Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 July 4

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 3 July	5 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy close as out of process. Non admin closure. Safiel (talk) 05:26, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

National Federation of Atheist, Humanist and Secular Student Societies

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

This article was nominated for deletion by User:Devex3 because the organisation has been renamed to "Atheist, Humanist, and Secular Students". Of course, this would simply require renaming the article. Instead Devex3 has copypasted all content to a new article, Atheist, Humanist, and Secular Students, and nominated the old one to be deleted. I assume Devex3 (a completely new account) just didn't know how to move a page and did this instead. However, Wikipedia policy requires the oldest version of an article to remain, and new versions to be deleted. In this case, it's also clear that the edit history of the old page must be preserved. I propose to delete the new page and move the older to "Atheist, Humanist, and Secular Students", and "National Federation of Atheist, Humanist and Secular Student Societies" be made a redirect to it. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:57, 6 July 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. Sandstein 17:03, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arab Times (US)

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

The "newspaper" doesn't even exist, its a badly written science-fiction blog. Makeandtoss (talk) 23:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @Makeandtoss: I don't understand this nomination. As far as I can tell, this does exist, and it's not a science fiction blog: proof. Did you nominate the correct article? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:49, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate: I saw that source, do we have another one? Makeandtoss (talk) 08:09, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why I'm being asked to provide sources to prove that this isn't a science fiction blog when it's self-evidently not. Or is this a request to demonstrate notability? Well, I don't know where to go to look for sources on an Arab-language newspaper from Houston, and I'm not especially familiar with the notability criteria for newspapers. WP:NMEDIA says that newspapers are presumed notable if they are 1) award-winning (no, I don't think so), 2) historic (probably not), 3) authoritative (maybe), 4) frequently cited (maybe), or 5) significant in ethnic markets (probably yes). Let's see what I can find:
- Here's a very brief news article about a libel lawsuit from the Toledo Blade
- In 2010, the Arab Times reported that Pakistani diplomat Mian Gul Akbar Zaib had been turned down to several posts because his name translates to a crude phrase in Arabic. This was picked up in several sources, including The Jerusalem Post (link). After also running the story, Foreign Policy then debunked it, revealing it as a joke.
- There's a Kuwaiti newspaper with the same name. I did a Google News search for "the Arab Times" -Kuwait to try to minimize false positives. Here's what I found: [1] from the South Florida Times (looks reliable to me), [2] from CNN (pretty weak, as it's an opinion piece that just quotes another opinion piece), [3] from the International Business Times, and [4] from the Gatestone Institute (which called it "one of the most popular Arab online newspapers"). I don't know if all that satisfies the criteria, but it looks pretty decent to me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- - For the "Akbar Zaib" story, this just demonstrates how reliable and wonderful this "newspaper" is. Would you like me to link you to articles that claims that King Abdullah II of Jordan is a serial killer who once seduced his own sister?
  - [5] from the International Business Times, this is for arabtimesonline.com not arabtimes.com
  - [6] from the Gatestone Institute (which called it "one of the most popular Arab online newspapers"), opinion piece too, extraordinary claim for a newspaper that almost two sources mention
  - We only have libel lawsuit article and some random book Makeandtoss (talk) 23:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

searched for that "Arab Times" piece, ""Assaulting personal honor on Egypt's Islamist TV stations." The link in the Gatestone Institute article is broken, search results here: [7] Although I can't find the article, I see no reason to assume that it refers to the U.S. Arab Times, rather than to the more significant newspaper with that name.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:37, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With the type of professional journalism they display, there's a chance that the this story too is fabricated. There's obviously a common ground between this "newspaper" and the writers at Gatestone, both think they can undermine their readers' intelligence. The rest of search results are forums and blogs; no surprise there. --Makeandtoss (talk) 12:09, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:29, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:29, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I tagged this article for notability last summer, because I could not find RS to support the claims in the article. I still cannot. I'm not denying that it is a real website, just sayin' that the sole source we have for notability or even for the facts is a single libel suit - and the ARabTimesOnline. Flag me if sources are found and I'll revisit.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(::*Note: I have been a frequent WP creator and expander of articles on small town, faith-based, and ethnic newspapers in the U.S.).E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I'm not finding anything actually better. SwisterTwister talk 06:51, 12 July 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 01:27, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nightmist

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources or Google Books search. Previously deleted at AfD. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. czar 21:38, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 21:38, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Gave it a good go but can't find any reliable sources that cover this. The best result I got was an entry in The Mud Connector, which merely confirms that it exists. Though the article says it's popular, that's not enough to establish notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:01, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The best I've found is this. Hardly notable. Adam9007 (talk) 01:56, 9 July 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:27, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Muddy Waters (online game)

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources or Google Books search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. czar 21:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 21:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as multiple independent RS offline references are present in the article. Since MUDs are internet phenomena, this is actually very reasonable sourcing for a MUD. Jclemens (talk) 23:39, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good referencing and a good informative article on a phenomena which is large. Article would be useful to those interested and studying MUDs and to me, its offline references seem more reliable than some commonly accepted sites in other articles --Veryirregularuser (talk) 04:23, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability passably established by the citations available. —chaos5023 (talk) 04:20, 9 July 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 01:27, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Rooney

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

Non-notable musician, fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:BIO JMHamo (talk) 21:16, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing to indicate individual notability. He's not a member of several notable bands, all of the music he's been involved with doesn't justify a separate article, and his other work also isn't important. And then even the membership of Vice Squad is as part of the new line-up, and they wouldn't qualify themselves if it wasn't for the band's 1970s and 1980s heyday. As an aside, press photographs like on his article are always a surefire giveaway of a degree of WP:COI in the creation of an article. KaisaL (talk) 21:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:38, 11 July 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Malibu (rum)

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

Not a notable topic - no significant independent coverage. NYT and BBC references do not cover this topic - these are essentially smoke screen. Two YouTube references are not acceptable RS. Steve Quinn (talk) 20:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:23, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:23, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:23, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Considering that I can go to any corner shop in the UK and find a bottle of Malibu for sale, I find it rather crazy that this has been nominated. A search on google news for "malibu" and "rum" comes back with nearly 15,000 hits. I agree that the article is a pile of crap, but delete? No. Miyagawa (talk) 20:57, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm not sure how many Google news hits this gets, but Google hits are not part of the notability criteria. At best, this suggests the product exists. Also, when reviewing sources there appears to be no significant coverage, meaning it is not the subject of these articles - only passing mentions. There is nothing noteworthy here. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:18, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] There's also quite a few where there are only a mention, and a heck of a lot of cocktail recipes. Miyagawa (talk) 17:12, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And before I forget New York Times; BBC News. Miyagawa (talk) 10:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:GNG - Company was worth 800 million dollar in 2002. References in articles from BBC, New York Times and Chicago Tribune, that are specifically about this company. Google and Highbeam search gave several hundred news items. Sufficient coverage in reliable sources. -- Taketa (talk) 06:14, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand – Very notable brand. — JFG ^talk 21:50, 6 July 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 01:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FOST function

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

This function seems to have been defined at http://mrob.com/pub/math/largenum-7.html and not discussed in any formally published sources since. I think it's WP:MADEUP and WP:OR. —Kodiologist (t) 18:46, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with the nominator that it is probably made up (but I have seen that before where it turned out to be wrong) but for sure it lacks the sources required to meet the notability guideline. DeVerm (talk) 19:23, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This function was certainly not made up by the creator of the mrob.com page, which is trying to describe the construction of Rayo's number to readers with relatively little mathematical background. And the FOST(x) function given there precisely corresponds to the definition of Rayo's number when the value of x is a googol. I would in fact be suggesting a redirect if I thought that FOST was a standard name for this function - however, there is absolutely no evidence of this and, in fact, I suspect that the source of the mrob.com page, lacking an established name for the function, was simply using an acronym for first-order set theory as a temporarily convenient way of referring to it. PWilkinson (talk) 12:45, 9 July 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 Per User talk:Padma2016. Wrong namespace to attempt to delete userpage, which at any rate appears to have merely been a test edit. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:02, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Padma2016

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

Reason Padma2016 (talk) 17:36, 4 July 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 July 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:00, 4 July 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 all to Orders of magnitude (length). Consensus is to follow the RfC consensus to that effect. Sandstein 09:05, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1 myriametre

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

Cleaning up the fallout after this RfC, I submit this bundled AfD. There are in total 40 affected pages, everything that is linked behind a number inside the following box (sorry, too lazy to list all the names when there is a template that includes them):

My suggestion is to redirect when the unit page is available, e.g. redirecting 1 hectometre to Hectometre, and delete when it is not, e.g. Myriametre redirects to the nominated page. If I checked correctly, that means leaving 14 redirects to yoctometre, femtometre, picometre, nanometre, micrometre, millimetre, centimetre, ... hectometre, kilometre, megametre, and gigametre.

~~I will go and mark all of them. Apologies in advance if I miss some.~~

Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I got tired and only tagged them up to 10⁹ (i.e. 1 gigametre, though I did all the negatives). I do not have a bot's patience for doing such tedious tasks, when I think extremely unlikely that somewhere there is someone watching 10 zettametres who will not find this. If you disagree and think it is absolutely necessary to tag them all, be my guest. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Together they are an arbitrary list of examples of every conceivable length contrary to the spirit of WP:IINFO. The article titles are quite misleading and so should not be retained as redirects. Andrew D. (talk) 18:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete all~~ Merge all to Orders of magnitude (length) unless somebody can make a good case why we need a redirect from 1 Gigametre to Gigametre. I tried the search routine and found that searching for 1000 Gigametre finds the 100 Gigametre and 10 Gigametre and 1 Gigametre articles but -not- the Gigametre article. This may be important enough to create the redirects as Tigraan suggests but I would assume people search just for Gigametre anyway so just deleting would be fine? DeVerm (talk) 19:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

update: changed to merge as per the consensus from the RfC as shown by Mark Viking below. Perfect place for them to go. DeVerm (talk) 21:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just for clarification, DeVerm: are you suggesting to merge the content, then delete the redirect? I do not see why the title 1 gigametre should redirect to Orders of magnitude (length). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:57, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tigraan: I'm travelling and trying to do this on an iPad so have to kee this short; my pov is like Mark's below, keeping redirect to preserve history. DeVerm (talk) 02:02, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:21, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all to Orders of magnitude (length) per the outcome of the RFC at Talk:1 metre#Rename proposal. I don't see any justification for going against the March 2016 consensus. A comparison of orders of magnitude like this is obviously encyclopedic--1 kilometre has a history going back to 20 November 2001, and Wikipedia was started on January 15, 2001. A 2008 AfD on these articles was closed as keep; a 2013 AfD on these articles was closed as no consensus. Sampling some of the articles shows sourcing for at least some entries. I'll note that some of the articles have not been properly nominated, with no notices placed on their respective pages. So at this point, merge orders of magnitude from below -12 to 9 and for now, keep the others. On the issue of redirects, the merged articles should have redirects to preserve attribution history after merging, even if they are unlikely search terms. --Mark viking (talk) 23:39, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by nominator The "consensus of March 2016" was indeed to merge, but it was not very clear about what to merge. The point of that AfD is also to determine if redirects are in order. I agree about the redirects being needed for copyright (if material is merged). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 20:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to Orders of magnitude (length). The redirects are more useful than simply redlinking the titles, and I agree with Andrew D.'s reasoning as to why the articles shouldn't be kept. Enterprisey (talk!) _{(formerly APerson)} 04:13, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by nominator - Sorry if the nomination was not clear, but this AfD is not supposed to overrule the RfC that said the articles ought to be merged. The two issues are to decide on the redirects (I think 1 metre → Orders of magnitude (length) is a strange redirect, when 1 metre → Metre is more natural), and how much is to be merged.

I could have merged/redirected everything on my own and then brought the bunch at WP:RFD but I feel it goes against the spirit because if one of the redirects went down the drain this way, the content would have been lost forever. I think AfD is a better place to discuss the content of the articles; and while we are at it, let us discuss the redirect targets as well. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:57, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or keep I see no reason to delete these pages, or go against the consensus. It doesn't go against the spirit of WP:IINFO, because the pages serve the purpose of delineating the values of the orders of magnintude with concrete examples, and are thus not "excessive" listings of statistics. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 00:59, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as not independently convincing of its own article. SwisterTwister talk 06:46, 12 July 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 article was speedy deleted under criterion A7. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:40, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ammar Brohi

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

No reliable 3rd party sources to show notability, fails WP:ANYBIO. Tassedethe (talk) 15:44, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 15:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete yet another non-notable businessperson.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:GNG - Google and Highbeam search gave no reliable sources. -- Taketa (talk) 05:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per GNG. No reliable coverage whatsoever. Omni Flames (talk) 04:55, 7 July 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 01:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Divyank Turakhia

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

Delete No grounds asserted for notability meeting WP:BIO. Turakhia's article looks like an advertisement & promotion article of the person and his brands, who has done lots of PR done online and not received any significant awards/recognition - WP:Notability. Seems a good business person from India but not notable. For reference his brother's article was deleted few days back only - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bhavin_Turakhia&action=edit Vinay089 (talk) 15:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:31, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:31, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being a businessman who has made lots of money does not make one notable by itself.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:18, 7 July 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 delete. per WP:CSD#G4 SmartSE (talk) 15:51, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bhavin Turakhia

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

Delete No grounds asserted for notability meeting WP:BIO. Turakhia's article was previously deleted few days back only - ref (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bhavin_Turakhia). The activity done by Najeeb1010 looks like a paid article of a person, who has done lots of PR done online, but didn't received any significant awards/recognition - WP:Notability. Seems a good business person from India but not notable. Vinay089 (talk) 15:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:29, 4 July 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 delete. This was a malformed request to delete a page in the user's user space. Closing as article does not and has never existed. KaisaL (talk) 14:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sajor Denjeh Jalloh

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

Reason Sajor Denjeh Jalloh (talk) 14:09, 4 July 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 July 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:21, 4 July 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 01:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jayaraj V Thoppil

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

Notability issue has no independent reliable sources and looks promotional, fails WP:GNG

Note. Was speedily deleted on 4 July 2016 [15] FITINDIA (talk) 14:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I admire the Quixotic save attempt by Fouetté, but as best as I can tell, virtually none of the article is sourced, it is largely promotional, and notability per WP:AUTHOR is not demonstrated or claimed. Note: it's also duplicated in Jayaraj v thoppil. 17:13, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Delete - blatant promotion. Deb (talk) 11:51, 8 July 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FORG1VEN

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

An eSports competitor whose coverage appears to be limited to niche eSports websites and the eSports sub-section of ESPN. The article is very poor and there appears to be no real assertion to notability. eSports subjects are contentious and being one of the better players (according to the article, completely unsourced) does not for me assert notability. Google does throw up results for his name, more so than some eSports subjects here, but it's specialist stuff and forums mainly and he's had no substantial coverage via reliable sources. KaisaL (talk) 14:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A discussion on the notability of eSports subjects is ongoing at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Notability guidelines and policy for eSports, and this was an article raised as an example of the inherent question marks over the content.
Keep The article needs a lot of work, but there is plenty of information on this player. Played competitively for a number of teams, competed in a number of large tournaments. I'm not sure why esports related sources are apparently being challenged as not WP:RS on the topic of esports. They constitute the media coverage or the subject. It's not as of a few particular League of Legends players are excluded from the League peered reviewed journal because there was better things to publish. TimothyJosephWood 19:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question about why they're being challenged, at least by me: It's because it's not clear they're indicative of significant coverage or reliable sources for establishing notability. Any area of interest has websites and magazines dedicated to it, but usually those don't mean anything for the bigger picture of inclusion criteria. My view, at the least, is that most eSports sources are good for backing up the odd statistic but not evidence of substantial coverage under WP:GNG and other general criteria. KaisaL (talk) 22:51, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: From searching, it would appear that this player's only apparent claims to notability reside with them leaving H2k-Gaming and facing a ban. If this page is fixed up with good sources and the context of notability, I'll change my vote to keep. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 21:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: After a week, I have returned to this article and find it to be solid enough to warrant a keep. The career achievements are present with some decent sourcing. This isn't to say I'll hold this opinion with all the articles in question right now, but this one has a pass in my book. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 05:04, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The ESPN source given in the article seems to be a good one, but the other is simply a casual mention of the sort debarred by WP:ROUTINE. If Timothyjosephwood believes there are many qualifying sources, why haven't they been presented? Ravenswing 13:42, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ROUTINE is about the notability of events, and does not use the words "debarred" or "casual mention". One of the points of WP:SUSTAINED is that a group of sources can pass WP:GNG and still fail WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. WP:IRS allows that generally reliable sources can be unreliable in the context, but your argument here is to discount for WP:GNG notability based on WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. This logic is inverted, as well as has referenced the incorrect Wikilink. Unscintillating (talk) 15:44, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lack of third party sources covering the subject in significant detail. There's also very little content present either - even if sources are found, would probably be better served as a redirect to his team or something until there's a significant expansion. Sergecross73 msg me 14:38, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So why did you bold the word "delete"? Unscintillating (talk) 15:44, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, re-read the first sentence of my last comment? What kind of question is that? Sergecross73 msg me 12:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is a question that says that your !vote appears to have made an argument for redirect/merge (non-notable) without an argument for WP:DEL8. Do you have an argument for deletion? Unscintillating (talk) 02:11, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment seems to be a theme forming above that the article is in poor shape and so should be deleted. I would remind that this is not a legitimate criteria for deletion per WP:DEL. I am looking into sources and intend to address all three of the concurrent AfDs in time. I have begun with Lustboy (for no particular reason) and have made a number of edits to the article today. Since I seem to be the only person attempting to do this, I supposed we'll just have to be patient. TimothyJosephWood 19:47, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't blatantly misrepresent your opposition like that. All three people who have !voted delete cited a lack of reliable sources covering the subject in significant detail. Ironically, its you who keeps saying things like "sources are out there" without presenting any that cover the subject in significant detail. It takes more than "assurances" to convince people most of the time at AFD... Sergecross73 msg me 20:48, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I missed the part about "blatant". The policy "WP:DEL" was cited, a point which does not appear in your response. Unscintillating (talk) 15:44, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really follow what you're driving at. If it was meant to invoke a response from me, please clarify. Sergecross73 msg me 13:01, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Invoke a response? The response I want to evoke, if any, is called a policy-based discussion. Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 02:11, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And please don't blatantly misrepresent the nomination. "He's had no substantial coverage via reliable sources" is a perfectly damn valid deletion ground, and certainly more valid a stance than you advocating keeping the article based on zero actual evidence of reliable sources. As far as patience goes, the AfD closes on the 11th. I'd advise against being "patient" up until that date. Ravenswing 21:14, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No need for personal attacks; I said that if this subject matter has content presented that shows that they're notable and with reliable sources that compound said notability, I'll be happy to vote to keep. That being said, I've researched this subject matter and have thus far come across very little beyond the H2k-related business and their Riot ban. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 22:51, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've added more sources to the article and encourage all voters to take another look at the article.--Prisencolin (talk) 23:53, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a look and nothing that has been added convinces me that FORG1VEN meets WP:GNG or our criteria as a whole per my previous comments. KaisaL (talk) 00:55, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is an additional event that you should consider, the fact that he got deferment from mandatory military service in Greece. Surely this doesn't happen everyday.--Prisencolin (talk) 01:06, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A quick search suggests that this is very common - temporary deferment can be for anything from university studies to siblings with a relative in the armed forces already. It's certainly not a major event and if it was it would have received far wider verifiable coverage via Greek newspapers and the like. I can't accept this is a valid claim to encyclopedic notability. KaisaL (talk) 01:27, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And how much of this is about deferment generally and not about a particular person being deferred for a particular reason, covered in sources about that individual? TimothyJosephWood 02:08, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, it does seem that Greek military service deferment is very common. However that doesn't invalidate the fact that the media, including ESPN and SB Nation, seemed to make a bit deal of the story.--Prisencolin (talk) 03:46, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They were both fleeting mentions that don't come close to clearing the GNG. Ravenswing 03:57, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I haven't misrepresented anyone or made any personal attacks. What I have said is that there are three concurrent AfDs that I intend to address and unfortunately I cannot to all of them at the same time. A look at my history will show that I have been active in the area and I seek to inform that I can only do one thing at a time, but the issue has my attention. There is WP:NODEADLINE. TimothyJosephWood 02:11, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You literally accused editors of !voting "delete" because of the article's poor shape, when, objectively, nobody cited "poor shape" of the article. That's undeniably misrepresentation. It's one thing to disagree, but if you are fundamentally unable to understand other's stances, then please just don't bother addressing it at all. Sergecross73 msg me 02:46, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"If this page is fixed up with good sources" sounds a lot like article critique and not NOTE, as does "very little content present either". Maybe I have interpreted incorrectly. TimothyJosephWood 03:09, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed you have. The focus continues to be reliable, third party sources that cover the subject in significant detail. My "little content present" comment is in reference to the precedent of redirecting articles that may be notable have very little content present. It's a common redirect/merge stance where there's a target that does, or could, discuss the subject briefly, when very little content can be sourced to references. Sergecross73 msg me 03:18, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So you !voted Delete to get the article redirected/merged? Unscintillating (talk) 15:44, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was !voting "delete", while leaving the option out there for redirect/merge if better sources had been found and that was the only way to reach consensus. That's why I start off with "even if" in my initial comment. Sergecross73 msg me 12:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, coverage an enough sources previously deemed reliable by the community. There is no single event for this person to be deemed a WP:1E for, so it should otherwise pass WP:GNG.--Prisencolin (talk) 01:14, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Youre supposed to be identifying yourself as the article creator in these discussions, I believe. Sergecross73 msg me 02:50, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- There should probably just a parameter in the AfD template that does this automatically. I might bring this up somewhere.--Prisencolin (talk) 03:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not impressed by these new sources, as it happens. Two are fleeting mentions of the sort explicitly debarred by WP:ROUTINE from supporting notability, and I'm unsure upon what basis you call iDigitalTimes (which doesn't have its own article) a source "deemed reliable by the community." Which community would that be? Ravenswing 03:55, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I was talking about the Daily Dot and ESPN articles. iDigitalTimes doesn't have an article, but its publisher IBT Media does, so I may have a chance at being a reliable source.--Prisencolin (talk) 21:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps in this context I am supposed to comment that I started, as a redirect, the article IBT Media. Unscintillating (talk) 15:44, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ROUTINE is about the notability of events, and doesn't use the word "debarred". Unscintillating (talk) 15:44, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- In Ravenwing's defense, there is a line in WP:SPORTCRIT that recommends that individual sportspeople have notability outside WP:ROUTINE coverage in order to have a standalone article.--Prisencolin (talk) 23:37, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Unscintillating (talk) 00:52, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And unfixed. Unscintillating (talk) 02:11, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ESPN notes that "FORG1VEN is still considered the best western AD carry of all time by many analysts and experts among the scene" and calls him "Europe's best AD carry". This position of prominence in the game plus significant coverage from ESPN, IGN, and other reliable e-sports coverage is certainly good enough for WP:BASIC and the WP:GNG. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:41, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with option for a merge discussion on the talk page of the article There is general agreement that reliable sources exist and that this is part of a larger topic, and that within this larger topic the BLP here would have WP:DUE weight. This means that the discussion here, as per WP:Deletion policy is a content dispute, and the issue of notability is a matter for the content contributors to determine on the talk page of the article. For further policy information, see WP:INSIGNIFICANCE.
Further, WP:HEY mention should be given for the difference between the article at the time of AfD nomination and the article now. Unscintillating (talk) 15:44, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I've still noticeably been questionable about accepting these articles as there seems to be questionability about clear acceptance, I'm not seeing anything else particularly convincing and we should be careful adding these or else we may have loads of work later, examining and questioning them. SwisterTwister talk 06:38, 12 July 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lustboy

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

An eSports player with no notable coverage beyond niche sites and sub-sections dedicated to the field. He did win a competition as a "support player", but this win is a case of WP:BLP1E and I am not convinced that being part of an eSports team that wins a competition justifies an individual article. Additionally, all of the references are to The Daily Dot, which is a contentious source and its reliability is disputed. Most of the content online is eSports related cruft from unreliable sources. KaisaL (talk) 14:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A discussion on the notability of eSports subjects is ongoing at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Notability guidelines and policy for eSports, and this was an article raised as an example of the inherent question marks over the content. KaisaL (talk) 14:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't know about a lot of the other e-sports figured nomd today, but this one should meet GNG easily. He played for two years on one of the top North American League of Legends teams, and played for two other top Korean teams. There's plenty of coverage out there, a lot of it may be "niche" but it's a niche subject. Incidentally, he was recently covered by ESPN for his role as a coach of Longzhu. TimothyJosephWood 19:16, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does just playing for "top teams" assert notability, though? Apologies if this could sound a little bit WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but eSports is not soccer or baseball, so I'm not sure simply being part of a team counts. We have no established precedent either way, and I'm inclined to say that you need more than being in a team and getting coverage on eSports websites, at least until this sport grows and gets more coverage beyond them. That ESPN section is a bit better, but it's very brief mentions and quotations, not exactly a full feature dedicated to him. KaisaL (talk) 19:25, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Umm...yeah...I would say playing in the World Championship (more than once) goes a long way toward establishing notability. This is one of the, if not the most played competitive game in the world. The official World Championship admits 16 teams, and so is arguably exactly twice as exclusive as the FIFA World Cup. It also became the largest prize pool and most watched esports event in Season Two, and it's only grown since.

As I've alluded to elsewhere, I'm not sure you yet have the requisite familiarity with the topic. "Top teams" is not a subjective descriptor that needs scare quotes like "hot new artist". At least in this case, it's 100% as objective as which teams make it to the World Cup. Probably more so as TSM has not only been to Worlds, but has been to it every year since its inception.

Similarly, "support" does not need scare quotes either. It is one of five positions on a five man team and is exactly analogous to Small forward or Power forward in basketball.

