Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 October 3

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

The result was Keep (Non-administrator closure.) Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:33, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Barry J. Sanders

Barry J. Sanders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable college football player. Only claim to notability is his association to his father Barry Sanders. Natg 19 (talk) 23:33, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 01:35, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:GNG - Has not played in a professional league, has not gained significant notability while playing college football. Some media interest due to famous relative and future possibilities does not make subject relevant. -- Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 21:21, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having read the links provided below I am changing my vote to keep, per Bradkoch2007. I feel that the links provided below should be in the article. If anyone feels like doing it feel free, if not I will see if I have some time this weekend. -- Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 20:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Taketa + sources added  SmileBlueJay97  talk  03:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had no problem finding significant coverage in the New York Times, SF Chronicle, San Jose Mercury-News, Bleacher Report, Fox Sports West, NBC Bay Area... All on the first page of a simple Google search for BARRY + SANDERS + STANFORD (see below). Please don't make this argument, while there may be a potential basis for a notability challenge on family relationships, there certainly is no lack of substantial published coverage, which is massive. Carrite (talk) 15:20, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Userfy if someone wants it. I agree that there really isn't enough third party reliable coverage to surpass the notability threshhold at this time. However, I would be shocked if this continues through the end of next season. No prejudice to recreate should the subject surpass the notability threshhold in the future.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:40, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:FLIPFLOP to Keep I did not find those sources the first time around, but there they are! I make it a point to change my mind and agree with Carrite and Dirtlawyer1 whenever they are right.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - With all due respect to Paul McDonald, articles such as THIS from the San Francisco Chronicle, and THIS from Bleacher Report, and THIS from Fox Sports West, and THIS from the San Jose Mercury News, and THIS from the New York Times, and THIS from NBC Bay Area in addition to sources showing in the piece and dozens of other possible articles on the internet and in print indicates that this subject already easy passes our General Notability Guideline, which calls for multiple, substantial, published pieces of coverage in so-called "reliable" sources. Carrite (talk) 15:15, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Note to closing administrator: don't count noses, count sources. Carrite (talk) 15:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Clear "keep" !vote after reviewing the articles linked by Carrite above, most of which feature Sanders as the primary subject, and thereby satisfying the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG with significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. As an aside, Carrite, we usually do not accept reader-submitted content, such as that found on Bleacher Report, as a reliable source. Nice work other than that. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re the aside, some of the "lead writers" on Bleacher Report are paid professionals whose work may qualify as RS. (See [1], [2], for example.) I do tend to avoid it as a source because of the lack of clarity, but I note that this particular article is written by such a lead writer. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:55, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - While I don't discount the many sources found about Sanders, his notability derives from the fact that he is the son of a Hall of Fame running back. These articles would not exist otherwise. I don't believe that Sanders has done anything notable on his own (ex. winning a national award, or setting a record) that warrants his own article. Natg 19 (talk) 17:23, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:GNG does not require any particular accomplishments; it only requires significant coverage. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Dirtlawyer1: - WP:INHERITED (which is not a guideline) states the norm that "Family members of celebrities also must meet Wikipedia's notability criteria on their own merits – the fact that they have famous relatives is not, in and of itself, sufficient to justify an independent article." -- Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 20:33, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree, Taketa. There is more than ample independent coverage of Sanders, Jr., by himself, to satisfy GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - How much of his notability is originally derived from his father's has become irrelevant - deserved or not, the younger has become a publicly known figure with substantial press coverage about his current status and future opportunities. Bradkoch2007 (talk) 20:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw by nominator - I am withdrawing this nomination due to the !votes and arguments for Keep above. Natg 19 (talk) 16:49, 9 October 2014 (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. There are quite a few disparate comments here and it took me a while to go through all of it. I will not address every point (that would double the size of this already long AfD). The arguments brought forward by Carrite, Drmies, and DGG are very compelling. I don't think anybody would like to argue that kidnapping is an essential characteristic of Islamism (or political Islam, or however one would like to call it), nor that only Islamists kidnap. Hence, "kidnapping in Islamism" is OR/SYNTH. As pointed out by Chillum, the available sources lists/discuss events, but do not address the generalized topic of "kidnapping in Islamism" as such. I could imagine that "Kidnapping in terrorism" could be a valid article, but that should really be started from scratch. Randykitty (talk) 17:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kidnapping in Islamism

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

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

Delete: Original research. This is an essay. or consider merging it with Kidnapping in terrorism. There is nothing unique about kindapping in islamism that is different from kindapping in terrorism in general. DrSultan85 (talk) 21:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC) blocked sock--Shrike (talk) 16:46, 9 October 2014 (UTC)per this Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Determinator.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:31, 9 October 2014 (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}}.

Comment Kidnapping by Islamists in Algerian and the Philippines undertaken as a lever to force the governments of France and Germany to alter their foreign / military stance toward the Islamist government of Syria/Iraq seems unique and differnet to the world's major news organizations.ShulMaven (talk) 18:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Kidnapping in terrorism does not exist as an article as such. It is a redirect.

Comment ETA kidnapped and killed Miguel Ángel Blanco. Let us stop trying to show islamists as exclusive terrorists. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 20:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I find the article's subject confusing. Much of the kidnapping is actually slavery by another word. And some of it is criminal activities and nothing else. The current title, "Kidnapping in Islamism", seems also overly broad for an article that mentions only very recent or current events. It needs a title chance if it is to be kept in its current restricted form. Maybe "Islamist kidnapping"? And if its content were to be expanded in scope and time period a title like "Kidnapping in Islamic culture" might be more appropriate. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:38, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Closer Non admin Close as Keep by WritingEnthusiast14 was reopened by Drmies .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:33, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and possibly merge with an article about kidnapping: My primary reason is that this article is only using sources in which either the terrorists themselves or experts on the area of terrorism are referenced to. But what does islam say about kidnapping? In my opinion, this would be something which might give an addition to this article which is useful for the reader and give good insightful information, you will have to use an academic source though, but the article is too much focused on things which other articles also talk about. My second reason is the title, "kidnapping in islamism" is far from neutral. I agree with DrSultan85 as a non-muslim that this is shedding a bad light on muslims, as the title of this article already seems to claim that this is some common practice in islam, which I highly doubt it is. Just my opinion. Bokareis (talk) 21:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"shedding a bad light on muslims" is not a reason to delete an article! Kidnapping IS and always has been a common practice in Islam (by Muslims, not by "Islamists"), though the article's restricted aims (dealing only with recent events) does not reflect that. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "Kidnapping is a common practice in Islam" is a pretty disgusting statement--not just POV, but disgusting. Do we need to prove that kidnapping is common practice throughout the world? Or do you have a reliable, objective source that explains this, and how this supposed love for kidnapping is somehow essentially Muslim? What blog will you point to? Drmies (talk) 17:25, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the above. Kidnapping is kidnapping! There is nothing special about Islam and kidnapping. The article hasWP:POV issues and as does the title. Last AfD was kept for procedural reasons, and the nominator withdrew the nomination. Valid concerns were raised there as well. The Determinator p t c 22:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC)Nominator blocked indef Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Determinator. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:31, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. In an article of this title, I would expect some discussion of how these groups justify what they are doing in terms of Islamic law. But the discussion of motives is completely cynical. Of course there are Islamic laws relevant to kidnapping, so I cannot agree with the view that, "There is nothing special about Islam and kidnapping." Claimsworth (talk) 04:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC) (sock)[reply]

• I think this can usefully be overhauled as Kidnapping in terrorism, which is currently a redirect. I think there's certainly something to be said about the use of kidnapping by terrorist groups, and Islamist ones have been in the news lately. However, as other users have pointed out, there's nothing about any of this that's especially specific to Islamist terrorists. Miguel Ángel Blanco by Basque separatists, Aldo Moro by the Brigate Rosse, some Army of God and other anti-abortion kidnappings... –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The notability of the topic is clearly established by the references provided in the article, including for example the book "Islamic Terror Abductions in the Middle East" by Shay. The references discuss this topic as such, so it's not synthesis. The objections seem to be mainly about WP:NPOV, but that is not a reason to delete the article. Articles are supposed to be improved to accord with that policy, not be deleted. While kidnapping is a tactic that has been used by numerous armed groups throughout history, and there is not much essentially different about kidnappings by islamists versus those by people of other religions or ideologies, kidnappings by islamist groups have attracted attention as a specific phenomenon and been discussed in that way, which justifies having this article. In the same way, it could be justified to have an article on kidnappings in Colombia, bombings in Ireland, suicide attacks by Japanese in World War 2, and so forth, because these were significant phenomena even though numerous different groups, including many that are well-regarded by most people today, have used the same tactics. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. If the article were changed to "kidnapping in terrorism" or something similar, as some editors have suggested, that likely would lead to a violation of WP:SYNTH. As it stands the topic of the article is notable in its own right. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:19, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep That's a good point. If the category exists in the literature, then we can have an article about it. That non-Muslims kidnap as well is really neither here nor there. Claimsworth (talk) 01:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All kidnapping is terrorism is one way or another. The above example of suicide Japanese bombers in WW2 is not relvant. As in WW2 there were not more bombings elsewhere. But in case of kidnappings there are more in Mexico than any other place in the world. Any material worth rescuing should be merged with kidnapping, the rest should be removed.

