Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 August 24

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. Jujutacular (talk) 02:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

VF2410 (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)

VF2417 (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)

VF2433 (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. Three VF stations in the Canadian Arctic, all nominally verifiable in a directory but unverifiable as to what they actually broadcast (i.e. whether they originate their own local programming, or just serve as a community owned rebroadcaster of a service from a bigger city.) Per WP:NMEDIA, this type of station is not granted a presumption of notability anymore, except in the rare instance that it can be reliably sourced over WP:GNG. All three appear to be CRTC license-exempt, going by the total lack of any CRTC decisions pertaining to them at all, which means they don't satisfy WP:NMEDIA's license requirement either. Bearcat (talk) 23:14, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:52, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all; there's nothing verifiable to determine the actual status of these stations outside of their Industry Canada authorization, which isn't enough. VF stations aren't inherently notable no matter what they broadcast (especially in the absence of a CRTC decision, which would at least help to tell us if these were rebroadcasters or not), and these stations generally aren't going to get the sufficient coverage in reliable sources to satisfy the general notability guideline. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:38, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:02, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect all o the community articles where they can be mentioned. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 21:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If we could properly verify (a) whether they're still in operation or not, and (b) what they actually broadcast, then there would be a case for including them in the community articles. But if we can verify nothing about them, leaving us able to say nothing more than "VF# is a radio transmitter, programming unknown, that may or may not still exist", then it's not appropriate or useful content. Bearcat (talk) 23:09, 27 August 2016 (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. (non-admin closure) jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okpella (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)

May be a hoax, check it out. Eric S.V. (talk) 21:53, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out, this place exists. Eric S.V. (talk) 21:53, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Is not a hoax and passes WP:GNG per the following reliable sources, among others: [1] [2] [3] Nominator is reminded to follow WP:BEFORE before starting an AFD. Everymorning (talk) 04:11, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, meets WP:GEOLAND, it's a place that exists. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:47, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep - per Coolabahapple —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 20:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think it is OK for the nominator to be sceptical. I had to dig a bit but I did find source including scholarly works about a cement factory there. Passes WP:GEOLAND. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:50, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Nominator clearly didn't follow WP:BEFORE prior to nominating this article. As others have shown, this place does exist according to several reliable sources, so it isn't a hoax. Omni Flames (talk) 07:23, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - clearly falls into the assumed notability granted to any clearly identifiable populated place on the planet. There is a great deal of superfluous and unreferenced text here that needs to be very extensively pruned and could probably be more extensively;y tagged with clean-up templates.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   19:22, 30 August 2016 (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. Jujutacular (talk) 02:54, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jae Joseph (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)

Procedural AFD - was previously AFDed, then PRODed. PROD reason from Huon was: "No significant coverage in reliable sources, highly promotional. Was previously deleted as non-notable spam, not sufficiently improved." I concur - I did a complete reference check: mostly bad, RSes very minor, way too many BLP claims completely uncited. This is not the same as the article text that was previously AFDed, but it's still terrible and unacceptably badly sourced for a BLP, never mind its clearly promotional nature. I suggest deleting and salting against future spammy versions. If it's kept, it needs to be culled strictly to RSes, i.e. about a stub. David Gerard (talk) 21:39, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 21:44, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 21:44, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I stand by my PROD rationale (and had interpreted WP:PROD to only be prevented by the article being kept at a previous AfD, but in retrospect I agree it could be read differently). Huon (talk) 22:00, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh believe me, I went over WP:PROD very carefully ;-) But "Procedure for administrators" says: "The article is eligible for proposed deletion: the page is not a redirect, never previously proposed for deletion, never undeleted, and never discussed at AfD." So PRODing something previously AFDed just delays everything a week, even on such an inspirational article as this - David Gerard (talk) 22:15, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no sources to actually pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:17, 25 August 2016 (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 via my speedy (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 16:13, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MES Hybrid Document Systems (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 per WP:CORP. All sources primary, tangential, irrelevant and/or unverifiable - zero RSes about the company. Literally two hits in Google News, both tangential. They sound like the sort of company that *should* be notable, but there's no apparent evidence. David Gerard (talk) 21:02, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 21:04, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 21:04, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 21:04, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 21:06, 24 August 2016 (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. After discounting the "delete" opinions by Ijon Tichy and Nishidani because they are mostly personal attacks, nobody except the nominator supports deletion.  Sandstein  18:49, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Bloody Day in Jaffa (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)

Firstly, the phrase ""The Bloody Day in Jaffa" gets exactly 3 hits in books.google.com: simply not notable.

Secondly (and more importantly): the present "article" is taking *one* tiny little snap-shot out of a large, complicated story, where there was a history of "tit for tat" revenge attacks. This article present itself as if these attacks were born out of nothing, which is of course rubbish. Huldra (talk) 20:37, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As for being in the List of killings and massacres in Mandatory Palestine: Wikipedia is not WP:RS for a very good reason; it was put there by an IP, sourced to newspaper articles from 1936, in Hebrew. There is a mass of books, also in English, about the 1936–39 Arab revolt in Palestine; that it isn´t sourced to any of them should immediately have gotten alarm bells ringing. Huldra (talk) 21:20, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• A highly POV reason for bringing an article to AFD. The title was selected for this notable pogrom/race riot for the simple reason that it is the title already used in Wikipedia in our List of killings and massacres in Mandatory Palestine. I took that for consensus. If you wish to suggest an alternative title, the proper place to do so is on the talk page. But you might want to follow WP:BEFORE, or just google: jaffa 19 April 1936 [4], [5] and consider withdrawing this AFD. I am article creator.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Note that the quality of a page is generally not a good reason for deletion WP:DEL-CONTENT. Based on my wikipedia search I am a little concerned that most sources seem to be highly politicized. Have you looked through the sources the page? If they are legitimate, than I think those MIGHT provide evidence of notability. -Dan Eisenberg (talk) 20:53, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (see below) and rename to something that those more knowledgable than I can decide. The title is clearly incorrect, but, per the book coverage linked above by E.M.Gregory, this is a day and series of events that has had plenty of coverage in history books. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Change title and Merge with 1936-39 Arab revolt in Palestine (see my comment below): There is already an article about 1936-39 Arab revolt in Palestine. The current version of the Jaffa disorder says nothing about the wider conflict, for easily understandable reasons: if it went into the wider conflict in detail, it would overlap significantly with the other article. The event is only notable as one of the earliest riots which spread to the whole of Palestine, and thus should properly be dealt with in the other article. It is also impossible to understand the rioting without the conflict with the British, especially the killing of al-Qassam, the larger events before and after the killing, for instance the immigration of Jews into Palestine, the conflict with the British, the formation of Higher Arab Committee who called a general strike on the issue of Jewish immigration just after the riots (which led to further violence against Jewish property and persons) and so on. Many sources are primary instead of secondary, like the Palestine Post.

  This article is simply a WP:POVFORK, which is EMG's stock-in-trade on WP - he has also created 1936 Anabta shooting (permalink) with a similar rationale. The other page is also a travesty, providing virtually no historical context - it seems that all Arabs want is to kill Jews. Obviously, EMG didn't deem it necessary to create a page for the two Arabs killed in reprisal for the 1936 Anabta incident, which directly led to this event: see [6] On the night of 15 April 1936, three Jews were ambushed and killed by Arabs on the road between Tul-Karem and Nablus. On the following night, two Arabs were killed in reprisal by members of a Jewish organization called National Defence - mother organization of Etzel - near the Jewish town of Petah-Tikva. These murders led to disorders in Jaffa and Tel Aviv on 19 April 1936.. To clarify, I am not calling for the creation of an article for the Jewish reprisal against Arabs, just pointing out the silliness of creating such pages.

  Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 00:02, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll elaborate on one major point in my analysis. I claimed above that The event is only notable as one of the earliest riots which spread to the whole of Palestine, and thus should properly be dealt with in the other article. A simple glance at the "book sources" referenced in the article proves this point.

For instance, one reference (#2) cited is this. The entirety of any reference to this incident is a single sentence in a paragraph leading to the wider revolt.

Text of reference
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
On 15 April 1936, armed Arabs apparently acolytes of Izz al-Din al-Qassam of Haifa, murdered two Jews on a road near Tulkarem. In response, members of the Haganah Bet, a militant Jewish group that had broken from the Haganah, murdered two Arabs near Petah Tikva. During the funeral, Arabs in Jaffa attacked Jews and murdered nine of them. So began the great Arab rebellion. For Palestine's Arabs, the military option passed from theory to practice.

Here is a paper on JSTOR also cited (#10). The entirety of reference to this incident is a single sentence leading to the wider revolt.

Text of reference
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
On 19 April 1936, Arab riots broke out in Jaffa. A curfew was imposed on the area and emergency regulations brought into force. The following day...

I'm willing to bet that the vast majority, if not all of secondary sources deal with this incident in just this manner. It is not a coincidence that most of the details in the article rely on primary sources like the Palestine Post and The Nation both published in 1936. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 03:13, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with 1936-39 Arab revolt in Palestine. Kingsindian's analysis is very good and I concur. Zero^talk 00:22, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - A number of WP:RS refer to the Bloody Day in Jaffa, including The Nation on its June 3 1936 issue. Entire Wikipedia articles have been written on less (and this one is additionally backed by references to 2 books and at least 2 scholarly journals). I see nothing wrong with this article, which, being young, will probably be developed in future, but since when is Wikipedia in the business of deleting young articles before a chance is given to develop them? Now, some people say "merge," but then, once merged, others may fairly complain that this one event's section on a long series of events is oversize respect to the entirety of the 1936-39 Arab revolt article, and then, well, we'd be back to square one. Kingsidian's comments and Zero's are nothing but ad hominem's on EMG's; they seem to not like the Wikipedia articles EMG apparently chooses to edit (his "stock in trade", they say). I say, judge this Bloody Day article by its merits, and not by EMG's other articles. Cheerio, XavierItzm (talk) 01:13, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 02:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. One of the comments for deletion said, "The event is only notable as one of the earliest riots which spread to the whole of Palestine, " ; that's looking at it upside down. The event is notable because it is one of the earliest riots which spread to the whole of Palestine. It's like saying a battle is notable only because it is one of the events in a war, and therefore should be covered only in the article on the war. Significant events get separate articles. DGG ( talk ) 04:49, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: No, the battle analogy isn't apt. The question is: where is the evidence that this event is significant by itself? If you look at my analysis of the secondary sources, the Jaffa riots get no more than a single sentence in two of the cited secondary sources which I looked at: I am pretty sure the pattern generalizes to other sources if I bothered to check. The origins of the Arab revolt were complex: the section 1936–39 Arab revolt in Palestine#Origins gives a fair summary. Is one supposed to make a separate page for all the people killed on all sides of the conflict, or is it better to discuss all of them together in the proper context? Just read the 1936 Anabta shooting article and compare it to the section of the main article. The former is a travesty of history - there's no mention of the conflict with the British, a very brief mention of the killing of al-Qassam, no mention of the protests over Jewish immigration, no mention of the reprisal killing of two Arabs by the Haganah Bet at Petah Tikva. It is no accident that out of the events in chronological order A, B and C, EMG created articles on A and C, but not B. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 09:43, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep without going into politics and POVs discussion, from pure technical point of view the sources look legit, the event itself have a broad coverage, so it perfectly pass staying. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Note that poet Haim Gouri wrote of "the bloody day that came in Jaffa on April 19, 1936." a search of bloody day + Jaffa + 1936 shows that the term bloody day is applied to this event.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:59, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments here. The source is simply describing April 19, 1936 as "a bloody day in Jaffa" not "the bloody day in Jaffa". Also note the lack of capitalization. There's no indication that this is some kind of name. I found no secondary source calling this day by this name. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 01:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a recent (2015) article published in major Israeli media (which includes the third largest weekend-circulation in that country) where the author specifically refers to the events of April 19-20, 1926, as, and I quote, «‘The Bloody Day in Jaffa’». XavierItzm (talk) 06:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source referenced above [7], an opinion column, valid for demonstrating that this term is in some degree of use.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:03, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is absurd: the opinion column is written by a nobody in a worthless venue: perhaps we should count The Sun as demonstrating notability of topless models which used to appear on Page 3? After all, The Sun had the highest circulation of any newspaper in the UK until very recently. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 16:30, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"A Common Soldier: The Story of Zwi Brenner, Yosef Eshkol, Afiḳim (Israel 1993), refers to "those killed in the bloody day at Jaffa" p. 121; i24news echoed the Artuz Sheva essay several times, as did other news and Zionist online sources, "It is April 19–20, 1936. There is no partition, no Israel, no settlements, no occupation and no refugees. Even the original suggestions of partition first raised by the Peel commission are still some time away. But ‘The Bloody Day in Jaffa’ is upon us and the first day of the ‘Great Arab Uprising’. By the end of the first week, 17 Jews had been murdered." [8] in the Anglospnere. I understand that YOUDONTLIKEIT, but Arutz Sheva and these other sources and they do demonstrate that this phrase is in use with specific reference to this event. If you have found other phrases in specific use to describe this event, I hope that you will share them.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:44, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have demonstrated that you are well-versed in Googling "bloody day Jaffa". In case you didn't realize, your second source is a blogpost comment by some random person - who has wholesale copy-pasted the worthless Arutz Sheva source. The first source is also useless: it is a description, not a name. Note the lack of capitalization, for instance. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 18:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I see some sources using The Arab Riots of 1936 [9] and 1936 Arab riots [10]. We already have 1929 Arab riots in Palestine . I prefer the unique name, now sourced to 2 books, one citing a major poet, and an article in The Nation, as well as to recent opinion pieces.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/merge This will be kept, of course, though it is incompetent trash, as one has come to expect from the editor's work in this area, which is essentially designed to make a Yad Vashem sector to the I/P conflict and seed in a victim mentality, and insinuate Arabs are terrorists. The technique is to select an incident where Jews have died by Palestinian violence, keep it decontextualized, repress the historical contexts, all on the basis of a couple of scrappy second rate sources. As an indication of what you must do if you want to contribute at a minimal basic level to article creation of this type, I wrote up for 2 hours a response to this crap, to show how it can be done, if that's one's obsessive interest. So, compare Black_Sunday,_1937. Perhaps 1% of the automatic approvers for this rubbish will rethink their position, but I doubt it. Nishidani (talk) 12:56, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  You need to remain civil in your discourse. If you can't, then perhaps find a different topic to edit in. And creating a new article just to show a response is not what is expected from an experienced editor.