I'm not trying to make a personal attack, and I'm sorry if it comes off that way, but if you don't know what a Small forward or Point guard is in basketball, a Fullback or Linebacker is in American Football, or a Support or ADC is in League of Legends, then you probably have some reading to do before you're ready to dive into substantial AfD noms or suggest major policy creation. TimothyJosephWood 14:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please, comment on content, not editors. The nominator's personal knowledge on the subject is irrelevant - you do not need to be an esports enthusiast to recognize whether or not a subject has been covered in significant detail by reliable, third party sources. Please don't move the discussion into this "I'm more of an expert than you on this so listen to me" type of direction. Providing sources (or noting a lack-thereof) will get you much farther in these discussions. Sergecross73 msg me 14:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have hesitated thus far to reference WP:CIR, because it is often used pejoratively, but I use it in this sense to mean the good spirit of the essay, someone who is 100% acting in good faith but who is outside their subject area. There are currently 24 sources for the article. I have worked most of the day to improve them. TimothyJosephWood 03:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you've been right to be hesitant, as its wildly inappropriate to cite CIR in this discussion. That's usually used in the context of referring to someone who doesn't seem to have the capacity to understand how to write an encyclopedia. You're dealing with an Administrator with 10 years experience who made a policy-based nomination you don't agree with. Not even close to CIR. Sergecross73 msg me 12:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think we will have to, per your comment on my talk page too, agree to disagree on this Timothy. Debates on AFD should not be exclusive to card-carrying experts, just like editing a topic is not exclusive to experts, particularly as there can be a degree of subject bias if they are. You have alluded to the FIFA World Cup, for example, and stated that the competition Lustboy competes in is twice as exclusive and the most-watched eSports event; This misses the fact that world eSports competitions are nowhere near as important or widely covered as the World Cup in football. Perspectives from both experts and outsiders are very much welcome at AFD because it's about establishing a consensus on notability per the presence, reliability and significance of sources on a general encyclopedia. KaisaL (talk) 16:03, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not one scrap of proof has been proffered suggesting that the subject can meet the GNG. I did read the ESPN source Timothyjosephwood posted above, and I can't imagine how he thinks that supports notability. First off, the only mention of the subject is in quotes from him, which explicitly can't be used to support the notability of him. Secondly, that's routine, casual coverage of the sort explicitly debarred by WP:ROUTINE. Would anyone like to proffer multiple reliable, independent sources that provide "significant coverage" to the subject? Ravenswing 13:46, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The sources present do not indicate meeting the WP:GNG through significant coverage through reliable sources. Emphasis on the "significant coverage" part - the ESPN source is a very short article that contains even less information about the subject himself. Sergecross73 msg me 14:06, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest going to Google, typing "Lustboy" and hitting go? Maybe clicking the News search link automatically generated at the top of the page? Maybe instead someone here could go read WP:BEFORE. TimothyJosephWood 14:12, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Er..."Lustboy" isn't exactly the type of thing I like typing into search engines. BEFORE is something you'd want to direct towards a nominator, not really anyone else. Regarding my stance, I'd reconsider if better sources are provided. Sergecross73 msg me 14:19, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem. Perhaps you could be troubled to do the work yourself. You're asserting that just because who he is, Lustboy must be notable by definition. The burden is yours to prove it. I suggest that it is more productive for you to do so than to insinuate that any editors who disagree with you are lazy and/or clueless for not doing the work you are declining to do yourself. Ravenswing 16:57, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there are enough sources for this topic, and current consensus is that these particular sources are reliable. We're also not even talking about Korean language sources.--Prisencolin (talk) 00:01, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well there goes my evening. (edit conflict) I've rewritten basically the entire article. I started to give up when I got to the tourney history and just shot-gun-blasted {{cn}} as placeholders for where I need to find sources for results.

The notability question for me, as someone who is familiar, boils down to the fact that he played for Team SoloMid. They're not just almost certainly the top North American team, (Counter Logic Gaming is the only close competition), but they are historically the top team, and are the only ones to play in Worlds every year since its inception. Compare articles for Dyrus or WildTurtle, who were contemporaries of Lustboy's. If WP:NFOOTY can be used an an analogy, then playing for TSM is basically auto-notability in LoL esports. He's also Korean, started out in the Korean scene, came the the US, and then returned. It's a bigger more competitive deal in Korea. (There is no discussion like this going on at the Korean WP.)

A lot of the sources may be "niche", or however you want to classify them. But there's plenty of them, and when it all boils down, even niche sources don't give a crap about you unless you're a global player. I actually do follow a few up-and-comers like Huzzy, but you can't find anything like this on him, because he isn't a world-stage player. Lustboy is.

Finally, to whomever didn't want to google Lustboy...no, you don't get porn. Yes, you get almost all esports content and apparently one guy in the UK who went to jail over kids. Yes, it's almost certainly a Korean-English translation issue. TimothyJosephWood 00:18, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've checked out the rewritten article and my opinion personally hasn't changed. I don't believe there's such a thing as "auto-notability" for eSports by means of playing for a team, because the sport isn't major enough at this time, making WP:NFOOTY a bad analogy in my view. All of my other views have been detailed previously, and in spite of the additional sources those still stand. A couple of source comments: This Gamespot one gives him a passing mention in a list in an article about somebody else, this mostly consists of an aggregation of Reddit quotes, this ESPN one does not load at all and this one gives him the most trivial of mentions in an article about the team. So while they may not be unreliable sources per se, the coverage isn't substantial or often even primarily about Lustboy. And also, many of the sources in general do more to demonstrate the relevance of the teams, as the coverage of him personally is trivial. I know you won't agree with me but that's very much a part of AFD debates. KaisaL (talk) 00:52, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't load at all? Have you tried turning it off and back on again? Works fine for me. TimothyJosephWood 10:10, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You keep addressing the reliability and niche status of sources, but the recurring issue seems to be that, regardless of the status, they aren't discussing the subject in significant detail. Sergecross73 msg me 03:04, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two things were addressed in the original nom: That they only have won one competition, and that all of the references are to a single source. Both of these have been addressed. There are two dozen sources generally, and even with the sources needed for competition wins, there are a half dozen at least already provided to alleviate this concern. TimothyJosephWood 03:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please list the sources here that are RS's and cover the subject in significant detail. It seems every time you allude to "all these sources" I spot check some and see they are sources that mention the name in passing and nothing else. I'd like to see what you think significant coverage is. Sergecross73 msg me 03:31, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What about the currently nine sources that mention him by name in the title? TimothyJosephWood 03:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd assume you'd want to direct me to the good ones, since every time I spot check on my own, I find that they're lacking in some capacity. Your Yahoo News source, for example. It mentions him by name, but 95% of the article is about the team owner, Andrew Dinh, talking about himself and the team - talking about announcing things too early, being careful on social media, etc. Very little of it is actually about "Lustboy" himself. Sergecross73 msg me 03:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite close to done with the whole thing emotionally. I've already gotten frustrated a couple of times and I don't edit WP to feel frustrated.

Having said that, this is what the current sources establish:

Played as a starter for multiple professional teams who, at the time, were ranked as the top or one of the top teams in their region
Received media coverage for both their transfer to and retirement from the top North American Team
Competed in and won the top Korean competition as a starting member of a professional team
Competed in and won the top North American competition as a starting member of a professional team
Competed in and was semi and quarter finalist the top global competition for his field as a starting member of a professional team
Competed in multiple additional regional and international competitions as a starting member of a professional team
Was individually ranked twelfth in the world based on performance in the 2014 World championship
Was individually ranked fourth and fifth in North America based on performance in two metrics at the region's top competition

Anything remotely resembling the notability criteria for sports is a slam dunk. The person's claim to notoriety is as a competitive member of this club, and these are the top achievements that a person in this field can accomplish. If these are insufficient to establish notability then the individual is categorically disqualified, because the coverage of the person concerns his achievements in his field, because that is why he is notable.

If this is the case then I'm not going spend any more time arguing over or trying improve this or the other nominated articles. The most relevant sources are the ones that establish these metrics because these performances are the reason the person is even considered for an article.

If these suffice then I will continue improving this and the other articles. TimothyJosephWood 13:06, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As has arisen across a number of these discussions, there's no "WP:NESPORTS" or "WP:NGAMER", guidelines like there are things like WP:NSONG or WP:NFILM, so they only way to prove notability is going to be to provide a bunch of sources that are considered reliable and significant coverage. I've been trying to assume good faith here, but am I to interpret your continued resistance to provides such sources here at the AFD page as a sign that said sources don't exist? It seems like you've attempted everything except for the typical approach of just listing off sources here at AFD. Sergecross73 msg me 13:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said a number of times, Timothy, there is no consensus that just competing - or indeed winning - professional eSports competitions as part of a team is a reason for that individual to be have their own encyclopedia article. You raised WP:NFOOTY previously, and compared an eSports competition to the FIFA World Cup; This to me completely misses the point that eSports is still a growing, niche interest. So just being a competitor for me isn't enough, and is why I have argued to delete here. Your list only strengthens my views because it feels like you're completely clutching at straws with a list of statistics that only serve to suggest he may have competed for notable eSports teams. None of this is reliable, significant coverage of him personally. I think we're going around in circles on that issue though because clearly you're debating this as if there's a clear precedent to give eSports professional articles on competition achievements alone. I could understand that argument maybe for an individual competition, but this is team competition, and team competitions without significant coverage than even puts them in the same postcode (zip code) as established team sports like football, baseball and hockey. KaisaL (talk) 13:47, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources to establish the above are in the article. The list includes many of the most significant achievements at all possible in the field.

I actually feel like I'm pretty well getting the point, and why this has been so frustrating. If the person's notability is tied to these achievements, and the majority of coverage is therefore about these achievements, and yet the sources and the coverage are both disqualified because they are esports, then the person is categorically disqualified from notability, and no further argument is possible. If that is the standard then the conversation is over, and probably very nearly 100% of the existing articles on esports participants should be nominated for deletion. TimothyJosephWood 14:11, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 23:09, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Timothyjosephwood's fine addition of sourcing to the article - although I would point out that the original stub was quite a young article and it too had sources, if far fewer. Yes, the sourcing is to largely to websites / e-zines that cover eSports, but the same is true of vanilla sports players being largely covered only in sports sources. WP:GNG is basically "do 3rd party reliable sources exist", and yes, they do. If expanded to some 1st-party sources, I imagine the sourcing well gets even deeper.

As a side note, it was mentioned already, but putting "support player" in quotes is like putting "third baseman" in quotes. It doesn't mean "random guy on staff", it's a position. Granted, sometimes some weird subculture sets up their own walled garden on Wikipedia, and it falls to random other editors to weed it - but in this particular case, there really are sources, so it's a legit topic. SnowFire (talk) 00:43, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep thanks to Timothyjosephwood's great edits. Clearly meets the WP:GNG. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:21, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 07:47, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I also believe there's still not enough convincingly confident for his own actual notable article. SwisterTwister talk 06:48, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - borderline, but I believe TJW has introduced enough sources to show that the subject has significant coverage in reliable sources. Jujutacular (talk) 19:05, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As this is overdue for an administrator to assess, I point out that there's been 5 arguments to keep and 4 arguments to delete. While it isn't a !vote, this is a long thread and so I figured it's worth noting down some numbers. I also note that most of the arguments to keep have come from individuals that are heavily involved with eSports content; This isn't a problem in itself, but might be noteworthy in your close or relist decision. KaisaL (talk) 21:31, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As a sort of closing argument I suppose, since KaisaL and myself seem to be the main proponents here. First, ~~the fact~~ that many involved here ~~are~~ may be part of e-sports editing (not really including myself prior to the past couple of weeks), is may be probably unremarkable. I would expect those from MilHist to be well represented at related AfDs (and would be disappointed if they weren't). Second, I believe the article currently contains significant coverage in secondary sources, which, although being involved in the production of esports related content, are independent of the teams as well as Riot Games. Finally, to dismiss coverage in outlets related to esports ipso facto, presumes categorical non-notability, and precludes the application of, rather than enforces WP:GNG. TimothyJosephWood 22:40, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about the others except for Prisencolin, but I wouldn't count myself as "heavily involved with eSports content". While I do have more familarlity than most people with the area, I've basically never edited those topics before they started popping up in the AfD queues this past week. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:55, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @KaisaL: I'm not involved in eSports content at all, and merely saw this advertised on WP:VG talk. (I am roughly familiar with eSports... and I have no doubt there do exist some eSports articles that are basically impossible to reference. You just happen to have taken aim at one of the 2 or 3 most notable eSports out there in League of Legends, where there really are a ton of third-party references for it, even for non top-tier players.). SnowFire (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to fit notability and have adequate sources per WP:GNG. Asdklf; (talk) 06:16, 13 July 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 close. Bad faith nomination from account that has been vandalising the article (including blanking it when listing it for AFD). Further, no valid argument for creating an AFD is given by the user. Closed without prejudice to a legitimate AFD listing by any user in the future. KaisaL (talk) 13:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trollstation

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

Trollstation has violated several laws and is now under strict orders to shut down everything Hank12345678910 (talk) 12:34, 4 July 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trollstation

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 01:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rajpasi

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

I wish I had a clue where is article is about! This is a collection of data, not an article The Banner talk 12:02, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - looks most of all like an editing test. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as this isn't just a sloppy article about a real thing; it's a sloppy article about nothing. Perhaps WP:CSD#G2 would be appropriate, as this does seem to be only a test. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 16:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - WP:A1, WP:CSD#G2 - No context to clarify what this is about. Seems to be a test article. Can be speedily deleted. -- Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 12:14, 5 July 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 delete. As a clear WP:HOAX. KaisaL (talk) 13:53, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rayman Legacy

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

Unsourced speculation per WP:CRYSTAL on a game planned for release three years from now. Nothing about it online in WP:Reliable sources. Prod contested without comment by article creator. Probable WP:HOAX. OnionRing (talk) 09:08, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 09:08, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a hoax: I can't find anything to support this article. Even if it were true it would be worth a redirect for now, but this seems amazingly suspect. This is without considering that, when asked for sources for verification, the article creator seems to have simply responded "Are You Give Up?" and edit warred over the AfD notice. This seems pretty open-and-shut. – The Millionth One (talk) (contribs) 13:43, 4 July 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 01:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robert W. Firestone

AfDs for this article:

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

No indication of notability per relevant guideline (WP:BIO). No significant coverage by independent reliable secondary sources. Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:27, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:42, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:42, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A GS h-index of 15 in the highly cited field of pop-psychology is not enough to pass WP:Prof#C1. No other indications of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete again as there's still nothing for any actual independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 02:48, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable clinical psychologist. Does not pass any notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:56, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I simply can't find enough sources, or enough notability for his publications.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:16, 11 July 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 01:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cesar Joseph Claro

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

I basically would've PRODed too, my own searches, including at the SILive.com website, only found mere expected mentions including for local events and funding, but there's nothing actually convincing for any solid independent notability; my searches at local news NYTimes and NYDailyNews found nothing better than 2 passing mentions Notifying DGG for local analysis. SwisterTwister talk 06:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Almost a speedy G11 -- clearly promotional bio. No notability is likely for the reported activities DGG ( talk ) 17:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He is a non-notable local developer of business interests.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:08, 7 July 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. Notabilty established. Sources could be improved, though, as it has been demonstrated that they exist. Tone 08:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lucija Potočnik

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMODEL Arthistorian1977 (talk) 06:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:13, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:13, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:13, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG lacking significant coverage by reliable sources. Better quality sources than the ones used in the article are available, but they don't go into much depth. Also, winning a beauty pageant is not an automatic pass of WP:ENT. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She has not won just any beauty pageant. She has won Slovenia's top level beauty competition that makes her eligible to compete in world's most followed beauty pageant, Miss Universe 2016, where she will be representing her nation. That does not seem non-notable. Here are few links [16], [17], [18]. Hitro talk 17:38, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - she won a national pageant and will represent her country in an international competition. Notable. MurielMary (talk) 08:40, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Looks like national titleholders that advance to Miss Universe have bios. I looked at WP for Miss_Universe_Canada, Miss_Peru, every single Miss_USA, etc. The more obscure nations have fewer bluelinks, but I see evidence of a consensus that Miss Universe contestants tend to be deemed notable. Montanabw ^(talk) 17:57, 6 July 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.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:43, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marguerite Humeau

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

First major show just this year; not enough RS; not notable. Baum des Lichtes (talk) 06:37, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I really think her work is quite big already to be notable. There are alr day a lot of references and people who look her up, a neutral entry of her would be important in my eyes. The palais de Tokio is a very big deal and in my eyes a very good qualifier. Iszilagyi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:00, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep Neutral for now~~ (see below) (pending further info on article creator COI and verifying exhibition claims). If Palais de Tokyo, MoMA, Victoria and Albert Museum, Serpentine Galleries and Manifesta can all be verified, this passes WP:ARTIST. The lack of reliable sources is worrisome but her exhibition record appears to put this over the top. freshacconci talk to me 14:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. This page appears to have been created by an undeclared paid editor (see this or for that matter this), and is thus an advertisement. Wikipedia does not allow WP:PROMOTION of any kind. A neutral entry would be indeed be desirable if Humeau can be shown to be notable, but this is not it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:22, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Justlettersandnumbers, with respect, COI is not a factor in any policy related to AfD discussions. COI is obviously not desired, but COI editors often create articles that are ultimately kept. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 00:37, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HappyValleyEditor, this is not simple WP:COI, it is to all appearances undeclared paid editing, and thus in contravention of the Terms of Use of the Foundation. We delete such articles regardless of notability, but without prejudice to subsequent re-creation by a non-connected editor, exactly as was done in the Orangemoody case. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:04, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Following discussion at User talk:Iszilagyi, I've struck my delete. Good faith demands that I accept the explanation offered there. The arguments I offered in support of deletion are (I believe) still valid, but do not apply here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:03, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Humeau is notable per WP:ARTIST. Her work is the the collection of the Museum of Modern Art (which meets WP:ARTIST 4d). See here She participated in Manifesta 11 and Extenction Marathon at the Serpentine Gallery See here, (which satisfies WP:ARTIST 4b), and had a solo show in the Palais de Tokyo. See here. Mduvekot (talk) 19:11, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see how it could be anything other than keep. Google news search is dripping with high-quality sources directluy discussing her work. Palais de Tokyo is a SERIOUS venue! If you get there as an artist, you are notable. The New York Times has a full article on her? When you look at other sources along with this, this seems like a case of widely reported independent sources establishing notability.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 00:46, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The COI is definitely there, but I think this actually passes GNG, with good indepth coverage in mainstream sources. For example NYTimes article, NPR.org, Huffington post, Discover Magazine. Her works seems to have received significant critical (and mainstream) attention. This is one of the rare artists I have seen recently who passes GNG quite easily. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:14, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With all the new info, this is now a firm keep. The paid-for-contributing is an issue and if the article was very long and detailed with lots of fluff, I would be inclined to vote to nuke it and start again. As it is, it's short enough that an editor can spend 20 minutes reworking it. My guess is that it wasn't the artist herself hiring the editor but possibly a gallery representing her. I don't know the ins-and-outs of the Wiki foundation, but it would be nice if a strongly worded missive from someone with authority could be sent to the gallery. They are doing a disservice to their artists by going this route. Humeau is notable (regardless of her depressingly young age) and this has the potential to damage her reputation, not the gallery's. It's too bad but at least we can rectify that here and minimize the damage. freshacconci talk to me 14:06, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Freshacconci,Justlettersandnumbers I agree with you here. This kind of paid-for-contributions are actually a disservice to the artist. More importantly, once a paid-for article is created, it usually contains a lot of promotional stuff which volunteer editors have to clean-up, something referred to as WP:BOGOF editing. I usually tend to ask for a TNT for such articles. This one is quite short (and an exception), which is why I voted for a keep here. I am going to leave another note on the article creator's page about this. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:28, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With the list of exhibitions and sources, she is definitely passes WP:ARTISTS. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep This article subject passes WP:GNG and should be retained. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 21:08, 7 July 2016 (UTC) (Banned sock HappyValleyEditor (talk) 06:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC))[reply]

This seems like it could be closed now, with a fairly clear concensus.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 19:27, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). 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. consensus seems clear after the additional information DGG ( talk ) 01:18, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Dutkewych

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

Non-notable artist. Does not pass GNG. Maybeparaphrased (talk) 06:34, 4 July 2016 (UTC) Maybeparaphrased (talk) 06:34, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:37, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:26, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Artist is the author of numerous permanent public sculptures in Montreal and elsewhere. One is an prominent work at the Museum of Point-a-Callieres in old Montreal. The public works alone satisfy WP:ARTIST. On thop of this, there are plenty of references in print (coverage is largely pre-Internet) which I will provide after a trip to the library! I've added about a half dozen references and will add more over the course of nomination. WP:BEFORE should have been done before this nomination happened.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 15:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Delete per failure of WP:ARTIST, which reads as follows:

Authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals [are notable when]:

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.

Subject does not seem important in the sense given here, and there's no evidence he's widely cited.

The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.

No indication of passing on this point.

The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.

While he has created public works, there is no indication of significance for these works (see next point), at least not to the extent of being subject to multiple non-trivial independent mentions.

The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

Again, "significant" is key here. Creating a public work (or works) is not the question here; creating a significant public work is what's needed. Dutkewych's Entre Nous, the purported prominent work, does not seem to be too significant itself, at least not to the extent of this guideline; it would take more to pass the bar here, in my opinion. As for "substantial part of a significant exhibition", "significant critical attention", and "is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums", there seems to be nothing to indicate fulfillment of these criteria.

Now, for those book references (which really shouldn't have been removed from the article, Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant), doing a search within the books turns up this:

A few passing mentions, including something which seems to say he was part of an exhibition. What or where the exhibition was, I do not know, but it doesn't seem like much as is.
One mention, which seems to be an image caption rather than prose.
Nothing discernable, at least nothing I can see.

While there may be more in these books that I can't preview, I don't see it being very likely, considering the nature of the results done from this search. HappyValleyEditor, if you can provide more concrete examples of notability, I will be glad to change my opinion, but as of now, it seems deletion is the best option. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 17:51, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Colonel Wilhelm Klink, thanks for your analysis!

I have added four or five reviews, in pdf form, to the article. They came from an interesting database called Erudit, which seems to have the copyright for archiving and making open access old periodicals.
Mduvekot was kind enough to add a publications list, which is mostly exhibition catalohgues where others write about the artist's work. With item 1 above, we are up to over a dozen critical mentions. There are more, but they will be harder to find as they are older or not indexed online.
Perhaps most notably, I discovered that his work is in two major museum collections (MNBAQ and MMFA. See page under "collections"). It should be noted that the public artworks are also in the collections of whoever holds them (e.g. the museum at Point a Callieres.). I hope this is enough for you... HappyValleyEditor (talk) 20:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HappyValleyEditor: Thanks, and yes, the two museum collections and the multiple reviews are enough to pass WP:ARTIST. Good work digging up those sources. Changing to keep per new evidence. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 20:57, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - multiple references to his work in disparate publications suggests he's someone we should cover. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of coverage. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 22:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: agreeing that article, sources and stated content now have established notability. Thanks for all the work involved in favour of keeping this interesting artist and article. ツ Fylbecatulous talk 13:45, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sourcing looks like he meets WP:ARTIST to me. Montanabw ^(talk) 01:35, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for art in permanent collections of multiple notable museums. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Time to close? Seems very clear at this point.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 23:41, 11 July 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 as G5. Ruslik_Zero 15:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Johann Pfeffer

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

Short story: is this a WP:HOAX? Now, for a longer story (rationale). It seems this article has been created by a global-ban evading editor (see meta:Requests_for_comment/Global_ban_request_for_Messina). I saw an earlier version of this article (see Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Clarification_requested_for_G5) and it looked good, however when I started looking into the references I had trouble verifying that this is not a WP:HOAX. Unfortunately, the first article got deleted before I was able to finish the research, and the prior AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jan Pfeffer started by User:Schulhofpassage)) got speedy closed before anyone could look into the issue. The article has since been restored, and I once again have trouble verifying the refs, or in fact - just as before - that the subject exists at all. Still, the meta global block does not mention problems with editor's article, instead focusing on their disruptive behavior and attitude. Leaving aside my concerns about G5, I would like to use this article to see whether that user creates hoaxes or whether his content is helpful for this project (and if so, I'll try to investigate his past contributions). However, as I noted earlier, I am having major trouble verifying whether this subject even exists: the name and date of births don't seem to produce results except wiki forks and low quality pages (like provincial Polish government history pages which may well be affected by WP:CITEGENESIS). Further, a number of presumably print bibliographical references cited seem not to exist (or are badly malformed). For example, the latest version of the article is seemingly based on "nton Ulbrich: Johannes Pfeffer. The altar in the protestant Kumehnen Church . in: Anton Ulbrich: History of sculpture in East Prussia from the 16th century to around 1870 (Geschichte der Bildhauerkunst in Ostpreußen vom Ende des 16. Jahrhunderts bis gegen 1870.), Königsberg 1926–1929, p. 249-270" but I can't verify such a source exists in the linked database; it exists in Google Books ([19]) but is not digitized. Google Book search for "Johann Pfeffer" Königsberg produces results in German I cannot analyze; my searchers for English sources using keywords such as ""Johann Pfeffer" sculptor" give nothing, and neither do Polish. While I cannot see the now-deleted article at Jan Pfeffer, I remember that one of the sources cited was "Słownik artystów polskich i obcych w Polsce działających (zmarłych przed 1966 r.)" from 1986, but it is a multi-part work, and the 1986 edition covers surnames with letters Kl-La ([20]). The correct one which may cover the subject is the Pe-Po one from [21]. Sadly, none of my local libraries has a copy of either, and they are not digitized; the subject is also not listed in User:Piotrus/List of Poles/Pawlewski-Poblocki (at least, not under surname Pfeffer). Again, errors like this suggest this may be a hoax, but I'd like to hear from someone who can look into German sources here, which seem to be the most likely to have something on the subject. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:13, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Johann Pfeffer is in Thieme-Becker see http://www.degruyter.com/databasecontent?dbid=akl&dbsource=%2Fdb%2Fakl and http://www.adk.de/de/archiv/bibliothek/LD_AKL.htm
Johannes Pfeffer is in Anton Ulbrich: Geschichte der Bildhauerkunst in Ostpreußen vom Ende des 16. Jahrhunderts bis gegen 1870. digital see http://www.eromm.org/use_eromm-eromm_search?term=ulbrich+bildhauerkunst
the polish name of Johannes Pfeffer is Jana Pfeffera z Królewca :

....de:User:messina wrote many articles about jewish cantillation https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tipcha&diff=142217414&oldid=142286345 and about jewish prayer https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barchu&diff=128942734&oldid=137950491 . The whole conflict began in 2006, when Messina wrote german articles about jewish personalities and jewish organisations. Some of the German authors suggested deleting such jewish content. IMHO all escalation was based on these anti jewish opninions. Messina would not have been banned without his racist german opponents, who managed to get him temporarily banned after and after. What we have is Messina writing thousands of articles, and a group of the ever same anti jewish german opponents acting against him for a decade, since his first jewish articles. Better ban the anti jewish german opponents like de:user:Schulhofpassage — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatcher83 (talk • contribs) 09:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article is no hoax but of very poor quality. Usually they look not too bad at first glance, but there are so many errors and it´s not worth it cheking for all the errors in every reference. User produces bad articles like spam as punishment for other users to improve it. User is globally banned for massive sockpuppetry, copyfraud, editwarring, threatening authors, personal attacks of the meanest kind, including frequently accusing of antisemitc behaviour without evidence, does not accept any administrative rulings and has at every minute conflicts with other users. In short: user does everything that you should not do. Messina´s articles mean trouble ahead. User is globaly baned for a reason.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 09:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When you say it is not a hoax, can you show proof? Poor quality is not reason for deletion by itself, unless WP:TNT comes into play. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I´ve checked and improved a group of about German 40 Messina-Articles. It took half a year of my lifetime to check all the references and to reshape it in a way so it might be readable to an average user. Nobody can give me back my lifetime. I´m still not done with these articles, because I still need to see and check some more sources that are not available at my local university lib. So there still might be some errors left over, which I have not found yet. I´ve written just one similar article, I used about 4 to 5 easy accessible sources, also German sources and it was done in one day and needed not further reshaping and improvement. So improving Messina´s articles is a complete waste of time + you might be insulted as a vandal and as completely ignorant of the subject and as an anti jewish racist, as you can read above, just to proof Godwins law. I now regret to ever have touched these articles and I just hate all this endless discussion about wheter this garbage is usefull or not in combination with these endless insults. If you want to have an article about Johann Pfeffer the artist, just take an up to date and generaly accepted source like Thieme-Becker and write the whole thing new from the sketch so you might have an usefull and up to date source of information, that includes the knowledge of todays scientists and not be based on sources that are over 50 or 100 years old.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 13:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC) Btw Thatcher83 is a messina sockpuppet.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 13:46, 4 July 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 01:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crocodile Creek Inc.