Category DOES NOT exist. I think reporting one book hardly establishes the category. ALL the other references relate to terrorism and one particular organization, and that is what makes it a WP:SYNTH Sammy1339 and Claimsworth, both of your points assume that category is establishes, when in fact neither of you have shown that the category is established. The Determinator p t c 02:07, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have wonder if this objection is meant seriously. There are headlines linking Islam and kidnapping all the time: Obama's Diplomacy by Twitter; Appeasing Radical Islam Invites a Result like the Nigerian Kidnappings, Kidnapping shows how France, despite opposition to Iraq war, is not immune to threats from radical Islam, Militants Seek Group Edict on Kidnappings (This is about a terrorist group that asked some Muslim clerics if is OK to kidnap). Prominent Sunni cleric says wartime kidnapping is permissible -- but hostages can't be killed, Kidnapping of diplomat un-Islamic, and Lebanon's top Shiite cleric bans kidnapping of foreigners. That's just a few examples, the tip of the iceberg. Claimsworth (talk) 02:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep What Sammy and Claimsworth said. But also note the extent to which Islamist kidnappings are a geopolitical strategy. Islamist kidnappers in the Philippines and in Algeria have taken hostages from countries involved in the war against the self-declared Islamist caliphate in Syria/Iraq, threatening to kill them unless the governments of France and Germany withdraw their military fromm fighting ISIS. This is not like crominal kidnapping for money. I am trying to encounter the arguments of those who are moving to delete. But this seems like a coherent category not only to me, but to the world's major news organizations {The Guardian]], Wall Street Journal, New York Times. It is a specific funding and political strategy pursued by self-proclaimed Islamist fighters whose shared strategy of kidnapping for financial/political reasons makes this a topic/category.ShulMaven (talk) 18:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna go with delete on this one. Some of the stuff in there is worthy of an encyclopedia. A lot of it is just being used for hate-mongering. I am not 100% sure how this works. Some of these above references say Islam opposes kidnapping, or at least opposes killing POWs, that's what kidnapping during war is a POW. This article cites non of these references. Also all (at least the ones I'm familiar with) religions have similar views on kidnappings [Torah for Today: What the Torah says about kidnapping See Bible Judges 21: 10- 24. This hate-mongering and demonizing of one people must stop. My objection is slightly broader than those above. I think WP:POV is a big issue here. Although I agree OP and others, i think what's wrong with article goes beyond just WP:SYNTH 70.63.179.18 (talk) 18:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC) — 70.63.179.18 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete to rename (sounds strange, no :?) Kidnapping in terrorism so that we can merge information from the kidnappings of ETA and the Red Brigades mentioned above. This way we will have respected a basic pillar of Wikipedia not making a selective approach on kidnapping as a terrorist tool, method and tactic. Am I clear enough? --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 18:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions70.63.179.18 (talk) 18:38, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep lots of sources. though, in general of course removal of all connection between islam and anything negative is best. maybe disperse the paragraphs of examples among parts of kidnapping related articles. Cramyourspam (talk) 19:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Original POV essay. Pretty straightforward call, this is a textbook case of prohibited "Original Research" as it applies to history — a novel synthesized argument. Carrite (talk) 15:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is just a sequence of Wiki-cliches stuck together. I can't even figure out what your point is. Claimsworth (talk) 22:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is a pretty specific critique that I hope the closing administrator will appreciate. In short: Wikipedia is not the place for novel scientific or historical research. Encyclopedic topics should be reflected by presence in the scholarly literature somewhere. This is not. Nor is Wikipedia the place for political axe-grinding. This is a thinly disguised anti-"Islamist" screed, in my estimation. So it's a failure on two counts. Carrite (talk) 01:58, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're point is clear. So you don't like material that connects Islam to anything negative. Or you do actually think that no scholar has every connected Islamism and kidnapping? There are certianly plenty of hits for Islamism and kidnapping on JSTOR. There is no reason to restrict ourelves to scholarly writing. There is huge category of material that connects Islamists to terrorism, kidnapping, and so forth. That includes books, news stories, and other RS. You want to dismiss it all as "axe-grinding." But it certainly isn't original research. Claimsworth (talk) 07:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as being much better sourced than I expected. That having been said, I'm not happy with the title. I would not be against a merge per Why should I have a User Name? Bearian (talk) 19:40, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The nom is a sock.Articles are normally only deleted for problems with content if they are unsalvageable issues of original research and neutrality problems can be solved through regular editing .The subject is notable now whether one has a separate article for Kidnapping in Islamism or merge this with a new general article of Kidnapping in Terrorism is not a reason for deletion.If there is issue with the title that can be subject to a requested move.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment FARC the Colombian group has done a lot of kidnapping including the Colombian presidential candidate Ingrid Betancourt that is documented in List of political hostages held by FARC and in Kidnappings in Colombia and similarly International child abduction in Mexico are are separate articles. Kidnapping in the United States even Kidnapping in Canada are separate articles .This is localized and hence have country specific articles but the groups like al-Qaeda and the ISIS, are regional to an extent global and are classified by religion .Please Political correctness is not a reason for deletion Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:31, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you're going the PC route: islamophobia is not a reason for keeping. FARC is an organization--one single one. The US and Canada are, as you well know, individual countries. So is Mexico. There is no way in which "islamists" is a clearly defined entity on which you can pin a particular tactic. Carrite, and now Chillum as well, indicate quite clearly that the problem is not just the content: it is the very topic, as exemplified by its unacceptable title. The moment you rework the title to make it fit the content, you'll end up with something like Kidnappings done by groups who may or may not have subscribed, publicly or not, to some form of what some people call "Islamism", a highly controversial term used here only to function as a catchall for a wide variety of different events, done by different people/organizations in different places, for different reasons. Drmies (talk) 02:50, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• So Carrite does your thinking for you. That explains a lot. Be honest. If these Islamist groups weren't really terrorists and kidnappers, would you be defending them? Are radical socialists really this sensitive to religious criticism? Claimsworth (talk) 07:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Claimsworth: Let's all of us please refrain from politicizing this. --Sammy1339 (talk) 07:35, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you Sammy1339. Actually, this isn't so much politicizing as playing the man, not the ball. Claimsworth, your suggestion is too revolting to warrant a response, and that Carrite does my thinking for me is prima facie ridiculous. You couldn't have done a better job discrediting yourself if you tried. That's all. Drmies (talk) 17:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: Actually, the Kidnappings in Colombia article discusses kidnappings not only by FARC but also by M-19, ELN, drug cartels, and others, which form a coherent phenomenon that would make it unreasonable to discuss them all separately. This is not an argument based on WP:OTHERSTUFF, but your assertion that there is no precedent for discussing kidnappings by loosely related groups is incorrect. The issue is nothing to do with controversy or "islamophobia," it is that there has been widespread media and scholarly attention to the use of kidnapping as a tactic by islamist groups. If you find the term offensive, perhaps you would prefer "political islam," which however is just a synonym. The ideology itself has been the subject of thousands of books, academic papers, and other sources, and is indisputably shared by groups such as Boko Haram, Al Qaeda, and ISIL. It's not reasonable to delete the article on the grounds that the term might be controversial in some circles. --Sammy1339 (talk) 05:55, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As Carrite says, this is OR in its combining two words as if they are somehow essentially connected. I mean, considering that "islamists" have a tendency to use AK-47s, and that many appear to have beards, I see two more articles ready for creation if this one stands. So what if it's a frequently used tactic for them? Lots of other entities do it as well, and that they kidnap people from "enemy countries"--well, that makes sense, since you wouldn't kidnap your friends. I wouldn't, at least. What's more, I object to this lumping together of organizations under what is essentially a non-neutral, POVish, vague term, as our article (fortunately) points out: Islamism#Definitions. To call one particular terrorist or group "Islamist" is one thing, but to throw them all together and say that they have this in common, that's quite another. Drmies (talk) 21:34, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not OR, because independent sources have identified these groups as islamist and drawn a connection between the movement and the tactic of kidnapping. Contrary to what you suggest, the article does not assert that all islamist groups have this in common, only that it is a significant occurrence among islamist groups. As for the AK-47's and beards, I think the fallacy of this argument is that it conflates a culturally, politically, and otherwise significant phenomenon, the use of kidnapping by these groups, with superficial and irrelevant facts. But if there were enough significant coverage and discussion of these facts for an article, then yes, they would deserve one - and in point of fact the iconic use of AK rifles by jihadists is discussed in the article AK-47. --Sammy1339 (talk) 05:55, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as original research by synthesis. While a series of events are documented by reliable sources the topic itself is not covered by reliable sources. The keep arguments need to address this policy issue. Chillum 00:32, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Well there is the book mentioned above. There are also innumerable news articles that discuss the phenomenon in the context of particular events, as pointed out by Claimsworth above. One of many examples of news articles connecting islamism with the particular style of kidnapping associated with the movement is the beginning of this article: "The sickening scene is now all too familiar: a radical Islamist, dressed in black, standing above a Western prisoner, who is kneeling with his hands behind his back." --Sammy1339 (talk) 05:55, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable topic plenty of scholarly litarature [3] exist.--Shrike (talk) 09:45, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Chillum and Drmies Hafspajen (talk) 21:57, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - notable subject. good sourcing, covers the subject at length.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:34, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete POV. Starting with the title: the article is not about Islam in general, but about a few contemporary groups of Islamic militants. What seems to be intended by using the word "Islamism" is an attempt to make a negative implication about Islam as a religion without actually saying so. Second, nothing here is unique to Islamic groups: kidnapping by terrorists is a fairly common part of their general practice. It's the result of the logic of terrorism, not the logic of religion. DGG ( talk ) 05:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think anyone would object to an article entitled "tornados in Nebraska." Such a title would not imply that tornados were uniquely connected to Nebraska. Claimsworth (talk) 14:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - You mean Tornados in Nebraska. If there are Tornados also in, say, Nevada or Florida but we make an article only covering Tornados in Nebraska and leave out the others, our readers would not think that Wikipedia is an objective, impartial, complete source of information. Regards. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 17:15, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I think they would think that those articles still need to be written. Drmies (talk) 17:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• ... and wait. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 17:32, 13 October 2014 (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. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jenna Manning

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

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

Fall under too soon, her role in Rush is as a uncredited pit girl even! Wgolf (talk) 20:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, none of the characters she has played have names. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:00, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: subject of the article fails WP:GNG. Not yet time for an article here. Its WP:TOOSOON and WP:NYA. Wikicology (talk) 22:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Does not meet GNG or NACTOR. She has just played bit parts thus far. Cowlibob (talk) 22:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Fails notability. No significant coverage found in independent reliable sources.  SmileBlueJay97  talk  03:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable actor spam. working every three or four years as an uncredited extra or a no-name one-line bit part is not a notable acting career. another BLP without RS that seems autobiographical, once again with a 1-subject original writer. IMDB is not RS. neither is one's booking-manager's website. Cramyourspam (talk) 19:24, 7 October 2014 (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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:43, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Swami Poonanadha

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

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

For some reason this guy has been listed as a "living person" for a few years despite the fact it says he died. Anyway it seems to be a essay type biography on here with no references as all though (so no references on your essay?) Not sure how much importance this guy is though (not a expect on that country at all)-tried to google him but basically they all linked back to here! Wgolf (talk) 18:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: No evidence of notablity. If I try to ignore the fact that it was written like an WP:ESSAY, the fact that it fails WP:GNG is too obvious to ignore. Wikicology (talk) 21:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Zero coverage in reliable sources. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails notability. No significant coverage found in independent reliable sources.  SmileBlueJay97  talk  03:23, 6 October 2014 (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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:50, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TISFAT