• Keep article is sourced and is notable. Anything more than that is just editorializing. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Note That as a response to this article, Nishdani has just created Black Sunday, 1937.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

:: Perhaps you should read reductio ad absurdum. I have left a message on Nishidani's page regarding this, asking him to userfy the article. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:58, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• New article was created by Nishdani for "remonstrative" purposes [11], while describing "the 90% likelihood is that Gregory's 2 articles on that period will survive."[12]. This violates WP:DISRUPT, as per WP:POINTy.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have perhaps over 200 draft articles for Wikipedia in my files, going back several years. They lie, unused, because I don't think it shows much understanding of what encyclopedic editing requires, to plunk stubs every other day, even if they are far better worked that this, as however you do in offering stubs like Kate Prusack or this into wikipedia. Look at Black Sunday, 1937, at the section aftermath and you will see for 6 July 1938,25 July 1938, and 26 August 1938 incidents of mass slaughter of Palestinians, which, by your criteria, Wikipedia should devote an article to. Each can be multiply-sourced. But no, one does not do that because that material, and it covers hundreds of incidents, is best dealt with in lists, as on the page I wrote on the context. To make articles of each incident is to be repetitive, and to manipulate Wikipedia to a victim or pity mentality in our readership, devoid of actual historical content. It's tabloid history.

Competence requires hard work, not vanity publishing. As I explained on my page, seeing this rubbish reminded me of work long thought over, not done, on the era 1936-1939, and, in dedicating a few hours to it, I was quite aware it also contained a useful message: don't be lazy, read widely; don't place 'stuff' on Wikipedia unless you can see it covered significantly in strong sourcing; don't invent history with synthetic titles; don't write snippets of events shorn of all historical context; cover both sides, and a dozen other banausic rules for solid craftsmanship. Follow those rules and you will not see your talk page blotted by frequent AfD notifications, as often is the case.Nishidani (talk) 18:54, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I have been persuaded by the conversation here that my "keep" opinion above was incorrect. The topic is better covered in context by a broader article. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:15, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Note that This article has been linked in its lede to 1936–39 Arab revolt in Palestine from the moment it was written. This Arab riot targeting Jews is independently notable as the event that marked the beginning a notable 3-year period of violent attacks. Interest in that period has been increasing since the Intifada of 1987-1993 among historians, political analysts, anti-Israel activists, writers and artists of all sorts. Significant secondary sourcing exists; has, in fact, existed since 1936. More to the point, it is quite normal on Wikipedia to have general articles plus narrowly focused articles on a topics provided that the sourcing supports having both, as it does here. We have literally hundreds of articles on the Indian independence movement; appropriately so. The fact that we have American Revolution would hardly be an argument for deleting Boston Massacre or the Edenton Tea Party.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to the above note. You have ignored all of the secondary sources contextualizing this single incident of hundreds. Indeed you've just cited as 'horrible reading' Leland B. Morris (American Consul General at Jerusalem,Attitude of the Department of State Concerning Problems Arising from Conflicting Interests of Arabs and Jews in Palestine. To the Secretary of State 867N.00/283, No.62, Department of State, 25 April 1936, which gives an ample backdrop and context to the April event tracing it back to the discovery of a smuggling operation through the port of Jaffa in late 1935 of arms shipments to the Jewish Haganah militia, through to the Jewish blocking of a proposal for a Legislative Council and the activities of the Islamic militant gang led by Izz ad-Din al-Qassam and both jewish and Arab rioting. All of these elements spurred the heightening of tensions in both communities. So you are quite aware of this. No trace of it appears here or in the other article you created recently, 1936 Tulkarm shooting. The effect of this snippet history? Arabs just rise up and shoot Jews. Unless you fix this apparently witting omission of all the key information you have read, you are violating WP:NPOV by creating skewed articles for effect.Nishidani (talk) 20:48, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/Merge. Writing crappy, shitty, context-free "articles" does nothing to honor the memory of Jews who suffered from Palestinian violence. In my view, these articles risk appearing to perhaps do more to dishonor, reduce and cheapen the memory of the Jewish people's suffering by potentially seeming to associate their real pain and anguish with third-rate, distorted, twisted, NPOV-policy-violating "articles" that could likely come across as lazy, crude pieces of cheap propaganda. Regards, Ijon Tichy (talk) 00:49, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I have no opinion on the merits of keeping or deleting this article, but I urge the administrator who closes this discussion, one way or another, to deal with the editing behavior of editors who support the deletion of this article , while creating a mirror-image article , with identical "context free" focus on the events of a single day, replete with one sided commentary, only from the other side. This should be grounds for topic-banning, in my opinion. Epson Salts (talk) 19:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Mirror-image article? That only reminds me to remind you to think of the meaning of the phrase Through a Looking Glass, darkly. But since you regard the other article as a 'travesty' and as a specular reflection of this article, it is a simple syllogistic consequence that you do have an opinion 'of the merits of keeping or deleting this article', since you are saying this also is a travesty. If you can't make up your mind about this 'travesty', complaining of what you take to be its refracted image is pointless.Nishidani (talk) 19:57, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you cannot see the difference between the two articles is itself illuminating. Unlike this made-up name "Bloody day in Jaffa", sourced to trash sources like Arutz Sheva and non-sources which don't use any name of the kind, "Black Sunday" is a name used by the Irgun itself and in secondary sources cited in the article. Virtually all of the sources in the other article are secondary, unlike half of the sources here, which are primary and provide virtually all the detail. (The secondary sources are put there by EMG to puff up the citations). Unlike this article, which is about a riot plucked out of context, Black Sunday was a turning point in the use of tactics by the Irgun, commemorated as such by the Irgun itself. The article could and probably should more context - but it does talk about wider context, the Zionist resolution on the Peel commission, the British response and the Arab provocations and response. For instance, find me a quote analogous to At this stage in the revolt, the Arab uprising had degenerated into, in Colin Shindler’s words, ‘internecine Arab violence and nihilist attacks on Jews' in this article. Also, the place to ask for a topic ban is WP:AE, not an unrelated AfD. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 22:17, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(1) I disagree with your characterization of Arutz 7 , which is a mainstream media source in Israel. It has a clear ideological bias, but so do many outlets ,from MSNBC to Fox News, which are used all over Wikipedia. Editors don;t get to discount sources as "trash" just because they don't identify with the ideological bias. (2) The Irgun actually does not use that name, if you read the source you provided , you'd see it says this was a term coined by Irgun's opponents- Yitzhak Ben-Zvi - a labor Zionist. (3) If 'Black Sunday' was such a well known event and turning point, you;d expect to see he term used quite commonly in the historiography of the conflict, but in fact, of the sources used in that travesty of an article, only 3 mention that name, all three references an offhand mention in a single sentence . (4) When I say mirror image , what I mean is an article created to advance a POV , by embellishing an otherwise little-known or insignificant event. That is exactly what Black Sunday, 1937 is. If you strip away the material which is "background" , or "context" or "aftermath" which do not mention the events of Nov 14 1937 (and which could have easily been copied, word for word, and applied equally well to The Bloody Day in Jaffa as both event happened in the context of the 1936-1939 revolt , you are left with two sentences, comprising some 30-odd words, that have been fluffed up using POV selective quoting into an article. And the creator of that travesty brags that he created it as a "response" to the article under consideration here. Enough said. Epson Salts (talk) 23:28, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you think an opinion piece by a nobody in Arutz Sheva is a fine source for a historical article about an 80-year old event, I am afraid there is no hope. Find me one, not two, one serious secondary source for the made-up name of this article. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 23:32, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Note I have been slowly expanding this article from the many academic and popular sources available. Note, for example, entire journal articles by Goren and by Golan devoted the impact of this pogrom. There is a great deal more still to be added. Much of it, on the fate of the Jewish refugees thrown from their homes in Gaza, and the political consequences in terms of the demand for annexation of Jaffa to Tel Aviv, make the suggestion of a merger to the 1936–39 Arab revolt in Palestine wholly ineligible.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• By contrast, material such as Italian Involvement in the Arab Revolt in Palestine, 1936–1939,N Arielli - British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, 2008, dealing with on Mussolini's funding of the Revolt should probably be added to that article rather than to this one.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I read the Golan source: I congratulate you on finding at least one secondary source which has a tangential connection with the riots. Unfortunately, you have mangled the source in your treatment. The source is talking about the whole of Arab revolt of 1936 and the the disturbances in the whole of 1936, not just the riots on 19th April. For instance, in your rendering of the incident, the general strike by the Arab Commitee isn't mentioned. Turning to the source, we find: The disturbances raged for two more days, until suppressed by British military and police forces. Another five Jews were killed, dozens were wounded, and Jewish property along the line separating Jews and Arabs was destroyed, mostly by arson.

The three days of rioting resulted in the flight of about 7,000 Jews from areas near the Arab neighbourhoods. The halt to the violence did not stem the wave of refuge-seekers as tension between Jews and Arabs persisted following the declaration of a general strike by the Palestinian Arab leadership. On 27 April, the number of refugees reached its peak, about 12,000.

The source goes on to describe the events through November 1936. Again, this shows that it is senseless to have two articles on just the initial riots without reference to the broader context. It is perhaps possible to write a neutral and comprehensive article on the start of the revolt, but this sure as hell isn't it. I'll mention here that the source makes no mention of this made up name "Bloody Day in Jaffa". Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 02:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You flatter me. It is not at all difficult to find RS on this pogrom. I do urge you to read up on the accurate and objective reading of sources. And also to readWP:BLUDGEON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Note the fictional portrait of this event/day in a bestselling 1984 novel by Leon Uris.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:04, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Works by 2 more notable authors have been added to In literary memory section.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:56, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep though possibly renamed. The start of the Arab rising is surely notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Note ongoing expansion and sourcing obviating many of the negative early opinions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:52, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I withdraw my objection to this article. It clearly meets WP:GNG. One has to simply fix its name and POV problems. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 22:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, well, it is abundantly clear that the attacks on notability above and nomination of this topic for deletion were the product of emotions unrelated the intrinsic notability of this topic.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:56, 31 August 2016 (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. Jujutacular (talk) 03:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Olaolu Akorede Olabode (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) pls don't delete it.

Contested PROD. (probably) Alleges enough Notability to make it past speedy deletion, but fails WP:MUSIC, cannot find any reliable sources about the subject. PGWG (talk) 20:31, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(also fails WP:BIO in general, as some of the subject's activities don't strictly fall under WP:MUSIC) PGWG (talk) 20:39, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. PGWG (talk) 20:40, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No indications of any notability. Being signed as the "official photographer and graphic designer of DB Records" is a credible claim to notability sufficient to avoid speedy deletion, but as there does not appear to be any reliable verification of that fact (or even as to which "DB Records" this might be: the US label or a local Nigerian label of the same name). Also, this position would only be a claim to notability if DB Records was specifically noted for its innovative album art, for which there is no indication. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:19, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As sadly nothing referenced here to indicate any sufficient notability. 80.193.74.158 (talk) 15:16, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:11, 26 August 2016 (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 List of Macross characters. Noted that there is an analogous character in Robotech, but that character has a different name. No? So this page should redirect to the Macrosse list and the Robotech connection can be dealt with by a wikilinked cross-reference. This close offers no opinion on whether or not the two lists should be merged, that is an editorial decision, but there is no pressing need for it as a result of this AFD. SpinningSpark 18:31, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Claudia LaSalle (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)

Since my original merge proposal was declined, well, it's time for AfD, as suggested by the person who declined it. I suggest a soft deletion, by redirecting to the List of Macross characters. This is a supporting anime characters with no references except primary ones, and as such fails WP:GNG. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:55, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Selective Merge to List of Macross characters, which will improve the latter article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Problem is that the same Anime is portrayed twice, as Macross and Robotech, with relatively different storylines and characterizations. Does this character exist under this name in both? If not, no problem with the selective merge per NA1000. If so, I'd prefer if we could find a way to harmonize the lists of minor characters between Macross and Robotech so we don't either keep a bunch of NN content, nor have singular redirects that don't encompass both adaptations of the source material. Thoughts? Jclemens (talk) 02:19, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article already contains a link to her Robotech counterpart, which itself is a redirect to the Robotech character list. With that in mind a merge or redirect to the Macross list would seem appropriate if that is the outcome (note: that isn't my vote).SephyTheThird (talk) 11:52, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Robotech / Macross character lists need to be unified. I don't see why Claudia LaSalle and Claudia Grant couldn't point to the same character in a list and it retain all the information from this article that is being AFD'ed. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:17, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why do they need to be unified? Robotech is a bigger series than Macross due to how it was created and pretty much are treated separately across the board. Instead of a single complex article, two simpler articles would be easier to achieve. After all, for many people the series they are looking for is Robotech, not Macross.SephyTheThird (talk) 05:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or merge. The sources look mostly like fluff, so nothing seems extremely relevant in merging. TTN (talk) 18:20, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Rather than nuking potential good information someone should merge the character lists per Angus. This page is not a BLP, so there is no harm in keeping it while this process is done. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:49, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So you are voting to keep a page that you suggest should be merged? A merge doesn't necessarily have to be carried out immediately if there is evidence someone is working on it or intending to do it.SephyTheThird (talk) 05:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and merge the character lists per AngusWOOF before determining which ones can comfortably fit in the combined list and which can't. Sources currently here indicate that there is value in keeping the information, even if it needs to be cut down a bit. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:27, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except all the sources are from official websites or fanbooks from the time of release. All they do is back up the information stated, not that the information has value or that the subject is notable, failing to address the concerns raised. SephyTheThird (talk) 05:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Personally I would support an outright deletion as I'm not convinced it is a likely search term. This is a character that despite a couple of important scenes during one part of the story is essentially a minor character (and those scenes are more about reactions to another character). However given the issues with the Macross character articles as a whole starting point for improvement is needed. That said, the sources are replaceable with third party alternatives.SephyTheThird (talk) 05:35, 18 August 2016 (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. czar 04:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG, advertising The Banner talk 09:29, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:47, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There was only one disambiguation to be found pepper!? I fixed it via dablinks: http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py?page=Gorilla_Sandwich. Regarding WP:GNG Keep I counted twenty-eight citations in the article that are nontrivial, secondary citations that are not original research. Each of them features the Gorilla Sandwich and supports notability. Sources with especially high editorial reliability and integrity that are included: The Palisade Post, The Huffingtonpost, Die Zeit (German Weekly Paper) and The Daily Titan. I counted another four citations that support the notability of the patent itself, which is inseparable from the Gorilla Sandwich as a whole that’s why I included it into this article instead of creating a new article for the “cucumber sandwich patent”. As it goes for advertising I counted three citations and one direct link that direct to the official page for Gorilla Sandwich. As those can be eliminated from the article I feel they are helpful to illustrate the product. One link refers to the history, the other verifies the ingredients on the label and the third its market place. All three are intended to be informative and not advertising for the product. The same counts for some of the evocative description of the Gorilla Sandwich in the article. I don’t see them as advertisement but as descriptive of the product. Please note that all them are cited and secondary sources. Vonlandsberg (talk) 20:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Vonlandsberg (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

• • This article is plain promotion for the sandwich, it is not a neutral description. And please, read Wikipedia:Reliable Sources. What this article needs are independent (not in any way related to the subject), reliable (no social media or fora), prior published sources. The Banner talk 22:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Non of the sources are social media! And I did read this Wikipedia:Reliable Sources "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered." As stated above the article serves all those criteria. You might be confusing neutral point of view of the author of the article with descriptive language referenced with reliable secondary sources. Again as already stated above those are not my opinions which are incorporated in the article but opinions found in reliable verifiable secondary sources. Please be specific so I can better understand what you understand as promotional. If a notable product such as the Gorilla Sandwich is found by the majority of the sources as exciting, fun, healthy and unique should it be described as plain!