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

No sign of WP:N. Baum des Lichtes (talk) 06:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The best of the given references that I can see (two not available) is inclusion of one of their products in a group review. Highbeam turns up product review and licensing announcements. Clearly a company going about its business, but I see nothing to indicate notability. AllyD (talk) 11:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant coverage in reliable sources. This is using Wikipedia as a platform for promoting a non-notable company. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:44, 9 July 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ouattara Watts

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

Reads as an advert/resume. Don't see the sources out there to assert notability. Baum des Lichtes (talk) 05:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Work by the subject has appeared at major selection-based exhibitions (Venice Biennale, Whitney Biennial, documenta) which I think is sufficient for WP:ARTIST criterion 4. I agree that the current article quality is poor (text concentrating on the subject's involvement with Basquiat, long list of shows and press coverage) but that is a matter for normal editing rather than here. AllyD (talk) 07:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is established by participation in significant exhibitions (WP:ARTIST 4b), critical reviews, in Artforum for example, and a number of monographs (WP:ARTIST 3); worldcat lists several. Mduvekot (talk) 18:19, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article itself needs a lot of work to convert it from CV format to encyclopedia format. However the artist is plainly notable by the calibre of the exhibition venues (e.g. Venice Biennale), which denote "significant recognition by peers", which in turn meets WP:ARTIST.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 00:55, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a CV-as-article and needs a complete rewrite (although I'd stop short of WP:TNT). He was in documenta and the Venice Biennale: that is automatic notability. freshacconci talk to me 13:51, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Passes WP:GNG and should be retained. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 21:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC) Banned sock HappyValleyEditor (talk) 06:21, 11 July 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 01:24, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Forth

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

Fails GNG and NCOLLATH. John from Idegon (talk) 05:39, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant independent coverage and simply playing Division 1 college basketball is not enough to show notability.Mdtemp (talk) 17:52, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being part of a team that gets a NCAA championship is not enough alone to make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:15, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looked for sources and couldn't find enough coverage of him as a player to meet GNG. Rikster2 (talk) 12:35, 7 July 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:23, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jemma Wadham

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

WP:TOOSOON, not enough in-depth sources. Baum des Lichtes (talk) 05:37, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - she meets WP:PROF criterion 2 due to winning a major award (the Philip Levenham Prize). Keilana (talk) 14:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - yeah, major award in her field.Penny Richards (talk) 15:35, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the above reason of winning a notable award that ensures a pass of WP:PROF Atlantic306 (talk) 01:48, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Article subject passes WP:PROF and GNG. Article should be retained at wikipedia. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 04:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC) Banned sockpuppetHappyValleyEditor (talk) 06:40, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per the above. Miyagawa (talk) 21:23, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see no evidence that the Philip Levenham Prize is a major award, looks like just another research grant. I also don't see the independent coverage to satisfy GNG. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:58, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep In fact, Philip Leverhulme Prize is a pretty big deal.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In-depth media coverage of more than one of her research projects [22] [23] add up to WP:GNG notability, regardless of WP:PROF, and the Leverhulme Prize makes a plausible case for WP:PROF#C2 (prestigious national-level award). —David Eppstein (talk) 17:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per her awards and coverage of her scientific work. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:11, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. GS h-index of 19 contributes to WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:57, 6 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. In addition to arguments made above, I'll note that a Google News search turns up popular media coverage of her work all over the world. Just to offer some of the English references:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1235063/Electronic-egg-created-climate-change-scientists-reveal-secrets-global-warming.html

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/08/120831-antarctica-methane-global-warming-science-environment/

http://www.usnews.com/science/articles/2010/03/18/methane-making-microbes-thrive-under-the-ice

I think she passes the WP:BASIC benchmark for significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:30, 7 July 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 01:23, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Blake Johnson

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

Autobio of filmmaker and musician not yet notable per WP:FILMMAKER or WP:MUSICBIO. The band article Third Awakening was deleted six years ago in another AFD, and I can't see how they've become more notable since. His films so far have been shorts, and don't appear to have won any awards or similar notability per WP:NF. No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. OnionRing (talk) 05:22, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 05:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 05:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Honestly, I can't find anything about him. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:10, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think the source that is provided is a student newspaper [24]. If so, it's an unsuitable source per criterion 1 for WP:MUSICBIO. Anyway, that article is not about the subject that is being discussed here (just passing mentions as a member of a band). The article doesn't say why the subject is notable. I performed several Google searches, and unless I made a mistake, there's nothing in reliable sources. Dontreader (talk) 07:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neither his directing of films nor his being a member of a ban have brought him to the level of being notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:13, 7 July 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:23, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ashtray Heart

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

Does not appear to be sufficiently notable to warrant its own article. FamblyCat94 (talk) 04:48, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Polish Radio Chart is not a valid chart for the purposes of meeting WP:NMUSIC by way of chart listing, but being fourth on that does indicate that the song meets the criteria involving being "placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network", and either way a single by a major band such as this is typically bound to meet our criteria regardless. KaisaL (talk) 13:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. In fact, not a single reason exists to delete the article. The notability box at the top of the article was added by one user, without a bit of discussion (there's none on the article's talk page), without any reasoning or justification and contrary to WP rules.

The article is about a single by Placebo, a highly notable band, with an entire, well-developed "article space" devoted to them (discography, albums, singles, other releases, members, former members, etc.). There is a Wikipedia article for every single Placebo have released, all of them fulfilling the WP guidelines for articles of this kind, including references to external, independent sources writing on the subject.

To be certain, all WP guidelines are unequivocally met. The article satisfies all of them and more:

Its subject is notable.
It is part of a series of articles, encompassing a chronological progression, which all need to exist, side by side, for the reader to be able to receive complete information on the subject.
It is easy for the reader to understand exactly what the article is about and how to reach it. If the reader is not interested in the subject, there is no reason they will encounter the article. However, if the reader is interested in the subject, they need the article and will be interested in the information it provides.
The article has existed on Wikipedia for nearly seven years now, helping readers get the information they require and not generating any notability issues, except for one "notability box" added mistakenly by only one user, without any discussion and contrary to WP rules.
Last but not least, the article is referenced with external sources, unrelated and independent from the band. Those sources have written about the article's subject. Additional sources, if necessary, can easily and quickly be added.

In summary, the article fully satisfies the notability guidelines. It seems that even mentioning a possible deletion of the article was simply a misunderstanding, caused by not attending to the fact that the article is notable and does reference to external, independent sources. The article provides readers, both new and well-acquainted with the subject, the knowledge they need, in an organized, informative manner. It should certainly be kept. A.R. (talk) 14:48, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Verifiable encyclopedic content relating to a notable band. No benefit to the project from deletion. --Michig (talk) 20:12, 10 July 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 Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 15:39, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bright Lights (Placebo song)

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

Does not appear to be sufficiently notable to warrant its own article. FamblyCat94 (talk) 04:46, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The song (which is the fourth single from the album Battle for the Sun) has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts, as stated in the article. It has enough coverage both online and offline so it has the potential to become more than a stub.Ionutzmovie (talk) 08:28, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – In fact, not a single reason exists to delete this article. The notability box at the top of the article was added by one user, without a bit of discussion (there's none on the article's talk page), without any reasoning or justification and contrary to WP rules. I apologize for not having removed that unduly-added box myself and sparing everyone this irrelevant discussion.

The article is about a single by Placebo, a highly notable band, with an entire, well-developed "article space" devoted to them (discography, albums, singles, other releases, members, former members, etc.). There is a Wikipedia article for every single Placebo have released, all of them fulfilling the WP guidelines for articles of this kind, including references to external, independent sources writing on the subject.

To be certain, all WP guidelines are unequivocally met. The article satisfies all of them and more:

Its subject is notable.
It is part of a series of articles, encompassing a chronological progression, which all need to exist, side by side, for the reader to be able to receive complete information on the subject.
It is easy for the reader to understand exactly what the article is about and how to reach it. If the reader is not interested in the subject, there is no reason they will encounter this article. However, if the reader is interested in the subject, they need this article and will be interested in the information it provides.
The article has existed on Wikipedia for nearly seven years now, helping readers get the information they require and not generating any notability issues, except for one "notability box" added mistakenly by only one user, without any discussion and contrary to WP rules.
Last but not least, the article is referenced with external sources, unrelated and independent from the band. Those sources have written about the article's subject. Additional sources, if necessary, can easily and quickly be added.

In summary, the article fully satisfies the notability guidelines. It seems that even mentioning a possible deletion of this article was simply a misunderstanding, caused by not attending to the fact that the article is notable and does reference to external, independent sources. This article provides readers, both new and well-acquainted with the subject, the knowledge they need, in an organized, informative manner. It should certainly be kept. A.R. (talk) 10:28, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep We have established guidelines in this area and this quite clearly meets them. KaisaL (talk) 12:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per A.R. Meets the notability guidelines for singles. Miyagawa (talk) 21:24, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Verifiable encyclopedic content relating to a notable band. No benefit to the project from deletion. --Michig (talk) 20:13, 10 July 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:23, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Loud Like Love (song)

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

Does not appear to be sufficiently notable to warrant its own article. FamblyCat94 (talk) 04:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – In fact, not a single reason exists to delete this article. The notability box at the top of the article was added by one user, without a bit of discussion (there's none on the article's talk page), without any reasoning or justification and contrary to WP rules. I apologize for not having removed that unduly-added box myself and sparing everyone this irrelevant discussion.

The article is about a single by Placebo, a highly notable band, with an entire, well-developed "article space" devoted to them (discography, albums, singles, other releases, members, former members, etc.). There is a Wikipedia article for every single Placebo have released, all of them fulfilling the WP guidelines for articles of this kind, including references to external, independent sources writing on the subject.

To be certain, all WP guidelines are unequivocally met. The article satisfies all of them and more:

Its subject is notable.
It is part of a series of articles, encompassing a chronological progression, which all need to exist, side by side, for the reader to be able to receive complete information on the subject.
It is also related and contains information on other highly notable artists, in this case Bret Easton Ellis, who have collaborated with the main artist. Information on that collaboration cannot be found in any other article.
It is easy for the reader to understand exactly what the article is about and how to reach it. If the reader is not interested in the subject, there is no reason they will encounter this article. However, if the reader is interested in the subject, they need this article and will be interested in the information it provides.
The article has existed on Wikipedia for nearly three years now, helping readers get the information they require and not generating any notability issues, except for one "notability box" added mistakenly by only one user, without any discussion and contrary to WP rules.
Last but not least, the article is referenced with external sources, unrelated and independent from the band. Those sources have written about the article's subject. Additional sources, if necessary, can easily and quickly be added.

In summary, the article fully satisfies the notability guidelines. It seems that even mentioning a possible deletion of this article was simply a misunderstanding, caused by not attending to the fact that the article is notable and does reference to external, independent sources. This article provides readers, both new and well-acquainted with the subject, the knowledge they need, in an organized, informative manner. It should certainly be kept. A.R. (talk) 10:13, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep agree with above rationale that this is a notable song with rs Atlantic306 (talk) 02:40, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Verifiable encyclopedic content relating to a notable band. No benefit to the project from deletion. --Michig (talk) 20:14, 10 July 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 Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 15:39, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Flower Drum

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

WP:NOTPROMO, WP:NOTNEWS, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The claim made of it being in the Top 50 restaurants of the world was not found in any citation given in the article. It received one review in the NYT some years ago, but that is the extent of coverage outside of Melbourne, and the rest of the coverage is from one magazine. MSJapan (talk) 04:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)#[reply]

Delete as per all the above reasons. For the record, I initially put this forward for WP:PROD Keep satisfied that recent edits meet notability requirements Ajf773 (talk) 05:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as all of this simply suggests it's obtained some local coverage, but nothing actually convincing. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:CORP clearly states a business is notable if it has been the subject of significant reliable independent coverage in secondary sources. WP:CORPDEPTH states if the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited. WP:AUD also states that significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. This article easily satisfies all those criteria - with coverage in a number of Australian (national) publications over the last forty years. Dan arndt (talk) 06:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes WP:CORPDEPTH per a review of available sources about the restaurant, which is what notability is based upon, as opposed to only those within the article. See also point D of WP:BEFORE.

The topic also passes WP:AUD, because in addition to local coverage, the company has received significant coverage outside of Melbourne, such as on another continent in New York and in The Sydney Morning Herald, based in Sydney, which is 878 kilometres (546 mi) from Melbourne, and other coverage, such as in books published by reliable sources. See source examples below.

Also, the article does not have a particularly promotional tone. The article does not extol the benefits of the company, use peacock language, or encourage readers to do business with it. Rather, it provides an overview about the company based upon what reliable sources state. Lastly, there is presently no claim of the restaurant being one of the top 50 in the world, because the nominator removed this content before nominating it for deletion (diff). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

The New York Times
The Fortune Cookie Chronicles. Grand Central Publishing. pp. pt150–pt151
The Sydney Morning Herald
Executive Style (published by Fairfax Media, based in Sydney)
The Sydney Morning Herald
News.com.au. (scroll down on page). (owned by News Corp Australia, based in Sydney).
Herald Sun
The Age
The Age (1985)
The Age (1985)
The Age (1976)
The Mercury
The Sydney Morning Herald (around 5 ¶)
The Sydney Morning Herald ^{[dead link]}. Quote from [25]: "We take a peek behind the scenes at the reinvigorated Flower Drum."

Keep in view of the multiple reliable sources identified above that mean WP:GNG is passed. Atlantic306 (talk) 00:25, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Surprising to discover this many sources (above) that actually significantly cover this one restaurant. The New York Times? Holy Moly! And scanned newsprint articles from the 1980's and 1976? That's correct! It is refreshing to see the real deal at an AfD. Kudos to NA 1000---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:38, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Another clear case of Wikipedia:Overzealous deletion brought to you by MSJapan. ~Kvng (talk) 14:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wonderful. This has made my day. To my mind the topic is notable (and GNG seems to think so too). Thincat (talk) 18:16, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Multiple hits from HighBeam, the majority being just mentions, found the "top 50" quote in Australasian Business Intelligence (2003) - The Flower Drum was voted one of the top 50 restaurants in the world in May 2003. and in depth coverage in the International Herald Tribune (2005) - Flower Drum is often called the greatest Chinese restaurant in the world, an example of the many many mentions - The Washington Post (2004) - The Flower Drum (17 Market Lane) is the most celebrated Chinese restaurant in Melbourne...-- Isaidnoway (talk) 23:28, 8 July 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:22, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blipvert

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

nn neologism. - üser:Altenmann >t 22:21, 19 June 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 June 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:32, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:11, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:11, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I can source that this was an important part of the Max Headroom franchise and has achieved some degree of use outside of it (for example: [26], [27], [28], [29]), but this belongs in an article about Max Headroom and its legacy. The problem is we don't have an article about the franchise as a whole, only individual articles about the various US/UK shows. If someone can think of a decent place to redirect/merge this, I think that'd be the best solution. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:04, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no need to merge for not only is it a fixture of Max Headroom but it is an advertising concept and belongs in that Wikipedia topic-well as well. Randy Kryn 16:02, 26 June 2016

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:20, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I did some more searches and found further coverage: [30] and [31] from The Guardian, [32] from Advertising Age, [33] from the Los Angeles Times, and [34] from Vulture.com. These aren't as in-depth as I'd like, but they do add up to some kind of notability when combined with the previous hits I listed. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:10, 7 July 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. Uncontested. Sandstein 11:46, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shariq Afroz

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

Fails WP:NPOL §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:22, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:23, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If I understand this correctly he is the state leaders of a sub-section of a political party in a particular state in India. The party as far as I can tell does not actually control a government outside of Delhi State. Afroz appears to be a minor party functionary and not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:10, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, your understanding is correct. But just to clarify, AAP also has 4 members in Lok Sabha from Punjab state and those 4 are notable to stay per NPOL although the party doesn't control Punjab's state government. This is with regards to Uttarakhand state from where AAP has no representative in Lok Sabha nor in the current state's Legislative Assembly. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:05, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:24, 4 July 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 Amiga software#Utilities. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 15:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SysSpeed

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

Unencyclopedic. NN shareware product created in user community, all information pulled from primary documentation for product. MSJapan (talk) 21:12, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 13:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:20, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Amiga_software#Utilities as preferred WP:ATD. ~Kvng (talk) 14:45, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:22, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I found two sources at archive.org: [35] from Amazing Computing and [36] from Clubbed. Clubbed looks like it may be a self-published fanzine, though. Regardless, there's one solid source, and that's probably good enough for at least a brief mention at the target article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Amiga software § Utilities. This will somewhat improve the merge target article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:10, 11 July 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. Nominator withdrew, and no delete !votes from other users are present in the discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Brahmin Gotras

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

Unsourced and already better as Category:Brahmin gotras. No usefulness seen as list. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:41, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:21, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:21, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 11:08, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as complement to category per WP:NOTDUP and as navigational list of articles per WP:CLN. It should be obvious that "unsourced" is not a deletion argument; what matters is whether the information is verifiable, and the nominator implicitly concedes that it is. We also must consider the potential of an article per WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD, not its current state, and the list obviously can be sourced, not to mention annotated and otherwise expanded. So let's not see any more wasteful and counterpolicy nominations like this. postdlf (talk) 13:39, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We can appreciate your gesture to retain useful information but we should not humor it for your incompetence of the subject. We see many inclusionist who keep crying on how everything can be sourced and then see no edits on any articles by them and end up giving false information to readers. Did you bother and see that majority of the blue-linked articles are not actually about gotras? Or did you bother and see if the articles included in the category are of gotra? Further did you bother and see if these are Brahmin gotras? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:31, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You apparently have no problem with the category, so if the subject is fine when presented in category form then there shouldn't be any problem about it in list form. If there are entries that should be removed because they do not qualify, remove them. WP:ATD is policy, and AFD is not for fixing editing issues. And your nomination did not claim or present an argument that the content is unverifiable, just that it was presently unsourced and "better" as a category. So one doesn't need to be familiar with the specific subject area to see that your nonspecific arguments fail on general policy and guideline forms. At best you have a WP:TNT argument, though you have not articulated it as such, and WP:NOTCLEANUP is a good retort to that essay anyway.

If, instead, you'd like to present an argument that the subject itself is unverifiable, OR, etc., then please do so, and I probably would not have a response to that, but the category would be equally affected by that argument. postdlf (talk) 13:26, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let the shit prevail! I withdraw nomination. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:01, 5 July 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:21, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michele Abeles

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

Non-notable artist. Fails WP:NARTIST because: has not made significant works. Sro23 (talk) 04:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:GNG (note, my original search for sources returned more than what is simply cited in the article right now), but if consensus is "meh" then delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE as the subject blanked the article, which is why Sro23 may have missed the improvements I made to it. I have started a discussion at the biographies of living persons noticeboard to attract more experienced hands to this. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:28, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets GNG and WP:ARTIST. Keilana (talk) 15:14, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - ditto Keilana's comment: meets GNG and WP:ARTIST. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:47, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject has received quite a bit of coverage; there's a New York Times review, a review in W magazine, and her work has been featured at the Museum of Modern Art. That's enough to pass WP:ARTIST. As for the WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, the article may only be deleted if there is no rough consensus. What we have here seems to be rough consensus, so I would be against that. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 01:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Hi all, I've been the one working on Michele Abeles' article and I added much more information that foregrounds her notability. With shows at MoMa PS 1 and the Whitney, I think this page should stand. Her work is also collected by the Guggenheim. Mlynch345 (talk) 15:58, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - All right, she's notable, I wouldn't usually move to delete at this point. But the article looks more like a resume than an encyclopedia article, and as the subject of the article has asked for it to be removed, and has complained that some items were incorrect, I think the least we can do is provide an encyclopedic article in which each fact is solidly supported by references. If we can't do that, we should delete it. The artist may be notable, but she is also "a relatively unknown, non-public" figure, so WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE applies. ubiquity (talk) 18:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Mlynch345, the author of this article, works at the Guggenheim Museum, and is going to reach out to the artist on this.--Pharos (talk) 21:05, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, Ritchie333 wrote to Michele on her talk page re: deletion so I don't think it's necessary to connect a second time. Mlynch345 (talk) 18:21, 8 July 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. Sandstein 17:12, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ghona

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

Fails WP:V, as map data alone is not sufficient per WP:GEOLAND. MSJapan (talk) 23:57, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:11, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As best I can determine it is a couple of tracts of land (East and West) adjacent to Millat Town (see [37] around 31.4906234 N,73.0866505 E, but I couldn't find anything showing that it has any official recognition. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:20, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:21, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I found this on google map. I do not know what it is but I can see roads and a bus stop are named after this geographic locations. Apart from that, I found this pdf on some Pakistan government website, it lists addresses of some businesses which are located in Ghona. I am not voting for keep because I have not found anything solid, at the same time, I am not inclined towards the deletion either. Somebody from Pakistan can sort this out. By the way it's Pakistan related discussion not India related. Hitro talk 18:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 23:27, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's still questionability about confirming its existence and although not listed as deletion, the comment above mentions this. SwisterTwister talk 06:42, 12 July 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. Consensus is that this is original research by synthesis. This does not preclude mention of these attacks, subject to editors' consensus, in appropriate other articles such as articles about Ramadan or lists of terrorist attacks. Sandstein 17:08, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Ramadan attacks

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

I'm sorry, but this looks like a textbook case of both WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. There is no concrete evidence to prove that any of the attacks listed were intentionally set to occur during Ramadan by ISIL. The fact that any of them occurred during Ramadan seems either circumstantial and/or opportunistic on the offenders' part. To top it off, at least one attack listed is more or less ISIL-inspired and not directly connected to ISIL itself (there's a big difference to that diction). Parsley Man (talk) 03:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note, however, that there are serious journalists and significant analysts in Washington think tanks who do see the the ISIL/Hamas incitement to Ramadan jihad as causative. Here: [38], here: [39] and linkedin the article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:13, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I also understand that the 2015 Ramadan attacks article is of a similar nature to this article, but while the deletion discussion ruled that the article should indeed be kept, it was also mentioned that there was also "strong support for the article title being moved but no clear consensus on the target to be moved to", seemingly indicating (to me, at least) that the participants agreed to rename the article to avoid the Ramadan association. (I did not bother to read the whole discussion, though, so I'm not sure if they did indeed reach that agreement on that basis.) However, a renaming discussion has yet to begin on the article's talk page, as also dictated by the deletion discussion, so I'm not sure what happened there. Parsley Man (talk) 03:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning toward delete - Currently the list suffers from OR. The inclusion criteria are unclear: (1) is this a list of any attack during Ramadan (which it currently appears to be) or (2) a list of Islamist attacks deliberately committed during Ramadan for ideological reasons (what I think it's meant to be). If the latter, it would be hard to for sources to specify that detailed level of motive. Some of the current sources used simply list Islamist (or possible Islamist) attacks occurring during Ramadan. If the intent is for the former, then it's redundant with List of Islamist terrorist attacks. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:26, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to User:EvergreenFir, this is an article, not a list, about the decision by Hamas, ISIS (and possibly other groups) to promote Ramadan as a month especially appropriate for terror attacks and to both launch a density of such attacks during Ramadan and use social media to persuade unaffiliated sympathizers to launch lone-wolf terrorist attacks during Ramadan 2016 (as was done in 2015 on a smaller scale.) In enumerating the attacks, I included ONLY such attacks as were discussed by major media (CNN, New York Times, Al Jazeera, Times of Israel) as inspired or carried out by a jihadist organization (ISIS, Hamas) that had publicly and specifically announced a program of sponsoring and attempting to inspire Islamist attacks duirng Ramadan 2016.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They always inspires Islamist to carry out attacks not just in Ramadan. ISIS also promotes holiday season as appropriate for terror attacks. --Ferpalnum (talk) 15:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by the lede of this article, as well as the "Background" section, I'm pretty sure it's meant to be the latter. Parsley Man (talk) 05:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is different to last years' events, as this is just a WP:COATRACK of events that happen to have happened during this time, and are not really linked together. Same if it had been titled 2016 summer attacks, for example. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 05:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious problems with WP:OR and WP:COATRACK. As I've said at Talk:2016 Orlando nightclub shooting, "Sad to say, but barely a week goes by nowadays without violence by people who have been taught that killing civilians will make Allah so proud of them. Since this has been become a 52 week a year sport with no break, listing attacks that occurred during Ramadan is fallacious unless strong RS is available that the attackers were actually motivated by the fact that the calendar on the wall said "Ramadan".--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:28, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I agree with Ianmacm. Computationsaysno (talk) 06:49, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment please read all the comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 Ramadan attacks to understand previous issues last year. Key issues:
- The terrorist group Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant declared itself as "IS" in June 2014. The June 2015 terror attacks occurred one year after the group declaring itself a state.