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

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

No evidence of notability of this software, and a Google search turned up nothing but download sites, message boards, and youtube videos. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This software appears to have been completely ignored by reliable secondary sources, which are generally required for notability. Mz7 (talk) 22:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Some interesting sources showed up on Google Books search but satisfying GNG takes more than that. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 20:19, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, the description for the first GBooks result states: "Please note that the content of this book primarily consists of articles available from Wikipedia or other free sources online." So that one book strikes me as having a WP:CIRC issue. Mz7 (talk) 02:30, 7 October 2014 (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. Randykitty (talk) 19:15, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Student Fund

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

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

No verification; no evidence of notability. Searching is difficult because the name is so generic and the article provides nothing to use as a disambiguator. But I did search, and I could not find anything relevant except social media. PROD was removed without comment by an IP. That IP also deleted the only three links provided in the article: a website, TheStudentFund.org, which does not exist; and a Twitter account and Facebook page, both of which say "coming soon." So it's possible the Fund does not even exist, or does not exist yet. If that's the case this article approaches being a hoax, because of its claims to have branches at 21 universities in North America, Europe, and Australia. MelanieN (talk) 17:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This organization is so new that it is highly unlikely to have any level of significant coverage (I did do a search of "The Student Fund" Saint Andrews, as that appears to be the university where it was founded, with no results). The Facebook page says this fund was established 1 September 2014 and the very first tweet from this fund says it is "Officially launching in 2015". Thus, this topic appears to be WP:TOOSOON and doesn't meet WP:GNG as of right now. This link may also provide some context. Altamel (talk) 01:09, 5 October 2014 (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. Randykitty (talk) 19:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thunder Looper,Alton Tower

Thunder Looper,Alton Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article was created recently on the support of only one source, which is a personal website. In a discussion at WikiProject Amusement Parks, the existence of roller coaster articles with very little to no coverage in secondary sources has brought their "notability" into question. I don't believe these should have standalone articles without the coverage. At most, perhaps they can exist as a passing mention in their parent amusement park article if some acceptable coverage can be found. Also while the content in the article is not an "exact" plagiarized copy of the source, it's too close for comfort. GoneIn60 (talk) 17:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Name of page changed to read Alton Towers not Alton Tower. Wording now changed on new page to make more sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maccer (talk • contribs) 20:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Article name isn't even spelt correctly. Szzuk (talk) 06:14, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I've restored the AFD tag after it was removed by Maccer, who is the original author. Note also that the article has been moved to Thunder Looper,Alton Towers (with an s). UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:18, 8 October 2014 (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, adequate sourcing has been provided to warrant an article (non-admin closure) Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:24, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Hunter

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

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

This page was created by a sock of User:Fairyspit who was banned on April 7, 2014‎, the article was created September 13, 2014‎, clearly AFTER Fairyspit was banned. This is grounds for speedy delete WP:G5 but the tag kept getting removed by IPs and by another user and finally was denied after saying the article was created prior to the ban but as you can see...it wasn't. This has nothing to do with notability, this has everything to do with the fact that allowing this article to be kept is allowing the socks to get away with this behavior. Having dealt with these socks for a while, they have an irrational obsessive behavior towards Benedict Cumberbatch and will create articles solely to link it to it, Blacks Club, Lyndsey Turner, and now Sophie Hunter (because she is Cumberbatch's current girlfriend). In regards to Lyndsey Turner, it got so bad that Turner contacted the OPMS team and told them that because of the socks stalkerish and obsessive behavior, she didn't want a Wikipedia page about her. This article should not be kept. LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. The article subject is notable and the article contains no inappropriate content. There haven been multiple accounts editing the article, most likely including socks, as well as several legitimate editors. WP:Banning policy "does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor (obviously helpful changes, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand)"; allowing the page to remain, with whatever Cumberbatch-related material the banned editor included now expunged, is the most appropriate solution. Playing whack-a-mole with the banned editor has reached the disruptive level -- for example, yesterday a long-term, productive editor, who happens to live in the same metro area as Fairyspit and apparently has a slight editing overlap with them, was blocked as a sock, with scores of their image uploads deleted and many other edits undone, with the blocking admin for the moment unavailable to address the issue; Lady Lotus has removed content from this article declaring the Boston Globe an unreliable source; and, not for the first time, LL has mass-nominated for G5 contributions that clearly predate the ban. Sometimes a selective response is better than a flamethrower. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't say the Boston Globe was unreliable, I said the peerage was unreliable. The IP added back a whole slew of information that was removed for a reason, the Boston Globe was an innocent bystander. This is about Sophie Hunter not about the SPI, and I don't know how Exec8 got on the list, but that's not what we are discussing. I request you stick to the topic at hand. LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:13, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Images can be un-deleted mind you...LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• In addition to the whole sock thing, she doesn't seem that notable either. The majority of her acting career includes roles like "The Girlfriend", and "Witch". She hasn't occured in more than one episode in a series and hasn't done anything significant in film or television which fails WP:ENTERTAINER. She's also directed The Terrific Electric, and The Isis Project, both of which are non-notable projects, in wiki terms anyway and the majority of her references are either primary sources or mere mentions. So it fails WP:GNG also. LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable. The acting career is unimpressive in the extreme ( Ubu Roi at the Battersea Arts Centre!), the only claim to notability is the Samuel Beckett award & I don't think thats enough.TheLongTone (talk) 20:07, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't think the sock should be a debate topic here. The page has been protected by Mike V. In addtion, article are not keep/deleted on the basis of who edit it but strictly on the basis of notability. Am neutral for now. Wikicology (talk) 21:57, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Numerous references, meets the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable. As has been stated, her career is unimpressive in the extreme and she has no more claim to notability than a million other middling theatre directors in the world. The only reason the article was created in the first place is because the subject has a very famous friend, and a certain banned editor has made it a project to create Wiki pages for everyone he knows. Many of the references cited are sketchy, like the subject's own CV, pages from her company's website, her agent's website, and so forth. The more impressive sources cite information that is not important enough to make her notable, such as the New York Times article that mentions her role as a witch in Macbeth in passing. Avianax (talk) 05:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• 'KEEP' She may have had bit parts as an actress (still, she was credited, she is not some kind of extra-for-rent) but she has directed plays reviewed by the Boston Globe (http://www.bostonglobe.com/arts/2012/02/10/entrancing-version-shackleton-tale/HrBKlbUDkEodjw485XMskK/story.html) and the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/04/theater/reviews/69s-at-bam-harvey-theater-review.html?_r=1&) among others. And these were shows in known venues like the Barbican Centre where she won a Samuel Beckett Award for directing and writing her play. Her French-language album with songs written by Guy Chambers is also available on iTunes (https://itunes.apple.com/gb/album/isis-project/id68244687) and has been reviewed by the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4556821.stm) and the Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/music/2005/may/25/popandrock1) among others. Lady Lotus, she didn't direct The Isis Project as you have said in your argument as she was the vocalist of all the songs in that album and even starred in some music videos for it. And Avianax she wasn't just mentioned in passing in the other New York Times article if you check, it was a review of The Shackleton Project. And an actor's CV from her agent's website is a reliable source, despite it being considered a primary source. But there are plenty of secondary sources cited in the page to establish her notability. So, yes, she is notable. And I agree with users Tomsculler, Hullaballoo and Wikicology. It's about the article. And it doesn't reference any famous friends of hers. The page is about her not her relations. The socks have already been banned. This discussion is about the notability of the subject, and it has been clearly established with reliable primary and secondary sources as seen in the page. TheVerge24601 (talk) 07:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with TheVerge24601. Except not sure if we need agent website as source, enough other sources I think.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing. Check out the 300+ pageviews each day, again not an official reason for keeping, but (for me) an indication of strong interest on the part of our readers.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:21, 4 October 2014 (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. Randykitty (talk) 19:13, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Emily (Slovak singer)

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

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

Her name being so common a proper internet search is nearly impossible but I did try combing her name and the one album listed here and was unable to find and coverage in reliable sources. With only one apparent release the subject still would not meet MUSICBIO unless anyone can argue that 'Discovery of year 2004' is a significant award, and is able to verify that it was awarded to her. J04n(talk page) 16:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as sadly no evidence of notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 11:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 11:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 12:00, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker^talk 16:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – in the absence of established notability. As the nominator has pointed out, MUSICBIO is not met. C679 16:17, 10 October 2014 (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. Randykitty (talk) 19:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Lynchings of the Frenches of Warsaw

The Lynchings of the Frenches of Warsaw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

An isolated event from old newspapers, with no historical, legal, or otherwise consequences, and no modern attention. Shall we start digging old newspapers and will wikipedia with oldtime news without discrimination? Staszek Lem (talk) 21:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Once notable, always notable. Clearly, those in 1876 believed this horrific event to be notable, for there to be so much coverage of it (8 references listed, so far, including Indiana, Ohio, and Virginia newspapers, which qualifies as national coverage). While lynchings were widespread, they were far from normal, since their crimes shocks the conscience, just as ISIS did with their beheadings. Lynchings are a stain on the moral superiority of the KKK, and other racist groups in America. By slaying extrajudicially, with mob justice, the Klan turned what could have been tried in a court of law, into another crime of passionate racial hatred. Since lynchings are a special way for racist whites to murder, and with the many other sources separate from the subject material, "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", this makes this article suitable for a stand-alone article, and therefore, should be kept.WG:GNG Sarahrosemc (talk) 13:01, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Mentioned in the 1990 book Racial Violence in Kentucky, 1865-1940: Lynchings, Mob Rule, and "Legal Lynchings" (ISBN 9780807115367, published by LSU Press). But it is just barely that, a mention. These were horrible crimes, but I simply don't see any evidence that individual lynchings meet notability standards absent wider attention or legal, social, or historical impacts. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Horrible as this sounds, lynchings were very common in that commonwealth back in the late 1800s. I don't see how this one was notable, except that a husband and wife were victims. Weak delete. Bearian (talk) 20:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