• Here is a breakdown in quantities of citation links by category: Gorilla Sandwich Official Site = 3; Patent & Trademark =3; Featured articles in Blogs that are authoritative in Raw Food Diabetic and General Health = 19; Gorilla Sandwich creator’s official site = 3; News article = 3; Raw Food & Health Forums = 9,Book = 1

Vonlandsberg (talk) 04:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And when you read WP:RS, you will see that at least 3+19+3+9 sources are unsuitable (the rest I should have a look at). But even, the style and tone of the article is that of an advertisement. The Banner talk 10:14, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Among those 19 featured blog posts are 3 citations that are sourced from the Huffingtonpost written by reputable health editors. I understand that the forum sources by itself are insufficient but they were meant just like the official website sources to illustrate the article better and support the better sources. However if I were to strip the article of all the forum sources and some of the blog sources that are not as well know as the Huffingtonpost the article would still have enough sources to pass WP:GNG. As wiki editors we have to learn to distinguish between reliable blogs und and not reliable blogs. And even so, when an unknown blogger supports an opinion that is in consensus with the opinion of a better know blogger at the Huffingtonpost it should be weighted into the overall equation. The sources should be reliable and verifiable of course but as not all sources are equal and as they shouldn't be self serving they should serve the article as a whole foremost. As mentioned above please point out where you think the article is not written in a neutral tone.Vonlandsberg (talk) 22:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Did a major edit and toned it down in favor of neutral description.Vonlandsberg (talk) 09:11, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a minor start, much more work to do. The Banner talk 17:28, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Here is an article on a product that can be compared with the Gorilla Sandwich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twinkie. It has been around much longer but it is in the same vein as the Gorilla Sandwich as it is a unique patented food product. Vonlandsberg (talk) 20:30, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Every article is judged on its own merits, so it is useless to compare. But when you look at Twinkie, you will see that is an article that is neutral in style and tone. And it has only independent and reliable sources... The Banner talk 22:01, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comparing to judge might be useless but comparing to construct is always helpful. Would you please be so kind point out what exactly you don't consider as neutral. Neutral is an ideal that is worth striving for when writing a wikipedia article but will never be satisfied.Vonlandsberg (talk) 22:19, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be true, the neutral description ends after the first word "2004". Are you in any way related to the subject? The Banner talk 22:55, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete obvious advertorial. And if you're adding beforeitsnews as a source? You don't understand Wikipedia's sourcing policies. Guy (Help!) 07:21, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As a Wikipedian my relation to the subject is writing a good article about it. The article had over 40 citations including: 1 x The Palisade Post, 3 X The Huffingtonpost, 1 x Die Zeit (German Weekly Paper) and 1 X The Daily Titan. All reliable, verifiable and good sources that were contributing to a full and factual description of the subject. Unfortunately they have been removed now! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vonlandsberg (talk • contribs) 19:09, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can comment as much as you want, but only !vote once. Natg 19 (talk) 19:42, 22 August 2016 (UTC) [reply]
• Content from a collaboratively created website may be acceptable if the content was authored by, and is credited to, credentialed members of the site's editorial staff.Some news outlets host interactive columns they call "blogs", and these may be acceptable as sources if the writers are professional journalists or professionals in the field on which they write, and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control. Wikipedia:Reliable Sources Such as the blog posts by the Huffingtonpost editor. Vonlandsberg (talk) 01:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• All assertion by the proponents in favor of deleting the article fail according to WP:NPOV and are themselves biased. Proponents mistaken descriptive sections and sections that are attributed to particular sources in the text for advertisement. Proponents fail to make any efforts of rewriting passages or sections of the article to achieve a more neutral tone but instead delete entire valuable sections that are serving the article well and supporting WP:GNG. The article should be restored to it's original state.Vonlandsberg (talk) 01:34, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aha, now we are biased? Do you mind that I take that as proof that you are biased and in same way related to the subject, possibly as inventor. There is no proof outside Wikipedia that the sandwich is a well known one, with just 80 hits at Google. The Banner talk 09:18, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Even your breath is biased by the subject matter of your own existence. Neutrality is an abstract concept not a reality. Your are taking style and taste as the grounds to make a judgement. Tolerance and constructive criticism should be practiced not destruction and fanaticism. The article has over 40 independent citations including many reliable and verifiable sources that proof notability as I have shown many times in this discussion. Our wikipedia guidelines state clearly that we always should try to improve an article before destroying it. I provided more then enough sources that could be mined to improve on the article. This article clearly complies with the guidelines. This article has been written in a very descriptive and colorful and informational way but nonetheless factual and neutral. Believe me if the Huffington Post writes three times about the Gorilla Sandwich it is notable.Vonlandsberg (talk) 19:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • LOL, not when you have passing remarks like this, what refers to "gorilla sandwich" as a type of filled sandwich, not even to the type you are so desperately promoting. The Banner talk 14:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Ashley Koff is an international renown expert in her field and she is referring to the trademark Gorilla Sandwich that was created by Alex Stenzel that she has most likely seen somewhere which supports notability. Also her listing the Gorilla Sandwich among recommended snacks supports notability. The way she describes it matches the evocative and uniqueness of the product which itself supports notability [13]. I have listed 23 recipes ideas in the article that other people came up with that all refer to Gorilla Sandwich as the trademark again this supports notability.Vonlandsberg (talk) 19:12, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm not seeing independent reliable sources showing the notability of this sandwich. In the current version [14] there are 12 sources.
  • 1 and 2 are to the sandwich company's site (and the first is just an image of the nutritional info label).
  • 3 (Aushenker) is about the sandwich's creator, and just mentions the sandwich in passing in a few words.
  • 4 (Paiz) is a journalism student writing in a student newspaper.
  • 5 (Wright) I can't evaluate since it is a dead link.
  • 6 (Metafilter) is a passing mention in a blog.
  • 7 (Improbable Research) makes no claim that this invention is important. The site says "We collect improbable research. Real research, about anything and everything, from everywhere. Research that's maybe good or bad, important or trivial, valuable or worthless."
  • I'm not sure what to make of 8. A US patent for an "ornamental design for a cucumber sandwich." That's the entire patent claim... an ornamental design for a cucumber sandwich. Surprising as it may be that it was granted, I see nothing notable here. Obtaining a patent is not notable.
  • 9 (Sealed Crustless Sandwich) is the abstract for a US patent for crust-less PBJs (not for the cucumber sandwich)
  • 10 (Smith) is an article about the crust-less PBJs that mentions the cucumber sandwich as an example of "Sandwich-related patents in particular reflect the range of American culinary ingenuity and absurdity." It does not sate whether the cucumber sandwich patent is an example of "ingenuity" or "absurdity". The article also points out that the PBJ patent was eventually rejected.
  • 11 (Stenzel) I can't evaluate. The site lists patent abstracts but the link is dead.
  • 12 (Wright) apparently mentions the cucumber sandwich, but context is everything. The book is subtitled "the Craziest Inventions Ever Devised", is based on the cult website www.patentlysilly.com, is written "from the unique perspective of a stand-up comic", and "features an incredible range of patents for inventions that strain the boundaries of imagination, taste, and any form of usefulness. In short, they are ridiculous."

None of these are reliable sources to show notability. Perhaps there is a shred of notability to being held up to ridicule, but not enough in my opinion. Meters (talk) 23:05, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I have re edited the article it now has 45 citations. One of the links "beforeitsnews" was blacklisted since I wrote the article.I don't know what happened to the Patent Silly link but here is another link that refers to it and explains why the patent was issued [15] Vonlandsberg (talk) 00:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good idea to restore the SPAM. It will really help to get this article removed. The Banner talk 07:43, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Shortened article, restored citations and fixed dead links.Vonlandsberg (talk) 00:03, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Insufficient coverage in independent reliable sources. Jevansen (talk) 00:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I went through the article and deleted all of the forums, self published blogs, etc. Only one decent reference was left (Daily Titan) plus two or three iffy ones. I looked for more solid references, but couldn't find any. Bottom line, not enough notability to keep. Nowa (talk) 01:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Three citations that were deleted linked to a reputable editor at the Huffington Post (Ashley Koff) which is not self published.Vonlandsberg (talk) 02:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that. When I tried to use the link in the article, I got a security warning from my browser (Firefox). When I tried to search Huffington Post directly, I could not find the article. Can you provide another link to the article?--Nowa (talk) 08:28, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have found just one of the Huffington articles ([16]). The whole section is nothing more than a passing mention, in fact just describing a type of sandwich: 5. Gorilla sandwich anyone? Got an appetite that won’t quit? Grab a cucumber — hollow it out by using an iced tea spoon to remove the seeds — and stuff it with hummus. King Kong says Yum to this one. Nothing worthy. A reputable editor does not make a mention notable. The Banner talk 09:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the three links from the Huffington Post that are talking about the Gorilla Sandwich:[17],[18],[19] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vonlandsberg (talk • contribs) 09:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant, you see "health.com" as Huffington? And your second link (safe link) is nothing more than a passing mention. Just like the third as I had already mentioned above. Your health thingy is nothing more than Gorilla sandwich Snacks Stuff 1 hollowed-out cucumber with 1/3 cup hummus. Total value of you three so-called-huffington-post articles is plain ZERO. The Banner talk 12:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I made I mistake. You are correct it was actually a Huffington Post article by Ashley Koff that was featured at health.com.Vonlandsberg (talk) 21:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Huff Post articles are suitable references for the article (please use the safe link). However, they do not confer substantial notability since they are merely passing references. My vote for delete remains the same.Nowa (talk) 22:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is notable about the Gorilla Sandwich is the mere existence of it and the fact that it didn't exist before 2004 even though cucumbers have been around for a very long time. And the existence of it has been supported by more then 40 sources independent from the official site(including Germany, Italy and Mexico). What ever the predicate of the subject maybe is irrelevant it's the mere mention of it which supports notability since it acknowledges something that didn't exist before. A picture of it as a source or the mere mentioning of the trademark is sufficient! If 40 unreliable resources support the exact subject matter of 3 reliable resources which is the existence of the sandwich itself are then not the statements of the those unreliable resources become reliable at least in this particular case?Vonlandsberg (talk) 06:12, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking along the same lines as I reviewed all of the forums and self published blogs that mention Gorilla sandwich. There is certainly some notability in the blogosphere. I just don't think that's enough, however, for an encyclopedia like this. 40 forum postings just means 40 people found it noteworthy. A publication, however, needs much wider notability to include a subject. As far as the three reliable sources go, only one of them talks about the sandwich in any detail and that's a student newspaper. The others have just passing mentions.--Nowa (talk) 16:59, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. mr. Vonlandsberg, unreliable sources are no credit to an article. A trademark on its own is not notable. And your pushing of the Huffington Post-articles (of which one is not from Huffington Post) is only diminishing the notability by casting doubt. The Banner talk 21:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It is verifiable via the official site that it did sell at 1o major health food stores in Los Angeles including 6 Whole Food Markets as one of the first raw foods in California.[20] That does ad weight to the overall notability of the sandwich. Though Raw Foodism is a fringe market nonetheless notable.Vonlandsberg (talk) 22:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC
• When I said 3 reliable sources I was including health.com as one of them. Health.com list no.1 in organic searches for the keyword health. It is certainly just as a reliable as the Huffintgon Post or as Forbes Magazine which list just behind it in the search.Vonlandsberg (talk) 22:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]

So what, nobody is selling your sandwiches where I live. The Banner talk 22:34, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This has been open almost two weeks and no-one except the article creator has argued that this is notable and should be kept. Probably time for a close decision. Meters (talk) 22:56, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus for a particular action has arisen in this discussion. Only the nominator opines specifically for deletion, and subsequent users have varied opinions. Discussion about a potential merge can continue on an article talk page if desired. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:36, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shave ice (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 is a poorer quality recreation of Shaved Ice. The two even share historical examples and pictures. I'm really at a loss as to how this has evaded AfD for this long. TimothyJosephWood 19:31, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "Shave ice" is a specific type of shaved ice local to Hawaii. Keep but eliminate references to other forms of shaved ice. Pkalmar (talk) 19:39, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shaved ice already addresses both the transmission of the food to Hawaii, and Hawaiian variations on how it is served. If all the extraneous content and removed, seems like what's left is going to be a 2-3 sentence uncited article. The single paragraph treatment of the subject on Shaved ice is actually more specific/descriptive than the article. TimothyJosephWood 19:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:07, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:07, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Shaved ice. "Shave ice" is a valid search term and is the commonly used name for it in Hawaii. --MelanieN (talk) 20:15, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep agree with Pkalmar that "Shave ice" appears to be related to "shaved ice", but is not exactly the same thing and used almost exclusively in Hawaii. The numerous references that come from sources in Hawaii are enough to establish notability. ArchieOof (talk) 21:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment while I am sympathetic to deleting or redirecting this article to shaved ice, we also have snow cone and piragua (food), and sno-ball, which are all articles that are essentially about regional variations of the North American style of shaved ice. I don't see any information in any of them that really merits its own article outside of the main article. The information in each article seems like it can be pretty easily condensed into bullet point paragraphs in shaved ice (or already has been). The main article also contains non-North American variants of desserts that seem to be of a different style than these, which I think are an entirely different discussion. My gut says that the thing that makes the most sense is to redirect all the North American variations to the main article, merging any additional content that could add value. If this is not the case, however, then I think the Hawaiian variant should be kept because the consensus would be that regional variations of shaved ice are notable. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:43, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As mentioned above, it's not the same thing as shaved ice and a merge/redirect is unwarranted. Distinct regional varieties of food merit their own articles rather than a merge with the main one if they satisfy WP:GNG, which in my opinion this does. Smartyllama (talk) 14:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and merge with Shaved ice, where the article can clearly explore the retional variations.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Juno Beach. It is up to editors to determine whether and which material to merge from the history.  Sandstein  18:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Normandy Landings Juno Beach Defence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Seems to be the article Juno Beach but from a different perspective. I tried to redirect it but that was reverted. If we need to balance the article and merge suitable content in from this that may make sense, but we don't do multiple articles from different national perspectives. ϢereSpielChequers 20:51, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KWS_PEI on Normandy Landings Juno Beach Defence - PM 16 August 2016 21:27 Atlantic Standard Time (Canada)

I wrote this article as Juno Beach is not balanced from the perspective of the Germans fighting on 06 June 1944. I thought that another perspective on the day would be valuable, and fair. The short section on the Germans at Juno Beach understates the commitment and their efforts as the 'defenders' and does not capture their efforts. The Juno Beach article goes beyond the Normandy Landings of 06 June ... carrying on its story into 7 June and beyond. The article I wrote is restricted to the Normandy Landings alone, of 06 June 1944. I felt that balance in the amount of detail at Juno Beach merited the amount of research that I did in exploring the engagement of the German defence on 06 June. I did not want to add greater detail / further content to the Juno Beach article ... as it is about the Canadians and there success, the page I offered is about the Germans and their efforts.