A number of sources mention the anniversary of the terrorist "caliphate" declaration

heavy.com "New ISIS Video Celebrates 2 Year ‘Anniversary’ of Islamic State With Executions"

alalam.ir (note graphic - also Iranian state owned) ISIS Celebrates 2-Year Anniversary With Executions

vocativ article mentions anniversary
mirror.co.uk Istanbul Ataturk Airport terror attack comes on second anniversary of ISIS declaring Islamic State Caliphate - also foxnews.com mentions the date link.

ctc.usma.edu "Al-Adnani ratcheted up threats in an audiotape released in May calling for Islamic State fighters and followers to intensify their efforts to hit the West during the month of Ramadan, which starts three days before Euro 2016 and coincides almost exactly with the tournament.[14] Last year the Islamic State had told its followers they would receive 10 times the heavenly rewards for carrying out attacks during the Islamic holy month.[15]"

2015

spectator.co.uk blog "Islamic State marks ‘caliphate anniversary’ with multiple attacks"

bloomberg quote "Islamic State is preparing to mark the first anniversary on Monday of its self-declared caliphate in Iraq and Syria."
reuters "Islamic State calls for attacks on the West during Ramadan in audio message"
independent.co.uk Isis expected to carry out 'more violence, more advances, more attacks' as one year anniversary of Islamic State declaration approaches

2015 prediction

understandingwar.org prediction from hawkish Institute for the Study of War. PDF has says "ANNIVERSARY OF THE DECLARATION OF THE ISIS CALIPHATE" Note ibtimes churnalism

I'll try to look up more academic articles. At risk of a large shitfight, I'd propose merging this with the 2015 ramadan attacks article into something on ISIS anniversary attacks, mentioning both years. If this article gets nuked, I'd propose adding 1+ paragraph to the 2015 ramadan attacks article with mention of parallels to 2016. -- Callinus (talk) 08:25, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that most of the sourcing is saying only that the attacks occurred during Ramadan. This proves very little other than that the attacks occurred during Ramadan. The looney tunes who do this sort of thing are quite capable of doing it at other times of year; the 9/11 attacks did not occur during Ramadan, which was in November/December 2001.[40]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:34, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ianmacm: read the Institute for the Study of War article PDF - they make a specific prediction into the future that multiple, simultaneous attacks will be co-ordinated by one, specific terror group. The prediction came true. Hawkish security analysts note that the precursor of ISIS (specific organization) carried out more bombings with a greater death toll during Ramadan in previous years, and predicted that simultaneous attacks would be orchestrated. The observation by the analysts is not that specific terror groups are unable to carry out attacks at other times, but only that attacks increase during Ramadan - they were correct for 2015.

I'd support the removal of all non-ISIS stuff, with better sourcing pointing out that ISIS and its precursors have a history of attacks during Ramadan. -- Callinus (talk) 08:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Callinus note, however, that this year Hamas issued a very specific call for attacks during Ramadan, and there they are cited as originator of the idea of promoting Ramadan as an month of jihad. My personal preference would be to source that (the origin of this modernist perversion of what Ramadan has meant for the ~14 centuries form the Prophet up to the creation of modern Islamism,) and have a mother article on Islamism, Ramadan and jihad (or something similar) with daughter articles on 2015 Ramadan attacks and 2016 Ramadan attacks, in the prayerful hope that there will be no sources to support an article on 2017 Ramadan attacks.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:42, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

E.M.Gregory Hamas "are cited as originator of the idea of promoting Ramadan as an month of jihad" - That comes from Maajid's opinion piece in the Daily Beast, it would be better to have academic/secondary sources backing it up. -- Callinus (talk) 14:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; obviously. An example of why it necessary to give articles a chance to grow instead of rushing them to deletion. And of why AFD is argued according to what is available on a topic, not what is already on the page. Just imagine if editors put the time into expanding and sourcing articles on terrorism that is now put into attempting to delete them.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:25, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine it would give silly ideas that should have died earlier an air of credibility. No thanks. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ISIL is to some extent all mouth and no trousers, because they take credit for attacks even when they had nothing to do with them. There really does need to be strong RS before saying that an attack was caused by Ramadan when it is now happening practically every week. Otherwise, all it does is to pander to the "Islam is a violent religion" brigade.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ianmacm: I've made some changes to address the "caused by Ramadan" issue. I've taken the Kurdistan Freedom Falcons out, as they're an ethnic separatist group and no sourcing links them to Ramadan at all. "they take credit for attacks even when they had nothing to do with them" - yes that happened with Orlando.

I think the article is salvageable, if the terror attacks are listed by the group, and only includes groups that have stated support for attacks during Ramadan. -- Callinus (talk) 14:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Shortly before Ramadan 2016 began on 5 June, the leadership of Hamas and ISIL described Ramadan as a "month of jihad" and called on Muslims to carry out "jihad" attacks. The worldwide attacks and the official, Islamist calls for such attacks are sourced in this article to major media including the New York Times and Al Jazeera. The attacks themselves are a re-run of 2015 Ramadan attacks, but with more blood spilled this year than last. This AFD is a rerun of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 Ramadan attacks; with the added feature of editors aggressively blanking sections and removing sourced material and removing links to this page form other pages during the AFD process.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:01, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The reality is ISIS have killed more people before Ramadan[41] and they don't miss any opportunity to brainwash, motivate and call for attacks for example they called for attacks after Brexit, they called for attacks during summer and so on.--Ferpalnum (talk) 15:37, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment More sources in today's CNN article that should be added to the page: Spate of terror attacks as Ramadan draws to a close, [42].E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:08, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The source doesn't conclude what you're trying to establish. This is fact picking.Ferpalnum (talk) 14:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Caution to the several editors removing large swaths of sourced material: please be careful to preserve sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:49, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete SYNTH. What's next, Highway accidents in the United States over the Memorial Day weekend? I can find thousands of reliable sources that document it, so it must warrant an encyclopedia article, right? Oh, wait -- it wouldn't involve Muslims or terrorists. No place for it on Wikipedia. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 14:23, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete synth, coatrack, not your personal blog for canards, etc. Sepsis II (talk) 14:51, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article is based on original research and it is promoting propaganda of ISIS. Article's lead is based on fact picking of some sources. ISIS is delighted with Brexit and calls for attacks in Europe[43] so can we have 2016 Brexit attack? There are many sources on ISIS attack during summer in Europe. For example according to American Enterprise Institute think tank, As summer travel begins, ISIS calls for attacks in Europe and the US[44], [45], [46] and many more... So, should we have articles on 2016 Summer Attack? Ferpalnum (talk) 15:26, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, cautiously per E.M. Gregory's arguments. Someone should note, however, that the premise in the nominator's original comments that the article's title mentions nothing about ISIS even though the nominator makes several mentions of how ISIS isn't confirmed to be the source of all the terrorist attacks that have taken place this year during Ramadan. As the article title shows, the focus of the article isn't (nor should it be) ISIS, but the attacks performed as terrorism during Ramadan, 2016. I see synth being used as an argument by the nom as well, but invoking ISIS as part of his argument for deletion is synth, in my opinion. That in mind, the nomination argument for deletion is faulty from the get go as it puts focus on something the article title doesn't indicate.

Keep the article, keep synth out of it, stick to the facts, and keep the focus of the article on the title itself. Possible rename to 2016 Islamic terror attacks during Ramadan. Because, as it has been pointed out, at least one terror group did promise attacks would occur during Ramadan this year. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:02, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To rename the article in such a way is very redundant, since we already have a bunch of articles such as List of Islamist terrorist attacks, which do the job and organize it perfectly. What's next? 2016 Islamist terrorist attacks during Monday? Parsley Man (talk) 16:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Winkelvi: So if the terror group promises an attack during holiday season in Europe and if someone commit any attack during that time and pledge allegiance to ISIS then will you create a separate article for that? I think, this new article is not needed since there is already an article List of Islamist terrorist attacks. Ferpalnum (talk) 16:22, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to point out that the lede itself specifically refers to ISIL and a statement from its leader to "make it, with God's permission, a month of pain for infidels everywhere." Hence my mention of ISIL in my original comment. I also see that the lede also mentioned Hamas, which I didn't notice earlier. If it's an edit implemented after the deletion nomination, I don't know. Parsley Man (talk) 16:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I chose article name as a simple echo of 2015 Ramadan attacks, an article that has been stable for a year.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:46, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also note the tidbit I mentioned in my original comment that there was a consensus in the 2015 Ramadan attacks' deletion discussion to rename said article, but that no such discussion has started for some reason. I'm debating if I should start that now, since we're now talking about it. Parsley Man (talk) 16:57, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, there was such a rename discussion; it was closed as "no consensus." However, there was No consensus to rename at the AFD. What actually happened is that the closing editor wrote: "strong support for the article title being moved but no clear consensus on the target to be moved to." If you want to propose a new name, the appropriate place to do so is on the talk page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:19, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am aware the consensus was worded that way; look at my original comment. Parsley Man (talk) 17:37, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IMO 2015 Bloody Friday is more appropriate as a title for the 2015 Ramadan attack article. Ferpalnum (talk) 17:22, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See the discussion here: [47]. Closed, not renamed.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:55, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Said discussion was closed with no consensus. It's perfectly not inappropriate to start it up again. Said discussion also took place at the same time as the main article's deletion discussion. Parsley Man (talk) 18:23, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the fact that we already have a 2015 Ramadan attacks page and that many notable attacks have taken place during this month this year. If not kept, it should at least be merged with a corresponding article. Inter&anthro (talk) 17:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is better to rename 2015 Ramadan attacks to 2015 Bloody Friday per nom. Ferpalnum (talk) 17:16, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note You might want to read WP:OTHERSTUFF? Ferpalnum (talk) 16:08, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These attacks might be intentionally set to ocur in the Ramadan or not. That’s not the point. The series of attacks were notable enough to be in WP. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 17:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, they are notable per WP:GNG, but WP:CHERRY creates a false impression.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nedim Ardoğa: Yes those incidents are notable and there is already a list for this: List of Islamist terrorist attacks. Relating the attacks to Ramadan is Wikipedia:SYNT.Ferpalnum (talk) 12:12, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons pointed out by editor EvergreenFir and there are no strong evidences which suggest these attacks were intentionally set to occur during Ramadan. This article can be kept if the terrorist attacks occurred only in Ramadan but this is not the case here. The terror incidents should be kept and listed on List of Islamist terrorist attacks. Drikulaeri (talk) 18:39, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to List of Islamist terrorist attacks, unless a link is clearly established - I'm just not seeing it beyond speculation yet. ansh666 19:00, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Update because EM has apparently decided the outcome already, still not seeing anything. ansh 666 00:30, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fairly straightforward WP:SYNTH. An editor is not allowed to make a topic from disparate events absent reliable sources connecting those events. nableezy - 20:27, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except that NOTHING in the article is synthesized. Every statement is reliably sourced.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:19, 5 July 2016 (UTC)\[reply]

Im not sure if youre serious, but synthesis doesnt mean that each statement is not reliably sourced. Can you read WP:SYNTH and then if you respond to that Ill address your concern. nableezy - 16:45, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Nothing" is synthesized in the sense that both the assertion that there has been a deliberate series of Ramadan attacks is reliably sourced, and because each attack in the article is reliably sourced to news articles, analysts, or official sources that describe it either as specifically planned to take place during Ramadan 2016; or (as in Thailand) as part of an uptick in attacks during Ramadan 2016 (Thailand, specifically, has previously had negotiated Ramadan cease-fires); or as part of a Ramadan wave of attacks inspired by jihad organizations (ISIS, Hamas,) that issued public calls to Muslims urging them to kill infidels during Ramadan 2016 (thank heaven so few Muslims heed these calls - but the point here is that a handful did). It is not SYNTH because these linkages are not made by me or other WP editors, they are made by CNN, Time Magazine, the New York Times, Al Arabiya, etc.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Im sorry, but you dont seem to get the problem here. These are events that seem to have little to do with one another. Youre essentially saying any attack by a Muslim during Ramadan is connected. Hamas and ISIS arent even a little bit the same, the attack on a settlement in the West Bank and in Israel are part of another long running violent conflict, one that I think is obvious to most people goes back further than the start of Ramadan this year. You are combining multiple topics into one overarching one. That is synthesis. The NY Times piece about ISIS calling for attacks in Ramadan doesnt change that. nableezy - 00:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Both ISIS and Hamas are openly dedicated to the use of violent attacks on civilians to further the jihadist goal of imposing an Islamist future. Both organizations urged their followers to carry out attacks on infidels during Ramadan 2016.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:30, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

lol wut? If you say so. nableezy - 00:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just as they do during any other important or semi-important event? ansh 666 00:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The term "Ramadan attacks" itself is a WP:NEO. The article even lists attacks which has nothing to do with the Ramadan but occurred during June 2016. I have left messages for this on the article's talk page. Ferpalnum (talk) 17:45, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ramadan Attacks on Three Continents The Atlantic. new coinages happen. Even tragic ones.[48].E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting you to read WP:NEO again. This is another clear case of WP:CHERRY. The article only uses the title Ramadan Attacks on Three Continents but no where in the news it mention anything on Ramadan attacks. But it does mention that no clear indications yet that the attacks were coordinated. Ferpalnum (talk) 12:05, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As far as we all know, all attacks listed here did happened during the month of Ramadan whether if it was intentional by the attackers or not. Yes, the article does appear to be a WP:SYNTH, So I suggest that we can keep this article as an list of attacks occurred in Ramadan 2016. Ayub407^talk 21:08, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except that's too broad. It would have to be Islamist terrorist attacks during Ramadan 2016. But that inclusion criteria is questionable and redundant with List of Islamist terrorist attacks. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:26, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Arbitrary confluence of things that always happen with a month that often does. Besides, 2015 Halloween stabbings are sexier. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except, Hulk, your unsupported, non-policy-based opinion has no weight. Opinions like that of Fawaz Gerges published in the International Business Times are what counts in deciding what passed WP:GNG. Gerges says: "Al-Qaida, its various affiliates and now ISIS use Ramadan as a... marker to inspire and motivate their followers and supporters worldwide." [49]. E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then the article should be about the call for attacks itself, not a list of attacks that seems to run afoul of SYNTH. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget "mere". As I said there, I'm talking about stuff that happens, not stuff people say. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:32, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – From the NY Times,[50]

"Ramadan, a holy month for Muslims dedicated to fasting and prayer, has historically been a time when both Al Qaeda and now the Islamic State have escalated attacks."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 22:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then that should be something that can be noted in the Ramadan article, not demonstrated with this article. There is a "crime rates" section. We could merge all the necessary information there. Or we could probably start a brand-new section describing an apparent link to Ramadan and Islamic terrorism. My point is, we don't need a redundant article(s) like this one whose purpose is already technically fulfilled by the List of Islamist terrorist attacks article and sub-articles. Parsley Man (talk) 03:19, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that your argument is based on things that don't exist in Wikipedia and may not ever exist. You might try adding your proposals yourself, although you might encounter the same resistance over there that the present list is encountering here. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:56, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this is depressingly reminiscent of the 2015 "Bloody Friday" debate.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 01:04, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The key difference is that many sources connect those attacks, name it, and discuss the separate attacks as one event, in this case, no one connects these attacks or statements except for a wikipedia editor. Sepsis II (talk) 01:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Except for a wikipedia editor" and The New York Times and countless others (also this NYT article. -- Callinus (talk) 05:42, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cold comfort for the hundreds of families that lost loved ones the past month.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 04:44, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The mainstream media is not infallible, and if a person submitted an academic paper to a journal for review, based on the principle that "A occurred at the same time as B, therefore A was linked to B", it would be rejected on the grounds of Correlation does not imply causation. This is a common logical fallacy and an easy mistake to make, particularly in medical research. Simply listing attacks that occurred during Ramadan is misleading.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:53, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ianmacm please re-read the article in its current state. Note the 2016 Saudi Arabia bombings were carried out by ISIL. -- Callinus (talk) 06:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but someone still insists on adding the Orlando shooting despite the obvious problems with WP:SYNTH, WP:COATRACK and WP:CHERRY.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:13, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here is something that might be useful ISNA Sends Condolences to the Victims of Recent Attacks. The point is not that all these attacks because ISIS called for them, but that a large number of attacks occurred during Ramadan. It also notes that Muslims were as often the victims of these attacks as the perpetrators. What needs to be proved here is that the 2016 Ramadan attacks are a "thing" - a subject covered by RS. Personally, I do not feel that there are, as yet, enough references in RS to merit this article, but I'll keep an open mind.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 06:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I should be merged with 2016 Saudi Arabia bombings.
Agastya Chandrakant (talk) 10:24, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Ramadan timing of these attacks have been widely noted in the media. I think it gives fair ground for notability.--Vaza12 (talk) 10:34, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is WP:CHERRY from sources. If there are attacks during holiday season as media mention[51] will you create a 2016 Holiday attacks article? Ferpalnum (talk) 12:09, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Ramadan is not in any way a holiday season. And going by reliable sources is not cherry picking.--Vaza12 (talk) 15:23, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that articles about themed clusters of attacks are standard practice here: 2000 millennium attack plots; 2015 New Year's attack plots; Rizal Day bombings; 1919 United States anarchist bombings. Same as other themed clusters of events: 2015 May Day protests, and the 15 other articles in the Category:May Day protests.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - 2016 Ramadan attacks lists attacks with sources which do not even mention the word 'Ramadan'. Ferpalnum (talk) 12:22, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Ferpalnum (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. . He exhibits a highly unusual editing pattern for a new editor, Also, he just removed [52] an spa tag I flagged one of his comments above with.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

E.M.Gregory should assume good faith. He has accused me of being a sockpuppet, which simply isn't true. The statement that "Ferpalnum has made few or no other edits outside this topic" isn't really accurate either. There needs to be very good evidence before accusing a person of being a sockpuppet, or of acting in bad faith.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory: please stop tagging me as SPA. which I am not. You have a message on my talk page. If you are running socks then this doesn't mean others are doing the same. Ferpalnum (talk) 14:42, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your first edit [53] was on July 2.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And have you checked when I opened my account as well? Read WP:SPATG again and keep your personal attacks within talk page as this is an AFD discussion for a particular article. Ferpalnum (talk) 16:14, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Summing up: I created this article with solid sourcing, prompted by a 3 July article in the New York Times ISIS Uses Ramadan as Calling for New Terrorist Attacks [54]. Although I have continued to build the article, other editors have brought it to the point where it passes not only WP:GNG but also WP:HEY. The most cogent of the objections raised above (ignoring those of the IDONTLIKE IT type) argue for a merger into the List of Islamist terror attacks, on the grounds that insufficient "linkage" of these attacks exists. While it is difficult to know what would completely satisfy this demand, short of a signed affidavit from Abu Muhammad al-Adnani, it is in fact sufficient that there were announced intentions by major Islamist terrorist organizations to make this a bloody Ramadan, and there is solid evidence that terror attacks were both inspired by and carried out by jihadist Islamist organizations. Moreover, while my WP:CRYSTAL ball informs me scholarly discussion is likely to follow this memorably bloody Ramadan, and the 2015 Ramadan attacks, scholarly sources are not strictly necessary: RS are - and we have them. Current events articles are necessarily begun while an event is current, scholarly analysis follows. It is now over 24 hours since the last delete iVote was cast. That is probably due to the horrific fact that "the Muslim holy month of Ramadan came to an especially bloody conclusion." [55] AP report published by ABC News, tragically validating this article. In the prayerful hope of a better year to come, and with kudos to the several editors who continue to upgrade and improve the article, most notable User:Callinus, I urge any editor with sincere doubts about the notability of this topic to click on a few of the sources now in the article - starting at the top of the references section.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:51, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:SYNTH per Nableezy. E.M.Gregory did not adequately address this complaint. I looked at the article. The Hamas section is totally composed of WP:OR connecting statements by Hamas with events that, in the reportage, have not been shown to be Hamas operations. Is there any proof that this Ramadan witnessed an upswing in such attacks, which are as regular throughout the year as the attacks described here?( Israeli defense force shootings of civilians in the West Bank) Nishidani (talk) 09:18, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to Newsweek [56], there has been an increase this Ramadan.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:12, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes,a worldwide uptick during Ramadan (a month) is sourced to a slight uptick at the end of Ramadan in one small area of the world covered, over 3 days, and one of the incidents in the 3 has, today, been dismissed as an Israeli extrajudicial killing of a pregnant woman. There was no one in the room when she was shot from the door, according to the video. Your report came out before this independent item.Nishidani (talk) 10:18, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Never read the headlines. Body says "Stabbing, shooting and car-ramming attacks by Palestinians against Israelis have been ever-present since a wave of violence began in October 2015", which only "somewhat calmed" for an unspecified period. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:27, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The simplest neutral way to get all this information in is to drop the hysterical anti-Arab/Islamic profiling in dozens of numerous articles, and just note them in a list, as is being done from 2015 for just one area (Palestine/Israel) at List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, January–June 2015 through to now. Everyone can see the context, every entry is neutral, both sides are covered, and NPOV is observed.Nishidani (talk) 10:46, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Seems Moore's "somewhat calmed" bit was somewhat imaginary. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:06, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You know who really tend to go kill-crazy in the summer then lay dormant in sleeper cells? Fucking bears, man. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:05, 6 July 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Delete: This article seems like a very large WP:SYNTH and also not needed. Ramadan is roughly June and July? You can go to List of terrorist incidents, January–June 2016 or July–December 2016 and see for yourself. I don't see how this article develop into a good article, this is just a manifest to violent Islamism and shows attacks with absolutely no connection to each other as parallels.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 10:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
reality check Muslims are outraged [57] not only by the attacks, but by the lack of attention paid to them by Westerners "After Attacks on Muslims, Many Ask: Where Is the Outpouring?" [58]. Moreover, coverage [59], treats [60] these [61] attacks [62] as [63] a [64] cluster[65] targeting [66] Ramadan [67].E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:14, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, some of your sources are not RS. A section of Muslims outraged because ISIS attacking in the name of their religion while killing more Muslims. ISIS attacked their holy place Medina so some Muslims are trying to defend their religion and calling ISIS as non-Islamic. A section of people (both Muslims and non-Muslims) in Muslim majority country think there should be more global outrage such as according to Michel Kilo, a Christian in Syria “All this crazy violence has a goal, to create a backlash against Muslims, divide societies and make Sunnis feel that no matter what happens, they don’t have any other option.” Similarly, Razan Hasan of Baghdad posted Why isn’t #PrayForIraq trending?. Similarly Muslims were outraged when according to them media didn't cover their anti-isis march in London.[68],[69],[70] etc. Now, what is the significance of these with the article in question? Ferpalnum (talk) 14:46, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hubbard, Ben (3 July 2016). "ISIS Uses Ramadan as Calling for New Terrorist Attacks". New York Times. Retrieved 3 July 2016.

"ISIS FORECAST: RAMADAN 2016" (PDF). Institute for the Study of War. May 2016.

Ibrahim, Ayman. "For ISIS, a competing vision of Ramadan as a month of conquest and jihad". RNS. Retrieved 4 July 2016.

Bergen, Peter (3 July 2016). "ISIS' Ramadan terror campaign". CNN. Retrieved 3 July 2016.

Cruickshank, Paul (13 June 2016). "Orlando shooting follows ISIS call for U.S. Ramadan attacks". CNN. Retrieved 3 July 2016.

Naawaz, Maajid (2 July 2016). "From Orlando to Bangladesh, A Blood-Soaked Ramadan". The Daily Beast. Retrieved 3 July 2016.

Newbauer, Sigurd (4 July 2016). "Has Ramadan 2016 been one of the bloodiest in modern history?". Al Arabiya. Retrieved 4 July 2016.

"One Year of Islamic State 'Caliphate': How will Isis Mark First 'Anniversary' This Ramadan?".

"Ramadan Bombings in Yemen: Part of ISIS's Global Strategy? - Critical Threats".

Keating, Fiona (4 July 2016). "Isis Eid onslaught: Spate of attacks aimed at inflicting a 'month of pain for infidels; Islamic State is using Ramadan as a symbolic marker to inspire and motivate their followers to launch deadly strikes". International Business Times. Retrieved 5 July 2016.

Maher, Shiraz (5 July 2016). "Why so-called Islamic State chooses to bomb during Ramadan". BBC. Retrieved 5 July 2016.

Chafets, Zev (14 June 2016). "Ramadan and the terror threat". Fox News. Retrieved 4 July 2016.

Taylor, Adam (26 June 2016). "Ramadan had brought fears of new Islamic State attacks". Washington Post. Retrieved 4 July 2016.

"A look at bloody attacks around the world this Ramadan". Fox News. Associated Press. 6 July 2016. Retrieved 6 July 2016.

"More than 100 killed in Baghdad Ramadan bombings". CBS News.