George Wright (in the book I mentioned above) found this worth mentioning only because it was a lynching of blacks in retribution for the murder of another black (where the majority of lynchings were ostensibly predicated by crimes against whites). But even then, he didn't consider this a unique situation, and gave it merely a passing mention. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - WP:NTEMP, people: once notable, forever notable. This was discussed in sources in the 1800s, and as such it meets WP:GNG. The event has been discussed by XX century sources, which shows WP:PERSISTENCE. That there were other similar events is irrelevant for notability. Notable does not mean unique.--cyclopia^speak! 16:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right. So often now I see this reasoning that "notable" equals "uncommon" or "exceptional". But perfectly ordinary things can be quite notable, if people have considered them important—worthy of note, notable. And very unusual things can be non-notable, if no one cares about them. Everyking (talk) 02:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per reasoning of Cyclopia. And actually lynching were not that normal, at least according to one history I read some years ago. One major object of an encyclopedia is to be able to look something up when one finds a bare mention of it is a book or other document. Using Squeamish Ossifrage's theory we would have very few modern music articles. --Bejnar (talk) 22:37, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is not, however, the standard by which we judge notability and inclusion. Bare mentions are not "significant coverage" in the sense of WP:N. The 1876 coverage is problematic as concerns WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NEVENTS. It is absolutely true, as cyclopia observed, that notability does not expire; in Wikipedia's sense of the term, this event, while tragic, was never notable. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notable then, notable now. Read what Cyclopia wrote. Everyking (talk) 02:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Folllowing material copied from a very confusing AFD started on a cut and paste copy of this article at Lynchings of Benjamin and Mollie French. Dennis started the new AFD and I have added the "Delete" to the start of his nomination comment. Meters (talk) 05:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nkyviews.com makes up the bulk of the sources, which is a self-published website owned and maintained by one person. The other cite, a book, is searchable on Google, and when I searched for the "fact" in the lead "best nigger in the country", I got nothing. The sourcing is so radically subpar, I can't see how we can publish this. I would also note that lynchings were (unfortunately) common and this hasn't differentiated itself as particularly unique, enough so to pass WP:CRIME. Dennis 19:15, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Within minutes Dennis suggested deleting two of my articles, which I worked for hours on. Hey Dennis, did you even read this article, before suggesting to delete it? Sarahrosemc (talk) 19:45, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Mainly, I read the source material, which is problematic. Using self-published websites to prove the lynching of someone is very, very problematic. Don't take it personal, I just ran across the articles on new article patrol. Some articles get improved, some get tagged, some get nominated for deletion. I don't know you, so it can't be personal. Dennis 19:52, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Although the sources link to the self-published website, that site purports to accurately reproduce contemporary reports from secondary sources (newspapers). While I would prefer to see scans (rather than transcriptions) of the papers, I note that the author could have easily cited these sources without linking to the transcriptions on nkyviews.com, as Wikipedia does not require that sources be on-line. I feel that the sourcing is adequate. Pburka (talk) 21:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"He was, in the estimation of Warsaw whites, "the best nigger in the country." Page 98-99. George Wright's Racial Violence in Kentucky, 1865-1940. The sentence begins on the bottom right of page 98, and ends on the top left of page 99. It's there. That's one accusation down.

It's also notable because lynching is a very specific weapon used by racist whites against blacks. While there were bunches, it also wasn't as "common" as the above comments make you'd believe. Also, since it was happening in the Northern part of Kentucky, that suggests that racist vigilante justice was practiced all throughout the state. Being close to the Mason-Dixon line didn't wane the support of racial hatred, and may have in fact, intensified it. Sarahrosemc (talk) 22:22, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All I can tell you is that I looked at the book, and it wasn't there. Perhaps it is a different ISSN than what you listed, you didn't give the ISSN, but once it fails verification, the onus is on you to provide more information in the citation to it CAN be verified. It isn't enough to claim a cite, it has to be verifiable, via WP:V. Dennis 2¢ 22:48, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See http://books.google.com/books?id=QAL5c1vECVkC&pg=PA99#v=onepage&q&f=false. It's exactly where Sarahrosemc indicated. Pburka (talk) 23:33, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, consider speedy. Irrespective of the contents of the article, this is a direct fork of The Lynchings of the Frenches of Warsaw (note the plural), which was listed at AFD on the 23rd. If the earlier-created article is deleted at AFD, this would be eligible for a G4 speedy; if not, it is a duplicate fork, and eligible for A10 speedy. Recreating articles is not the way to avoid concerns raised in the deletion process. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:38, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Since both articles were created by the same user, it's not a fork. It's just a newbie mistake. I suggest speedily redirecting this title to the other. (The correct title should probably be something like Lynchings of Benjamin and Mollie French.) Pburka (talk) 22:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Note that Squeamish Ossifrage's delete was for the duplicate copy of the page, which is now just a redirect to this page. Pburka (talk) 16:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. So... make a Lynchings of Benjamin and Mollie French, and have them link to both? I'll read on this, and compile them somehow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahrosemc (talk • contribs) 00:05, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So I made the Lynchings of Benjamin and Mollie French page, and had the others redirect to there. I kept the articles of deletion part at the top, and it directs to here. The article was poorly titled. Grammatically didn't seem right. It's better now. Sarahrosemc (talk) 00:17, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I take offense that just because I wanted a better titled article, that I'm accused of some type of fraud... That's your mindset; not mine. Folks can vote against others for the most arbitrary of reasons, and I didn't want my article to be flunked out of existence just because of the title. I still believe Lynchings of Benjamin and Mollie French is a better title, and hope that we can change it, after this page passes, which I'm not sure if that can be done. I have a right to blank out my own page, and it wasn't to avoid this discussion, because I would welcome this discussion on the Lynchings of Benjamin and Mollie French page as well.

Also, this article passes WP:NOTTEMPORARY WP:CRIME WP:INDEPTH WP:LASTING. While not an infinite supply of sources, compared to today's events, for an 1800s event, there's many different newspapers that printed about this incident. The lasting effects of a lynching is clearly one that racist whites used to intimidate all Black folks, not just the ones being lynched. Lynchings are significant because, first of all it's a murder, and second, it's a murder weapon used by sick oppressors, to not only punish those who are killed, but to scare the entire Black population into submission, so they wouldn't look up into white people's eyes, whenever they walked down the street. Reconstruction would fail in 1875 with the compromise between the Tilden v. Hayes election. So Benjamin and Mollie French were murdered 4 years after the Freedman's Bureau was disbanded, and only 1 year after the Federal Troops stopped occupying the South. Once Reconstruction failed, America would continue in the Nadir Era of Race Relations up until the 1950s. Sarahrosemc (talk) 06:10, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)NorthAmerica1000 23:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

End of material copied from the second AFD (started on the cut and paste copy) Meters (talk) 05:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that Unscintillating's "procedural close" was for the second AFD, on the cut and pasted copy of the article, not for this AFD. Meters (talk) 07:36, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I have procedurally closed the second AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lynching of the Frenches of Warsaw. !Votes and comments from that discussion have been moved herein (diff1, diff2). NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:48, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. With multiple references this easily passes WP:GNG, and the mention in a book demonstrates its lasting significance. The fact that this well-researched article is up for deletion is troubling to me. --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notability does not expire — I was sharing an interesting text with some friends recently which they enjoyed too. It was written by Cato the Elder over two thousand years ago. In any case, it seems easy to find more modern sources such as this and that. Andrew (talk) 18:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep historical. seems to have sources. U.S. civil rights history should be preserved since much of it was covered up --of course it will be hard to find dozens of sources for the less well-known events. Cramyourspam (talk) 18:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The purpose of the notability rules is so that editors aren't tempted to create articles about subjects that cannot be properly sourced. I don't agree with, "Once notable, always notable." But we should be building the encyclopedia up, not deleting well-sourced material. Claimsworth (talk) 03:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per, of all things, WP:NOTNEWS (which is a way of articulating the persistence-of-coverage part of WP:EVENT). These sources are mostly from a couple of days after it happened; it gets a brief mention in the Wright source as an example of a broader principle. We could mention this in a broader article on lynching, which is basically what Wright does. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Notability is not temporary. sourced well, easily passes GNG,--BabbaQ (talk) 23:09, 8 October 2014 (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 nomination withdrawn, article kept. Doesn't really matter who closes it. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mtevandidi

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

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

Does not conform to Wikipedia standards: huge problems with formatting, requires lots of work before achieving a reasonable standard. in the current form it should not show in the main namespace. Deletion or Incubation/Userfication. kashmiri ^TALK 16:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete: The article is a mess. Fails WP:GNG.

• Keep in view of Amatulic's edits. The article is pretty good now. Wikicology (talk) 22:35, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The topic is that of a reasonably well known wine grape from the country of Georgia. The grape does have a couple of reasonable hits in Google Scholar. The article is a horrible mess, and should be stubbified in the same way any other wine grape article starts out (see how Plavac Mali or Dobricic got started, for example), but the topic should remain. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I just went through the article and shortened it significantly, removing unnecessary details, unformatted data tables, and other irrelevant cruft, did some formatting and broke up the article into logical sections. Much work still remains, but at least the article is now readable and informative. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - withdrawing nomination in view of Amatulic's recent edits. Adding a few maintenance tags, though. Thanks! kashmiri ^TALK 22:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  For procedural reasons, Wikicology's nod to keep is needed before I could close this discussion (as normal withdrawal or Speedy keep). kashmiri ^TALK 22:37, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  thank you so much Kashmiri. Now you have my nod as Keep. I appreciated the ping. I never kept the page and this discussion on my watch. Had it been I did, I would have been very much aware of the of the article improvement. also a big thanks to Amatulic for the great work on it. Wikicology (talk) 22:54, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• SNOW keep. No need to leave this open. --Sammy1339 (talk) 02:39, 7 October 2014 (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 dying-and-rising god. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of dying or rising deities