The article pages for 716th Static Infantry Division (Wehrmacht) and 21st Panzer Division (Wehrmacht) are not fully developed, and would not perhaps merit the inclusion of their efforts of 06 June alone ... as both do not have a strong interest group, outside of 21st Panzer Division, from its Afrika Korps days, and I thought my new article would stimulate an interest in that. In doing my research I discovered multiple www. and book sources that do not reveal / tell the German 06 June story correctly, in multiple facets, and I looked to correct their representation with the historical sources that I found.

As each 'editor' has offered suggestions I have 'edited' the article, I offered and continue to do so. A look at the 'View History' shows my commitment to making this article as good as it can be. For several days it had a positive - Military history WikiProject: B-Class review, but that was removed? I am prepared to commit any and all extra effort to make this article acceptable and seek guidance as what to do. I was next going to work the References / Citations ... as I know they need to be 'edited' to a more efficient format. I had been working the article in Word.docx and did not know an efficient way to edit the reference in the text without 'posting' the article. KWS_PEI — Preceding unsigned comment added by KWS PEI (talk • contribs) 00:35, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying you created a WP:POVFORK? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Juno Beach We don't do POVFORKs here. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment People noted forking, but we do have a policy called WP:SPLIT which is used in cases where the section is so massive it could be split into its own article, with a hyperlink linking to it from the main article. Mr. Magoo (talk) 09:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm no military man -- or editor -- but the notion that we're going to start parallel articles on battles and wars from each side's perspective seems unworkable. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:03, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge content to the articles on the beaches, and to relevant units where applicable (I think some details may need to go along the way, and the comma overload needs to be tackled). If, when done, the article is overlength then is the time to consider what can be hived off to child articles. I'd also delete rather than redirect when done as the article title doesn't really match up with naming conventions. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KWS_PEI on Normandy Landings Juno Beach Defence What I am trying to do is contribute a summary-style spin-off of new material that when ‘assessed’ could be linked other articles. The article Juno Beach contains a section with a summary of this Normandy Landings Juno Beach defence article, at present without a link to it. Understanding this is acceptable, and often encouraged, I was aiming to make readings of the German engagement in the Normandy Landings clearer and easier to manage. This would perhaps be a content fork as a separate article, treating the same subject. I did not originally name this as a Juno Beach article … the current title of the article came up in a move made by an editor. It is a small point but Juno is a sector of five beaches … and I was aiming to look at German activities in the Sector, without immediate direct naming in reference to the Beach. If it is seen as a POV fork … I have done something wrong? The contribution was not created in avoiding a neutral point of view, as I suggest it offers no point of view. The Germans 716 ID and 192 PzGren-Regt fought hard and they imposed a delay on the Canadians. If I am seen to have highlighted negative or positive viewpoints, or un-referenced facts, then I would see the contribution is undesirable. The article was originally in list format and an editor suggested it be rewritten in prose, which I did. If in that edit I created a point of view, with a comma overload, I can edit the prose to remove additional detail, in my style. I understand there is the lead Operation Overlord and Invasion of Normandy then Normandy landings and Juno Beach each major subtopic is detailed in its own section of the former article. The Juno Beach article is long enough, I thought, and considered that as very long articles cause problems, I was looking to perhaps pre-empt a split. I thought I was contributing a fuller treatment of a major subtopic, the German defence, as a separate article, of its own. I perhaps made the mistake of developing a new contribution, not as a subtopic (as one existed) before summarizing it in a new article, this article is not intended to a parallel article. In several paragraphs of the contribution, I was aware of the treatment of some of the material I quickly touched, which is available in good detail. On the fortification of Juno Beach there is a good treatment of the subject at German fortification of Guernsey that I did not take any text from. The strong-point and resistance nests which I set out, in a some detail, did not get a level of detail I considered for their own treatment, such as WN17 or StP.Douves articles I was aware of, but did not chose to emulate. I felt the level of detail I did capture was in good balance – of a removing its earlier heavy concentration in a list format. If there is a view that detail is unnecessary, I can remove it? KWS PEI (talk • contribs) 16:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- When the lead opens with "The Normandy Landings Juno Beach defence, among many things, called on the resolve and steadfastness of a German defender, to fight without hope of reinforcement, or relief, if landings were to be denied", this strongly suggests POV forking. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also have concerns about the language and sourcing in the article; I'm not sure if it's salvageable or suitable for merging. For example:

• The Atlantikwall Frankreich (Basse Normandie) of Küstenverteidigungs ("Costal Defence Area") - K.V.Gruppe (Regimental Sector) Courseulles, was not at its strongest at its subordinate: K.V.U.Gruppe (Battalion Sector) Seulles, as it was thought that four offshore reefs (Les Roches de Ver, Les Iles de Bernieres, Les Roches de Lion, and Les Essarts de Langrune) would impede any landing and led to landings there being considered quite improbable. ^[1][2] The Atlantikwall at Juno Beach consisted of one strongpoint (Stutzpunkte - StP) and seven "Resistance nests" (Widerstandnesten - WN), each laid out with several concrete casemates, equipped with any number of anti-tank guns (50 mm and 75 mm), machine guns, integrated minefields, barbed wire and connecting field entrenchments.^[3][4] The Stützpuntkte (StP) or Strong-Point (Company Sized), at Courseulles-sur-Mer, was a complex fortified position, strengthened by numerous standard concrete fortifications, additionally with artillery field guns, defending the entry to the River Seulles. The strong-point layout astride the river followed no particular design, each established on the basis of weapons available, the terrain features of the location, and troops to occupy.^[5] The concrete fortifications - casemates were supported by earthen entrenchments, ^[6] in which mortars and heavy machine guns were emplaced, its two positions manned by about 30-50 men, intended to fight under independent command, for an extended period of time.
• Crossing into the Seulles Valley, 7 CIB first contacted Batterie 3./ Sch.Art.Abt 989. east of Creully, manning four 12.2 cm sFH 396(r) Feldhaubitze (heavy field howitzers) and then came to encounter Panzerjäger-Abteilung 200./Panzer-Division 21. to their east which blocked movement to their objective, the Caen-Bayeux road. Panzerjäger-Abteilung Pz.Jg.ABt.200., commanded by Major Werner Freiherr von Lyncker, while limited in transport with no armoured vehicles, his three companies, with their low profile Panzerjägerkanone fielded effective capacity. (See Note 4.) ^[7] The Canadian Brigade, now together across the Seulles, first came up against the forward platoons, of Pz.Jg.Ko 3./Pz.Jg.ABt.200., starting its day at Camilly, ^[8]

The article uses ancient sources (1940s and 1950s) plus a non-RS website www.atlantikwall.org.uk. It's difficult to read as well due to excessive use of German language terms, abbreviations and intricate detail, and its tone is non-neutral. I wonder if TNT may be applicable. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:39, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I will just say this: since we do have a number of lists of Allied ships, which represent, I suppose, the Allied preparations for this historic assault I suppose it's not necessarily out of the question that we have an article on the Nazis' own preparatory infrastructure? If so, and if kept, I believe a rename would be in order to be more in line with our X of Y naming structure, along the lines of German defences at Juno Beach, or some such. Tonally, the article still has many issues of course, and has been tagged as such. The article's current lead which fawningly reports on "the resolve and steadfastness of a German defender" is but one particularly creepy example.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:44, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The massive number of Capital Letters and commas in use in the article suggests a Germanic influence. I'd put blame on tone as translation limitations rather than deliberate bigging-up. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:57, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect and possibly merge suitable material (if any) per my comment above, and current article tag "This article may need to be rewritten entirely to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards. (Change from "Delete", as I'd rather not see this close as "no consensus". I hope those voting "merge" would be willing to do the work, as it would be a difficult one, due to POV and sourcing concerns -- pls see below)K.e.coffman (talk) 16:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• This is the only !vote with a bolded delete, but what is the WP:DEL-REASON?  There is a concern of "I'm not sure if it's salvageable or suitable for merging.", which means that merging has not been ruled out.  There is an objection of "ancient sources (1940s and 1950s)", but ancient reliable sources are still reliable sources.  WP:V sources are acceptable that are, "difficult to read", that "use...German language terms", that use "abbreviations", and that use "intricate detail".  Also, reliable sources with "tone is non-neutral" are acceptable.  "Article tags" is not listed at WP:DEL-REASON.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The reason for deletion is that the article an unnecessary and POV content fork. Regarding sources, such as The Battle of the 716th Infantry Division in Normandy, Wilhelm Richter, 1947. US Army Europe MS #B-621 / Guide to Foreign Military Studies: All German studies written for the US Historical Division were done without benefits of records -- from memory. These sources are not considered reliable by contemporary historians. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:23, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Merge -- There is a lot of detail here German defence at Juno Beach might be appropriate. It is inevitable that the article about the landing and battle should in the English WP be written with a British/US POV. This one is written from a German POV. Ideally we would have one article dealing with it from both viewpoints, but that would require a top flight academic historian, which the typical WP editor is unlikely to be. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:37, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Wrong forum  WP:DEL5 states, "5. Content forks (unless a merger or redirect is appropriate)".  But we already know that a redirect was considered appropriate by the nominator.  Many of the editors here agree that someone else should do a merge, but an AfD merge recommendation is not binding on the content contributors who must make the decisions after the AfD.  And I think people agree that this merge is non-trivial.  I don't see why German defence at Juno Beach cannot have its own article, but this is a content issue, not an AfD issue.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge: to Juno Beach pbp 15:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I am not entirely sure whether this should be keep or no consensus so I went for the former as the numbers point towards "keep". There are claims that reliable sources exist for this topic and that he's popular, but the latter is not really a consideration when deciding on notability. G4 deletion is not appropriate as discussed at the bottom of this page, nor is "repeatedly recreated" usually enough to justify another deletion, especially when new claims of notability exist. As framed in this discussion, the question whether JonTron is notable boils down to whether clpo13's and Pressstartoplay's sources establish that the subject meets WP:GNG - always better to provide the sources directly rather than to merely claim that sources exist. 86.17.222.157 and John Pack Lambert have contested them but overall there is not much detailed discussion or a clear consensus on this question (especially the question whether the coverage is "significant enough"), which is fundamentally an editorial decision and cannot be decided by the closing administrator. Thus the delete case is not supported strongly enough to carry the day here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:58, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

JonTron (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)

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}}.