"Kuwait 'foils ISIL attack plot' during Ramadan". Al Jazeera. 4 July 2016. Retrieved 4 July 2016.

"On eve of Tel Aviv terror attack, Hamas called Ramadan 'month of jihad'". Times of Israel. 12 June 2016. Retrieved 4 July 2016.

Moore, Jack (1 July 2016). "Uptick in Stabbing Attacks by Palestinians as End of Ramadan Nears". Newsweek. Retrieved 3 July 2016.

"2 terrorists kill 4 in Tel Aviv; Hamas vows more Ramadan attacks". Times of Israel. 8 June 2016. Retrieved 3 July 2016.

Gross, Judah (1 July 2016). "Jerusalem police on alert for final Friday of Ramadan". Times of Israel. Retrieved 5 July 2016.

Iyengar, Rishi (5 July 2016). "Latest in the Spate of Worldwide Ramadan Attacks: Thailand". Time magazine. Retrieved 5 July 2016.

"Series of bombings in south Thailand mark Ramadan end". AsiaOne. 5 July 2016. Retrieved 5 July 2016.

"Attack on holy city of Medina appalls Muslims amid Ramadan violence". AP/CNN.

"Ramadan attacks show evil nature of Islamic State, says Shanmugam". Today/Mediacorp Press Ltd.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 15:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as obvious synth. Bob K31416, please refrain from dropping every single possible news article in here that says there were attacks during Ramadan. That there were doesn't prove there is such a thing as Ramadan attacks in any meaningful way, and you're kind of cluttering up the page here. BTW, as long as we're following the 24-hour news cycle instead of writing less...flexible text on less recent subject, we're going to have these kinds of timesinks. All the time. Drmies (talk) 16:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not "obvious" SYNTH to describe the Ramadan attacks as a group when reliable sources so describe them. It is, however, somewhat condescending for Anglophones to describe as SYNTH a phenomenon that Muslims [71] view as a coherent [72] event [73]. User:Bob K31416's links make a strong case that it is not SYNTH at all. E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:30, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is, and the sources describe them as taking place during Ramadan. That doesn't mean that somehow they had to happen during Ramadan or that they were coordinated during Ramadan. And don't get me started on this condescension remark, which pits Anglophones against Muslims in one of the most curious pairings I've ever seen (outside of the worldview of some places on the internet where Anglophone = white = Christian = good = not Muslim). Drmies (talk) 16:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, Please give the excerpt from WP:SYNTH that you are using and show how it applies to any point that you may be making. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:05, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Look up for the arguments made by User:EvergreenFir, User:Nableezy, User:Ansh666, and others. You're connecting things that do not obviously or explicitly have a connection other than their date. Terrorist attacks happen. More happened during Ramadan, maybe. No proof of plan or connection. Drmies (talk) 17:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that you refuse to give the excerpt from WP:SYNTH that you are using and show how it applies, your claims don't carry much weight. However, I still suggest that you comply with my request so that we can work together to settle this according to Wikipedia policy. Thanks again. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seconding User:Bob K31416's request for editors claiming WP:SYNTH to bring specific instances of alleged SYNTH either here or to the article's talk page. From my perspective, the difficulty with the claim is "Ramadan attacks" as described in the lede are sourced in the body of the text to reliable media. See today's news,"What's behind Ramadan terror attacks?" [74] and, "Ramadan attacks point to Isis’s deadly reach" [75].E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:43, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you really need manners and clue. Bob K31416, it's your patronizing comments that take away from any policy-based argument you might be making, but if you insist, it's pretty much the first sentence of the policy, and then the rest. If you refuse to build an argument of your own, if all you do--besides badgering--is list things where your search terms are connected, that's all you. But, E.M. Gregory, kindly explain that the last headline, for instance, belongs to an article that includes all the attacks you've collected in your synthy article; moreover, kindly prove to me that it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, in reliable, well-researched sources--not today's headline--that we shouldn't call your article 2016 Terrorist attacks dubbed Ramadan attacks in the news even without proof that all of them are essentially connected. Drmies (talk) 20:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article follows the many reliable sources it cites, including multiple, reliable sources describing the parallel paths and inter-related ideologies by which violent Islamist groups in widely-separated parts of the world that have not only argued that Ramadan is a month designated by God for violent attacks, urged such attacks, and directed such attacks.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:18, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies, Here's the WP:SYNTH first sentence that you referred to, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."

Please give an excerpt from the 2016 Ramadan attacks article and explain how it does not comply with this sentence. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, People need to know from an unbiased source what is or is not going on, there is nothing vile or offensive here unless you are a leftist activist, Muslim or ISIS / ISIL supporter. Many people seam to prefer to keep the negatives hidden. Deletion smacks LOUDLY of censorship. TayFam (talk) 23:12, 6 July 2016 (UTC) — TayFam (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Wait, I always thought a Muslim was wayyy worse than being a leftist. Like, omg, how can you even put the two in the same sentence? nableezy - 01:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy: Got that beat. I've been called a Conservative Leftist Muslim Jew! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:07, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's NOTHING, EvergreenFir. GorillaWarfare and I are Lesbian Feminist Jewish Gatekeepers. I think--I may have forgotten a Bad Name. Drmies (talk) 21:08, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: No, we are paid lesbian Jewish gatekeepers. Not feminists. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:30, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per the sources, from The Washington Post, July 5, 2016 - coordinated campaign of worldwide bombings coinciding with the Muslim holy month of Ramadan - This has turned into the most blood-soaked Ramadan yet in the Islamic State's campaign. At least 290 people have been killed in attacks claimed by or linked to the Islamic State - at Istanbul Ataturk Airport, at a restaurant frequented by foreigners in the Bangladeshi capital, Dhaka, and in Baghdad.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 14:24, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is appeared to be a coordinated campaign of worldwide bombings coinciding with the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. Attacks coinciding with Ramadan or Eid al-Fitr do not justify the title. Better title can be 2016 Terrorist attacks coinciding with Ramadan.Ferpalnum (talk) 15:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as continuation to 2015 Ramadan attacks -Varmapak ^(talk) 15:43, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note also 2006 Ramadan Offensive and Ramadan Offensive.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of battles fought during Ramadan by Muslims also exists. I just prodded it, as a prime example of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note You might want to read WP:OTHERSTUFF? Ferpalnum (talk) 18:31, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note impact: Interior Minister or Iraq forced to resign In a deadly Ramadan, ISIS terrorism exposes the failures of others, [76].E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:33, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't people tire of this POV-pushing farce via language manipulation to get at another religion, as usual Islam? Or is is that editors are so anaesthetized to the spin of the Western press they just miss it? The way E.M. Gregory is pushing, it's like a covey of editors noting that names for many Israeli war operations are drawn from biblical imagery, and therefore some idiot might feel entitled to push for renaming Gaza War (2008–09) which was named to celebrate the Jewish festival of Hanukkah that coincided with it, as the Hanukkah War ( See Ethan Perlson, 'Why Israel Named Its Gaza War After a Hanukkah Poem,' Daily Beast 30 December 2008)) It's quite disgraceful to observe how this subtle, slow creep of Islamophobia is being stuck into a range of articles by the usual POV Islam =violence editor. Nishidani (talk) 20:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Why does this have a separate article? The bombings are listed in several articles like List of terrorist incidents, January–June 2016, List of Islamist terrorist attacks,... In this article we have two extra things than the list, which is the lead and background, which are almost identical. This article serves no purpose, anything new in it could be summarized in a paragraph that could be added to other major articles. I'd also nominate 2015 Ramadan attacks and any other similar articles. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:49, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

-One reason this article exists is because of the topic's notability, as demonstrated by the number of reliable sources. Various editors have presented such sources here and in the article. See for example my message of 15:26, 6 July 2016 above.

-The lists in your message don't mention Ramadan, except for a mention in one incident in the first list. (This can be checked by using the edit-find feature of a browser.) They also didn't contain information about the general aspects of the 2016 Ramadan attacks.

-I checked the article 2016 Ramadan attacks for the remark in your message about the lead and background being nearly identical and it wasn't true.

-Regarding purpose, this article is a place for a consolidated source of information for the 2016 Ramadan attacks that includes a discussion of aspects of some of the attacks taken together.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 22:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't mention Ramadan? We can simply add a paragraph and make it mention Ramadan. Tell me whats the difference between the lead and the background section? They both are just quoting connections and opinions by people, its the same content, its just more elaborated. More elaborated in a way that gives it undue weight to be in an separate article. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:05, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as synthesis and unnecessary (redundant to other articles). Blatant POV-pushing. --NSH001 (talk) 10:37, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why this is "redundant to" rather than useful and similar to 2015 Ramadan attacks, 2006 Ramadan Offensive and 2003 Ramadan Offensive.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:20, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Ramadan attacks title is inappropriate and should be moved to 2015 Bloody Friday. 2003 Ramadan Offensive also seem problematic and lacks sources to address why it should be called Ramadan offensive. Is this name given by the insurgents or coalition forces? Ferpalnum (talk) 14:57, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ferpalnum, The easiest way to resolve any doubts you have about the 2003 Ramadan Offensive is to google it [77]. Sources exist, although the page is inadequately sourced. An inadequate WP page; What else is new?E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:28, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A haphazard collection of random attacks with no underpinning admission from ISIS/ISIL of any involvement. WWGB (talk) 12:11, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some recent changes to remove some material. I'll make a further comment. -- Callinus (talk) 16:58, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article under consideration is 2016 Ramadan attacks. The connection with Ramadan is made by the reliable sources that have been presented by various editors in this discussion and in the article. See for example my message of 15:26, 6 July 2016 above. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The connection is that they happened in Ramadan. Ramadan this year largely corresponded with June. The article might as well be titled June 2016 attacks. The problem with this article, and with so many articles created with the same motivation, is that it uses a reporting piece as though it were measured analysis. And from that it seeks to make the most tenuous connection between entirely unrelated events based on single lines in news reports. Do you actually think there is any connection at all between a stabbing in an Israeli settlement in the West Bank with a bombing at an airport in Istanbul with a shooting of a club in Orlando? I mean besides the connection of Muslim and Ramadan? Its a completely arbitrary grouping of attacks, making connections that simply arent there (the response on Hamas and ISIS above was particularly absurd and deserves special recognition). Yall combining military attacks by an actual definable group of people (ISIS attacks on Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon) with "ISIS-inspired" attacks by people who have no connection to each other other than a website they both may have visited in the last year (France, Orlando) with attacks praised by militant groups such as Hamas (Tel Aviv wasnt carried out by Hamas, but because they praised it that means what exactly?) with bombings that are said to have "unclear motivations"? If it's unclear why exactly is it in an article that yall claim shows a connection between events? Or is it that the connection is the more obvious Muslim+Ramadan+violence? I for the life of me cant even understand the point of making articles like this. Each of these attacks merits and has its own article. Why exactly must there be some connection, real or imagined, also be covered in a separate article? otherwise you may as well start 2016 Shawwal attacks. Actually, if were going to start using the Islamic calendar for arbitrary dating of events, we should probably rename this to 1437 Ramadan attacks, anno hijra and all that. nableezy - 18:20, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your assertion of "motivation" is an inappropriate , personal attack.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:54, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Far from being based on single lines in news reports, the article is founded on analysis and in-depth reporting (i.e. - not only in breaking news reports) by security analysts and journalists who focus on militant Islamism and who (like the series of Wikipedia pages on jihadist attacks during Ramadan since the rise of the modern Islamist movement) trace not only the background, ideology and Islamist logic of using Ramadan as the occasion for both motivating lone wolves to commit violent attacks, but also specifically connect the attacks grouped on this page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:54, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article should have been tagged as a current event; Ramadan only just came to an end, after the deletion was proposed. There is considerable coverage that Ramadan was expressly targeted this year. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:36, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Textbook case of SYNTH, as others have carefully argued above. It is hardly better than an article called "Terrorist attacks that occurred on Tuesdays". Zero^talk 02:59, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:SYNTH, which does not refer to ideas well-supported by analysts and major media. *Note that the several editors asserting SYNTH fail to engage the sourcing on the page, sourcing like this Time (magazine) retrospective look at Ramadan 2016, These 5 Facts Explain ISIS’s Ramadan of Terror [78].E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:51, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the article linked and tell us how it links a nightclub in Florida with a settlement in the West Bank. nableezy - 00:28, 11 July 2016 (UTC)'[reply]

This article discusses both lone wolf attacks reliably sourced as attacks inspired by Islamist ideas and propaganda, and attacks carried out by minions of militant Islamist organizations (ISIS, Hamas, Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen, etc.). It looks perfectly clear to me. And not different from the way Wikipedia handles violent militant movement from other eras (fin de siecle anarchists, the IRA, etc.).E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:42, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please quote what from the article connects a nightclub in Florida to an Israeli settlement in the West Bank to a bombing in Indonesia to whatever else you have cobbled together in your synthesized topic. Saying [i]t looks perfectly clear to me is a subtle admission that no such linkage occurs, and SYNTH is very much relevant here, despite your repeated insistence that it is not. nableezy - 00:45, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, What "looks perfectly clear to me" is the strong sourcing now in this article for the connection among these Ramadan attacks. Issues you may want to raise about what is in other WP articles are not relevant to the quesiton at issue here: the notability of this topic.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I dont believe I raised anything about any other WP article, thank you very much. I was commenting on your completely made up point about the Time piece supposedly making this article not SYNTH. It does not connect the topics you claim it does, and like so many of your comments here that was blatantly dishonest for you to claim that it does while attempting to dismiss a valid point. nableezy - 15:18, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Each of these attacks already has its own article, and all are listed in the List of non-state terrorist incidents and List of Islamist terrorist attacks. There's no need to duplicate material just to highlight those attacks committed during Ramadan, especially since they have little in common and the link of each attack to Ramadan is often controversial and disputed. From the oft-cited NYT article: "terrorism researchers caution that attacks happen year-round and that there is little systematic evidence that they become more common during Ramadan. And it is almost impossible to tell what role the month plays in the thinking of individual attackers. […] The recent spate of attacks could be less about Ramadan than about the Islamic State’s desire to project strength as it loses territory." Nykterinos (talk) 22:26, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is patently untrue that "Each of these attacks already has its own article," a statement that could not be made by anyone who has read the article. Or even skimmed it. This, along with the text and sourcing in the lede and "Background" sections makes me regard Nykterinos' opinion as mere IDONTLIKEIT..E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:52, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But it is true that you randomly added Islamist attacks that took place between June-July as per Gregorian calendar or Ramadan as per Islamic calender. List includes attack where perpetrator is either disputed or unverified. For example, 2016 Gulshan attack claimed by ISIS and 2016 Saudi Arabia bombings not claimed by ISIS.Ferpalnum (talk) 16:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Do delete this article as it wrongfully displays Islam and is bad for Islam's image.

Islam is a protected religien. Delete now thank you alhamdulliah. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.247.77.176 (talk) 21:55, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Allahu akbar. This is kufr my brother, Ramdadan is holy month, not murder month. Months to kill enemies are not Ramadan. 188.247.77.176 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:59, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

I doubt you're a Muslim which you're pretending to be. Anyway, please read the Wikipedia guidelines on your talk page[79]. Ferpalnum (talk) 16:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

E.M. Gregory has created a large number of pages highlighting, as soon as an incident occurs even before WP:NOTABILITY has been established, the putative connection between 'Arabs', esp. Palestinians, terrorism and Islam.Nishidani (talk) 09:41, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have created pages on many topics on WP (over 200 in my ~2 years of editing). Of those article on attacks that I created, a handful have been deleted. The record is transparent, but do note that some articles marked as "deleted" by WP's automatic system in my "articles created" account were in fact merged or deleted by me before other editors ever saw them - meaning that I was live editing and decided that the sources did not, in fact, support an article.

I'm not talking only of the deleted attempts. By all means create an article every few days (simple mathematics), but it is noticeable that they are often rushed - suffice it for a newspaper to report an incident of this type and you gallop to create a page - phobically focused on Arabs and Islamic terrorism, with strings of synthesis. You get round the Notability by citing a dozen news outlets that all play variations on the primary Reuters-Associated Press reports.Nishidani (talk) 16:33, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This personal attack is not only highly inappropriate, it is flatly untrue. Early in my editing (after a rough start) I learned to be extremely careful to source articles I create to multiple, signed articles in mainstream media. If I can't find that sort of material, I do not write a current event article. I do not use multiple versions of wire service reports. Creating articles about major, breaking news events such as the Amman shooting attack, 2015 Abha mosque bombing, or the Chris Murphy gun control filibuster is not only perfectly legitimate, it is highly functional since when a story is in the news, multiple editors will see the article and improve it by revising, reviewing, sourceing and expanding. i.e.: this is a good way to build good articles. I also regularly create articles on other new stuff, including hot museum exhibitions Killer Heels; books that have not even been published yet (The Life You Want) and museums that have not yet opened Museum of the American Arts and Crafts Movement. Things do not have to be old to be notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Believe it or not, some of the articles E.M. has created are completely devoid of the Arab/Islamic terrorism angle. In one example, he created the Chris Murphy gun control filibuster, which I will admit was a pretty good move on his part. That has since evolved into a pretty integral article in the post-2016 Orlando nightclub shooting field. While I'd say he does have a particular focus on Islamic terrorism, I'd add it's not as strong as one might think. Parsley Man (talk) 18:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know that- I watch the I/P area. If everyone followed his example, instead of trying to exercised restraint until the news cycle had established notability, you'd have 5 articles a week created there on what the Israeli army is doing every day and night.Nishidani (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note Here [80] is a post-Ramadan analysis from Newsweek . "A Bloody Ramadan Proves Success of ISIS’s Deadly Message," that may be useful to editors coming fresh to this topic.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That doesnt make attacks during Ramadan a topic of its own, and it certainly doesnt connect most of whats covered in the article. nableezy - 20:25, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Newspapers are not written by historians. There is a silly article cited in the lead about whether this is the bloodiest Ramadan in history.ISIS-Ramadan attacks can only be measured for 3 years. The Yom Kippur War known as the Ramadan War occasioned far greatest losses, as did the Iran-Iraq War in which neither Islamic side held fire over the ensuing 8 Ramadans. On a rough calculation in the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, as a ceasefire was ending, Egypt attacked in the south and Israel conducted a large-scale offensive on 3e fronts at the beginning of Ramadan in 1948. That's why one shouldn't use the pseudo-historical garbage of instant reporting to create encyclopedic articles.Nishidani (talk) 20:34, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, definitely. Although brand-new here, I just happened to come across this article, and I strongly feel that this is just far to noteable and important to be removed. Perhaps some heavy copyediting or even a complete re-write would be the best options. Oh say can you see, by the dawn's early light 20:13, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— The United States of America is the best (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete the only possible relevance to Wikipedia would be using this page as an example of WP:SYN. --Vituzzu (talk) 21:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:SYNTH, which does not refer to articles summarizing ideas put forward by analysts and major media.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:48, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Many of the reliable sources shown here show how this is a phenomenon that is discrete and not just WP:SYNTH. Given that many reliable sources have refered to it as a grouping and a thing in itself, having an article makes sense. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:49, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete instead as not only is there is a rather clear consensus for this, but I too am seeing questionability for a solidly convincing article at this time; there's information and sources but I'm currently still not sure if it's enough for its own article.
Delete per Nableezy. Original research and redundant to other articles. It is evident from above arguments that the article is WP:SYNTH. Luke J.^talk 15:32, 12 July 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. This "delete" close is specifically:

Without prejudice to draftspacing to Draft:Croptracker; there are some sources and a lot of confusion that make it difficult for AfD commenters to really discuss the notability of the subject itself, so extensive cleanup and research will be required before the topic can be properly evaluted
If someone writes an article about the parent company (probably at Dragonfly (software developer), the Croptracker title can be recreated as a redirect (and have its history restored underneath)

Either of these can be requested at WP:REFUND or to me directly. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Croptracker

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

Has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. Also, this seems to be an attempt to use Wikipedia for promotion. It appears the original author is a red-linked SPA having only authored this article. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:14, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Like all similar articles, the probability of it being an SPA promoting their product is high. But that is not reason to delete the article.

The "further reading" link to Niagara This Week looks fine, but it would be better to have another source. I could find a few scattered across the web but nothing really high-quality. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:56, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It really does not meet the notability bar on Wikipedia per GNG and WP:PSTS. Also, can you please sign you User Name (this is part of the process). Steve Quinn (talk) 03:16, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Niagara This Week article (here) is (I think) an independent, secondary, reliable source dealing with the subject in detail. If you do not agree, please say why exactly rather than "does not pass GNG". This being said, WP:GNG requires sources, hence the "weak" qualifier in my !vote. And sorry about the lack of signature. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:01, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree with Tigraan that the source is good. This makes it plausible that more sources can be found given some time because we have no deadline. DeVerm (talk) 00:19, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tigraan: and @DeVerm: If you think it is possible to find other sources then please do so. Otherwise this topic remains not notable per Wikipedia standards. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball - see WP:CRYSTAL. This means the topic has to be notable in the present for the topic to remain on Wikipedia.

The source mentioned above is a local-regional publication. This seems to indicate "Croptracker" doesn't have national or international prominence at this time, and nothing noteworthy has taken place. Look at the software produced by Microsoft or Apple Inc. These have caused societal and cultural shifts - that is noteworthiness per WP:GNG and WP:ORG.

The article itself, in "Niagara This Week" is merely an announcement - a press release - issued by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture about a software management tool and the award. The Ministry is also likely saying it is doing its job through this announcement and other announcements. Press announcements are not considered to be independent sources; see WP:ORGIND. It can be seen that this is a press release because there is no journalistic reporting here, such as would happen in a major Canadian or American newspaper (the Toronto Star, The Globe and Mail), mainly because it is an announcement. In other words, there is no editorial integrity involved in that the story wasn't reported by a journalist and then vetted by his or her editors.

It is really lacking as a source. Other sources - such as with journalistic integrity - are needed. In other words, I can see adding this source with others that are considered reliable sources see WP:RS. I am sorry about using these "links" to policies and guidelines - it is just that it helps me to back up what I am saying. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:45, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As an afterthought (or a suggestion), if one of you or someone else wishes to "userfy" WP:USERFY this page they may do so. This means ending this AfD by agreeing to officially move the "Croptracker" article to a subpage in an editors user space. I would be willing to withdraw my nomination for deletion if someone does this. Please just say so here first. This would give anyone concerned as much time as desired to find notable sources. Who knows this program might rock the world in a few years or more. No one can tell that. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:52, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Steve Quinn: Neither Tigraan nor me has offered to adopt this article so please refrain in your attempts to have us userfy it. I try to keep all the guideline links away but it seems that when I use normal English, it doesn't count. I will therefore put one link forward to check upon and that is the essay WP:DEADLINE#View two: Don't rush to delete articles and please note the word "potential" in there which clearly supports my !vote as well as Tigraan's. We apparently do not share your opinion on the source and find it notable. Also, my search came up with International hits as well. I prefer to give this new article time to establish itself because I see the potential and there is no deadline like I mentioned in my !vote. DeVerm (talk) 13:22, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DeVerm: I had no intention of userfying this article. I was merely asking if that is what you wish to do. I was giving you an option - and it is an option that you are not interested in - and I have no problem with this.

Also, at this AfD, this is the first time I have heard of "potentially notable" or "potential notoriety" as an argument for "keep". Additonally, you seem to be deriving this view by linking to the view of an essay at WP:DEADLINE#View two: Don't rush to delete articles.

In regard to that view, it is nice to say there is no deadline and think of it this way in the abstract. However, realistically Wikipedia does not participate in fortelling the future WP:CRYSTAL and it is not a repository for everything WP:NOTEVERYTHING and it is not a platform for promoting a product or endorsing a product WP:SOAPBOX. A topic covered on Wikipedia is supposed to be notable in the present, when it is posted on this project, as a stand-alone topic or article.

If you have discovered "international hits" that are sources please post them to buttress your argument. As I have shown, the "Niagara this Week" article does not seem to qualify as a reliable source WP:RS. According to WP:GNG, "reliable" means sources need to have editorial integrity, which I discussed above. Also, the requirement for notability is significant coverage (the primary subject) by multiple (or various) reliable sources. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 17:10, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Steve but I can't help it that this is the first time that you heard of the essay that I linked which mentions the potential of new articles. Essays are not guidelines but they are also not opposing guidelines. Are you suggesting that you would want me to ignore it and change my vote? That is not how this works, you would have to bring arguments that lead to changing the essay because it is wrong and that would change my point of view. Repeating your list of links that support your delete vote does not work for me so much. DeVerm (talk) 22:31, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deverm, I hope you will refrain from saying that I am suggesting something that I did not suggest. I never suggested that you change your Ivote, so please drop the rhetoric that seems to describe something I did not say or suggest. I am not interested in you changing your Ivote and I am not interested in changing that essay or any other. Also, I never said the essay was wrong, right, correct, or incorrect. So, please stop reading into what I am saying. I'm not interested in "correcting" or "changing" your point of view either. That is not why I am here. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 02:32, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, regarding my post to which you refer, there was very little repetition in the links that I used. I added a couple more, and I expressed something different when using the others. I'm just trying to be clear. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:41, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Steve you misread my comment. I did not say that you suggest something; I asked if you were suggesting something. The reason that I asked this is because you seem to suggest that the essay viewpoint is "abstract" and "not realistic", followed by your arguments for deleting the article. It just seemed that you were trying to convince me that the essay is flawed. DeVerm (talk) 03:27, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability established by cited sources. The Govenment sources cited are AFAIK independent and reliable. ~Kvng (talk) 14:35, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm rather concerned about being unable to identify the product. All three refs given refer to "Fruit Tracker", not "CropTracker" (although perhaps they are the same thing) and the Gov't of Canada ref is a project proposal with results, the next to last sentence of which is "An additional deliverable of this project was the inclusion of grape crop into the Fruit Tracker tool, a record keeping software previously developed for apples and berries." That's clearly not going to make the cut for significant coverage. OMAFRA was also pushing the product, so it's not an NPOV source. That leaves only one acceptable source, and without the ability to determine with certainty if that is actually the product the article is about, one source is not going to meet GNG. MSJapan (talk) 01:37, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is interesting. I somehow missed this - that now we are talking about two different products, one of which may not exist, i.e. "Croptracker". I have to wonder if this is intentional. Even more confusing: One of the opening lines in our "Croptracker" article claims that this "software"..." won a Premier’s Award for Agri-Food Innovation Excellence in 2007" and cites a source. The source [81] claims that "Fruit Tracker" won this 2007 award.