List of dying or rising deities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article is a POV fork and also an OR magnet. The "dying-and-rising god" idea has long been rejected by scholars, but a "list" like this allows POV-pushers to add material without citing sources and then claim "well, I'm only adding this figure to the dying gods list; I'm not claiming they rose from the dead". A move to List of dying gods might be acceptable, but can anyone find a source from the last 20 years that actually discusses the concept of "dying but not resurrecting gods" as a group? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment So far as I know Frazer, James George (1890) The Golden Bough is still highly regarded among scholars. --Bejnar (talk) 01:35, 9 October 2014 (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/2014 September 25. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 03:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep/merge The general topic is notable, albeit disputed — see "The Dying and Rising God", for example. If this is a fork or spinoff from the main article, dying-and-rising god, then reversion would be best done by merger not deletion per WP:REDUNDANTFORK and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew (talk) 12:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is, since the topic is disputed (already essentially rejected?), no deity should be included in a "list" like this without prose elaboration and a source. The article itself already includes several examples that are discussed in some detail (and most of those are, inappropriately, not pointed out to not fit the supposed template). Inclusion of more examples in the main article might be appropriate, but inclusion of a list of names can't really be defended given the circumstances. I don't mind your WP:PRESERVE rationale, in case someone wants to actively go out and find sources and elaboration for all of these examples, but by "merge" I assume you don't mean we should just transpose the current list into the main article without further investigation? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I actually used this article a while back and it was helpful to me, although I agree the quality is pretty bad and there is a serious problem with the lack of elaboration since it is not exactly clear what "dying" or "rising" means for a deity. (e.g. Persephone could be argued to be dying-and-rising, or not.) Nevertheless it is a list of examples of a notable concept, and whether or not the usefulness of that concept is supported by recent scholarly literature is irrelevant. Since there are currently no "rising" deities in the list, I wouldn't oppose moving it to "List of dying deities." --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:17, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I have boldly moved the article to List of dying deities. StAnselm (talk) 22:15, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, moves during AfD can cause confusion with the links at the top of the discussion, etc. Therefore, it's usually best not to do this, per WP:AFDEQ. I've now moved it back. Cheers. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 08:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)  Unscintillating (talk) 20:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or userfy on request  Fails WP:V, so there is nothing to merge.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:53, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a list and these are all blue links with plenty of sources in the linked articles. The first of them, for example — Tammuz_(deity) — seems to contain ample support for inclusion here. WP:V only requires sourcing for quotations and controversial statements. Pages are not required to provided sources for every word as matter of rote busy-work. Please justify your reference to WP:V as it seems inappropriate. Andrew (talk) 00:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, as I recall, a primary duty of a lede is to define its topic.  As a reader, it is not my job to determine for myself the meaning of the topic.  IMO, this is a (your term next) "worthless" article.  If there is anything here worth salvaging, it requires a rewrite.  As for lists and WP:V, you might want to look at the WT:V talk page regarding wp:prominent figures for Elizabethtown, KY.  As for what WP:V requires, WP:MINREF has a good list.  Yes, articles do not require sources in all cases...IMO, this is not one of them.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Some of the content might be unverifiable, but most of it is fine. There will be many sources confirming that Jesus and Xipe-Totec die in their respective mythologies. So this is reason to improve the article perhaps, but not to delete it. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:NRVE ("there will be many sources") applies to wp:notability, not WP:V.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm asserting that most of the information there is verifiable. --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Unlike inline citations, an editor's opinion that sources exist does not allow readers to verify the content of the article.  Again, this is not at all like wp:notability, which is not a content policy and where wp:notability is not defined by the article.  Here is text from the nutshell from WP:V:

This page in a nutshell: Readers must be able to check that Wikipedia articles are not just made up...

Unscintillating (talk) 00:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Readers are easily able to check the list entries by following the blue links. This process is easier than following inline citations which are often offline. The pages that they point too, such as Tammuz_(deity), readily show that the entries are just not made up. If the reader is still sceptical they can then inspect the sources on those pages. The list thus amply satisfies its main purpose of being an aid to navigation and the reader would be less well-informed without it. Andrew (talk) 15:15, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I checked this "blue link" hypothesis for the first three, and I found that none are identified in the target article as either a "rising deity" (still no definition has been stated for this concept) or a "dying deity".  Thus the hypothesis is rejected.  The first one, Tammuz (deity), links to [life-death-rebirth deity], which if one knows how to find the edit history of redirects one can find the theory of why a Wikipedia editor made that connection.  There is no one anywhere (I hope) that confuses Wikipedia with a reliable source, so blue links fail the policy WP:V#Wikipedia and sources that mirror or use it; which states, "Content from a Wikipedia article is not considered reliable unless it is backed up by citing reliable sources. Confirm that these sources support the content, then use them directly."  At best, once a reader has found and followed the blue link, the process of looking for a relevant citation begins anew.  Thus it is no surprise that the WT:V consensus is that blue links are not an acceptable substitute for inline citations.  Given that an editor has moved the current topic and we are discussing both a redirect and a new topic, this is further evidence that the original topic was made up and should be deleted.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't share your difficulty. When I go to Tammuz (deity), I see that the first section is called "Ritual mourning" and concerns the annual death and rebirth of the god. Death and rebirth seems synonymous with rising and dying and so all is clear. The first source supports this by talking of "the dead and resurrected god Tammuz (Sumerian Dumuzi)". This all seems to check out fine and there is not the slightest case for deletion. Andrew (talk) 21:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Dying-and-rising god as being a content fork of that and also both articles are size wise small to accommodate easily. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:12, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This is not a content fork, because there is a difference between "dying-and-rising gods", and a list of dying or rising deities.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge back to Dying-and-rising god. There is plenty of scholarship on the topic; see that article. It would be nice to have a citation to a work for each deity. --Bejnar (talk) 01:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are now two topics at this AfD, neither of which is "List of dying-and-rising gods".  Which is the topic that you would merge?  Can the other be deleted?  Unscintillating (talk) 02:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge List of dying or rising deities since renamed to List of dying deities to Dying-and-rising god. What other article are @Unscintillating: taking about? --Bejnar (talk) 04:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is clear.  When I said "topics", those were the two.  Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 05:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - An indiscriminate list of Gods who happen to have one common trait. Aerospeed (Talk) 16:30, 18 October 2014 (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. Secret ^account 15:33, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardo Miller

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

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

I created this article in February 2010 when Miller was a highly-touted recruit for the Michigan football team. He received a lot of press for his high school playing career and recruitment. However, he ended up as a complete "bust" at the college level. He barely appeared in any games for Michigan and then transferred to UMass where he again failed to become a notable player. In retrospect, my creation of this article was premature. The coverage he received as a high school athlete/recruit fails under WP:NHSPHSATH. Cbl62 (talk) 22:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Cbl62 (talk) 22:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not notable.--Yankees10 03:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Cbl62, I believe you clearly created an article that was WP:NHSPHSATH in 2010 and WP:NOTTEMPORARY. There was significant national coverage that went beyond local coverage. I am One of Many (talk) 03:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that, IAOOM. Given Miller's falling off the radar, this is an article that I felt should run through the AfD process. I'm fine with the outcome either way. Cbl62 (talk) 15:11, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:12, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete virtually all of the reliable sourcing is from the recruitment period. Fails the test of time. Nwlaw63 (talk) 13:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:NCOLLATH. Being a highly sought after high school recruit is not enough to show notability.Mdtemp (talk)
• Keep This is an example why I personally do not like it when editors write up articles about a recruit. I still have to say keep since he passes WP:GNG. There is significant coverage, it reliable and independent (i.e. ESPN, USAToday, Detroit Free Press, Orlando Sentinel, etc.). Notability is not temporary so he should stay. 09er (talk) 16:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - albeit reluctantly, I'll admit. There's no such thing as "failing the test of time" when it comes to notability because notability is not temporary. Miller has still been the subject of multiple reliable sources - while he was indeed a college bust, his notability is still valid provided there is enough to meet WP:BLP given that he is a living person, which there appears to be. That being said, I would highly recommend that this article be updated given that 2010 is the last bit of information we have about Miller and nothing really to indicate that he was a college bust. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 01:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't think this person was notable to begin with. We should not consider news coverage for potential fame to be an indication of notability(In my opinion). Chillum 16:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doesn't meet the notability criteria for football players or high school and college athletes.204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:14, 15 October 2014 (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. Discussion participants countered initial arguments for retention of the article, citing original research and not meeting the notability criteria of having been discussed as a topic itself. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 07:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Social Contract with Business

The Social Contract with Business (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Looks like a rather disguised book review/promo, written by the author himself. Off course, I might be wrong but Bookcover CSB.jpg looks very suspicious. The Banner talk 22:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (and modify with Talk page discussion, probably moving to a new title). Hmm, difficult situation. Let's Assume Good Faith here: the author is a new contributor to wikipedia, and went through an Articles For Creation process, and this article got approved (by AFC editor User:Timtrent after earlier consideration by AFC editor User:Joe Decker). From this comment at an AFC reviewer's talk page, I see that the article author is the author of the book of that title. In the AFC process, the article was improved, to be less about the book itself. I don't think this is meant as bald promotion for sake of getting profits for the book author. I believe the book author is an expert, has written a dissertation and has published a book, and they are trying to contribute on this topic of their expertise. The book author is not the first or only one to write about social contracts or about business's responsibilities, IMO, though they assert originality in their comment linked above. They may be a leader in integrating/synthesizing a specific theory, i am not sure, but the book itself is probably a useable, citable source on this topic area. So, I think the article title should be changed (to no longer be the exact title of the book) and the article should be modified to make it a more general treatment, and more clearly not just the same as the book's topic. And, I hope there may be some external review of the book that can be used. But, I hope we can use the interest and expertise of this contributor, rather than deleting all of their work! The article already does link to social contract general article, which is not so much about business's social contract. An article about the business social contract idea does seem useful, and it is great that this author is willing to contribute a graphic and so on. There are related topics--like Triple bottom line and Corporate social responsibility and other topics indexed at template {{Social accountability}} that could/should be linked, and/or this topic should be integrated with them.

I think it is best to Keep this for now and let's try to work to integrate it better. Watch Talk page of this article and author's Talk page. --doncram 15:53, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I agree with Doncram, who makes a persuasive point. I accepted the draft on the simple basis that it had rough edges, but met our needs of having sufficient verifiable notability to be a main namespace article. WP:AFC does not require perfection. IT simply requires that the draft is good enough and likely to survive a deletion discussion. This nomination puts that to the test. I stand by my assessment when I accepted the article. It has faults, but they are for cleaning up, not for deletion. Fiddle Faddle 15:59, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: From some reading:

