where deep Granicus rolls his lucid stream.", which hardly constitutes extensive coverage.^[1] --tronvillain (talk) 16:12, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

References

^ ^a ^b Smyrnaeus, Quintus; Dyce, Alexander (1821). Select Translations from the Greek of Quintus Smyrnaeus. W. Baxter, sold by J. Parker. p. 80.
^ Plutarch's Live in Eight Volumes. Translated from the Greek. With Notes Historical and Critical from M. Dacier: Containing Themistocles. Camillus. Pericles. Fabius Maximus. Alcibiades. Coriolanus. Translated from the greek. With notes historical and critical from m. Dacier. J. Tonson in the Strand. 1727. p. 122.
^ Plutarch (1769). Plutarch's Lives: In Six Volumes: Translated from the Greek. With Notes, Explanatory and Critical, from Dacier and Others. To which is Prefix'd The Life of Plutarch, Written by Dryden. J. Williams. p. 51.
^ Plutarch (1887). Plutarch's Lives of Illustrious Men. Belford, Clarke. p. 35.
^ Plutarch (1823). Plutarch's lives. printed for Richards and co. for W. Robinson and sons. p. 77.
^ Smith, William (1858). A classical dictionary of biography, mythology, and geography: based on the larger dictionaries. London, England: John Murray. p. 534. OCLC 316433650.
^ Palmer, Arthur (1874). P. Ovidii Nasonis Heroides [I] - XIV. Bell. p. 37.
^ Ovid: Selections for the Use of Schools, with Introductions and Notes and an Appendix on the Roman Calendar. Clarendon Press. 1868. p. 95.
^ Ovid (1893). The Heroïdes, Or Epistles of the Heroines ; The Amours ; Art of Love ; Remedy of Love ; And, Minor Works of Ovid. G. Bell. pp. 42–.

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

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

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

Bcash

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete Promotional and fails WP:GNG. This source (in chinese) [56] shows the characters 广告 which translates to paid advertisement. Maybe the english sources are also paid advertisements. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:32, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[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.

[1] ttp://www.bug-ev.org/en/topics/focus-areas/dossiers/ethnic-profiling/what-is-ethnic-profiling.html

[Eastwood2006-2] Eastwood, Joseph; Cullen, Richard M; Kavanagh, Jennifer; Snook, Brent (2006). "A review of the validity of criminal profiling" (PDF). Canadian Journal of Police and Security Services. 4: 118–124.

[3] Mareile Kaufmann (2010). Ethnic Profiling and Counter-terrorism: Examples of European Practice and Possible Repercussions. LIT Verlag Münster. pp. 16–17. Retrieved 23 June 2018. statistically proven to correlate with certain criminal conduct can be effective law enforcement tools

[4] ttp://www.bug-ev.org/en/topics/focus-areas/dossiers/ethnic-profiling/what-is-ethnic-profiling.html

[5] Kober, Avi (2009-09-11). Israel's Wars of Attrition: Attrition Challenges to Democratic States. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-135-25552-7.

[Smyrnaeus_Dyce1821-6] Smyrnaeus, Quintus; Dyce, Alexander (1821). Select Translations from the Greek of Quintus Smyrnaeus. W. Baxter, sold by J. Parker. p. 80.

[7] Plutarch's Live in Eight Volumes. Translated from the Greek. With Notes Historical and Critical from M. Dacier: Containing Themistocles. Camillus. Pericles. Fabius Maximus. Alcibiades. Coriolanus. Translated from the greek. With notes historical and critical from m. Dacier. J. Tonson in the Strand. 1727. p. 122.

[Plutarch1769-8] Plutarch (1769). Plutarch's Lives: In Six Volumes: Translated from the Greek. With Notes, Explanatory and Critical, from Dacier and Others. To which is Prefix'd The Life of Plutarch, Written by Dryden. J. Williams. p. 51.

[Plutarch1887-9] Plutarch (1887). Plutarch's Lives of Illustrious Men. Belford, Clarke. p. 35.

[Plutarch1823-10] Plutarch (1823). Plutarch's lives. printed for Richards and co. for W. Robinson and sons. p. 77.

[11] Smith, William (1858). A classical dictionary of biography, mythology, and geography: based on the larger dictionaries. London, England: John Murray. p. 534. OCLC 316433650.

[Palmer1874-12] Palmer, Arthur (1874). P. Ovidii Nasonis Heroides [I] - XIV. Bell. p. 37.

[13] Ovid: Selections for the Use of Schools, with Introductions and Notes and an Appendix on the Roman Calendar. Clarendon Press. 1868. p. 95.

[Ovid1893-14] Ovid (1893). The Heroïdes, Or Epistles of the Heroines ; The Amours ; Art of Love ; Remedy of Love ; And, Minor Works of Ovid. G. Bell. pp. 42–.

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]