Article has been deleted, then remade, deleted, then remade, deleted then remade. How long is this cycle going to continue? Article is not notable. Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Do you have an actual policy-based reason for deletion? clpo13_(talk) 19:11, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does not pass notability. Fans keep remaking the page in spite of the constant deletions and never attempt to justify why the article should exist. It's frustrating to see people thumb their noses at Wikipedia rules. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:13, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 19:16, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 19:16, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt per nominator. Entirely puffery - David Gerard (talk) 19:57, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• AfD !votes without rationales are significantly less helpful to other commenters and closers than policy-based arguments. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Per nomination, fairly obviously. Please don't be querulous - David Gerard (talk) 23:56, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• This article has been deleted a full FOUR times already. Those rulings still stand. They were not contested. Instead fans just remade the page. The burden is now on those who think the page should stand to prove their case. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:17, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm just saying that !votes that make no comment whatosever on the content of the article being discussed are usually discounted by closers as they are of little value in evaluating the strength of consensus. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• The number of times an article has been deleted is irrelevant to its quality or notability. I have seen earlier versions of the article before they were deleted. They were short and had little to no citations. This article is not short and is full of citations. It requires improvement, and should be tagged with the appropriate templates so that it may be fixed by other users, rather than deleting it and forcing contributors to start over again. --Pressstarttoplay (talk) 05:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The article has clearly been bombarded with references, making it difficult for those of us who have better things to do than look through dozens of references to form an opinion. Could anyone who wants to defend its existence please identify a few (no more than five are needed, and three would be even better) references that demonstrate notability? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're not going to put in the time to examine the references, why bother participating in AFD? clpo13_(talk) 22:00, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because many of the references are clearly junk, such as Twitter, Facebook and Youtube. In such circumstances it's perfectly reasonable to ask for advice about which are the good references. That gives those who want to keep an article the opportunity to ensure that those who are undecided, such as I, are looking at the right sources. If you prefer to be belligerent rather than provide help to participants making a decision then don't be surprised if people draw negative conclusions about your motives. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:10, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry for being brusque. The original rationale that this article should be deleted simply because it was deleted before kind of soured me on the discussion, but I'll take a look at some of the sources. clpo13_(talk) 22:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • How has it been "bombarded" exactly? The article doesn't appear to be cluttered with unneeded references, things that are worth a citation have are cited, although granted, some of the sources used could be improved, but that does not make other ones invalid. --Pressstarttoplay (talk) 05:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep References to establish notability supplied in JonTron#Popularity. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:57, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Appearing in two indie games? - David Gerard (talk) 22:18, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Amassing over 2.7 million subscribers and 300 million views on YouTube? --Pressstarttoplay (talk) 05:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As requested, I've taken a look through the sources to find which ones establish notability. There are a lot of references to Twitter, which seems fine since the tweets are being used not for analysis or commentary but simply to prove that someone said or did something (see WP:TWITTER). Here are some sources that look decent: Tubefilter, BBC (somewhat of a passing mention, but the article references his series on bootleg video games), AV Club (also focused on bootleg games), BBC again (this time with Jafari's comments on fan-run World of Warcraft server Nostalrius), TIME (listing him among the top ten memes of 2015...yes, "memes"), and Crave. With the possible exception of Tubefilter (which I'm not familiar with), these are all reliable sources and very much independent of the subject. There are also articles from Destructoid and Kotaku about JonTron vis-à-vis GameGrumps. These all add up to satisfy WP:GNG in my opinion. clpo13_(talk) 22:51, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Good work, thank you. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Let's look at those sources, identified as the best, in turn. I see no evidence that Tubefilter has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, as required for a source to be considered reliable, but even if we were to accept that the source is an interview, so not independent. This BBC source simply quotes the subject rather than saying anything about him. The AV Club article just reproduces the subject's words about something else, rather than saying anything about him. BBC again just quotes him again. The sum total of the content in TIME is "Jontron (a YouTube show that reviews games)". Crave is again of dubious reliability - I can find no evidence of any reputation for fact checking and accuracy - but again, even if it is reliable, the source only has 80 words about the subject. None of these sources, which have been identified as the best, contributes to notability. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:59, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Plenty of sources about the person and the channel from well-established RSes like BBC, A.V. Club, Kotaku, TIME.... I think people dismiss Youtubers and a lot of "internet culture" things because they're not into it, but WP:GNG is the baseline for every article, regardless of topic, and this article's sourcing far exceeds the requirements of GNG, even though admitting that may displease some who would like to see Wikipedia cover more academic/scientific/historical topics and less pop-culture ones. I know "other stuff" is an argument to avoid in AfDs but there is no denying that we have multiple BLPs (Youtubers including) that have passed AfDs with far less strong referencing. I have kept a watchful eye on the latest recreation of the article and even assisted somewhat with the source-finding, and there is a very good reason why I didn't G4 or re-AfD it -- the article now demonstrates that it passes WP:GNG. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:50, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• If we have any BLPs that have passed Afds with less strong referencing than this then that is a problem with those AfD discussions, because the referencing here is egregiously weak. The problem is not prejudice against pop culture, which should certainly be covered on the same basis as other topics, but the attitude that pop culture subjects, especially Internet "personalities", should be exempt from the standards that apply to other articles and allowed to exist on the basis of junk sources. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the references are weak, mainly from non-reliable sources such as blog posts and things on YouTube. A bunch of junk references do not add up to a show of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:35, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• While I ultimately agree that the page could benefit from more stronger citations, I would say that in its current state, the article would be better off improved rather than deleted. Throughout the discussion so far, there appear to be 2 common reasons given by those who wish to see the article deleted, "The citations are poor" and "The subject is not notable enough". First off, let's have a look at some of the citations:

• Citation 9: JonTron died and on the third day rose again Destructoid article exclusively focusing on Jafari's Hercules Games video)
• Citation 10: A Journey Through Bootleg Pokémon Games (Kotaku Australia article exclusively focusing on Jafari's Bootleg Pokemon Games video)
• Citation 11: There’s a whole new world of crazy bootleg Disney video games (A.V. Club article exclusively focusing on Jafari's Disney Bootlegs video)
• Citation 12: Disney sues over Chinese cartoon 'strikingly similar' to Cars hit (BBC article on Disney knockoffs with multiple paragraphs on Jafari's Disney Bootlegs video)
• Citation 14: YouTube Millionaires: JonTron Makes Terrible Video Games Great (Tubefilter interview with Jon Jafari)
• Citation 17: Warcraft fans' fury at Blizzard over server closure (BBC article with a paragraph on Jafari's Blizzard rant)
• Citation 21: Egoraptor & JonTron twiddle their sticks, play some games (Destructoid article on Jon Jafari and Arin Hanson creating Game Grumps)
• Citation 22: Is JonTron and Egoraptor’s Breakup The End of ‘Game Grumps’? Fans Sound Off on Social Media (NewMediaRockstars article on Jafari's departure from Game Grumps)
• Citation 23: Fans Are Upset Over YouTube Duo 'Game Grumps' Break-Up (Kotaku article on Jafari's departure from Game Grumps)
• Citation 29: A Few Surprising Ways That Pokémon and Science Influenced Each Other (Kotaku article on one of Jafari's appearances on Did You Know Gaming?)
• Citation 30: Nintendo bred a new flower to market Pikmin on GameCube!? (Destructoid article on one of Jafari's appearances on Did You Know Gaming?)
• Citation 34: Brilliant web animators team on Katy Perry charity cover vid (Monsters and Critics article on Jafari's cover of Katy Perry's Firework)
• Citation 43: These Are the Most ‘Googled’ Memes of 2015 (TIME article on the most googled memes of 2015, lists Jafari as number 7)

• This article definitely does not have the strongest list of citations overall, but these show that certainly not all of them are "junk". If articles such as Imagine: Animal Doctor can be left on Wikipedia with no citations for 8 years with nothing but an unreferenced template at the the top, I believe an article that has citations, but requires additional ones from stronger sources to be one worthy of keeping. As for notability, if Stuart Ashen, a comedian best known for his YouTube channel with 1.2 million subscribers, is notable enough for an article, why not Jafari, a comedian best known for his YouTube channel with 2.7 million subscribers? I also believe that Jafari's work on Game Grumps, in addition to the popularity of his YouTube channel, and the Maker Studios-produced JonTron's StarCade series are all contributing factors to his notability. In summary, this is an article that is in need of improvement, particularly when we're talking about citations, but not an article that is broken beyond repair. --Pressstarttoplay (talk) 04:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• In addition, clpo13's analysis above strongly shows how the article's citations, even those from sites such as Twitter are sufficient enough to justify keeping the article in the way they are used and how the subject is notable enough to meet Wikipedia's guidelines. --Pressstarttoplay (talk) 05:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I asked above for the best few of the sources, and those that are reliable do not have significant coverage of the subject. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:06, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What counts as significant coverage? Articles that have at least a paragraph featuring Jafari or articles entirely dedicated to him? If the answer is either of those, then there are articles cited on the article with significant coverage (see what clpo13 or I have wrote above for examples). --Pressstarttoplay (talk) 05:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Why does this keep getting nominated for deletion? I see Destructoid, Time, BBC, Kotaku, and A. V. Club used as citations, I fail to see how the subject fails notability requirements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pressstarttoplay (talk • contribs) 13:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• And which of those sources have significant coverage of the subject, rather than citing him 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:36, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• See my reply to John Pack Lambert. --Pressstarttoplay (talk) 06:08, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Salvidrim! and clpo13. Philip Terry Graham 18:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep See Pressstarttoplay --98.114.170.9 (talk) 01:40, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this page has two people with paragraphs saying that they went through the sources and confirmed their notability vs a few people who just say "no, remove it because (it's been deleted a bunch/the sources aren't valid/insert other bs arguement here)." In addition, Wikipedia has a bunch of articles for things that are way less notable than a YouTuber with over a million subscribers and have way less sources. 2602:301:770F:8EE0:4D21:8B95:E88B:A68D (talk) 06:34, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I have been through the sources above and found them wanting. If there are other articles about way less notable things then they should certainly be deleted, but this discussion is about this article. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:32, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe 2602:301:770F:8EE0:4D21:8B95:E88B:A68D is making an argument of precedent. If there are countless far worse examples of poorly referenced (or completely unreferenced) articles that have remained for a while on Wikipedia, an example being Imagine: Animal Doctor, an article such as this, full of citations but requiring additional, stronger ones, should be kept and given time to improve. --Pressstarttoplay (talk) 06:08, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep How about instead of deleting it for having insufficient sources, (here's a novel concept!) you cite better sources! It's a simple concept to grasp. Deleting a page for having fixable problems is like demolishing a building because of a couple backed up toilets. 2602:301:770F:8EE0:4D21:8B95:E88B:A68D (talk) 06:34, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I have looked for better sources, but been unable to find any. So if there are any better sources out there I have to rely on other people (you, perhaps) to find them. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:20, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • How can you just ignore the two comments from people saying they took the time to actually go through the sources and verify them? What the hell do you have against Jonathan? 2602:301:770F:8EE0:4D21:8B95:E88B:A68D (talk) 23:35, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Try to assume good faith. People might agree differently over what can be considered reliable or significant. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 06:36, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I have taken the time to go through the half-dozen or so sources identified above as the best and formed the opinion (which others are welcome to dispute) that none of them qualifies as significant coverage of the subject, rather than an interview or quoting him about another subject. I had not heard of Jonathan before seeing this discussion, so have nothing the hell against him. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 11:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, what counts as significant coverage? I have noticed more than enough articles cited (see the list I wrote above) that either focus solely on Jafari or have at least a paragraph or two on him. --Pressstarttoplay (talk) 12:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Simple Google search shows the subject is notable. If there are problems with the article, that's a reason to tag+fix them, not delete the article. People also need to remember WP:DONTBITE: "we must treat newcomers with kindness and patience." Those trying to improve the article are clearly acting in good faith and making attempts to learn policy. They don't deserve the hostility some are showing them. 50m race walk (talk) 05:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• A simple Google search is not enough to show that any subject is notable. Specific independent reliable sources with significant coverage are needed for that. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• A simple Google search reveals many 'specific independent reliable sources with significant coverage.' 50m race walk (talk) 06:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The subject is mentioned in several, independent reliable sources. Even if the article was deleted four times before, we can't go on reverse WP:CRYSTALBALL-ing by saying it can't ever by notable. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 06:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Mentions in independent reliable sources are not the same as significant coverage, which is the standard for notability. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as the references in the article and the available references indicates notability. Having "been deleted before" is not a valid reason behind nomination, leave-alone deletion. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:30, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I agree that having been deleted before is not a reason for deletion now, but we still need significant coverage in independent reliable sources. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the last AfD was in November 2015. Since then, the subject has received far more significant coverage from WP:VGRS. SSTflyer 14:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and comment We're talking about a major content creator on Youtube with over 2.5 million subscribers on his personal channel who also contributes to several other channels. The question of notability is easy to answer: If articles about content creators with a tenth of his subscriber base are allowed to stay up, then so should his. At this point, if the people who are proposing this deletion are acting in good faith, they should start by proposing the deletion of the Anita Sarkeesian article, as an example. Akesgeroth (talk) 15:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• No, @Akesgeroth, that's not how Wikipedia works. First, WP:OTHERSTUFF is not what we're discussing. We're talking about JonTron, not about other articles. Second, WP:ITSPOPULAR is not an argument. An impressive number of followers/purchases/page views/downloads/retweets does not automatically mean it is notable. Third, the combination "if article X has less subscribers than JonTron and it is not deleted, then this should stay too" is a combination of the two. And for what it's worth, I agree that the article should be kept, but on actual Wikipedia guidelines. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 16:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. It should be kept but not based on subscriber count. That would probably correlate with notability via coverage in RS's but by itself is not a factor. 50m race walk (talk) 17:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I second everthing Soetermans says, apart from the first half of the last sentence, and would point out that our article on Anita Sarkeesian gives an example of the kind of sources on which Wikipedia notability is based - in-depth coverage of the subject in independent reliable sources. Your choice of that example is distasteful, to say the least, and says much more about the amount of good faith that you bring to this discussion than anyone else. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:11, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's true. Considering the online harassment of Sarkeesian, it's a rather odd example of the hundreds of other examples you could've brought up... soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 17:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I picked that one example specifically because I knew it would draw a reaction, and specifically because I know damn well that this deletion proposal is not in good faith. If you look at the contributions of the user who proposed this deletion, you'll find that they have little concern about deleting articles on the basis of their relevance. This article is brought up for deletion for no reason other than to yet again try to drive activist bullshit into Wikipedia. I fully agree that the article should remain or be deleted based on its encyclopedic value, but I would advise everyone to be aware that the submission of this article for deletion is clearly agenda driven, specifically so people will take blanket "It's irrelevant delete it" comments with a grain of salt. As it is, Jontron clearly meets the relevance standards and even surpasses them. I'd also like to specify that what I said should in no way be perceived as an attack on anyone, or an attempt to get other articles deleted. But clear attempts at pushing agendas on Wikipedia should be denounced and stopped. Akesgeroth (talk) 06:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep largely per Salvidrim! and the lack of policy reasons in the nom. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:47, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Salvidrim and Pressstarttoplay. I'd normally agree with AfDs for YT channels, and back when this article was deleted multiple times it was justified. However, the page in its current state has many decent reliable sources and establishes Jon's notability well. κατάσταση 20:56, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Come on, we've gone through this already. This guy has 2.7 million subs on youtube, and 1 million followers on twitter. That's easily enough to be notable. Plus, it's well sourced, and is helpful to people who may want to know information about Jon. Thesqrtminus1^(talk) 21:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - plenty of high-quality sources here (I'm actually kind of surprised there aren't more). Easily meets GNG. — foxj 01:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt - just because someone has lots of YouTube subscribers doesn't mean that they are notable. Exists currently because of fanboys abusing DRV. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 04:12, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, see WP:CSD#G4. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 04:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:CSD#G4 explicitly "excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version". One of the first thing I inspected upon noticing recreation was whether the new content was substantially identical to the deleted version, and I instead found it to be miles ahead in terms of sourcing, thus determined G4 not to be applicable. I'm also convinced any reasonable admin would've come to a similar conclusion. Your claims that "DRV was abused" do not appear to be founded in reality. And plenty of arguments to keep the article do not rely of "subscriber count". ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - whether or not G4 applies, it still has a fireball's chance in the Pacific Ocean of being kept. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 16:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Changed !vote to Neutral because it's basically the non-closure equivalent of "no consensus", which means "stop this flame war and move on". KATMAKROFAN (talk) 22:32, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – JonTron is a significant YouTuber and I'd imagine that he's notable enough to have an article here. The sources seem fine and there's definitely enough content in the article. Aria1561 (talk) 22:59, 1 September 2016 (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. Ignoring two WP:SPA comments, there's near unanimous consensus to delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy City Initiative (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 initiative fails WP:GNG Theroadislong (talk) 18:31, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Happy City Initiative have had significant coverage in national and international media for the past 3 years for its projects and campaigns. None of the references used in this article are advertising or press releases from Happy City Initiative, but rather independent, objective and reliable secondary sources. The charity are notable due to their new and innovative ideas relating to measuring happiness and prosperity on a city scale, which have never been developed anywhere else in the world. - BrizzBee (talk) 13:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BrizzBee (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Drm310 (talk) 22:13, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete - Several references provided, but they're exclusively local. I'm not seeing the "significant coverage in national and international media" claimed above--I found some passing mentions in national media, but nothing of significance. Needs the promotional language toned down if kept. --Finngall ^talk 16:12, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Sources fail WP:CORPDEPTH. Source-bombing doesn't mean notability. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:45, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. No source bombing has been done. Just facts. Happy City is a not for profit charity to promote happiness and wellbeing. No promoting has been going on. The page is just showing about who Happy City are. Lyndz67 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Theroadislong (talk) 14:39, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - promotional article for a non-notable local initiative. As already mentioned, mostly local coverage doesn't establish notability. Also, statements like "They have received recognition for ambition and innovation from Zero Carbon Britain: Rethinking the Future[2] and World Happiness Report 2015[3]" are misusing their sources for a false -or vastly exaggerated- claim: ref #2 is a self-written guest article by the organization's founders, ref #3 is a passing 1-sentence mention without any specific details (both sources are available online, but unfortunately not linked in the article). The asserted significant coverage in independent national or international media could not be found (via Google search). GermanJoe (talk) 12:36, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- per WP:PROMO; content is strictly advertorial and i'm sure can be found on the org's web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep seems notable enough to me. There seem to be plenty of different google hits on this subject, more than in than in the article at this point in time. I have not checked them out in detail, but they seem to be robust enough and not primary. So what if it has a promotional tone. Just fix it, not delete it. Aoziwe (talk) 12:12, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per GermanJoe, I see no in-depth, significant coverage here. Perhaps this is worthy of a one-sentence mention in culture of Bristol, but not a standalone article. Neutrality^talk 22:03, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect over to Culture of Bristol so that the useful information here (unfortunately buried in a lot of puffery-type language) is placed in the proper context is what I'd prefer. However, I wouldn't really object to deletion either; the above arguments are rather persuasive. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:52, 9 September 2016 (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. Numerically, it's 13 keep to 18 delete, or rather 12 to 18 after discounting the unreadable walls of text by Krusty Kristovsky, so let's have a look at the arguments. "Delete" advocates contend that this is a recentist regurgitation of routine reports, whereas "keep"-ers point to the apparently very extensive coverage of the topic in the British media. Determining where news-type coverage ends and encyclopedically relevant events begin is a question of editorial judgment which I can't resolve by fiat, so we're at no consensus, tending towards delete. Perhaps this can be reassessed in a few months after it is more clear whether this kerfuffle is of lasting importance for Jeremy Corbyn, Richard Branson or anybody else.  Sandstein  19:04, 1 September 2016 (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}}.