• "The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits", 1970, by Milton Friedman, a NYTimes essay (already linked from article)
• "Psychological Contracts: A Nano-Level Perspective on Social Contract Theory", 2006, by Jeffery A. Thompson and David W. Hart, Journal of Business Ethics (2006) 68:229–241. (article in a very well respected journal, found by me from an off-line lit search and literature database)
• "Social contract and psychological contract: a comparison", 2012, by Yvon Pesqueux in Society and Business Review
• the Wikipedia article Corporate social responsibility
• nice short article on corporate social contract: if a corporation now has individual rights, it also has responsibilities

and some other knowledge and some more consideration, I think there is a need for a Wikipedia article on Corporate social contract or Social responsibilities of a business (or similar title) detailing different views on specifics of corporate obligations, and that the article up for AFD could be moved to that topic title and revised. I don't have the dissertation or book in question, but I gather that this author is arguing about what obligations businesses have. And detailing 8 areas where businesses should consider taking action, to move outwards (per the diagram) from crisis/poor performance to taking more positive actions as world participants. It seems logical, and I am inclined to accept that the author has made a contribution in categorizing the obligations, consistent with previous academic and philosophical theory. There are many other views on what obligations corporations have. The Corporate social responsibility#UK retail sector section lists several sources asserting, variously, 3 or 4 dimensions of performance. The revised article, under revised title, would collect and compare various views of the specific obligations. One view (Friedman's, taken to extreme) is simply there are no additional obligations that corporations have beyond achieving profits and generating returns for shareholders. This article would complement the Corporate social responsibility article, which is broader and which should not get bogged down in detailing various lists of obligations proposed. So, this would be like a list-article, a list of various authorities' views on the obligations that businesses have. And I'll accept that this author has a specific contribution and would be included in the list. I am quite sure that there is a lack of consensus out in the world, about what obligations businesses have, but there is argument ongoing and there are positions taken, and it's useful to have a wikipedia article on this. --doncram 18:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete My concerns are that the article is mostly an WP:ESSAY, loaded with original research, mostly a synthesis of the idea of social contract with business ethics, with references to the well-known term social contract, and a reference to enterprise, but no references to the full term as a term. I base my finding of original research after doing numerous sweeps of newspapers and magazines with few coming up with the exact phrase Social contract with business in any kind of consistent sense. So I think Banner (who I've disagreed with at points) is spot-on in his analysis here. Although, to be fair, I did find the term being used in this article, and a mention here, and a mention here, but it does not seem like the term has any coherent identity as term-in-use, apart from Jopie Coetzee's book and writings, as if the phrase is used in different senses by different people, vaguely meaning business ethics. Market researcher Daniel Yankelovich used the term here, but his sense was different from what the current wiki-article is talking about (ie, a "business model"), and senses like here really are talking about something more akin to corporate responsibility or business ethics, similar to this mention here. But even these mentions don't appear in the article as references; instead there are hard-to-check book references lacking inline citations -- troubling, considering that the whole article smacks of original research, with references to Coetzee's book. See, if the book references are valid, wouldn't there be a meal-sized portion of easy-to-find inline citations as well? If I search for the phrase "social contract with business" (in quotes) with the following filters, I find nothing in major US newspapers, nothing in major international news sources, and a sweep of major business sources did not yield much except two Forbes hits (but I could not find the exact phrase in either Forbes article). And searching using no news filters in the browser bar yields, well, surprise, Jopie Coetzee left and right, suggesting original research. As Joe Decker advised here, Wikipedia is not a good place to try to float new ideas.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:08, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete my concern, along with the promotional aspect mentioned by the nom, and the essay and original research aspects mentioned by Tomwsulcer, is that this topic as is is not notable. Aside from Donaldson & Dunfee (1999) it rests entirely on the author's (Coetzee's) work. The topic has not been dealt with significantly in multiple reliable independent sources. --Bejnar (talk) 01:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — WP:OR / WP:SYNTH. The sources predominantly serve to advance the assertions put forth by the text of the article instead of the other way around (e.g., citing Jean-Jacques Rousseau, John Locke, etc). The vast majority of the meat of the article (i.e., the parallel-phrased bullet points) is sourced to "Coetzee, J. 2012: The Social Contract with Business – beyond the quest for global sustainability. Xlibris Publishers, London," which makes for giving WP:UNDUE weight to a single source (even if it were a genuine, notable academic concept). --slakr^\ talk / 09:48, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wow! This isn't even an Article! It's an essay, and probably a C or C+ essay at that (at least at the high school I graduated from), so let's get rid of it. After all, Wikipedia by policy is not a place to publish essays of any kind. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 07:36, 16 October 2014 (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 Baywatch. Randykitty (talk) 21:28, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Always Here

I'm Always Here (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:UNDUE Launchballer 17:09, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect – To Baywatch. Information is already there. ShoesssS ^Talk 18:54, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as failing WP:MUSIC for, among other things, lack of independent coverage. redirect to Baywatch is okay, but certainly not necessary. --Bejnar (talk) 02:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Doesn't seem that there's enough about it to stand on its own. GamerPro64 16:03, 12 October 2014 (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 Boys Night Out (radio). Randykitty (talk) 21:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boys Ride Out

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

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

TV show with no info on it and as of now seems unotable Wgolf (talk) 22:52, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom - Only stuff I can find are facebook & twitter related which isn't ideal .–Davey2010 • (talk) 00:03, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. New tv show from the trio of the popular Boys Night Out (radio) show. I suggest referencing to these sources 1 2. --RioHondo (talk) 03:09, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: No significant coverages to reliable sources sources establish its notability. Hence subject of the article fails WP:GNG. Wikicology (talk) 16:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Boys Night Out (radio). Coverage in reliable sources is not significant enough for a standalone article ([4], [5]). However, this a valid search term, so redirection is appropriate. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. (soft) slakr^\ talk / 09:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Colombo

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

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

Person does not meet notability criteria in my eyes. It contains some dubious claims, such as the subject was "predicting" the U.S. housing bubble on his website as early as 2004, when in fact Internet Archive only has copies of said website as early as 2011 (and when you check, the website says "under construction" instead of any meaningful content). Plus, the fact that the article was created by single-purpose account EconoGeek (talk · contribs) gives it a WP:AUTOBIO smell. bender235 (talk) 17:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a simple misunderstanding: Stock-market-crash.net was the website built in 2004 [6], not TheBubbleBubble.com, which was started in 2011 (hence why it said "under construction" then). Stock-market-crash.net was cited in a 2005 LA Times article as one of the highest trafficked bubble-related websites. [7]. Stock-market-crash.net now forwards to www.thebubblebubble.com/historic-crashes/, which is also owned by Jesse. Re: notability: this person is a journalist who is frequently cited and interviewed in the media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.171.11 (talk) 06:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Being a columnist in some newspaper does not merit notability. --bender235 (talk) 15:32, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes is a globally recognized business publication, and this columnist and analyst makes frequent international news headlines for warning about economic bubbles. [8][9][10][11] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.171.11 (talk) 16:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep He has established some degree of notability, but it should be noted that he's not a columnist for Forbes, he's a contributor. I'm not commenting on the quality or impact of his work, just noting that there's a distinct difference between the two. His status is noted on his Forbes posts, and he refers to himself as a contributor on his LinkedIn profile. (I've edited the article accordingly.) JSFarman (talk) 08:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that he might meet notability. However, the article as of now should be deleted. All biographical details (such as HS and college graduation) come from a self-published blog, which is something Wikipedia does not accept. --bender235 (talk) 01:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 01:07, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- For some additional background related to notability, this analyst's bubble warnings often receive high-level official responses from central banks [12][13] and government officials, including the Prime Minister of New Zealand, John Key. [14] Non-notable individuals are unlikely to garner official responses of this nature. In addition, this analyst is a popular social media personality [15][16][17]

• Comment Notified WP:WikiProject Economics with this edit. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 14:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 01:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Cites #1 & #9 are his own site -- not valid references for the statement. The sentence before cite #2 says that he created a web page, but the link is to the LA Times newspaper, with nothing about the web site. The sentence before cite #3 says that he was recognized...etc., but his name does not appear in the article cited. That sentence must be removed. Cite #4 is valid. Cite #5 is is own site; not a reliable source. Cite #6, list of tweeters to follow, he is one in a list of dozens. Cite #7 does not mention him and is unrelated. It should be removed, along with the sentence before it. Cite #8 does quote an article of his - probably RS. Cites 10-12 and 14 are articles of his - not 3rd party RS. Cites 13 and 15 do talk about him; both are blog posts in an online news site in New Zealand that looks reliable. Summary four of the cites look like RS. Since non-sourced information should not be included, judgment should be made on the four that remain. LaMona (talk) 20:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:23, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete Colombo got it's merits, but the claim that he predicted the housing bubble needs exceptional sources; his own website and newspaper articles who discuss his website in general words are not enough. Let's raise the WP:REDFLAG.Jeff5102 (talk) 08:46, 13 October 2014 (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 Football in Portugal. Randykitty (talk) 21:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of football clubs in Portugal by major honours won

List of football clubs in Portugal by major honours won (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Contested PROD. Still fails WP:OR and WP:SYNTH JMHamo (talk) 16:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 16:57, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - firstly, who is defining what is a "major" honour? Which reliable sources are talking about the topic of 'football clubs in Portugal by major honours won'? I fear we have WP:SYNTH here. GiantSnowman 06:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - If you search in portuguese you'll get much more sources. For example this: "F.C. Porto e Benfica: confira o total de títulos". maisfutebol.iol.pt. maisfutebol.iol.pt. 2013-08-11. Retrieved 2014-09-15."FIFA confirma que FCPorto tem mais títulos que Benfica". dn.pt. Diário de Notícias. 2011-05-25. Retrieved 2014-09-15.Rpo.castro (talk) 11:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment - That citation pertains only to FC Porto and Benfica, what about the rest? We need extensive coverage to satisfy GNG. JMHamo (talk) 15:55, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Agree with WP:OR implications of subjective term "major". If no reliable sources are discussing this for all teams then I am not sure the OR issues can be resolved.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 02:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, the article needs to be improved, not deleted. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (I don't care). I don't mind if this gets deleted, and it is probably best to be deleted, as this is yet another fan list that is quite likely not to be maintained in any consistent way (there are already enough half baked football related articles, I say...) BUT note that 1) lists of this kind are perfectly common in yearly sports magazines / reviews (i.e. it is fair to presume that sources exist and are not hard to find) 2) "major" will be surely settled by those sources - and eventually a little discussion to chose here and there. Anyway, 'major' is evident in most cases: competitions organized by the national football federation, which are in general quite easy to know which are (FIFA / UEFA / CAF / ... recognition) 3) There are several other similar articles, better take that in consideration, to avoid too much of different criteria - Nabla (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It's pretty short and, given the nature of Portuguese football with its big club dominance, it's not very likely to get much longer. Still, it is fairly valuable and relevant information that it seems a shame to remove altogether. On that basis would it not be better to merge it into the also fairly short Football in Portugal as a highly relevant section? Keresaspa (talk) 18:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: The proposal from Keresaspa, for me is the best way do solve the"problem". I think this information fits much better in Football in Portugal then along itself.Rpo.castro (talk) 09:18, 4 October 2014 (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. In contrast to many other aspects of the Star Wars Universum, these lists lack even the slightest indication of out-of-universe notability. If somebody wants to copy this to Wookieepedia, I'll be happy to email them the contents. Randykitty (talk) 21:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Star Wars planets (A–B)