However, according to Premier's Award page, in 2007 it was "William Nightingale, of B & C Nightingale Farms" [82] who won the award - and not "Croptracker" or "Fruitracker". How did Mr. Nightingale win this award?

William Nightingale, of B & C Nightingale Farms (LaSalatte), is the recipient of the Premier's Award of $100,000. He was recognized for his work in improving Ontario's fresh vegetable yields by pioneering the use of high tunnels over vegetable field crops

He "pioneered the use of high tunnels" and he didn't use or invent "Croptracker" or "Fruit Tracker". This is ridiculous. It is beginning to occur to me, that whoever created this page in the first place could have used this set of poor references to mislead - and use Wikipedia as an advertising platform - because - are we talking about Fruitracker or Croptraker? I looked at the other "Ministry" awards for 2007 [83], [84] and "Croptracker" or "Fruit Tracker" is not there.

Also, it looks like Fruit Tracker came from something called AMI [85] and not from Dragonfly Information Technology Inc. for Croptracker. Hence, this rely isn't a reliable source because Fruit Tracker is not being independently reported - this is an AMI publication (see the imprint at the top of the page) - and they have an invested interest in promoting this product - not to mention what appears to be inaccurate information about the award . ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:27, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The name: there is this simple explanation on the website of the manufacturer: Fruit Tracker, Apple Tracker, Grape Tracker, and Crop Tracker are all built on Dragonfly's award-winning and internationally recognized software platform. It seems they just rename it for any crop it is being used on. We need redirects.

The confusion about who made this software or better, who provided funding: from reading the sources it appears that both the government and the growers have teamed up with the software developer, resulting in all of them claiming the program. Here is some additional info: [86]

The Awards: I found awards for both 2007 and 2014. They are under regional and under the growers organization. It came up with a search followed by a search within a page: The East-Central Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers formed a strategic alliance to develop innovative technology that will help them compete in the wholesale market. Their fruit-tracker software will help growers [...]

Sources: in addition to the "niagara this week" source, here are Growing Produce [87] and Ontario Ministry of Agriculture [88] and Fruit & Vegetable Magazine [89] page 16. DeVerm (talk) 04:50, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not see CropTracker in any of the sources you provided. So, as far I can tell, it is not used by the Ontario Ministry. I do see Fruit Tacker, Fusion, and Apple Tracker. Hopefully, you understand, all this means is that these exist. Especially, this is just a little blurb [90] and merely an announcement. It shows that a couple of programs exist and that is it. Also, I did not see the awards that were awarded in any of the sources you provided. Can you provide those sources? Otherwise, as far as I can tell, no awards were received, and the AMI source is pretty much inaccurate. Because the AMI source claims Fruit Tracker came from only AMI. I have looked at Dragonfly's website and they claim Fruit Tracker is their program.

I did not realize I had to serve it to such high standards. Here is the link: [91] It says: "Dragonfly's cloud-based software, referred to as Crop Tracker / Fruit Tracker / Grape Tracker / Apple Tracker, has been designed with growers, packers, distributors, industry associations, and retailers in mind." DeVerm (talk) 19:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then the awards. Here is a direct link to the 2007 award; the 2014 one can be found in a similar way: [92] DeVerm (talk) 20:05, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The "Niagara This Week" article is still trivial sourcing. These sources are all unremarkable according to Wikipedia standards. For example, this is very much an announcement [93], or website type press release, or advertisement on a Ministry website. This [94] indicates Apple Tracker exists - but does not speak for notability. The Fruit & Vegetable Magazine is a trade publication, so it's job is to speak highly of industry products. In other words, it is not independent reporting. These that I have just mentioned are not independently reported, significant coverage, in multiple reliable sources. These are trivial sources. To accept these, is to lower the standards of Wikipedia. And right now, it seems a number of editors are engaged in removing low grade promotional articles such as this one, that use Wikipedia as platform for advertising their insignificant products, as wonderfully expressed in this signpost article [95].

Also, it is the Ministry of Ontario's job to support business and commerce, so touting various products and giving out awards is part of its job. In other words, none of this stuff on their website is independent reporting in secondary sources. Also, none of this software is remarkable - it has NOT had a significant impact on societies and cultures in the same way that software produced by Apple Inc. or Microsoft or Oracle Corporation which produces Java (software). Also, none of this tracker software is more remarkable than other Crop management software and Farm management software on the market - to get an idea - here is whole bunch of them -->[96]. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:24, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If Niagara This Week is not a good source, frankly, I do not know what is. It is an article dedicated to the topic, written by the newspaper's staff, of a reasonable length and tone. The newspaper's circulation is 150k (link) which (although not huge) is plainly not trivial.

Similarly, dismissing government sources as "unreliable because COI" is beyond me. In that particular case, I think that the award is non-selective and trivial hence brings little notability, but your argument seems to be that anytime a government is talking about a company from their country it should be dismissed as non-independent coverage - and I strongly disagree with that view. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added sources to the article. I also agree with Tigraan that the source from the Canadian Ministry of Agriculture is WP:RS and the articles in the newspaper and the two magazines I added are as well. DeVerm (talk) 20:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The AMI source is not independent [97] - they have funded "Fruit Tracker" and this is their publication. Also, it is a trivial source. This source: [98] contains only passing mention of "Fruit Tracker" and does not qualify as significant coverage. Also, the previous awards mentioned are trivial and not notable awards, but there has yet to be proof that any of items mentioned, Fruit Tracker, Crop Tracker, Apple Tracker and so on have received any trivial award from the Ministry. There are examples of notable awards on Wikipedia (for comparison) if you wished to take a look around. The Wikipedia article that we are discussing is unreliable anyway because it is not clear which unremarkable software program this article is about. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This source is an announcement and only mentions "Apple Tracker" in a blurb so this does not qualify as significant coverage. The article in this source ("issue_id":251654,"page":16}}) pertaining to "Fruit Tracker" ( a different tracker) is an announcement with how to instructions. This does not qualify for significant coverage, see :WP:CORPDEPTH. All the sources put together do not create significant coverage for the above stated reasons. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:02, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:56, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:59, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:59, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I listed a direct link to the 2007 award above after you asked for it the first time. The 2014 award isn't even mentioned in the article but you can find that starting from the 2007 one. It also seems that you are rejecting the sources, while the consensus in this AfD is that the sources are good. Your insistence on Fruit Tracker, Apple Tracker, Grape Tracker etc. being different products and thus rejecting notability and sources on those grounds is puzzling but not shared by consensus. DeVerm (talk) 04:39, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fruittracker / Croptracker / Grapetracker / Appletracker ARE different products. They are definitely not the same. For one, they have different websites. Second, they have separate apps (Apple and Android) for each of them. I would like to see solid evidence which shows that they are all the same product. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:50, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking more into this. Let me have a look at how widely their apps are used and I will decide what to vote after that. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:57, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lemongirl94 -- These are not the same product, so this discussion has devolved into some confusion. So I really can't tell what this article is about. And for me, it is another reason to delete this article. Also, none of these are noteworthy - they have not received significant coverage by any standard or measurement. And, just because an editor in this discussion wants to claim trivial coverage and trivial non-notable awards are sufficient - does not mean they are. They fail WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Don't take my word for it - check it out for yourself. These are non-notable and ordinary software programs - in other words, none of these tracker software programs are more remarkable than other crop and farm management software on the market - to get an idea - here is whole bunch of them ----> [99]. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:05, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@User:DeVerm --- The awards are trivial, which also means they are not notable and have not reached a level notoriety so that this article merits inclusion on this encyclopedia. And that is what this is - an encyclopedia - that means we have high standards. Also, I would appreciate it if you stop claiming consensus. There is you and one other who are trying to override policies and guidelines on wp:n, wp:v (verifiablity), and wp:rs. And, I am only seeing you writing anything while claiming to speak for the other. Additionally, there is also one other editor - User:MSJapan - who Ivoted for "Delete" and gave a rationale. Also even if you did have a consensus, it does not override guidelines and policies. Just because you have an opinion that contradicts Wikipedia standards does not mean your opinion becomes the new Wikipedia or its new standards. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 07:05, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Lemongirl942: Here is the link I posted earlier that says this is all the same software: [100]. DeVerm (talk) 02:08, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Nobody has made any opinions known on their views as to the notability of the subject since the last relist. @Lemongirl942: Have you made your decision yet? Other new contributors to the debate (and new thoughts by existing ones) are also encouraged. KaisaL (talk) 03:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 03:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I looked at a lot of stuff and unfortunately I have to conclude the product is not notable. First, all 4 of them are different products. They have separate websites and even separate apps. The scope of this article is one particular product called Croptracker.

I first tried to look at the popularity of all 4 softwares. Here are the number of installs on Google play Croptracker - (5-10), Fruit tracker - (50-100), Apple tracker (5-10), Grape Tracker (5-10). An install of less than 100 is very very less. I check out iTunes as well where it says "We have not received enough ratings to display an average for the current version of this application." This typically indicates very low number of users using the software. Essentially, this software is not popular.
This software was commissioned by the ministry along with a crop growers association. Hence, references such as these [101], [102] are not independent. This [103] award was given by the ministry itself...to an app it commissioned. This [104] seems to be an article involving a person who is selling this software? This [105] is probably the only independent review I found but it is not enough.

Considering the low popularity of the software and the dearth of sources, I think this can be deleted. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:57, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Thank you for your research Lemongirl. I agree with you. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 07:35, 5 July 2016 (UTC) Banned sockHappyValleyEditor (talk) 06:37, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Let me join the ranks thanking Lemongirl942 for the time and effort put into this. I can see the points made and wonder what consensus there is for the different points of view. I am very much a supporter of consensus-based policies so may have to change my position on this article if consensus points to that; it is not my intention to frustrate this process in any way. Here are the points we may be able to clear up:

One product or multiple products. According to a growing number of editors, this must be viewed as multiple products for reasons stated above. I have viewed these as one product and partly based my opinion on that. I merely pointed to the website that declares them being the same, while others point to different naming and separate apps. I agree on that being different of-course but does that make it a different product? If a person does an official name change, does that make this a different person? The passport changes so yes versus it is still the same person just a different label. How do most view this? If we, by consensus, view this as separate products and we must assess this article as for croptracker only, then I used a wrong basis for my assessment and must change my !vote.
Popularity. Let's assume there are 130 users of the Android app. I agree, this is very little. But this being a web-based platform, there will also be many users on Apple tablets/phones and then again many more on PC's. So let's pull the figure from the maker themselves: [106] mentions "thousands of growers worldwide". Let us take a number of 2,000 total growers who use this. That still does not sound like much to me, but how many growers are there, i.e. what market penetration in percentage are we talking about? If there would be a software program in use by only 130 users but those users would be governments of which we only have 140, then would we call that popular or not? If we are talking about a small percentage of growers using this software then that changes my mind as well. In fact, this popularity factor is the most important one I think.
Conflict of interest. As the Canadian government subsidized the development of this software, does that make a government award WP:COI? Does that make government sources primary sources? There seem to be strong differences of opinion on this. If a government decides to stimulate an industry, does this make them an entity that has an interest and thus all government sources become COI? How about paying tax, does that make the government something like a bond-or stock-holder who is paid dividends? If community consensus is that this is indeed COI then we must dismiss these sources which leaves us with one newspaper source and one magazine source and that, I agree, is not enough. Same for the awards. Did they get the award because they received a subsidy from that same government? DeVerm (talk) 13:55, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comment.

I personally see it as a different software - perhaps running on a platform created by the same company. But as a software, this is an individual one. That said, my analysis was done for all the 4 softwares and I think even if I combined them, it wouldn't really be notable.
Popularity is an important aspect I look at. For this, I try to find third party sources and iTunes/Google Play are reliable in this sense. I tend not to use number provided by the company itself, particularly in case of notability. This is because we have no means of verifying it. The point about the percentage of market penetration and the use of a web interface is interesting. Yes, there may be a possibility that the web interface has more users, but we cannot verify that. The percentage of market share is interesting - but again we have no data. Another factor that pushed me towards a delete was the geo scope of the software. I realised that the scope is limited to growers in Canada. An app specifically about growers in Canada has a limited scope in my opinion. I also had a look at their social media channels (Facebook page 88 likes) and didn't see much interactions. All of this convinced me that it may be a case of WP:TOOSOON.
As for sources, this is interesting. In cases of organisations, trade journals are usually not accepted for the purpose of showing WP:CORPDEPTH. This is mostly because they focus on a narrow area (for the same reason why local sources are usually not used for GNG purposes). Over here, one of the magazines [107] was something similar to a trade journal, although I accepted it as it seemed independent. However, I am not willing to consider the government sources here as they tend to be like press releases or borderline promotional. As in all cases, independent reviews would have helped. But we simply do not have these over here. Of course, it doesn't mean all government sources have a COI, but in this case the specific department which explicitly commissioned the software clearly has a COI here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:12, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can see how you come to your delete !vote. Our difference of opinion is about the arguments made and thus lead to different votes. I see it as the same software, just re-branded for the different customer groups. It is not the first time I see the same thing with different (brand) name labels. That label does not make it a different product for me, while I recognize that for others it does.
How can one use Google Play to find the number of customers and not the data from the manufacturer? In my view, you can only do such a thing for software products that only work on the Android platform. Example: how many MS Windows users do you find on Google Play? Where do the number of their users come from? There are many apps that are popular on iOS but not on Android... the number of Android users has little value in determining the number of users for apps that are not dedicated to Android. Also, I have found users in the USA and New Zealand as well as in Canada, so the limited scope of Canada-only can't be correct.
For government sources, I see it that every government promotes the business sectors that their country plays a significant role on the world market for and I do not see that as a conflict of interest which invalidates their sources. I think government sources are always independent and the guidelines and essays seem to confirm that. I may have missed something but I just re-read most again and don't think so. Even government agencies are considered independent so I can only assume that ministries are as well
I still do not see enough reason to blank the content of this article and thus remain my keep !vote. DeVerm (talk) 01:49, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I do not see how we can have an article when there is not even agreement about what the product actually is and just what it is that the references refer to? I think this fails the basic test of WP:Verifiability. , DGG ( talk ) 08:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article stands. I too am totally confused by what the product/s actually is/are according to the article. The text refers to one thing and the references refer to others. If the software is a platform supporting multiple applications tailored to different crop types then it should say so. On all accounts currently fails verifiability - references should refer to and support concepts and terminology in the article. (Salvage: maybe there should / could be an article about Dragonfly (software developer) which produces all of these products, and hence might also be more notable than just one of its products ?) Aoziwe (talk) 12:31, 15 July 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. Relisting this debate has not yielded a clear consensus, and I am not satisfied that will emerge at this time. Please note that I have disregarded any canvassed !votes in coming to this conclusion and also acknowledged the relatively limited interest of one other editor. KaisaL (talk) 23:31, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Tim Bosma

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

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

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

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

Firstly, there are glaring grammatical irregularities, subjective irrelevancies and outright inaccuracies in this item. 1. This article's title places focus on the single victim of a murder but the text centers on the perpetrator of the crime. While the victim was no doubt deeply loved and sorely missed by family, friends and by his religious community, pursuant to WP:B101E notability does not rest with a single victim of an single isolated event, nor had this victim acquired notability as a significant achiever in the fields of government, academe, the sciences or the arts. I have seen no evidence that this crime "captivated public attention in Canada for several years" nor was it particularly "notable in other countries" more so than the murder of any other innocent. (according to Stats Canada, Canada had 512 homicides reported in 2013, of which this was but one incident no more and no less tragic and senseless than any other. 2. Arguably, the central player in this murder, with respect to notability, may center not on the victim but on one of the two perpetrators of the crime. Dellen Millard, the son of a family long associated with aviation in Canada was the youngest person in Canada ever to fly a helicopter and a fixed wing aircraft, at the age of fourteen. He and a friend were convicted of the murder of Timothy Bosma in June, 2016. 3. Millard was not convicted of murdering a man "specifically for his Dodge 3500 truck then incinerated the body." Apart from grammar issues with the statement, the subjects at trial were convicted of first degree murder. Full stop. To the extent that their case itself was remarkable, court was convened without benefit of the more usual pre-trial; the two accused stood trial together, both charged together with first degree murder; and both accused stood trial for a crime that had (a) no clear motive (b) no murder weapon and (c) no identifiable body. However, a properly constituted jury found the accused to be guilty of first degree murder, as charged. The make and model of an involved vehicle and reference to disposal of the victim's remains were not part of the verdict. Frankie Z (talk) 04:09, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep This is the most notable murder in Canada for the past 3 years or so. This is a notable world murder. Lots of sources. Cappy prose is not a reason for deletion. In fact, I pledge to fix this article after the AfD is a keep but I am not crazy and will not be abused by trying to fix an article and have it destroyed and deleted right away.

People who hate the article and want it deleted should modify the rules so that there are no murder articles or porn star articles in Wikipedia.

As for the original reason, deny the AFD for failure to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted. Poor prose does not qualify for deletion. Tim Bosnia (talk) 17:13, 26 June 2016 (UTC) — Tim Bosnia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:45, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:45, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This subject was previously discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Bosma. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that. Thanks for the link that is MORE than 3 years old. This really hits home the point that three years later, it's still so notable. Also note that this article is not a bio as that AFD but about the murder event. Tim Bosnia (talk) 03:32, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and previous AfD on the same article subject here. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:59, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator and per previous AfD. -- Softlavender (talk) 05:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the AFD upon which previous 2 iVotes depend took place a mere month after this murder, and are therefore of little relevance to this AFD, given that in the interim there have been: a trial; a conviction, and accusations that the perps were involved in other murders, one of which is now scheduled for trial in 2017.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:16, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

above two votes must be friends, edits the same articles, votes in the same AfD within minutes, citing the same reason that a three year old AfD justifies Delete even though there has been exponentially more coverage in the past three years showing longevity and notability. Wikipedia is not a vote. Tim Bosnia (talk) 07:13, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - For me it is a mystery how the first AfD could end with a delete decision. This article is per right now WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 14:40, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

People need to differ between article size and quality, and notability. BabbaQ (talk) 14:41, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BabbaQ, it's just a one-event, crime-with-local-coverage item. It's just a dog-bites-man story and does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for this sort of thing. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. -- Softlavender (talk) 15:37, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are legitimate reasons why we need to put the brakes on the instant creation of an article about every individual murder that happens — including, but not limited to, the fact that WP:PERP requires us to pay utmost attention to the WP:BLP sensitivities of naming and discussing an accused murderer who has not yet been proven guilty in a court of law. Now that the conviction has occurred, this is a very different situation than that one was — but it's not our role to make WP:CRYSTAL predictions about a case that's still before the courts, so deletion was the correct response to the situation as it stood in 2013. Bearcat (talk) 16:59, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, "For me it is a mystery how the first AfD could end with a delete decision.", no mystery there, deleted because WP:NOTNEWS Coolabahapple (talk) 15:48, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As I already noted, there were legitimate WP:PERP reasons why the article had to be deleted in 2013 — however, now that Millard and Smich have actually been convicted, PERP no longer applies and this now needs to be judged on its own merits rather than being speedied as a recreation of the 2013 version. That said, as things stand right now this fails on the merits: it's an inadequately sourced two-sentence stub, which fails to demonstrate any enduring notability besides "thing that happened". It might be possible to write a good article which was sourced and substanced well enough to demonstrate notability properly — but this article, in this form, ain't it. The test that distinguishes murders that qualify for Wikipedia articles from murders that don't qualify for Wikipedia articles is not the mere existence of coverage, as all murders always get media coverage but we are WP:NOTNEWS — rather, it's whether you can demonstrate a substantive reason why people will still need to read an article about it ten years from now. (Matthew Shepard, for example, is still talked about and analyzed almost twenty years after his death — while thousands of other murders that have happened over the years are not.) But nothing here demonstrates that this passes that hurdle. And I'm also concerned about the creator's username so closely resembling the murder victim's name — implying a vested interest of some kind. So this has to be deleted in this form, although without prejudice against a good, substantive and properly sourced article about it being created in the future if somebody can do better than this. Bearcat (talk) 17:26, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know Bosma or anyone connected with the family or murder. This article cannot be deleted and permitted to be rewritten better because as soon as it is rewritten, people will say it was deleted before and must be deleted again. I just saw that argument yesterday. Plus the criteria for deletion is not that an article is too short or needs more length. Tim Bosnia (talk) 23:55, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, but the criteria for deletion do allow an article to be deleted if it's not even making a credible claim of enduring notability in the first place. "Topic is a person who exists, the end", for instance, is not a keepable article just because our deletion rules don't expressly include the length of the article as a criterion in and of its own — an article does have to be long enough and sourced well enough to at least contain a basic indication of notability. And trust me, I've been a contributor to Wikipedia for well over a decade now — and brand new users who register under usernames that are very nearly identical to the name of topic they've suddenly decided to write about are not "disinterested" parties who only just heard about the topic in question for the first time two days ago. That's simply not a thing that has ever happened on here. You don't have to have known him, or anyone connected to the incident, personally to have some kind of non-neutral agenda about it. Bearcat (talk) 01:23, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep There is more than one murder and disappearance case, so this should not only be kept but expanded to other cases connected to the convicts. "Smich and Millard still face charges of first-degree murder in connection with the case of 23-year-old Toronto resident Laura Babcock, who disappeared in 2012. That case is scheduled to go to trial in 2017. Separately, Millard is charged with first-degree murder in relation to the death of his father, Wayne Millard. That matter remains before the courts." There have been a number of recent cases of people being murdered on test drives for no apparent motive other than vehicle theft or the thrill of killing. There is no need to delete this article just because it is no longer recent news, it will be of use years from now for people who want to record and compare similar cases. Huffington Post has been covering this story for multiple years since 2013,and trials are scheduled for next year. No need to delete his useful article on a continuing crime case of the murders of no less than 3 people and 2 convicted suspects. Crimes like these are at least as significant as domestic terrorism cases. Bachcell (talk) 18:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, so maybe Millard needs to have a seperate article, this does not mean that this article should be kept. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: This is an excellent case of an Internet homicide which has its own article. The truck was for sale online. Bachcell (talk) 19:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, if this is the case, a sentence or two can be added to the section Notable Internet homicides of Internet homicide only, not all listed there have a seperate article. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, can editors please let this afd run its course as its only got a couple of days to go (unless an admin decides to extend it:)) Coolabahapple (talk) 13:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
major event over the last few years but maybe not in the USA. However, this is not USA Wikipedia. Keep . Wawaxi (talk) 06:42, 3 July 2016 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Wawaxi (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
Keep Article needs improvement, but this is a high-profile murder that has garnered major media coverage across Canada for now over 3 years. Nothing "routine" about it. Passes WP:GNG by dint of in-depth, ongoing, national coverage in major Canadian media [108].E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:34, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Every murder that has ever happened at all would always get a Wikipedia article if "media coverage exists" were the sole standard that it had to meet. What's necessary to lift it above the bar that divides a notable murder from a non-notable one is evidence that it's special in some substantive way that would get it past WP:10YT, not just evidence that the media covered it in the exact same way that the media cover all murders. And those Google search results aren't indicating that this garnered coverage across Canada, either — I'm not finding any evidence, in fact, that this ever garnered any significant coverage outside of the Golden Horseshoe (even the CBC links I've checked, frex, are all from CBC Toronto or CBC Hamilton rather than the national news division.) Bearcat (talk) 15:16, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Search engines produce variable results, of course, but your statement does not match what I saw. So, I double-checked by running a search on the Montreal Gazette, [109]. More to the point, Hamilton is not Toronto. CBC, Globe and Mail, National Post are national media, and I seem to recall hearing CBC coverage broadcast far from the Golden Horseshoe. Moreover, coverage in the Toronto papers and CBC has been far from routine; it has been intensive and has continued for years. I just checked the Ottawa Citizen lost of coverage [110]. Ditto for the Vancouver Sun , [[111]. To be sure, most - though not all - of the coverage outside Hamilton has been sourced to the national media based in Toronto, but that's why The Canadian Press exists; so that the Halifax The Chronicle Herald can run stories about a notorious murder in Hamilton. As here: [112]. In sum: not local, not routine.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:34, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As the template at the top of this AFD indicates, this is not a vote and canvassing if anything will only harm the chances of a consensus being formed. That said, even accounting for this, I am happy to give this debate another week so that additional contributors without a vested interest in the topic can make their thoughts known in the hope of a clearer consensus developing. KaisaL (talk) 02:38, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 02:38, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets Steve's Arbitrary Point Threshhold for Notable Events

Let's check Steve's Oversimplification of Wikipedia's Seven Factors of Event Notability™:

Criterion	Value
impact	4
depth	10
duration	10
geographic scope	3
diversity	10
reliability	10
uniquity	3
Total	50

The Steve 08:14, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is terrible, but the subject matter meets WP:GNG. If the consesnus is the delete, we should consider moving it to draftspace or userspace. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:58, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat. This is WP:NOTNEWS. Sure, there is some media coverage, but there is almost always going to be routine media coverage of murders. I don't see evidence that there is media coverage above and beyond routine. --Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 05:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is the 2nd most high profile murder in Canada in the past decade. Magnotta is the first, this is the second, and Tim McLean is probably the third. Leading contenders also include the serial killer Pickton. Fiona Gump (talk) 02:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Remove I was asked to offer an unbiased opinion and I am not familiar with this murder because it must be obscure and not suitable for an article.Murder is so bad (talk) 02:09, 12 July 2016 (UTC) — Murder is so bad (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Murder is so bad (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
Delete instead for now and Draft later if needed, although I'm not certain how this will actually be anything else improvable later, the current information suggests nothing convincing though. SwisterTwister talk 06:43, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I saw a forum post asking for people to evaluate then support a delete vote. I haven't heard of this so it must be insignificant and, therefore, a delete. OK 246320 (talk) 16:12, 12 July 2016 (UTC) — OK 246320 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Note: An editor has expressed a concern that OK 246320 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

@OK 246320: It's likely you haven't heard of many of the subjects that the over 5 million articles on Wikipedia cover, should we delete all such articles? That is a poor reason for your opinion. 331dot (talk) 19:03, 12 July 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. There is no valid argument for notability. The position is not intrinsically notable. His high internal rating even if documented is irrelevant. DGG ( talk ) 02:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rajesh Khullar

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

Non Notable bureaucrat. No significant media coverage and does not meet notability guidelines. Uncletomwood (talk) 05:35, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable diplomat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:45, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:45, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Still not entirely sure as the Secretary position would seem enough for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 02:59, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:08, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He's isn't a Secretary in the Government of India but in a Haryana, a state in India. Non Notable. Uncletomwood (talk) 16:35, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Passes WP:GNG. @SwisterTwister: Agree with you, as 1988 batch secretary status in India is a senior one whether at state or centre. With all due respect, it seems the nominator has an obsession with submitting Indian civil servant wiki deletion requests. Ahrefimgsrc (talk) 04:42, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SwisterTwister: Going by that logic every IAS/IPS/IRS officer should have a Wikipedia page. Wikipedia pages of even Additional Chief Secretaries have been deleted. Please read WP:NOTTHEM Uncletomwood (talk) 10:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I only brought up the persons's seniority level since you casually remarked them as "just a secretary in the state government." Officer is a notable and senior bureaucrat and author with noteworthy national press coverage. Ahrefimgsrc (talk) 18:46, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect to him, he isn't notable as per Wikipedia standards. Uncletomwood (talk) 12:18, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are entitled to your opinion, and I respect that. Like some of us however, believe it definitely passes the general notability clause. Ahrefimgsrc (talk) 17:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Delete~~ - Fails WP:BIO as well as WP:NPOL. Just a run of the mill mid level state civil servant. Uncletomwood (talk) 08:24, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck out your delete as you are the nominator and this could be deemed a double !vote. (Not that votes are what AFD is about, of course, but adding in an additional delete as nominator can make it seem at a glance like there is clearer consensus than is presently extant.) KaisaL (talk) 02:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:20, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Khullar holds the rank of a secretary in Government of India and is empaneled to work in that capacity having already served as Joint Secretary. He is one of the more senior officers in the country, of notable integrity and work ethic (look at performance appraisal report), and has directly addressed key policy issues in both state and centre. Article should stay.