Traingate (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 merit a separate article, per WP:NOTNEWS -- certainly not under this particular title which evidently lacks proper sourcing. There's no indication that the incident will have lasting significance. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:29, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete If anything a passing mention in the main Jeremy Corbyn article may suffice. This clearly is suffering from WP:RECENTism, and I would agree with the nom that this goes against WP:NOTNEWS. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:30, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, agree with reasoning above, does not merit a stand alone article only a passing mention in Corbyn's; and only weakly meets that suggestion. 18:34, 24 August 2016 (UTC)Kierzek (talk)
• Delete per above, and while Milibacon's impact on GE2015 is very tenuous at best, nothing presently to suggest this incident would result in Corbyn losing this leadership contest, much less a net loss (or even weak gains) in GE2020. CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 18:36, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. At the moment this is just a news item about a rather clumsy bit of campaigning. If this ever gets coverage in history books we can revisit this. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:39, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, while WP:NOTNEWS means that we shouldn't report every little thing, it has been given extensive coverage across all papers and broadcasters in the UK, and several elsewhere (some of which I have added to the article). Piggate and Ed Miliband bacon sandwich photograph seem to set a precedent here. In terms of the name "Traingate", there are already two references in there but I will find more and add them shortly. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 18:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Absolutelypuremilk (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

• Keep, quite convinced by the other sandwiches exist argument. Delete if Branson gives him a refund. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:01, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as per Absolutelypuremilk. --Penbat (talk) 19:03, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. There is no indication that the very minor day or two press reporting incident will have any lasting significance. Piggate and Ed Miliband bacon sandwich photograph are incomparable and had coverage over two years. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:10, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:10, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:10, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete FFS does the 24-hour news cycle really bring out some unimportant events that fail the ten-year test. This likely fails the ten-day test. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:15, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. But The Grauniad posted this assessment only two hours ago. HuffPo updated their story only five hours ago. The journey itself took place 13 days ago, on 11 August? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The journey may have taken place 13 days ago, but it has only just got into the news. And this is an encyclopedia that operates on a timescale of years, not a newspaper that operates on a timescale of hours. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:00, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As the article sources show, the video was news on 16 August, eight days ago, at least. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:13, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eight days in the press does nothing to signify its significance in five years or fifty years from now. Graham (talk) 05:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Happy to wait just the five in this case. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:41, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WP is far too full of overdetailed standalone entries, stuffed with passing commentary, about relatively trivial incidents like this that have caused a temporary media frenzy, but which are far better referenced briefly as a minor event/issue in the bio of the politician concerned or another page – ie with a bit of perspective and due weight from an encyclopedic (rather than a media) perspective. That's what the subsections of the notability guidelines like WP:LASTING and WP:PERSISTENCE are about. The Ed Miliband photo and "Piggate" shouldn't have their own pages either, but they do, and since people can accurately but simplistically claim "it's got lots of coverage in reliable sources" or "meets GNG", these things end up being retained. Sadly, this is a losing battle. N-HH talk/edits 21:22, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe those "quaint local-interest" articles need to be completely cut out? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:31, 24 August 2016 (UTC) [reply]

• Delete as per everyone else. Bondegezou (talk) 22:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are three keeps, so far. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:13, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update. Graham (talk) 05:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, nine. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:44, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per all other deletion arguments. Trivia to the max, and as political scandals go it's hardly the Profumo affair. In fact, I doubt it even is a scandal. This is Paul (talk) 23:38, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as premature at best. This is yet another example of the media blowing everything involving Corbyn out of all proportion - we are not obliged to follow suit. Thryduulf (talk) 23:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you suppose this ranks on the scale of Jezza proportionality then, if we are all supposed to ignore the media's reaction to it? Can you name any of these past frenzies that were potentially more serious on their face than this one? The guy campaigns on his truthiness and man of the people vibe, and says his train policy has wide public support, all of which will be shot to pieces if he cannot extract himself from the brown stuff in short order (and clearly his latest explanatiom isn't winning many people around). Where you see the media blowing things out of proportion, I see a sober and reserved institution like BBC News not only breathlessly reporting on every twist and turn, but also pumping out at least three (that I saw on a quick check just now) of their more in depth analysis type pieces, to explain the issues in detail, for those muggles who evidently know nothing about how UK trains work or what drives people like Brandon to comment or not. — Krusty Kristovsky (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 04:21, 26 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete. Inconsequential blather. Bagunceiro (talk) 00:12, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If it's a significant enough incident to have a significant effect on Jeremy Corbyn or VTEC it should be covered in the Jeremy Corbyn or Virgin Trains East Coast article; if not, it's just media froth and we shouldn't be covering it. In either case, it shouldn't warrant a stand-alone article. "Noted" isn't a synonym for "Notable"; the media report on the actions of high-profile figures, but it doesn't mean every action thus reported is inherently a noteworthy news story. ‑ Iridescent 07:19, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This incident, which involves a would-be Prime Minister misleading the public, is a much more significant event than either the Ed Miliband bacon sandwich photograph, which is just an awkward photograph of the Leader of the Opposition eating a sandwich, or Piggate, which is little more than an undergraduate joke about somebody who later became Prime Minister. It is absurd to delete this article while those articles remain in place. Eggybacon (talk) 10:18, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I hate to think how many articles would be created if there was one for each time a would-be head of government misleads the public. And this discussion is about this article, not those others, which you may nominate for deletion if you think they shouldn't exist. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 10:41, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not suggesting that anything should be deleted. I'm suggesting to those who think this article should be deleted, that there is no good reason to single this one out for deletion from all the articles about embarrassing media incidents about politicians. Eggybacon (talk) 15:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• You're missing the point. Article deletion processes usually take place one article at a time, so nearly every discussion "singles out" an article. The fact that other articles exist is not a valid argument for keeping this one. Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which I linked above. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Please may I respectfully suggest that you read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS yourself, in particular the part that states "In consideration of precedent and consistency ... identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into ... whether or not a level and type of article should be on Wikipedia". It clearly states the importance of precedent and consistency. Eggybacon (talk) 20:21, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Eggy, I suspect 157 will be asking you to add lettuce to your filling before too long. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:52, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I much prefer a good old BLT personally, but seriously...for an article like this to be notable enough, there would normally be a public interest issue (public interest in the sense of public well-being), or such intense and protracted news coverage that it would be hard to ignore. The question is whether there is enduring notability – whether this incident and its consequences will still be an issue for the public in several years' time. None of us has a crystal ball, but I've no doubt this will be forgotten before too long, and there'll be a fresh (and real) political scandal for us all to fret over. This is Paul (talk) 21:11, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The public interest angle here seems obvious even in the way you want to define it, and crucially that holds true whoever was in the right, one, none or both. Either it's a politician lying for naked political gain (still not acceptable in the UK, regardless of the brexit campaign shenanigans), or its a billionaire lying and breaching data prot. to protect his subsidised cash cow. And if the end result is Jezza winning an election, then by definition the public consequences of his train policy alone will last for years (decades, in actual fact). Assets worth billions changing hands due sleight of hand? It doesn't get more real than that, surely. Unless you like your scandals a little more deadlier/juicier. — Krusty Kristovsky (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 03:58, 26 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS's references to precedent don't mean that articles that should otherwise be deleted shouldn't be "singled out". How the hell did you get that out of it? Graham (talk) 05:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Agree totally with Eggybacon. If less relevant, less important articles around similar things deserve their own page, why shouldn't this, more significant one, do the same. — 178.78.115.153 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 15:09, 25 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]

• I do hope this isn't a case of The Sock Man Cometh, or even The Sandwich Man. This is Paul (talk) 21:22, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm, not a human billboard, surely? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Anyone who reads Wikipedia, particularly in political areas, no doubt fully appreciates that it very much embraces the 'here and now' as far as deciding what to contain - there is no ten year test here, it is more like a two week test, if there even is one. Whether you agree with that or not, I cannot fathom how anyone could live with the fact that Wikipedia has decided piggate is worthy of an article, despite it being pretty obvious what created it was a big fat lie and a grudge, or bacon time has an article, even though the impact of that is definitely up for debate, yet this cannot have one. Other than allowing a few comics some cheap laughs, what was the lasting impact of piggate? More people seem to remember it here than in the real world. Re. the bacion sandwich, Certainly in the media there is more support for the idea that Gordon Brown's off mic gaffe cost him an election, but funnily enough that has been airbrushed from history here too (and on the subject of wider impacts, the whole let's not talk about immigration and cast anyone who does as racists really worked out well for Labour in the end didn't it? There's not nearly enough written about that aspect of UK politics here for this place to be seen as a record of political history rather than a place for campaign strategists to control their current messages). In contrast to those two incidents, which have been retained here due to their supposed importance and lasting impact, in traingate we have a controversy where a leader has potentially lied to voters for naked political gain, a major businessman potentially breaching UK law to protect his company's reputation from political attack, and the issue is actually about something that matters and is part of the current political debate. In UK politics, scandals don't get any bigger without sex or money being involved. So by all means, Wikipedia can forget it ever happened if it so wishes (since I can imagine a small mention in Jezzas page will only ever get smaller and smaller until poof, it is airbrushed from history well before the next election), but if the pages on piggate and bacon time remain, you can rest assured that most intelligent Brits who keep up with politics will perhaps begin to think there are some mixed up priorities for this supposed encyclopedia here. As anyone with a TV set in Britain could tell you, this has been headline news every day since it happened, and as anyone who is even half way familiar with British politics could tell you, Jezza is not going to be allowed to forget the incident by commentators like Andrew Neil, should he ever try to bang this particular drum again, unless of course he figures out what his story is, but even if he does, the damage is likely already done. Put simply, a little reality is needed here - traingate only became a running story because it is about an issue of perennial national debate, it involves a leader whose politics rely on him being seen as trustworthy and someone who would never descend into the dark arts of spin, and who heavily relies on social media to connect directly with the masses to make points just like this, and the fact there are claims and counter claims flying around, and a whole lot more besides, like this data curveball. Even those who are seeking to dismiss this as mere news, sniff, cannot really deny it has been big news. And inarguably, Wikipedia covers big news, all day every day. BTW, as a caution to any non-Brits reading, I haven't even been following this story closely but even I can see that this article is missing big chunks of it that would give a clearer picture of its current and likely future impact - there's no mention for example that this happened in the middle of the ongoing labour leadership debate, and therefore how this controversy played out with regard to it, or that it has all taken place thru Twitter - their role was not confined expressions of support or mockery. It doesn't even clarify for readers that under Jezzas own policy, this particular train co. would be one of the very last to be renationalised, occurring some time around the heat death of the universe, by which time Jezza is sure to have become a long forgotten aspect of Brit politics. — Krusty Kristovsky (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 03:41, 26 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]

• Just to note this is a newly registered account with three edits, all of them to this page. Who on Earth will we hear from next? Crusty Loaf? Danish Bloomer? Danish Bacon? Tomato Puree? Eggs Benedict? Editors should be aware that using multiple accounts to bolster an argument actually defeats that argument, and won't lead to the article being kept. This is Paul (talk) 10:14, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• This is an ad hominem argument, and if with the bacon and egg references you're trying to imply that I am using sock puppets, a factually incorrect one at that, as I've only ever edited Wikipedia from one account. There are procedures for dealing with sock puppets if you believe you've found one. Eggybacon (talk) 10:11, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And it certainly won't improve the buffet car service on Virgin Trains East Coast. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I finally got round to reading this thesis just now, and just as a note, Brown's off-mic gaffe is mentioned here as having contributed to his election loss. I know because I wrote the article. There's also a section on "Bigotgate" in this article. So it is not correct to suggest the incident was airbrushed from history. As for "Traingate", well, it's a bit of a Man Bites Dog situation, I fear, or maybe even a Bus plunge story. It's an incident that happened, is deserving of newspaper column inches, but is it worthy of an encyclopedia article? I think not. This is Paul (talk) 19:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Old Beardie ate my rail service", perhaps? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This old Beardie did just that back in the day. This is Paul (talk) 19:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are winner of tonight's star beard! (comes with free locomotive factory). Martinevans123 (talk) 20:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC) [reply]