List of Star Wars planets (A–B) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unsourced and completely fictious and overly long article written from an in-universe perspective. None of these locations have any real notability as all the notable planets are already listed at List of Star Wars planets. Nathan121212 (talk) 12:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I am also nominating

List of Star Wars planets (C–D) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Star Wars planets (E–G) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Star Wars planets (H–J) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Star Wars planets (K–L) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Star Wars planets (M–N) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Star Wars planets (O–Q) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Star Wars planets (R–S) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Star Wars planets (T–V) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Star Wars planets (W–Z) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Nathan121212 (talk) 15:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Don't see any problem with this list, which is part of a series. Much of it is sourced, contrary to the nom's claim. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Provisional Keep there are about ten such articles detailing the planets by letter (A–B, C–D, E–G, H–J, K–L, M–N, O–Q, R–S, T–V, W–Z). Without commenting on the merits of having all ten of these articles, if this process is to take place they should all be nominated en mass, not just the one of them. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 14:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kelapstick:  Done nominated others. Nathan121212 (talk) 15:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no indication of notability for these individual fictional planets. Most of the entries are sourced solely (if at all) by the books in which they appear. It is doubtful that there would be much in the way of secondary sourcing available for many of them. Planets that do have significant coverage in independent, reliable sources should be included in the main list of planets, or have their own article as required. Further to all of this much of the article is written "in universe", and while correctable, I don't see the point given the lack of secondary sourcing. There are alternative outlets for such extensive lists of planets, which I am sure already exist. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 17:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, which states, "Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works in addition to a concise summary." This means that topics about fictional elements (in this case, planets) should be covered in secondary sources. The Star Wars novels and the non-independent guides cannot be considered secondary sources for listing the planets. This A-B subset (and the other subsets) is just indiscriminately listing every planet that appears in the fictional universe. I support List of Star Wars planets, limited to the ones that have been critiqued in secondary sources (most likely the ones in the films). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  This is an example of a secondary source covering planets seen in Star Wars. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Also worth noting that WP:INDISCRIMINATE points to WP:WAF, which says, "Wikipedia articles should describe fiction and fictional elements from the perspective of the real world, not from the perspective of the fiction itself." This is not being done here; it is just in-universe content without any independent commentary on it. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Please note that this nomination is for all ten of the planets lists. Nathan121212 (talk) 15:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Check out WP:BUNDLE so the other lists can be included appropriately. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  @Erik: I have listed them here. Can you please assist me with adding the template to the other articles as I am currently editing via mobile. Nathan121212 (talk) 15:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I have added the template to the other list articles. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep The nomination claimed that the A-B page was unsourced when it actually had 27 references. See WP:SK: "The nomination is so erroneous that it indicates the nominator has not even read the article in question." Andrew (talk) 22:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  None of these references are secondary sources, which are needed per WP:INDISCRIMINATE (see my comment above). One cannot put together primary and non-independent sources to claim that an article about a fictional element is notable. Notability depends on secondary sources. Please note that List of Star Wars planets links to Wookieepedia, where in-universe content (which is what we have here in contravention of WP:WAF) is best housed. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 00:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Just for clarification: I meant the article had too few reliable sources. Most of these articles are sourced to fiction books and first party sources. I said unsourced in error. Nathan121212 (talk) 04:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Four secondary sources (i.e., published independently by a third party) for a list of this type is GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 05:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  But the secondary sources are sources of information for only a few planets. They are not notable enough to stand alone if we were to remove all the info sourced form unreliable sources. Nathan121212 (talk) 05:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  @VMS Mosaic: These are not secondary sources independent from the franchise. The book The Essential Guide to Planets and Moons is published by LucasBooks. Also, WP:GAMEGUIDE says to "avoid lists of gameplay weapons, items, or concepts, unless these are notable in their own right", and this applies to planets. Basically, game guides could supplement a passage about a notable planet, but they do not count as secondary sources toward establishing notability. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Please see WP:CSC #2 which explicitly allows this list given the above delete arguments that every list member "fails the notability criteria." This list goes very far beyond being only game related, so WP:GAMEGUIDE is not at all applicable. VMS Mosaic (talk) 07:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  That guideline also states, "However, if a complete list would include hundreds of entries, then you should use the notability standard to provide focus to the list." Here we have hundreds of entries of indiscriminate planets, so list of Star Wars planets can focus on those actually mentioned in independent sources, like the National Geographic one I linked above. In-universe content should not be outweighing independent commentary; WP:WAF#Real-world perspective says, "Real-world perspective is not an optional quality criterion but a general, basic requirement for all articles." That perspective needs to have more than just in-universe content. That is what Wookieepedia is suitable for. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:19, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  This could be included in the main list article to basically tell readers that Wookieepedia goes into detail about planets. An external link would be available, and readers can become accustomed to Wookieepedia as a source for in-universe content. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. These articles date back to an earlier period in Wikipedia's history, when we had very loose inclusion criteria. Back then, it was still widely accepted that Wikipedia was the "sum of all human knowledge", including intrawiki fan sites for major franchises. Although interesting to fans, it is far too indiscriminate for Wikipedia, and it belongs on Wikia, which welcomes in-universe writing and non-independent sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:18, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I think WP:OBTOP, WP:OBSCURE and WP:BELONG have some applicability here. Yes, there is a lot of in-universe, but there is also a good bit of out of universe material. Unfortunately, most of the editors who would have improved the article(s) to meet current guidelines have long since been all but forcibly driven away from editing Wikipedia. We need many more editors; not the current death spiral. VMS Mosaic (talk) 07:46, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:OBSCURE is an essay that, in terms of in-universe content, does not correspond with Wikipedia's policy of not being an indiscriminate collection of information. The policy states, "Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works in addition to a concise summary." This indicates the need for emphasis on secondary sources providing independent commentary on the subject matter. There is no abundance of "out-of-universe material" that is not simply identifying the primary sources in which a fictional planet appears. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:27, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 02:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the lot - All this crap belongs on some "fan site" like Wikia. –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I suggest articulating your argument further, otherwise it falls in the WP:BELONG category. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I couldn't care less, Some things just belong elsewhere and imho this is one of them, If my argument falls in the "Belong" category then I'm absolutely chuffed!.... –Davey2010 • (talk) 05:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per not violating policy being sourcable and meeting WP:SALAT. With respects Davey2010, while certainly information in Wikipedia could be included outside these pages, "crap" is not an argument against a list article here. I find mass nominations to be unhelpful, specially when all nominated are then judged by addressable weakness in on or two. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:46, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  There is no independent sourcing here that vouches for the vast majority of the content, which is simply descriptions of the planets from primary sources. WP:SALAT says, "To keep the system of lists useful, we must limit the size and topic of lists." The primary-source content far outweighs any secondary-source content that may be available (and would be focused on the so-called "major" planets). Per WP:CSC #3, "If a complete list would include hundreds of entries, then you should use the notability standard to provide focus to the list." This is why I advocate keeping list of Star Wars planets (not up for AfD here); it is definitely worth identifying those that have been covered in secondary sources (typically the film ones) and referencing both primary and secondary sources for each planet in their own section. Unfortunately, most of the planets across all these subset articles do not have any secondary sourcing and thus go against WP:INDISCRIMINATE's definition of how fiction is treated in an encyclopedic manner (along with WP:WAF, which gets more specific, as I explained above). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:24, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Michael, I respectfully disagree with your assessment regarding mass nominations. While sometimes (usually) unhelpful, in this case it is the only way a nomination would make sense. It would not make sense to delete (or nominate for deletion) planets A-B, but keep (or not nominate) the remainder. Why would A-B be any less noteworthy than C-D, or any other for that matter? It certainly doesn't make sense to have the same discussion across ten different AfD pages. A series of lists organized in this manner only makes sense if it is all or nothing, which is the way a deletion discussion on the matter should be conducted. I do however agree with your assessment that general "this is crap" and "I don't like it" style arguments are not helpful, and are contrary to what we would expect in an AfD discussion. As Erik says (and I did above), the planets with significant, third party sources, should either have their own articles (as does Alderaan for example), or are covered in List of Star Wars planets. It should be noted that many of the planets that do have articles are poorly sourced and generally written in-universe as well (which of course is grounds for improvement, not deletion). I personally don't see the need to document every minute detail of the expanded Star Wars universe. If the only sourcing available is the books in which they appear, the General Notability Guidelines agree with me. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 19:32, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  True kelapstick, I find WP:DONTLIKEIT arguments to be decidedly unhelpful. My issue with this mass nomination is that it requires that the several hundred grouped topics be searched, and the several hundred included refs be checked. This would almost call for 4 or 5 mandatory relistings to allow that quantity of work to be done. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:58, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete All. There aren't enough reliable sources to make viable articles about these fictional planets and worlds. We end up having an indiscriminate collection here, unable to tell notable planets from planets which were mentioned once in some obscure pulp-fiction book which supports the fictional universe. The in-universe content would be fine if it were supported by out-of-universe references (academic study or critical analysis, for example) but that just doesn't happen. -- Mikeblas (talk) 00:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• You wish to delete all because of issues with some of the listed planets? Why not simply propose someone go through the 300+ planets listed and delete those unsourced? Would you also wish deletion of the blue-linked planets on the lists because they are also in-universe? As they are all fictional elements, why not simply merge and redirect them all to the Star wars article.... the one place where these fictional elements might merit any mention. Or we could just as simply nominate every article even remotely related to Star Wars, as every part of the series is fiction or based on fiction, which raises the question "just what part of Star Wars is not WP:INUNIVERSE so as to meet WP:Real world?" Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all. I picked one of these articles at random (List of Star Wars planets (O–Q)) and I tried to see what would happen if I deleted everything without a citation or where the citation is only to primary material (e.g., a planet is mentioned in a novel and the novel is cited as the source). Not a single entry remained. Planets with sufficient out--of-universe references can have their own articles: I don't feel lists of this nature work on Wikipedia -- they are better served by a Star Wars wiki. Bondegezou (talk) 09:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I went through List of Star Wars planets (M–N) next. I've deleted 80% of the article for having no reliable, secondary sources. What's left is left almost entirely because of citations to Daniel Wallace and Scott Kolins' "The Essential Guide to Planets and Moons (Star Wars)" (1996). I don't know whether that constitutes a reliable, secondary source. If it is, it is still only a single source and if what's left in the article is just a regurgitation of that one source, then that's not appropriate. So I still say delete them all. Bondegezou (talk) 10:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment And then I tried List of Star Wars planets (W–Z): nothing there is a reliable, secondary source. I've deleted all but the first entry. Bondegezou (talk) 10:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I could see an argument for cutting down the lists and merging them into a single list (rather than having the numerous lists there currently are), but not for cutting all this material entirely. A list does not have to prove individual notability for each item in the list so long as the main subject itself is notable. kuwabaratheman (talk) 16:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  No, it does not warrant this extensive in-universe content. See my comment here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I've been going through these articles today to try and improve them, should they be kept. Once you've hacked away all the obviously unsourced and un-secondary-sourced material, there's not much less. The remainder would certainly fit onto a single list. If we start hacking away anything that doesn't have independent secondary sourcing, I don't know that there will be anything left. Bondegezou (talk) 17:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and restore all recently deleted list items per WP:CSC #2. VMS Mosaic (talk) 23:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  You already said to "Keep" above (and as seen here), and your arguments were refuted. Please redact this repeat. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 01:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • @VMS Mosaic: - I've struck your comment since Erik's correct - You can't vote twice. –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, I looked back and thought I had only made a previous comment. I completely forgot my first !vote two weeks ago. I would gladly have redacted it, but too late now. BTW, I do not concede that any argument has refuted anything I said. I simply have no interested in arguing endlessly. I believe what I said and said what I meant. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:50, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No worries we all mistakes - I've done it plenty of times :), Cheers, –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:54, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Given that WP:CSC #2 has been stated as a keep reason (regardless of who believes they have refuted it), I think it is improper to remove any items from any of the lists based on notability until this AfD has been closed. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:06, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have been working on these articles while the AfD is going on and have deleted numerous list items. I have not done this on the basis of notability: rather, I have deleted material that is not supported by secondary, reliable sources. I have done this under WP:V. I quote: "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." I hope that explains my approach and is satisfactory to other editors. My aim is to (a) improve articles as per basic Wikipedia policy; and (b) see what is left having done that in order to inform this AfD discussion. Bondegezou (talk) 09:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Per WP:PSTS and WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD, a primary source is perfectly acceptable as the only source for actual "facts" such as planet x is found on page y of book z about universe w. Given that, every single planet listed has a primary source; some actually cited while many others need the citation added. That is all that is needed to meet WP:V. Notability for each planet is not required per WP:CSC #2; notability only applies to the list itself. Either the policy and the explaining essay mean what they say or they need to be rewritten. I believe they mean what they say. VMS Mosaic (talk) 23:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies then, VMS Mosaic. I have been over-zealous with some edits. Some of the material I deleted had no citations: I take it we are agreed that that can be deleted under WP:V. Some had primary sources. Feel free to revert my edits wholesale, or go through and just return those with primary sources. If I have time, I will do some more work on the articles. Bondegezou (talk) 09:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is not abundant secondary sourcing about planets in the Star Wars fictional universe to warrant splitting a Wikipedia list article into subsets. Content from primary sources should not outweigh content from secondary sources, so a single list can be appropriate. Nobody here has argued against list of Star Wars planets; they have argued against the high level of detail from primary sources in the light of nearly no detail from secondary sources. Bondegezou's removal of this level of detail is appropriate. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:35, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My issue was with removing entire entries. If an entry exists within the SW universe, then it by definition has at least one primary source available. Yes, the cites and/or citation needed tags need to be added. Yes, some excessive detail, in particular any analysis or detail not supported by primary (or secondary) sources, can be removed. I have no issue with combining into fewer articles as long as WP:TOOLONG doesn't come into play. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:21, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No one has offerred any explanation of why we need two competing lists. The implication is that list of Star Wars planets represents the planets that are actually notable and this longer list is the "deep fandom" stuff. There is no ban on the use of primary sources! To be useful, a list needs to be of reasonable length, which this ten-part monstrosity is not. Wookiepedia collects the Star Wars trivia. Claimsworth (talk) 00:03, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As above- Moudul hasan (talk) 12:39, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All - Contrary to Schmidt's assertion above, it fails WP:SALAT because it epitomises What Wikipedia is not. Some topics are trivial, non-encyclopedic, or not related to human knowledge. A list like this one needs to explain why it contributes to the state of human knowledge. Additionally, per nom. there is grossly inadequate citation to reliable secondary sources for individual entries and their content (or even reliable sources); and per editor Claimsworth, the list of Star Wars planets covers the notable ground. --Bejnar (talk) 16:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all- Excessively lengthy, in-universe fancruft sourced only to the works of fiction themselves (and poorly, at that). We've already got a list of star wars planets, and there is no need for a second ten-volume repetition. Reyk _YO! 01:29, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Justified by it being about a major work of fiction. Separate articles about each of them is what would be excessive. But a mere list is nnot undue coverage, or inappropiate. This is talking about a fictional universe, so sources from the fiction are sufficient. Asking ofr deletion oin the ground of it being "fictious" is a limitation of the role of WP, which talks about notable fiction in the same fdetail as other notable subjects. DGG ( talk ) 05:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Star Wars" is a major work of fiction, but most of these entries are from spin-off novels or levels in video games, which I don't feel can be called major works of fiction. Bondegezou (talk) 07:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • That, and the requirement for reliable independent sources does not disappear just because the article is about a work of fiction. Reyk _YO! 11:54, 13 October 2014 (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. If anyone wants to create a redirect from Arjun Tendulkar to Sachin Tendulkar#Family, go right ahead. Deor (talk) 11:42, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arjun tendulkar