No he does not. He's just a 1989 batch officer who is just a Secretary in the Haryana State Government. Performance Appraisals are hardly a criteria. He's hardly notable. Uncletomwood (talk) 16:57, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Factually incorrect. Officer is a 1988* batch officer who is Principal Secretary level in the state and (Addl) Secretary level in Government of India. Performance Appraisal Report (a merit score) is the single most important document when it comes to bureaucratic selections and postings in the state, centre or abroad. Aakanxit (talk) 17:26, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. He isn't empanelled to serve as an Additional Secretary in the Government of India though he may be equivalent. Please read what empanelment means. His book is also not notable. Check the latest batch (1985) to be empanelled to that post. Also an APAR does not matter to a wikipedia article. There are many officers who might even have a higher APAR score, but that isn't the criteria for notability for a wikipedia article. Check WP:BIO and WP:GNG for more information. Uncletomwood (talk) 16:22, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Never said that APAR is a criteria for judging Wikipedia notability, just that not every officer get empanelled so easily. So if the person in context has served as Joint Secretary in MOF/GOI, that already distinguishes the officer from any other state IAS/IPS officer. And for empanelment, APAR is most crucial. Thus, Khullar can serve as AS/Secretary post corresponding empanelment. Also worthwhile mentioning here that as Principal Secretary to Chief Minister, he holds the office of and exercises most executive power in the state, so I would refrain from calling them or anybody of similar seniority holding an equivalent state charge as 'just a Secretary' because that would only be demeaning. Judge notability on what the officer has done for the state/centre over the course of their career, and not where they are currently serving. Thanks. Aakanxit (talk) 19:00, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I shouldn't have referred to him as "just a Secretary", didn't have any intentions of demeaning him. It's the opposite with regards to empanelment actually. I'm sorry but almost all officers get empanelled and only a few aren't empanelled. Serving as a JS in MoF does not make him notable nor does serving as a Prl Secy in the State Government. Going by your argument with regards to his corresponding empanelment, it's a case of WP:TOOSOON Uncletomwood (talk) 07:18, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm not usually in favour of a third relist, but as this debate has just sparked into life - admittedly due to a new user account that has only commented on this subject - I am happy to extend this for a little bit longer. Additional contributors would be welcome; @SwisterTwister: Are you still unsure? KaisaL (talk) 02:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 02:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there still seems to be nothing else convincing for the needed notability. Notifying DGG for subject analysis. SwisterTwister talk 06:49, 6 July 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. —SpacemanSpiff 02:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Manan Shah (Ethical Hacker)

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

Beyond aggressive WP:BOMBARD, there is no clear indication this person meets WP:NBIO.

The MTV India show is only supported by an unreliable content aggregator, with no reliable sources.

One would think that the Microsoft Security Response Center's "top 100 Security Researcher in the world" would be supported by something other than a local paper mention, but searching for his name at their site found nothing at all.

All other claims to notability are either overblown, or are trivial passing mentions.

This article has previously been deleted as spam several times at Manan Shah, which is now WP:SALTed. All of them (I think), like this one, were created by WP:SPAs. The most recent was created by Mananrockx, who's username matches Manan Shah's personal website domain name. Grayfell (talk) 21:30, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See also Draft:Manan Shah. Looks like the article's creator got impatient. Grayfell (talk) 21:41, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, we also have deleted articles at Manan Rockx Hacker and Manan Rockx. Sheesh. Grayfell (talk) 21:44, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Geeknnerd (talk) 22:45, 26 June 2016 (UTC) This page should not be speedily deleted because... some other references of almost every single credible media covering Manan :[reply]

Reason 1: Listed in India's top 100 security researcher list - Bhaskar Leading News Portal ^[1]

Reason 2: Hall of Fame in Facebook, Google, Paypal ^[2]^[3]

Reason 3: MTV Webbed 2 Host (Found in Wikipedia Also) ^[4]^[5]

Reason 4: Workshop : merged link with other wiki page like paramarsh, click asia ^[6]^[7]

Reason 5: Your Story Source ^[8]

Reason 6 : Application Developed ^[9]^[10]^[11]^[12]

Reason 7 : Yo Success ^[13] ^[14]

Reason 8 : Top 10 Most Famous Hackers of India ^[15]^[16]^[17]

Reason 9 : School and Collage Allumini : ^[18]^[19]

Reason 10 : Dekh Bhai App : India's Most Popular Meme Generator App millions of download from playstore^[20]

Books :

Facebook Hacking https://www.amazon.in/Facebook-Hacking-Security-ebook/dp/B01HL6WPQW?ie=UTF8&keywords=manan%20shah&qid=1466980882&ref_=sr_1_2&sr=8-2

Gmail Hacking https://www.amazon.in/Gmail-Hacking-Email-security-ebook/dp/B01HLAHJW8?ie=UTF8&keywords=manan%20shah&qid=1466980882&ref_=sr_1_3&sr=8-3

deleted articles : i find manan shah in wikipedia but wiki says only admin create this so i used this name actually i want only manan shah. also this is my first article so i dont know how to use or edit previous articles.

Other References

Gujarat Samachar https://scontent-sin1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/1471849_702530689759973_1397298465_n.jpg?oh=75db5e1cea3099e2c10744afadf0eee9&oe=57D016BF

Speaker | Organizer | Volunteer https://www.ted.com/tedx/events/15289 http://socialmediaweek.org/mumbai/volunteers-bloggers/ http://harkeraquila.com/15143/news/research-club-speaker-series/

Patrica http://avalance.in/media/press/patrikaemail.jpg

DNA http://avalance.in/media/press/dnamay1.png http://avalance.in/media/press/dnaindia.jpg

Daily Business http://mananrockx.com/db.pdf

Nav Jaipur Times http://mananrockx.com/pdf/newspdf3.pdf http://mananrockx.com/pdf/newspdf2.pdf http://mananrockx.com/pdf/newspdf1.pdf

The Economics Times http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/small-biz/startups/inshorts-acquires-app-startup-betaglide/articleshow/49364912.cms

Bing http://advertise.bingads.microsoft.com/en-in/training-accreditation-find-a-pro-directory?memberid=adf65a53-e6d1-4630-ae2d-5dc467b16bbb

City Bhaskar http://mananrockx.com/resume/img/port7.jpg http://mananrockx.com/resume/img/port9.jpg http://mananrockx.com/resume/img/port8.jpg http://mananrockx.com/resume/img/port2.jpg http://mananrockx.com/resume/img/port3.jpg http://mananrockx.com/resume/img/port4.jpg

I know some references from his own website but this is all scan copy so i can trust him and his the very renowned in india. so i create this page

Thank You.

References

This is a very good example of Wikipedia:Bombardment. Other Wikipedia articles cannot be used as references, per WP:CIRC, and both Paramarsh and Click Asia Summit have serious promotional problems anyway. Which schools he attended doesn't matter at all, and those were recently added by an IP who has been promoting this person and his company. The TV hosting still needs to be supported by reliable, independent sources, and even then it's not clear that it makes him notable. News clipping hosted on Manan Shah's own website are poor-quality sources. I have already explained this, and so has one of the editors who declined the article's draft (which you ignored). Yourstory.co is so unreliable and over-used by PR people that I thought it had been added to the spam blacklist. Being certified by Bing is totally trivial and irrelevant. Ethical Havok is a forum, which is not usable. Volunteering for clubs is also totally irrelevant. TedX speakers are common, and should not be confused with TedTalks. I'm sure there's more, but picking through all this line-by-line is impractical. Grayfell (talk) 23:21, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per failure of WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Grayfell's argument covers the sourcing problems here pretty well; if this person were truly notable, there would surely be better sources than what we've got, which boils down to unreliable websites, self-published material, and other Wikipedia articles (lots of sources does not by itself mean notability). While the mention on Microsoft's Top 10 may have pushed me more towards "keep", it doesn't seem too reliable; does anyone notice how the entry about this subject is in a different font than the rest, and how the grammar is inexplicably lacking? Perhaps it's been hacked into itself, given that the subject is a hacker (ah, irony), but regardless, it doesn't seem trustworthy enough for me. Due to lack of reliable sources, and extensive, non-trivial coverage by multiple uninvolved parties (a Google search turns up nothing along these lines, while a Google News search turns up nothing at all), deletion seems the best way to go. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 00:08, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Microsoft thing is just an anonymous forum post. The username is "Security News" and the top 10 list is a "question" posted to a general discussion area. It's not at all reliable. The only other post by that user is this from the same day, which says it all. Grayfell (talk) 00:22, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; thought something was funny. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 00:28, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Geeknnerd (talk) 00:32, 27 June 2016 (UTC) dear greyfell[reply]

ok i can understand but other articles? and news section all articles are published in leading gujarati news paper.. manan shah is the renowned in gujarat state well as india.and his other link ?

ok and can you please explain this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falgun_Rathod

Google search : https://www.google.co.in/#q=falgun+rathod

News Search : https://www.google.co.in/#q=falgun+rathod&tbm=nws

and please i don't compare this but which people is the famous in gujarat. both are listed in india's top 10 hackers. but manan's all articales are published in gujarati news paper..

this is my first article so i don't know all the wiki policy but yes i loved the wikipedia and love to spend time here.

thanks after your choice admin.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geeknnerd (talk • contribs) 00:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I admit I do not know Gujarati, but I am very skeptical that these are quality sources. Local news coverage is never as good as national or international coverage. Some of these claims mentioned by Divya Bhaskar, such as the "top 10" and "top 100" lists, appear to totally unsupported by any other source, but that doesn't make any sense. Wouldn't Microsoft, a very large US-based company, mention it's "Top 100" hackers somewhere on one of its own sites? Somewhere other than a puff-piece in a Gujarati newspaper? Microsoft India is based in Hyderabad, and doesn't appear to have a Gujarati presence. This kind of thing makes the brief mentions in Divya Bhaskar seem much less reliable overall. Brief press-releases republished as content ("churnalism") and passing mentions, generally don't count for notability, and that's what these look like to me.

I'll take a look at Falgun Rathod, as it definitely looks suspicious as well, but please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. I do not see anything in the logs for Falgun Rathod that suggest this was repeatedly recreated and deleted. Each article should be judged on its own merits, but when an article is deleted and recreated as often as this one (at least seven times) it suggest a problem. Wikipedia is not a platform for advertising.

Oh, and I'm not an admin, by the way. Grayfell (talk) 03:00, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Geeknnerd (talk) 05:44, 27 June 2016 (UTC) ok i think you are right...so what can i do...i try to find good source...Thank you[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 08:12, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 08:12, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Geeknnerd (talk) 12:35, 30 June 2016 (UTC) so when can i remove the deletation notice[reply]

You should not remove the deletion notice. When this discussion is closed, the notice will be removed if the article survives. My comments on the talk page were about cleanup notices, which are a different category. Grayfell (talk) 20:38, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I nominated Avalance Global solutions, the article about this person's company for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avalance Global solutions. I also started a sock-puppet investigation which includes both articles' creators: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nxtgenwiki. Grayfell (talk) 02:53, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Firstly, this WP:AFD is a mess. Secondly, for all of the clear WP:COI and the WP:SOCK report, we have only had input to delete from one person other than the nominator, so I will relist this as it is in need of further input to establish a consensus. Another editor has also relisted his company, Avalance Global solutions. KaisaL (talk) 02:22, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 02:22, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the YourStory story:^[1]

There's no mention in NullCon website ^[2]

No mention of manan shah on guinness book of records: http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/search?term=manan+shah

No mention on limca book of records: http://www.limcabookofrecords.in/search.aspx?catId=&text=manan%20shah

Links listed are google forum and Microsoft social. Even i can post such fraud posts and claim to be a hacker.

on top of that you can clearly see that the post has been edited with point 5 being written in a different font. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordinvalid (talk • contribs) 04:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Geeknnerd (talk) 10:08, 4 July 2016 (UTC) yes this is right. but i also found his paper cutting news from his website and this is the renowned person from gujarat and cyber security industries so.[reply]

and guiness book and limcc record both are delete his previous record. you can search it others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geeknnerd (talk • contribs) 10:10, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Geeknnerd (talk) 10:11, 4 July 2016 (UTC) also we are deleted from wiki because no proof[reply]

"also we are deleted from wiki because no proof" So you accept you are working for the said entity-Avalance? Lordinvalid (talk) 17:06, 4 July 2016 (UTC)lordinvalid[reply]

I'm not sure about that, but YourStory.co is not a reliable source. yourstory.com and .in have both been added to the spam blacklist, and this site looks like more of the same. That link also doesn't work for me anymore, suggesting the specific article has been deleted. That should be an indicator of what we're dealing with. Grayfell (talk) 20:38, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Geeknnerd (talk) 08:37, 5 July 2016 (UTC) no i don't working with avalance. and your story is the leading startup portal its TATA group venture[reply]

Geeknnerd, please format your entries similar to the others. Signatures go at the end, and us colons (:) to indent one level further than the comment you are responding to. Yourstory might be popular, but that's irrelevant. It's been heavily used by paid sock puppets, PR people, and SEO manipulators. It has no reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. Both of these are why it's been blacklisted before. Calling it a "portal" means it's aggregating content from elsewhere. It's would be better to cite the original story, but that also must be a reliable source. Grayfell (talk) 21:34, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still not enough the levels of substance enough for his own actual notability, it's that simple; what I'm seeing here is not convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I concur that the level of sourcing is not wide or independent enough, especially with some of the claims being made, such as the "msrc's top 100" strongly suggesting sourcing should be available which isn't there. Crow^Caw 18:33, 13 July 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 Peter A. Allard School of Law. Since the content of the article has been improved since the initial backlash against merging, and those editors haven't been back in weeks, I think it's appropriate to do so now. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 02:44, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Allard Hall

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

Fails GNG; sources are mostly SPS and was created as part of a promotional campaign around UBC's law school. Merge what is usable here to University of British Columbia Faculty of Law and redirect. Jytdog (talk) 03:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, tentatively. It was a big deal that the new law school was built, it seems. The building design received a number of awards. Although too-promotional fluff needs to be edited out of the article, it appears to me that there is decent sourcing to cover more about the previous building (a brutalist structure) and the need and the fundraising and this one's design, etc., more than is comfortably contained in the Faculty of Law article. I was not previously familiar with this example, but I know of other similar prominent replacements of older university buildings by LEEDS-certified cool new ones, which rightfully generate a lot of local/regional/state-or-province-level coverage. It remains a subjective call whether to have a long section about the building in the faculty of law article (with a redirect) or have it as a separate article.

By the way, applying the Google Scholar search above (with addition of "-Rokeach"), I find this undergraduate thesis or course paper which is a Life Cycle Analysis (a kind of environmental impact statement) about the building. It might or might not have factual information to add to the article.

This could have been handled by an editor simply editing and choosing to implement a merge, or editing but finding a merge to be awkward, without an AFD beforehand. However, given there is an AFD open, and without editing completed that would have reduced the material somewhat, we should judge what we think would be the right length of coverage as too much or not too much for the Faculty of Law article. --do ncr am 07:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that thoughtful response. I considered just doing the merge and redirect BOLDLY but this is fairly long (mostly puffery) and there has been some fierce conflicted/promotional editing at the main article on the law school, and I didn't want to be accused of gutting or cause drama; this seemed the best process to follow in this instance. I do think it is a no brainer Jytdog (talk) 07:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:32, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:32, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:32, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:32, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. pure advertisement for the school -- and the architect. Nothing distinctive about the building, no major awards (The first is just a finalist, not an award; the 2nd very local and very specialized "Commercial Building Award, Community-Educational/Research category, 2012, Real Estate Board of Vancouver)" ; the 3rd veryspecialized " Educational category, 2012, Masonry Design Awards" not even saying who awarded it; the 4th extremely specialized trade group -Silver, Educational category, 2012, Brick Industry Association. No significant nonlocal third party coverage. An undergrad thesis is not a RS. It should be mentioned in the article on the school, but not as a merge--we should not be keeping the altogether promotional content in the article history. DGG ( talk ) 21:16, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: R E: No significant nonlocal third party coverage The Globe and Mail and the Financial Post are NOT local. As a matter of fact they considered the top papers in all of Canada. Ottawahitech (talk) 17:18, 22 June 2016 (UTC)please ping me[reply]

User:Ottawahitech please add the Financial Post]] story to the article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:13, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory: Thanks for adding new material to this article. The materall from the National/Financial post article was already in the sections blanked by the nominator - is it really wise to keep re-addimg stuff that has been blanked? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:29, 11 July 2016 (UTC)please ping me[reply]

I am fine with deleting. Jytdog (talk) 21:38, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Delete (changed !vote; see below). Frivolous nomination; not even true that "sources are mostly SPS"; some yes, but most are reliable, secondary sources that are sufficient in number, including from The Vancouver Sun, The Globe and Mail, and an architecture magazine, proving notability. I corrected one malformed link and edited the lead to remove gratuitous peacock text such as "some of the most extensive and innovative", which I believe addresses the "pur advertisement for the school" issue mentioned above. —Prhart com♥ 16:09, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not frivolous. The building is not notable outside of the PR campaign. See WP:PROMO and WP:RECENTISM. Jytdog (talk) 16:38, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is notable, as it meets Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline spelled out in Wikipedia:Notability: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Sounds like you are confusing notability with promotion. —Prhart com♥ 16:48, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there was some press as part of the same PR campaign that resulted in this WP article; hence RECENTISM. There is no enduring notability for the building outside of the initial PR campaign. It is a fairly generic academic building. Jytdog (talk) 17:03, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: Re:Yes there was some press as part of the same PR campaign Are you suggesting that publications such as the Globe&Mail, Financial Post and the Vancouver Sun publish articles for a fee? Ottawahitech (talk) 00:14, 20 June 2016 (UTC)please ping me[reply]

That would be silly, wouldn't it. Jytdog (talk) 00:38, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is the job of good PR people to convince such newspapers to create such articles. DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just completed some copy editing and found blatant copy violations, which would need to be corrected if the article is kept. —Prhart com♥ 16:43, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the people who created this article did not care about WP and its policies. Jytdog (talk) 17:03, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are ignoring the General Notability Guideline that specifically addresses whether an article can be kept or deleted and talking only of guidelines that are unrelated to whether an article can be kept or deleted. An article such as this one can be proven to be notable based on its coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources and still have other problems such as puffery and promotion. Now, the copyright violations that I uncovered are serious, more serious than the issues you raised. We may need to delete the article because of them, but the article can also be rewritten. —Prhart com♥ 17:27, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, N addresses what we do when there is just a spurt of news about something. Jytdog (talk) 18:50, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

there seems to be some confusion here. WP:N is a general guideline that applies in principle to all sorts of articles except for those cases where other rules apply or exceptions are made--and there are quite a few special situations where we either assume notability (as for those who hold major elected offices) or have additional requirements. The tricky parts of the guideline is the requirement that the sources be substantial, reliable, and independent--each of these words needs interpretation and most of the disagreements in AfD discussions are about these requirements. There is also a provision that even if something is notable, if there is not enough information for a separate article it can be combined into another article. (in this particular case the first question is whether the sources are based on press releases, in which case they are not independent of the subject; the second question is whether, even if the sources are OK, it warrants a separate article). These are to some extent matter of judgment, and we decide by consensus.

The other rule which jytdog mentions is WP:NEWS, which says that we do not make an article for an isolated news event of no general interest or long term significance. If the sources only concerned the opening ceremony, we might use this rule to justify not making an article. But since I think this article is about the building as a whole, that part doesn't really apply . DGG ( talk ) 19:53, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You had me going for a minute there DGG, until you tried that last point. Let's just go ahead and agree that the wp:NEWS argument is silly: When it comes to something as unchanging as a building, reliable secondary sources are fine if they mostly come from the news articles covering the building's opening, especially if we're lucky enough that this moment took place relatively recently. Very little will be published about any building over its existence. An article that is published because the building was just completed is a perfect chance to snag some badly needed reliable sources about the building that will ever be in existence. My vote is still Keep.

Thanks very much for the other points you made earlier in your reply; those are wise words and I will not soon forget them. Best, —Prhart com♥ 03:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

a notable building can be notable from the start, if it is widely acclaimed as such , with evidence such as winning a major prize at a national level, or if the building is for non-architectural reasons (political, cultural, etc., so important that it will be written about it that connection, as are most national parliament buildings however undistinguished the architecture) . Most becomes notable later when architects and historians study them extensively, which usually occurs over a long period of time--in many cases, centuries. Here this is not being written about as improtant, just that the money was paid and the building built and named accordingly. DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is quite frustrating. This is a nondescript building that was hyped due to the donation and re-branding of the school. Yay for the Peter A Allard Law School PR team. This article is pure WP:FART. Phartcom what in the world do you see as mattering about this building? Jytdog (talk) 04:21, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my !vote to Delete. I'm sure it is frustrating to see your only argument destroyed. Anyway, I've decided to change my vote based on the massive amount (77%) of copyright violation the article has, that neither of you mentioned but that I mentioned I had noticed above, shortly after I had !voted (See Earwig's Copyyvio Detector). The whole article is apparently undeclared WP:COI editing as it was contributed by a W:SPA, an alumni of the school. Look at sentences like "The program included remarks from the Chief Justice of Canada, the Right Honourable Beverley McLachlin (McLachlin's speech); the Lieutenant Governor of British Columbia, the Honourable Steven Point (Point's Speech); UBC President Stephen Toope (Toope's speech); and the two major donors to the building project, Allard and the Law Foundation of British Columbia (LFBC Sasges' speech)"; not only was that and many other sentences copy-and-pasted word-for-word from the "About Us" page of the official website, the copy violator didn't bother to remove the parenthetical mentions of speeches that are each links to the speeches in the original. The subject may be barely notable, but more than three-fourths of the article cannot be kept and would need to be rewritten. I don't see anyone willing to do that, so a drastic step must be taken: Delete. I doubt anyone will miss it. —Prhart com♥ 13:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I concur with DGG's analysis, there's still notihng actually convincing for a solid independently notable article and examining the article found nothing minimally better. SwisterTwister talk 20:25, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Additional quotes indicating promotionalism "Allard Hall provides students and faculty with an inspiring setting for the study of law" "making the campaign the most successful private fundraising effort in history for a Canadian law school building""Mr. Allard stated "Ever since my days at UBC, I have possessed a strong belief in the enduring and transformative power of a legal education, and I believe this profession provides for the long term greater good of society" (Allard's speech is also available in French, Spanish and Chinese. You can also read his interview on ethics with the Legal Eye) " Most of the actual information in the article is a long list of the altogether routine features of any 21st century library: or ordinary class building design "The main feature of the building is the Franklin Lew Forum. " i.e., it has an auditorium. DGG ( talk ) 01:48, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like it may then be the most expensive law school building ever built in Canada, which is an assertion of some notability. :)

I am not studying this out to reconsider my "Keep" !vote, but it is a drag if the article was basicly copyvio, and maybe it should be deleted. --do ncr am 02:01, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed from the article the material pointed to by user:DGG above. Ottawahitech (talk) 13:51, 23 June 2016 (UTC)please ping me[reply]

...and since then the nominator has blanked out almost the entire article including my edits and those of 19 other editors. 00:32, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 21:41, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why not a Redirect (with maybe a small amount of merging) to Peter A. Allard School of Law#Allard Hall? --MelanieN (talk) 03:32, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge sourced content to Peter A. Allard School of Law and redirect. Not enough content supported by WP:RS for a standalone article, but this information is certainly reasonably at the primary topic, as long as the copyright issues mentioned above have been resolved. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:23, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus is leaning away from a plain keep, but the notion of a merge or redirect is very new to the debate, so I'll give it another week to be explored. Users may also feel free to possibly be WP:BOLD and merge the content now. KaisaL (talk) 02:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 02:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Keep, because my quick search produced multiple, RS on notability. Not unusual for a new building at a major school to be notable in our ear of statement architecture. Give me a little time to source, expand article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:20, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I added a design prize (not first place, but a real prize) form the American Library Association. Also articles from the Globe and Mail, Vancouver Sun and other papers. This got national coverage, and I cannot agree with editors above that when the Globe and Mail runs an article on a building it can be dismissed as "promotion." All books, buildings, boasts about the gifts of big donors are pitched to journalists and editors. When a major newspaper like the Vancouver Sun chooses to assign a reported story, it is evidence of notability. I am aware that the article was created as a PROMO for the Law School. Nevertheless, major buildings can, and often should, have articles. This one has the regional and national sources to support an article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:05, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note I am continuing this discussion at the bottom of the page for the convenience of newcomers to this page. First, a confession: I had not looked at the history of the article, merely, I looked at the article topic/the building. I can respect User:Jytdog's decision to bring the article to AFD rather than have a Merge proposal on the page, a building on this scale built by a major Law School and designed by a major firm is, after all, not unlikely to be notable. What I do not understand is @Jytdog, Ottawahitech, and DGG: why, given that this was being brought to AFD, major national media like the Globe & Mail; National Post; Vancouver Sun were deleted. At the very least, this makes it more time-consuming for editors to fairly evaluate notability; at worst it can lead to deletion simply because editors new to the page could easily have taken it for mere PROMO by the school or the architect, as some editors appear to have done (one states below:"Not enough content supported by WP:RS for a standalone article;" a statement that is prima facie incompatible with sourcing in major national media)) and as I very nearly did. I hope that @Doncram, Prhartcom, MelanieN, and KaisaL: and others will revisit, and that some fresh editors will take a look, too.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:57, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Peter A. Allard School of Law per nom. The article is much improved from when it was nominated, and is now better than the corresponding paragraph in the law school article. I believe the topic can be adequately covered in the law school article, and does not need a stand alone article, but useful work that should not be discarded has been done in the hall article. Worldbruce (talk) 19:09, 12 July 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 01:21, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Barracuda Web Server

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

NN article by SPA/COI author, WP:NOTPROMO. The three EE Times sources and the Embedded Computing sources are all basically press releases on the product. As a matter of fact, the third source is on the press release page of Real Time's website [113]. Those are not acceptable to establish notability, and as press releases, they are indeed promotional in nature. In fact, almost all of them start with something about "Real Time Logic LLC has..." The last five articles from RTC Magazine and Embedded are all written by Wilfred Nilsen, an employee of Real Time Logic (the company that developed of the product), and are thus not independent sources.