My (unverified) suspicion is that "Piggate" and its widespread reporting on social media had such a corrosive impact on Cameron's personal standing among a large section of the voting public (mostly younger, mostly not generally well-informed) that it may well have swung the balance in the Brexit referendum. What may appear to well-informed editors here as worthless media trivia may, in cases like this, have very substantial long-term political implications. See also Post-truth politics. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:12, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it probably contributed to the undoing of Cameron, although, as has been widely reported in the media, younger people tended to favour remaining in the EU, so maybe it was the older voters shocked by these alleged university antics who chose Brexit to register their disapproval. Interestingly, the Piggate story first appeared on 20 September 2015, and an article about it appeared on here the following day, so we're dealing with a similar timeframe to Traingate. Piggate, however, was the subject of an unauthorised biography, and received several days of news coverage in both broadcast and print media after the story broke, whereas Traingate has had several days of print media coverage, but only one day of broadcast coverage. One could even argue it was Ashcroft's book rather than Piggate itself that is the notable topic here, but I digress. As for the stories, I suspect the ink may be about to run dry if recent articles are anything to go by. In the latest "breaking news coverage", The Independent (and others, I hasten to add) tells us that Jezza was making jam as the "scandal" broke, while the London Evening Standard reports that Tom Watson used his Twitter account to "troll" Jezza about the affair. I'm tempted to make an analogy with Emperor Nero fiddling while Rome burns, but it hardly seems worth it. Instead, might I suggest there's a role for Jezza at the Islington branch of the WI if it all goes pear-shaped in September. This is Paul (talk) 13:28, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"One day of broadcast coverage" is of course a complete and total lie - I saw it mentioned on TV news bulletins on at least three separate days, and I don't exactly make a point of watching every bulletin every day. It's nice to see Biggotgate has eventually been mentioned in Wikipedia, and that it has been acknowledged here that it did have lasting impact according to the media (in contrast to people's worthless guesswork here about piggagte's impact) - but when I looked for it last, it was nowhere to be seen. What happened to biggotgate looks exactly like what is happening here - a bunch of people who either have no idea about UK politics or media practices (perhaps assuming our media is as rubbish and biased as the US media is, when picking and choosing what to cover and why on any given day), or worse, have political motives in not wanting to see these sorts of stories reflected in Wikipedia's extremely broad and detailed coverage of all current events until such time as they can have no effect (no harm in having details about biggotgate here now, is there?). It's pretty obvious that there was a biggotgate article here at one point (I'm sure I saw it myself), and it got erased because of the sort innaccurate statements here about media frenzies and trivialities, based on either personal biases (a desire for Wikipedia to be something it is not and not do any current events stuff at all, if not a basic hatred of the news media full stop). You can appreciate the damage these people cause to Wikipedia's development and basic purpose when you think how that biggotgate article would look now, if it had been left alone, allowed to develop on from the initial media frenzy. What is here now on biggotgate is frankly the bare minimum needed to tell people what happened, as opposed to any decent encyclopedic treatment, which should go deeper. Why anyone here thinks people would even bother coming here for such a brief recap of what happened, when they have Google on their phones, is anyone's guess. You would think people here would recognize that mistake and be eager for it not to be repeated, but that rather presupposes there is a level of planning and structure here beyond what appears to be nothing more nuanced than a flashmob with yes/no cards. The simple fact is, we are weeks down the line now, and the media coverage has continued far beyond what you would expect for a supposed triviality, and that is only because this is (and always was, as anyone with a smattering of knowledge of UK politics could have foreseen) a notable political kerfuffle in British terms (unlike the US, our politicians don't tend to fuck up on a daily, if not hourly, basis). If Wikipedia wants to wait for a year or more before writing it up properly, making sure it is the last, the very very last, outlet to admit it had an impact and wasn't forgotten as mere media froth, then by all means do that - but if you do, please just stop pretending that this makes any sense to the wider world when they can also see what sort of article gets kept here regardless of such a policy - piggate being the most obvious example in this context. — Krusty Kristovsky (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 13:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete As well as being a classic example of a news article it also doesn't pass WP:EVENTCRITERIA, particularly because there are no Lasting effects and that it only affected a local area. Minima© (talk) 08:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with your conclusion, but must take issue with your assertion that this only affected a local area. It was certainly a national event. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 08:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out that the incident was still being referred to in The Times paper this morning http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/why-mrs-t-in-a-tank-crushes-corbyns-train-628smvdsb Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:14, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You'd think Corbyn might be just treading water by now? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Extremely extensive coverage of this event took place and overall, was symbolic of the wider issue of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership and the challenges he's had to face, as well as his supporters and opponents given how extensively it's been documented and analysed. There's a lot of references from a wide range of sources on all sides. (talk) 17:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shan246 (talk • contribs) [reply]

• Delete - WP:NOTNEWS. Everything about this incident can (and is fact seems to already be) addressed at Jeremy Corbyn and Virgin Trains East Coast. Neutrality^talk 20:15, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. I think Neutrality put it particularly succinctly, writing,

  Everything about this incident can (and is fact seems to already be) addressed at Jeremy Corbyn and Virgin Trains East Coast.

  Graham (talk) 05:56, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Just to note that Jeremy Corbyn does not currently contain details of this incident. By the way, Traingate has been getting around 500 views a day, which is fairly substantial. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:35, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  That's quite a few. Is this the sort of article that readers will find useful for a few weeks or monthys? The AfD process seems to assume there is any half-way position - either an article is deemed "encyclopedic" or it's not. I think many people will come to this article to find "the basic facts" stripped of political commentary. That seems to me a perfectly laudable function for Wikipedia. I sometimes think there should be some mechanism, in cases like this, for deleting an article when it falls below so many views. May be too difficult. Just an idea, that's all. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:56, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Again, noting that all mention of the incident has been removed from the Corbyn article as "complete and utter trivia" (here) - so that there is currently not so much as a link to this article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:06, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is an absolutely trivial issue. Yet the reporting of this issue has been wound up into something far greater than the original issue. As such, it becomes a notable incident.

JC sat on the floor. That is not a story. JC's seating arrangements attract comment from Branson, and the release of commercial CCTV to discredit him - all in the middle of a debate on re-nationalising some of Branson's business?

Also delete Watergate, as it was "just a burglary" and burglaries aren't notable. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:35, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:LASTING. This minor event has received so much publicity in the UK that, on the balance of probabilities, it is likely to have a long term lasting effect on a large number of people's perception of Corbyn (and perhaps also of Branson) in the UK. We have seen similar effects with Piggate and the Ed Miliband bacon sandwich photograph. Yes, in the minds of all good-thinking and well-informed editors here, they are trivial. But to many of our potential readers they are significant, and it is reasonable to assume that they will continue to be significant. We need to recognise the importance of social media - which has grown substantially since some WP policy statements were established. It is our prime responsibility as editors to provide accurate well-sourced factual information about matters which are seen by readers as significant, including incidents like these - and they need to be treated as distinct incidents in separate articles rather than being mentioned and being given undue weight in articles such as Jeremy Corbyn and Virgin Trains which are of an entirely different nature (though it will of course be necessary to link to this article from those articles). Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:14, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The amount of coverage and attention this has received by the UK media have ensured that this event will be remembered in years to come as part of the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn. The extensive analysis and "big deal" making of the incident, combined of course with dozens of reliable sources, lead me to conclude that we should keep this article. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (confabulate) 00:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Still in the news today with a Labour Peer demanding Branson be stripped of his knighthood in response to it on the argument that hes a tax exile. WatcherZero (talk) 01:04, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment IMO this AFD should be closed as No consensus (the number of Keep and Delete votes are fairly similar anyway). In a few weeks time there will be a better perspective as to the longevity of this topic and maybe a new AFD could be done then.--Penbat (talk) 10:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No objections. In the meantime, should Jeremy Corbyn mention and link to this in the article text? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:40, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll let someone else answer that question. Just to clarify my point, announcement of the Labour election result is on 24th Sept and IMO it can be assessed at that time how much Traingate features in the resulting media analysis.--Penbat (talk) 11:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Traingate stories not dried up yet - this just in.--Penbat (talk) 16:01, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Meaningless anyway - traingate is worthless, no one really cares, the truth is that hundreds of paying customers on virgin train lines pay for a ticket everyday and don't get a seat - Govindaharihari (talk) 17:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Richard Branson seemed to care enough to reply with that CCTV footage? In fact, he was so shocked he fell off his bike? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• the rich like Branson are against brexit and are doing anything they can to stop it happening, they lost money and will gain money if brexit does not happen, its meaninglessness, to me and you - yawn Govindaharihari (talk) 17:56, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're telling me Brexit is meaningless to me? Sorry, I thought I was still seething. And looking forward to the one new hospital every week from that extra money, of course. But maybe we're straying slightly here? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC) [reply]

• There is a serious underlying issue, train overcrowding, behind Traingate unlike Ed Miliband bacon sandwich photograph for example.--Penbat (talk) 17:59, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: We could actually use an article on train overcrowding in the United Kingdom. Anyone fancy writing it? -- The Anome (talk) 10:01, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. So, The Guardian is now reporting that Virgin broke their own policy about releasing CCTV footage because of this incident. I'm starting to think this may need to be briefly mentioned at Jeremy Corbyn, but remain unconvinced about a standalone article. This is Paul (talk) 18:13, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Phew! Not just Branson who broke his own cheek then? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:51, 28 August 2016 (UTC) [reply]

• Comment. Another one from The Guardian. Richard Branson should lose his knighthood, says John McDonnell. In wake of ‘Traingate’ row, shadow chancellor says Virgin founder is a tax exile who should lose his UK honour Eggybacon (talk) 08:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: While it would indeed be a trivial, nonsensical event of itself, the coverage around it and public reaction are the crucial issues here: this PR event gone bad looks like it's become a defining moment in public perception of Corbyn, as evidenced by recent polls of public opinion of the matter. It looks like counter-attacking Branson has fanned the flames even more. -- The Anome (talk) 09:32, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not news. The news cycle is rapidly becoming the most detritmental part of this encyclopedia. Media coverage is almost never on par with long term notability.--Savonneux (talk) 10:24, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not news, as aboveOptimist on the run (talk) 16:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am more than happy to recommend more worthy subjects than this that require rail contributor's attention!--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 16:34, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The articles here about UK rail privatisation and the franchising system are indeed monumentally poor on a brief look - certainly no help to anyone looking for background reading to understand traingate. But I would rather hope that the people that write articles like traingate for Wikipedia are not its train experts, but specialists in writing about UK politics, becuase that is at it is after all, a political topic. I fear this page alone shows there is a chronic shortage of people here who appear to have any clue, any idea at all, as to how the British media picks and chooses what to write about on any given day, esp. during political campaigns. If they think this is equivalent to man bites dog or here today forgotten tomorrow type news, they're either lying, or they simply have no idea what they're talking about. Seeing someone above describe it as affecting only a local area is beyond ridiculous - and that person claims to be British. It's nonsensical. Frankly, every single comment here which has come from someone who hasn't demonstrated they know anything about UK politics and UK news media practices should simply be deleted as irrelevant. The fact that it wasn't until two days ago that Wikipedia even realised overcrowding on UK trains was a thing, and has been for a long long time, should really clue everyone up about whether or not people here dismissng traingate as a trivial irrelevance have a good handle on the difference between transient news stories and real, long term issues of public debate. Even worse, I see the there are even people here who seem to think it only warrants one or two lines in the wide ranging UK railways article. Amazing to think that opinions like that exist, and are I assume borne out of some idea of what an encyclopedia is supposed to be, and yet piggate is still allowed to be a (very big) standalone article here. Hard to explain that without coming up with conclusions of personal biases at work. — Krusty Kristovsky (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 14:05, 31 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Reading what certain people have been saying on Jezzas article, and the fact it still isn't mentioned there at all, I don't think you can escape a conclusion that what is happening here is people, perhaps Labour supporters, or perhaps just idealists in general, are desperately trying to make sure what is mentioned in Wikipedia reflects their personal views, rather than reflecting reality. It's been a very long time now, and yet this article still fails to give readers an accurate picture of the various debates it sparked, including such gems as a bit of soul searching from the Guardian about ethics in journalism https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/24/the-guardian-view-on-traingate-jeremy-corbyns-search-for-standing There's meta stuff like this about the impacts and implications of traingate all over the place, and not just in editorials before anyone points that out.....it's time Wikipedia articles started reflecting reality, then maybe the opinions of people in here might start to look like they originated from what they have seen in the real world, as opposed to what they evidently want to see in it (no media attention given to suposedly trivial stuff like this, or stuff the harms Corbyn). I've already explained at length how important transport policy is to UK politics, in addition to concepts like honesty in politics, so again, I ask that the viws of anyone here who doesn't seem to grasp how important they are in the real world, at least in the UK, be ignored when it comes to deciding if traingate is a notable event or not. Wikipedia should be reflecting reality, not affecting it. — Krusty Kristovsky (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 14:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]