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

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

Arjun Tendulkar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Non-notable athlete. A 14-yr old youth cricketer who would go completely unnoticed if he were not the son of Sachin Tendulkar. A promising future? Perhaps. Too soon to tell. Possibly useful as a footnote on the page about his father, but not valid for its own article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability is not inherited. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 13:33, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The article has been moved since its nomination. I have added the new title. Both should be deleted if that is the outcome of this discussion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!!

Arjun Tendulkar is also notable Out of Nation means in international news paper you can see here --- http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/cricket/article-2763349/Little-Master-s-little-master-Sachin-Tendulkar-s-son-blasts-ton-school-match.html

So I request you to not delete the wikipedia page of Arjun Tendulkar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khadeeralisk (talk • contribs) 14:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:26, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:26, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. He can continue to "do well in his cricket life" off Wikipedia until that doing well has notability enough for a Wikipedia article. He is already mentioned in the Sachin Tendulkar article, that is sufficient. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:58, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete notability is not inherited. Fails WP:CRIN inclusion guidelines. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 20:00, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Sachin Tendulkar#Family until sufficiently notable for his own article. The-Pope (talk) 01:13, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Already mentioned in Sachin Tendulkar article and that is adequate. Not notable yet for a separate article. Arunram (talk)

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. Deor (talk) 11:46, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Farioli

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

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

Subject seems to be a largely non-notable digital marketing consultant. Co-written two books and appears on lecture circuit. Author's only contribution to Wikipedia seems to be this article, which leads me to suspect marketing puff piece. --Legis (talk - contribs) 13:00, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I left a note on the original author's talk page (User talk:FICB78), and it seems that an early incarnation of this article may have been speedily deleted? Can anyone verify? --Legis (talk - contribs) 13:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, speedy deletion WP:CSD#G11 (blatant advertising) September 13 by Peridon (talk · contribs) after being tagged by Trivialist (talk · contribs). The deleted version is the same as the present version in overall outline but with minor wording differences, and had been created the same day as its deletion by the same user as this version. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The sources are either not reliable or merely mention the subject in passing - in other words, insufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 13:33, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. You'd think someone supposedly expert in digital marketing would at least have paid some attention to what is required of a Wikipedia article. But there is no evidence of passing WP:GNG: there are many sources, but none appear to be reliable, independent, and in-depth. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can't add much to the previous posts, except to comment that a lot of marketing people seem to be fixed in their ways and don't bother to do research on the place they're proposing to promote in. At least this one is written in a fairly neutral way, unlike most of them who cram buzz word on top of buzz word ending up with a load of meaningless guff. Peridon (talk) 14:11, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It may avoid buzz words and extravagant adjectives , but it has a considerable amount of full caps for company and product names, has a quote from the subject giving Emerson as his inspiration, includes some remarkably minor awards, and says a good deal of it two or three times over. But yes, it's not from the usual network(s). DGG ( talk ) 14:30, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:06, 9 October 2014 (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. Randykitty (talk) 21:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Queen of the World 2013

Miss Queen of the World 2013 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A yearly article about a not notable pageant which doesn't have a mother article or a reference. ...William 12:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Try also:

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

--doncram

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as offshoot of non-notable/non-existing pageant article. Mabalu (talk) 12:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. wp:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. The fact this has a year in title is easily addressed by moving this article to the missing pageant name article, i.e. move to Miss Queen of the World. And the lack of reference in the article is easily addressed by adding references. I am a little unclear if Queen of the World (in its 25th year, seemingly) is same or not as "Miss Queen of the World". But all can be addressed by tagging article or just adding to article. --doncram 13:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But there's nowhere to redirect them to. Queen of the World, the pageant, was deleted at AFD a while ago, and more recently deleted again as part of a set of song title redirects to an album deleted at AFD. There never seems to have been a Miss Queen of the World. Mabalu (talk) 15:46, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:N. The find sources links supplied by Doncram, while appreciated, don't turn up any useful references. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:03, 12 October 2014 (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. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 12:52, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jitin Chawla

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

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

Okay a career counselor, while they help get jobs for people-not needed for every one IMO, can't find that much notability Wgolf (talk) 04:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• -okay just saw that he does have a radio program, might be something there, maybe a userfy or something. (Though I just saw that he apparently has done over 16,500 workshops-something about that number seems odd, since I'm not sure how you could tell if they did that many and that just seems a bit too much) Wgolf (talk) 04:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 11:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• delete any possible notability would be as a business perso running a chain of counseling centers, but the article has no references to show notability. DGG ( talk ) 00:34, 4 October 2014 (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. Nominator's assertion that no sources existed has been refuted. Article needs sourcing, not deletion. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 14:35, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ilaya Nila

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

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

Significantly lacks sources, which are not available online. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

and English through WP:INDAFD: Ilaya Nila

• Comment: Apparently sources are available online. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:02, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 11:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Livemint and The Hindu call the song a classic and evergreen hit respectively. There are other sources ([18][19][20][21]). The rationale given by the nominator is lack of online sources but it seems like WP:BEFORE wasn't done.--Skr15081997 (talk) 16:36, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the various sources listed in the discussion. Many valid sources do in fact exist online. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:17, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Love (Praga Khan song)

Love (Praga Khan song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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