To lliustrate the disconnect with reality of many of those above who seem absolutely convinced this is mere trivia, take a look at the sort of news stories that are still dropping as of today...http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-traingate-virgin-trains-row-cctv-sitting-on-floor-passengers-overcrowding-a7217471.html I seriously doubt there is any support in Wikipedia policy about current events coverage for calling something that has been studied in this much detail for this long as a mere triviality. I is obvious now that the people who want this article gone have nothing concrete to say in their defence, just a string of ever weaker assertions, some who are so lazy they're not even bothering to put their objections in their own words, all presumably because they know the facts on the ground as embodied by stories like this (again, unsurprisingly, it's detail that has not yet found its way into the article - perhaps because it has been under this cloud of proposed demolition for a week), have well and truly shown their views to be at odds with reality - mere personal opinions. Ignore them I say, unless or until they find a more convincing way to put their views across. — Krusty Kristovsky (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 15:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, but you do realise that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news aggregator or a place to spin out debates from every single event that has ever happened? Also that an AFD page is not the place for these kinds of discursive ruminations? Finally, it's also not a good idea to cast aspersions about the ignorance of your interlocutors, simply because they happen to disagree with you. Yes there are some dumb people active on Wikipedia, but some of us do actually know quite a lot about media and the politics, both professionally and out of general interest. Happy for someone to hat this bit. N-HH talk/edits 15:42, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly what I am talking about - you are completely detached from reality. Every piece of information added to Wikipedia about political current events is sourced from news reports. If that is not Wikipedia acting as a news aggregator, I don't know what is. What people here are trying to do is claim the news being aggregated in this specific case, is not worth aggregating, and frankly, given their inability to explain why, they are failing miserably. It's always a real example of Wikipedia gone wrong when it keeps deciding events are trivial, only to have to resurrect them later in a half passed fashion, as happened with biggotgate. Easier to get it right first time, no? Those arguing this incident is trivial, has had no impact, will have no impact, and will be forgotten, have offered nothing to back these views up. Nothing. Is that how these discussions are meant to go? Because if it is, you should really warn people, as some at least seem to be under the impression what matters here is making an argument you can back up with facts, verifiable evidence, believable experience and well informed reasoning. I don't think it's an accident that the best arguments are coming from those wanting to keep it, in the face of nothing of any substance from those convinced it is trivia, to the point I'm really surprised this hasn't been ended as a 'no contest' much earlier. — Krusty Kristovsky (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 17:18, 31 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Krusty, you say that every piece of information added to Wikipedia about political current events is sourced from news reports, but the issue is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a web site about political current events, so we shouldn't be in the business of covering any such events. News reports are primary sources, but we base our content on secondary sources, such as analysis that puts events in context. Such context can be provided in articles such as train overcrowding in the United Kingdom, which I agree is a very overdue article. I don't hide my editing behind a silly pseudonym, so you can easily check that I am in the UK (albeit on the West Coast Main Line rather than the East), and I follow politics and current affairs so I am well aware of the kerfuffle that this event has created over the last couple of weeks, but I know the difference between an encyclopedia and a newspaper. Just to forestall any more of your criticism, I have no great love for either Jeremy Corbyn or Richard Branson, both of whom come out of this event pretty badly. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's the whole point isn't it? The coverage this incident received isn't merely basic news reporting, it is actually also generating in depth analysis that puts the event into context - e.g. "Who, What, Why: When can you sit in a reserved seat on a train?" from BBC News Magazine (their brand for more in depth analytical type coverage) and "How many people have to stand on trains?" from the BBC News Business section (so by my count, this incident has triggered reporting/coverage/analysis from three of their editorial teams - politics, business and transport, plus no doubt its social media desk, in addition to the Magazine section). That shows that both this article on the incident is needed here, and the train overcrowding article is needed for context. Wikipedia needs both if it intends to make documenting the history of UK politics/transport policy as part of its mission to be an encyclopedia. Thankfully some people here have, and are still, starting to accept the reality, that the nature and implications of this incident for UK politics were such that it was always going to be covered in a way that went beyond mere basic news reporting - every report I've seen in the aftermath has basically begun, 'well, you might have thought this was a trivial issue not worthy of much attention, but.......'. For those who really don't get it, the irony in your comment is that there is plentiful context provided in all the news reports actually (because outlets like the BBC seem to certainly recognise there is more to this than man bites dog, even if Wikipedia doesn't want to) - Jezza's stance on no spin politics, the stakes involved in renationalising the railway (which Labour largely ignored until Jezza made it a "binary issue", the impact on the leadership race, etc, etc. On an unscientific review, even the 'real news' news reports on this incident (i.e. the real primary source stuff) are both longer and more numerous than what you would normally see on outlets like the BBC for day to day campaign reporting - most people here may not even appreciate that when the online BBC News really is reporting on a 'man bites dog' type story (or even a 'Jezza said this on the campaign trail today' type story), then they will usually only devote a couple of paragraphs if there is nothing else to it. Clearly there was much more to this event. It's a sad indictment of Wikipedia that those who want this page deleted because it's just news are allowed to say whatever they want about it, no matter how patently ridiculous, and then effectively sit on their hands and hope and pray whoever decides the outcome doesn't look too closely at the facts. I hope to God the adjudicator doesn't simply rely on reading the article and fantasy statements made on this page by some people to make their decision, because I am still today finding stuff out there that hasn't been included in the article but shows just how much interest this even generated - such as a BBC reporter going as far as catching the very same train two weeks later, just to see for himself if it was possible to find a seat. Man bites dog? Not even close. Krusty Kristovsky (talk) 19:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep At its core, this is a simple incident, but this has blown over into something bigger with significant prolonged national news coverage. The pageview statistics further up the discussion demonstrate that there are more than quite a few readers interested, and a merge into Jeremy Corbyn is probably not going to happen as the editors there are steadfastly refusing to put it in. This is a major incident in his election campaign, and precedents have been set including the release of CCTV footage by Virgin breaching privacy concerns etc. jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:23, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This incident is notable. The most recent coverage is a remarkable boomerang: voters loved so upset about crowded trains that they actually love it that Corbyn faked a video on the issue.[21] Coverage is intensive, significant, widespread a ongoing (here's a real time news search [22]) - it passes WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:44, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted and salted to prevent it being recreated. Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Global Prime PTY Limited (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Sources given fail WP:CORPDEPTH. shoy (reactions) 18:08, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:41, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:41, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as entirely for PR uses, the author had not even cared to at least substantiate this with actually better information; none of this amounts to anything closely convincing. SwisterTwister talk 05:34, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete cut'n'pasted gibberish too - David Gerard (talk) 10:40, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. Between the last comment and this one, the article was speedily deleted per A7 then recreated by the original author. I've restored the AfD tag but also speedy-tagged it. --Finngall ^talk 15:37, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:37, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:NCORP, sources fail WP:CORPDEPTH. Source 1 is an infographic created by the company and source 7 is a namedrop, the rest of the sources are not independent or don't mention the company, just the founders. PROD contested by author. shoy (reactions) 17:56, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added additional citations from startups.co.uk and Financial Times, with background on H&D's investment in the business. Article is important as Chief Execs are world-recognized leaders in the field of data analytics, and the business has received much attention for it's approach. 464416542dan —Preceding undated comment added 08:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - most references are bad - mostly primary, self-generated or not RSes, and there's lots of blatant puffery. The creator tried removing the tags, I put them back - David Gerard (talk) 19:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- per WP:TOOSOON. The coverage I see is mostly trivial, such as funding news or PR-like generated by the firm publishing "research reports" based on the data they mine. The company may be notable in the future, but I don't see sufficient sources to establish notability at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:30, 26 August 2016 (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 I highly suggest that the user not restart this as it's not anywhere near acceptable (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 16:12, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yokostone tyres (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)

Clearly WP:PROMO. User who created the page, first created Yokostone which was promptly deleted. They then created this to try and promote the business again. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:03, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:42, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:42, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:42, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete - no evidence of notability, no RSes and clearly promotional - David Gerard (talk) 09:50, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment SPA creator also tried removing the AFD notice and the notability tags, twice - David Gerard (talk) 10:29, 25 August 2016 (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 merged and renamed and stuff. Now at Scout Association of Nigeria. Mostly procedural close. Discussions about content and further merging can be discussed on the article talk page. (non-admin closure) ansh666 20:48, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Scout Association of Nigeria (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)

unnecessary and misnamed duplicate of Boy Scouts of Nigeria created because sole editor doesn't like me deleting his vanity edits to BSN. Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 17:01, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear the editor is quite knowledgeable about the subject, but has no idea what is appropriate for Wikipedia. The article is poorly written, and filled with hyperbole, honorifics, trivia and anachronisms. I have moved the parent article to the 1999-changed name, and salvaged all relevant, verifiable, non-vanity information from the article being discussed. I further fact-tagged and inline-tagged it, the research is there but it is not added in where it should go. All other information must be left out. The author's self-bio article Soneye Philip was deleted as non-notable and should in no way be recreated.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:23, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• According to https://www.scout.org/nso the correct name is "The Scout Association of Nigeria". 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:26, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:12, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:12, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The Article gives clear and true story of the Scout Association of Nigeria. It gives facts, correct figures with references of happenings in the association. The association was named Boy Scout of Nigeria (BSN) in 1915 when it was founded but was registered under the Company Allied Matters of 1924 as the Boy Scout Association of Nigeria. In 1999 at the General Annual meeting of the Association, the name was changed to The Scout Association of Nigeria, so as to accommodate all Genders both Boys, Girls, Men and Women. So, there is nothing like Boy Scout of Nigeria anymore and most information of the Wikipedia bout scouting in Nigeria was wrong. The association have highest number of scouts in Africa. Thanks

I am writing this as one of the National officer in Charge of all Nigeria Scouts in Diaspora with authority from the Chief Commissioner and its council. Wikicontrol 19:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikicontrol001 (talk • contribs)

• Wikicontrol001, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a web-hosting service, and as such its articles are not owned by their subjects, so your position and authority have no bearing on what should be included. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close. There are two issues here, one of which is the title of the article, and the other the content. In neither case is article deletion part of the solution, because any resolution would involve redirecting one title to the other, so this is the wrong forum to discuss them. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Thank you for the contribution and good information, I am aware of the rule and policy of Wikipedia, I am not imposing the article as a member of The Scout Association of Nigeria (SAN) but only letting this forum know that there is nothing like Boy Scout of Nigeria since 1924. I am aware that Wikipedia will like to pass correct and true information to the public through their articles and that was one of the reason I took it upon myself to write the true story and also open it corrections from members in Nigeria. Thanks Wikicontrol 20:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikicontrol001 (talk • contribs)
• Further assistance will be needed on how to delete Boy Scout of Nigeria because the name does not exist anymore and does not reflect the true picture of scouting in Nigeria. Thanks Wikicontrol 21:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikicontrol001 (talk • contribs)
• Delete - Per nom. Aust331 (talk) 23:32, 24 August 2016 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:44, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deepika Kaliraman (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 wrestler, only claims is based on who she is related to (WP:NOTINHERITED) Peter Rehse (talk) 16:31, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:31, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable wrestler.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:21, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No significant coverage or achievements. Notability not inherited from family members.Jakejr (talk) 07:21, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There's no indication, or even claims, of wrestling achievements that would meet WP:NSPORT. Being related to other wrestlers is not grounds for notability and there's a lack of significant coverage to support a claim of meeting WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 00:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted. by Bbb23 per WP:A7. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:05, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ILoan (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 indication of notability or even a credible claim of significance IagoQnsi (talk) 16:24, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete - ref check: literally one RS, nearly no claims backed up. The only thing I can say for it is that it's in a sober tone and doesn't read like an ad - David Gerard (talk) 20:23, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to parent company Springleaf where it is mentioned in an external links section. The coverage I see is local to Chicago or PR-like. I found a brief mention in American Banker: The merged company also has a fledgling online lending unit, called iLoan, which competes against marketplace lenders such as Avant for borrowers. The company does not appear to be independently notable yet. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:58, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non-notable martial artist. Winning minor events or hall of fame membership does not confer notability. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:20, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:20, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nothing to show he's notable as a martial artist. He's not listed among the 33,000+ people at taekwondodata.com. Coverage fails WP:GNG and MA halls of fame don't make him notable.Jakejr (talk) 07:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doesn't appear to be notable, or even mentioned, by major taekwondo organizations. Halls of fame don't support notability claims and he lacks the coverage to meet GNG. Astudent0 (talk) 14:53, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep.Its pretty clear that this applies to criteria 2 of WP:SPEEDYKEEP. No reason is also provided as to why the article is nominated for deletion, so this count as disruption. If it was the redirect that was nominated, it can be nominated for speedy deletion under CSD G6. IAR close. (non-admin closure) Class455 (talk) 16:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ladbroke Grove railway station (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)

Reason Suffolk24 (talk) 15:18, 24 August 2016 (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/2016 August 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:39, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Suffolk24:, what article are you trying to have deleted? If it's the redirect, Ladbroke Grove railway station, then you need to use WP:RFD. In any case, you need to actually give a reason for deletion. clpo13_(talk) 15:59, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, Ladbroke Grove railway station was a double redirect, which I've fixed by pointing the page to Ladbroke Grove railway station (Proposed), which had previously been at Ladbroke Grove (Crossrail) railway station. clpo13_(talk) 16:01, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep No reason for deletion and so there is no case to answer. Andrew D. (talk) 16:11, 24 August 2016 (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 Deleted (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 05:39, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:COMPANY

And my Question to the editor who patrolled this page, The first reference is WP:PRIMARY,

This is the second reference where a different website is mentioned

This is the third reference, where you saw much details about this organization, while I see about students

This is the fourth reference where you found about this company, while I can see about an actress

The last reference is where you could have seen the history of this organization, while I see about some scandal

John Jaffar Janardan (talk) 15:22, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:57, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:57, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedied G11, it's so blatantly advertising - David Gerard (talk) 20:19, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Slot machine. It's fairly arbitrary whether the previous history is kept or not, but since nobody has raised concerns about the current history persisting that I shall keep it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:27, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Hit (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 game. Brianga (talk) 14:34, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No need for a stand-alone stub article such as this. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NGAME. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 15:21, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I'll present two cases for it:
  1. It's been on virtually every gaming floor I visited.
  2. Look at the article history, it was created on November 2014‎ so this is no flash-in-the-pan. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 01:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

it may be popular, but where are the sources? Coolabahapple (talk) 03:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Winner articles are a start. Go to any casino site and this slot game comes up. I could use "basic" instead of "popular" because there is not one gaming floor that doesn't have it. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 04:47, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• weak delete I can't find much in the way of sources describing this or its impact. But there are iPad apps for it and plenty of passing mentions. Probably notable, but heck if I can prove it. Hobit (talk) 17:37, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm fine with the redirect proposed below. Hobit (talk) 17:01, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Me too, seems like this has no traction as it is. The purpose of AFD is to gain a consensus and I have no ill will against the nominator Brianga. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 07:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Slot machine; the subject does not appear to be individually notable per available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and then Redirect as there's no substance at all and it's imaginably conceivable that there would not be the needed information for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 23:24, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Jimfbleak per WP:G11. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WeddingZ.in (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)

All the refs appear to be press releases or advertisements. Article is highly promotional and I can see no evidence of notability. The number of references (28 quoted but actually 14) appears to be intended to intimidate reviewers  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   12:18, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not notable at this time; not seeing WP:CORPDEPTH in independent coverage; agree, reads like a press release for PR. Kierzek (talk) 12:53, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 16:56, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 16:56, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:PROMO -- entirely an advertorial. Coverage that I see are trivial, PR or PR like, and insufficient to meet GNG and CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:16, 26 August 2016 (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.