I am also nominating the following article:

Barracuda Application Server (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), as it is written with essentially the same sources/types of sources, by the same creator, and also bears an imageuploaded to Commons by the same user that is sourced to the company, which should pretty much prove the COI.

--MSJapan (talk) 05:22, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 14:03, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:33, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:33, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article is backed with additional references that to the best of my knowledge are not associated with Wilfred Nilsen or employees of Real Time Logic. "EE|Times" Bernard Cole, "EE|Times" Ane Francois Pele, "RTC Magazine"" Tom Williams. Additionally, it is not uncommon for high technology that experts like Wilfred Nilsen contribute writings to share knowledge and insight within a particular subject matter of expertise. "Embedded" shares a statement about the type of contributions, articles, and content that they accept here: [114] --Sorisen (talk) 19:44, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was an over site that the permission was not included with the original file upload. The originating author Real Time Logic LLC, granted use under CC 4.0 at my request for use in my article on the Barracuda Application Server. The permission has been added to the file and is now corrected. Sorisen (talk) 19:44, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found two sources. The first, [115] from iX, is in German and doesn't look to be very in-depth. I could be wrong. The second one, [116] from the EE Times, looks like a press release. Besides that, I don't see anything in a Google search. There were only 79 hits for "Barracuda" "real time logic", so I don't think I missed anything. It's possible that there's offline coverage, but, honestly, I kind of doubt it. Google is pretty good about indexing tech stuff, and tech magazines would be foolish not to at least put their headlines online. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:16, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, this RTC article was written by the magazine's editor-in-chief. I missed that. So I guess that one is good. Still not sure we've got enough here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:28, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both for all the reasons above. Additionally, it should be noted that in cases on software, we also look at how widely used the software is. Thus, if a software is used by a lot of people, it is likely notable and there would be sources about it. Over here, I decided to do a search and see if people are posting reviews/troubleshooting advice/tips on setting up the software. Unfortunately, the coverage in this aspect is sparse. This reinforces my decision that the subject is not popular and likely not notable as well. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:23, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that the author Sorisen has not clarified or disclosed their COI. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:25, 10 July 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 Li Lu § Banking career. MBisanz ^talk 01:20, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Himalaya Capital Management

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

Zero indication of notability. Speedy was removed by Adam9007, but I cannot think why, unless he thinks that asserting everything where a notable person is an executive as an indication of significance. DGG ( talk ) 04:30, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I myself tagged this for speedy deletion which it should've been.....but it was removed. I could've PRODed but it seems that would've been removed so here we are at AfD, where there's still nothing at all for any applicable notability and I had found nothing else to suggest otherwise. SwisterTwister talk 05:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The founder is notable. If a founder isn't a strong association with the subject, I'd like to know what is. Adam9007 (talk) 12:49, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:49, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:31, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Merge the founder is certainly notable, and there are enough third party references to the firm in various literature to warrant inclusion, in my view. i'll work on filling the article out over the next couple of days and let's see what everyone thinks.Happy monsoon day 13:40, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that i just beefed up the article here and there. it should be certainly enough not to delete. please look, comradesHappy monsoon day 18:04, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Li Lu. Its notability is primarily due to his being the founder. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 20:46, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

hm - if that meant it's simply made a section of the Li Lu article then I would not object to that (not that my objection matters a wit - but just sayin'). Happy monsoon day 20:31, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't necessarily need its own section. Himalaya Capital Management's already mentioned in "Banking career" so the information can be added there. Maybe change the section name to "Banking and investment career." BlackcurrantTea (talk) 01:37, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

since it's the mainstay of that career i think it's certainly due it's own section. but anyway, that can be worked out on the talk pageHappy monsoon day 15:11, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Li Lu § Banking career. Makes sense, and a functional WP:ATD. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:05, 11 July 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. WP:NPASR per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:08, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Canada Pro Cup

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

NN defunct competition held 8 times in 18 years. Deprodded suggesting merge to IFBB Competitions section of article, but everything in there is red-linked, indicating that there is no precedent or perceived need to do so, and a look at the page for one of the winners (Chris Dickerson) indicates that most competitions don't have articles. Pretty much an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list. Also unsourced. Article creator blocked for sockpuppetry three months after article creation. MSJapan (talk) 03:04, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to International_Federation_of_BodyBuilding_&_Fitness#Competitions because redirects are WP:CHEAP. Nom's arguments otherwise are WP:OTHERSTUFF. ~Kvng (talk) 15:55, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:34, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. As a professional sports competition I believe inclusion is justified, although it's certainly not the most prominent. Wouldn't object to deletion. KaisaL (talk) 17:22, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:55, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:19, 5 July 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. Sandstein 17:00, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of ultra-light sport vehicles of the 2010s

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

The main issue with this list is that it is bordering on original research (WP:OR), unsourced (a majority of them) (WP:VERIFY), an arbitrary dump list (WP:INDISCRIMINATE) for any sub 1200kg sports cars; also how is a Harley Davidson cruiser ultra-light or a Piaggio moped a sport vehicle. Also why are we having some top-end sports cars in this list when they do not belong there. Throw in some sportbikes and this proves my criticism and why 2010 when lightweight sport vehicles had existed since the dawn of the sport vehicles. Donnie Park (talk) 10:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve, tentatively. Why not just improve it. 1. I just removed the bikes section. 2. Why not change scope to be list of ultr light sport vehicles of all time, not just the 2010s. There are sources. How do you want to define the term differently? --do ncr am 11:19, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You could have a go but question is how the Ultima is an ultralight? Is the Porsche 550 an ultralight? In what way an Noble M400 and McLaren F1 an ultralight? Because that is included because of it's weight, what about the 1990s GT1 race homologated cars (Toyota GT1, Mercedes CLK-GTR), are they? Are we going to include every Lotus 7 wannabes out there as well as the huge number of kit cars that is, thus will become the list of kit cars. Why are we including concept cars in this list when we have no idea how light they are going to be nor its' performance data? As with classifying them, unless there is a Euro Car Segment class for such, it borders on original research and arbitary; hence why I stick to my decision. Also as due to safety standards, cars will get bigger and heavier and most of these web articles are far too arbitrary as they have no official criteria and just make them up because it's an web article to interest readers, they have their own idea what ultra light is such as the inclusion of the Mazda MX-5, Renault Twizy and McLaren F1, thus you can catch why this article is being nominated for deletion. Donnie Park (talk) 12:07, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Delete because I'm having trouble with the fact that this is a "list of ultra-light sport vehicles"...but almost none of the sources it cites actually use that term. It's easy to google "ultra-light" and find hits, of course, but it's also easy to find hits for "super light", "very light", "extremely light", etc. and I'm having trouble finding out how this is not original research. What we need are plenty of reliable sources which use the term in exactly the same way. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:19, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:35, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:55, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OR and also kind of a directory. Borock (talk) 11:44, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's nothing to actually convince there can be a convincing article for the separate 2010 thus delete; easily can be mentioned elsewhere. SwisterTwister talk 06:35, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Original research and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Luke J.^talk 15:09, 12 July 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. WP:NPASR per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hemachandran (actor)

AfDs for this article:

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

Why the page should be deleted URLs used for References are bare URLs and there's no importance of the article. The Page creator is creating pages by submitting invalid URLs to confuse the Wikipedia. So I'm requesting to delete these kind of pages from Wikipedia. Also requesting to block this user. Josu4u (talk) 14:50, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment unsure about notability, but I see no problem with the urls. If the meaning is that the refs are irrelevant, they are not irrelevant--they are refs about the films in which he appeared; whether he had significant roles needs to be determined. DGG ( talk ) 17:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Note: This discussion was not properly transcluded until now, please consider that when deciding on closing. I have also added the above AfD template. Monty ₈₄₅ 23:26, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've changed the AFD links to point to the correct article, since - much to my confusion - Hemachandran goes to a different person. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:09, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:43, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:52, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's hard to tell about notability. Judging by a quick search via Google Translate, Tamil Wikipedia doesn't seem to have a page on him or the film Krishnaveni Panjaalai, but Wikipedias are works in progress, and it may be that no one has gotten to him yet. To confuse things further, some sources refer to him as "Hema Chandran," e.g. Spicy Onion. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 20:38, 9 July 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.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:08, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jörg Colberg

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

Notability in question, and most of article was promotional about subjects blog APlacerville (talk) 01:22, 4 July 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 July 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:44, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First, though, a little attempt at an explanation may help. In "most of article was promotional about subjects blog" above, note the past tense. Why? Well, see the article's recent history. On 2 July, an IP reduced the byte-count by almost half. Here's the article as it was before 2 July. Colberg is perhaps best known for his blog. The blog has been praised. One example is in a subsequently deleted page of life.com. The article's talk page (recommended background reading for this AfD) suggests that quotation of this praise is something to which the nominator has a particular objection. This surprises me, as it seems easily covered by this section of the content guideline on citing sources. (You'll find my defence of it here.) ¶ The article now tells us that "[Colberg's] blog, Conscientious, started In [sic] 2002 [Citation needed]". Here's what it said till the arrival of the IP: "[Colberg's] blog, Conscientious, started on 9 July 2002. Early posts were short text messages (similar to what could later be accomplished via Twitter). The first substantive message was praise for the photography of Steve Pyke", with a reference to "July 2002 archive, Conscientious, saved by the Wayback Machine on 13 May 2003". The second sentence (with the Twitter reference) is editorializing that is better cut. Everything else can be seen in that Wayback link. But it seems that for the nominator, either a primary source cannot be a source for itself, or this material is unduly self-serving -- anyway, WP:V won't allow it (which is not how I interpret this). ¶ I'll concede that this was not an impressive article, and that it should be improved. But you're viewing it in an inferior state, and some of the charges made against it seem based on misreadings or misunderstandings. ¶ On the other hand, you should read anything I say with considerable scepticism, because "Assumption is Hoary may be subject of article since they originally wrote most of unsourced material" (added in this edit). -- Hoary (talk) 05:53, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Please just read Talk:Jörg Colberg. Follow the trail. Hoary wrote most of the article a few days after creation, and as he points out almost half of it was a promotional piece about Colberg’s blog. The article is about Colberg, and not the notability of his blog.

The comments by Hoary above are just one instance of poorly sourced opinion, and fail to mention the entire section being referenced. Here is the eschange from Talk:Jörg Colberg.

Colberg dates the start of his interest in photography to 1999. His blog, Conscientious, started on 9 July 2002. Early posts were short text messages (similar to what could later be accomplished via Twitter). The first substantive message was praise for the photography of Steve Pyke

I asked Hoary

’’How does a Citation to an archived blog identify the start of his interest in photography? Where are you pulling this from? It is an opinion that the first substantive message was about Steve Pyke. Linking back to Colberg's blog does not validate the claim. Your opinion on the matter is not a valid third party source. ‘’

Most of Hoary contributions to this article were promotional, or lack valid citations.

The article is not in an inferior state. The subject lacks notabilty. There are almost no third party sources for the subject, and he has made no clear contribution to the field of photography. Hoary says the blog has been praised, but one comment from Life.com suggest a minor acknowledgement for the blog. It does not suggest Colberg merits an article. Surely, there are more concrete third part source to confirm the notability of this subject? APlacerville (talk) 07:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @APlacerville: I stroke the above !vote, a nominator does not get an additional vote in an AfD discussion. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 18:51, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: (i) The "delete" not-vote immediately above is by the nominator. (ii) The comment immediately above says in part: "as [Hoary] points out almost half of [the article] was a promotional piece about Colberg’s blog". I point this out? Well well. I'm not aware that I point this out. Certainly I can't imagine myself pointing it out, not least because it's untrue. APlacerville, it appears that one of us is seriously deluded. (You or me? I invite others to judge.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am the initial author of this article. His notability is demonstrated by the fact he has had books published by a major publisher (Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics), and has a notable contribution in a book by another major publisher (Thames & Hudson); and his opinion on photography, via his blog, has been recognised as notable by Source, Wired, Sean O'Hagan, American Photo and Life. -Lopifalko (talk) 20:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Here is what I am stuggling with. The article originally claimed Colberg was also a photographer, curator, and judged photography competitions without giving any sources. Now Hoary is claiming that he is best known for his blog, and keeps referencing a life.com web post as proof for his notability, but Life.com lists 20 blogs on that post - with short blurbs about each. They include some personal Tumblr’s on the list. Clearly, this is not evidence of a significant contribution to the field of photography. If Colberg is notable, it should not be hard to find other sources, which validate his notability. The wired citation is a similar style to the Life.com post. It is a list of over 10 blogs. Recently, Sean O’hagan’s list of 8 online publications was added to the article, but Lopifalko embellishes the source by adding “few most recommended online photography websites,” O’Hagan does not state these are the few most recommended. This embellishment is attempting to make Colberg’s significance seem greater. All of these citations including the recently added Source Magazine (which is unauthored) are long lists of 10-20 blogs. None focus on Coelberg as making a major contribution to photography.

A bunch of websites saying Colberg’s blog is one of the the top 10-20 photography blogs online does not seem like the type of significant coverage stated in Wikipedia’s guidelines for notability.

Please just point us to some sources, which are reliable, and are not a list of blogs where Colberg’s significant contributions are documented. If you can do so, I will acknowledge his notability, and I am sure everyone will agree he warrants his own article.

At this point it is clear, Colberg is an educator, has a blog, writes introductory essays for books, and contributes to magazines (half of the citations are dedicated to his articles). But, when you add all this up it does not equate to the notability required for an individual article. At this point, it seems like an article about the top 10 photography blogs is where this content belongs.APlacerville (talk) 19:06, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:03, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

APlacerville claims that my contribution "embellishes the source by adding “few most recommended online photography websites,”" – The title of the source is "The best photography websites, publications and galleries", which lists 8 websites and publications (Colberg's category), and 7 physical galleries. Being one of eight "best" seems notable to me, and my "embellishment" is to try to translate O'Hagan's "best". The language I chose was "few most recommended", which seems appropriate to me as a translation from being amongst the best of 8. The Source article lists 10 blogs. Colberg's contributions to photography include that these respected sources recommend his opinion on "Contemporary fine art photography discussed and dissected", in the words of Sean O'Hagan. Do not be confused by the use of the word "blog" – it is not a website about his own life, but his writings on photography. -Lopifalko (talk) 06:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a no-brainer. As soon as I saw that he's authored two books, both published by the Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics, I knew that this article is more than adequately supported in terms of notability. Then there are six less august publications to which he has formally contributed. Why was this brought to AfD???? Tony (talk) 04:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets notability requirements. References to blogs can be appropriate additions to biographies. Primary combined with secondary sources are also justified.--Ipigott (talk) 07:26, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Took for me quite a time to look thru the links and the discussion and I agree it's not an easy keep and go. Most of the links are not straightforward, but the combination of sources makes me feel that he meets WP:CREATIVE. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:51, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, just barely. In one of the article refs, Wired calls him a "pioneer in photography blogging". He's a juror for the Prix Pictet, and I see plenty of other mentions. the credibility is there in numerous independent sources that talk about his contribution to the photo community. BUT... the article itself needs to reflect that he's just barely notable, rather than standout notable. I would say chop it by another 50%. The section "publications that include contributuions by..." is very weak and should likely be chopped or changed to publications, with the specific chapter contribution listed. Also, in coming to this conclusion I looked only at web references for the subject, and not at the history of the article. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 21:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I have not seen the publication but contributing to Image Makers, Image Takers: the essential guide to photography by those in the know by major publisher Thames & Hudson seems notable to me. Colberg is included in the "Retouching, And Online Curating And Publishing" chapter with Tim Barber and Pascal Dangin. In the hope of giving an example of the notability of other contributors without trying to create an undue impression of notability by association, the other contributors to the publication are Thomas Demand, William Eggleston, Boris Mikhailov, Stephen Shore, Mary Ellen Mark, Martin Parr, Eugene Richards, Sebastião Salgado, David LaChapelle, David Sims, Mario Sorrenti, Ellen von Unwerth, Tina Barney, Anton Corbijn, Rineke Dijkstra, Rankin, Fabrice Dall'Anese, Charles Freger, Naomi Harris, Jehad Nga, Alec Soth, Neil Stewart, Camilla Brown, Katherine Hinds, Dr Inka Graeve Ingelmann, Rudolf Kicken, Diane Dufour, Kathy Ryan, Gerhard Steidl, and Dan Torres. I read that it includes "3-4 pages interviews for each one of them" -Lopifalko (talk) 08:12, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I think it is good to look at another article created by Lopifalko.

David Campany is a notable writer in the field of photography. This should be the standard for a notable writer in the photography world. After writing his blog for 14 years Colberg has yet to come close to a notable writer. Barely notable should not be the criteria used. Comparison to his peers shows the shortcomings of this article.

Maybe in time, Colberg will reach the notability needed for an article, but at this point it seems he has not done so.

This discussion started because I cut a lot of unsourced claims from the article, which others refused to accept. If is does stay, I agree, it should be trimmed down even more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by APlacerville (talk • contribs) 03:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep Looks like Hoary did lots research on this AFD. I concur with his findings that the subject is notable and meets GNG. Maybeparaphrased (talk) 04:22, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*KeepI agree with what Hoary posts above. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 21:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC) Banned scok HappyValleyEditor (talk) 06:23, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:09, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). 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 01:20, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kalel (youtuber)

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

Does not appear to be a notable YouTuber. Other than YouTube-centric sites and gossip sites I couldn't find enough significant coverage specifically about her. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:57, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 01:28, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable vlogger.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:35, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable Aloneinthewild (talk) 11:02, 10 July 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 List of numeral systems#Standard positional numeral systems. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 15:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tetradecimal

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

It was redirected to List of numeral systems#Standard positional numeral systems but I'm not so sure it's not notable. Just because this article doesn't cite very many reliable sources doesn't mean there aren't very many. Maybe the person who wrote the first source at [117] gained their knowledge from reliable sources but didn't cite them in that page. Blackbombchu (talk) 00:52, 4 July 2016 (UTC) Blackbombchu (talk) 00:52, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Blackbombchu (talk) 01:02, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The cited applications don't seem important and base-14 is not important in their operation anyway. I can't find any references to the importance of base-14 on Google. CapitalSasha ~ talk 02:31, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

redirect, i.e. restore the redirect. Though it has only one article linking to it it‘s a plausible search term and redirect. But certainly not independently notable, unlike bases such as 8, 12, 16 which have been or are still used.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 04:10, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Not independently notable, but redirects are cheap. Also, restoring an article for the sole purpose of putting it up for deletion seems kind of WP:POINTy, or at least a weird abuse of process. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:13, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I put it up for deletion because I thought that maybe it wasn't worthy of deletion and the discussion was going to form a consensus that it wasn't. I thought it was fine because Tom (LT) gave me permission to undo their redirect and nominate for deletion at Talk:Double_circulatory_system#Possible_deletion_of_article. Blackbombchu (talk) 04:37, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Not a base that is notable for an article like hexadecimal is but a valid search term nonetheless. Also, note that base 14 is, or has been, in actual use so not just theoretical in nature. DeVerm (talk) 05:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per David Eppstein. Double sharp (talk) 09:30, 4 July 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:20, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lasarus Ratuere

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

The subject appears to fail the notability criterion WP:BASIC and all three subject-specific criteria at WP:NACTOR. The mentions provided are are completely trivial, (ie, he exists). VQuakr (talk) 00:27, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep supporting links on awards and notability.

Ghost in the Shell - Main Cast

http://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/destinations/nz/81315872/Ghost-in-the-Shell-cast-pick-favourite-Wellywood-spots

http://www.empireonline.com/movies/news/first-look-scarlett-johansson-ghost-shell/

http://media.newzealand.com/en/news/ghost-in-the-shells-section-9-experience-wellingt/

http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20160414005815/en/Paramount-Pictures-DreamWorks-Pictures’-“GHOST-SHELL”-Production

http://www.thewrap.com/ghost-in-the-shell-scarlett-johansson-first-image-paramount-photo-anime/

http://www.tourismnewzealand.com/news/ghost-in-the-shell-cast-pick-favourite-wellington-spots/

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/sci-fi/scarlett-johanssons-ghost-in-the-shell-adds-the-wolverine-actress-rila-a142043

Ready For this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ready_for_This_(TV_series)

http://tv.press.abc.net.au/rising-young-talent-star-in-abc3-drama-ready-for-this

http://blackfellafilms.com.au/project/ready-for-this/

Kill the Messenger

http://belvoir.com.au/news/kill-messenger-extraordinary-play/

http://aussietheatre.com.au/reviews/review-kill-the-messenger-belvoir

https://dailyreview.com.au/kill-the-messenger-review-belvoir-sydney/19608/

https://suzygoessee.com/2015/02/24/review-kill-the-messenger-belvoir-st-theatre/

Helpmann Awards

http://www.helpmannawards.com.au/2015/nominees-and-winners/theatre

http://belvoir.com.au/news/helpmann-award-nominations/

Management

http://www.morrissey.com.au/portfolio_page/lasarus-ratuere/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.240.89.225 (talk) 23:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.240.89.225 (talk) 00:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks IP, but this !vote doesn't address the reason for the deletion nomination. All the mentions given above are trivial. What sources have covered this particular person (not a move he is in) in depth? VQuakr (talk) 19:09, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:54, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:59, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. notable.

Ready for This Won an AACTA and a Logie so is clearly notable. Ratuere has a significant role.

Kill the Messenger has more than enough coverage (below) for notability. Ratuere has a significant role in the notable production of this play.

Those two roles meets WP:NACTOR#1, "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions."

Additional coverage of Kill the Messenger

Grieves, Victoria (23 February 2015), "Western Sydney meets the city in Nakkiah Lui's Kill the Messenger", The Conversation

Liston, Jo (22 February 2015), "A raw, passionate message about casual injustice", Daily Telegraph

Blake, Jason (20 February 2015), "A scribe, star and interrogator", Sydney Morning Herald

Hook, Chris (19 February 2015), "A tale from heart and home", Daily Telegraph

Enough without the coming Ghost in the Shell. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:48, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has won two notable awards and the high quality Australian press coverage identified above, passes WP:NACTOR Atlantic306 (talk) 01:57, 9 July 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.

[1] ttps://www.divyabhaskar.co.in/news/MGUJ-VAD-HMU-vadodara-manan-shah-name-included-in-the-list-of-the-worlds-top-100-hackers-news-526000.html

[2] ttps://www.divyabhaskar.co.in/news/MGUJ-VAD-gujarati-boys-corrects-googles-mistake-4333536-PHO.html

[3] ttps://www.divyabhaskar.co.in/news/MGUJ-manan-shah-became-small-age-cyber-expert-4333135-PHO.html

[4] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MTV_India#Programming

[5] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_programmes_broadcast_by_MTV_in_Asia#M

[6] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramarsh#History

[7] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Click_Asia_Summit#2012

[8] ttps://yourstory.co/read/cf7d6afd57/a-journey-from-a-school-dropout-to-an-award-winning-ethical-hacker

[9] ttps://www.divyabhaskar.co.in/news/MGUJ-VAD-c-100-442493-NOR.html

[10] ttps://www.divyabhaskar.co.in/news/GAD-youngster-from-baroda-makes-software-for-finding-lost-smartphone-and-laptops-4379413-NOR.html

[11] ttps://www.khabarchhe.com/news/gujarat/41976-vadodara-district-election-commission-officer-held-press-conference-for-local-bodies-election/

[12] ttps://www.divyabhaskar.co.in/news/MGUJ-VAD-c-100-442493-NOR.html

[13] ttps://www.yosuccess.com/interviews/manan-shah-avalance/

[14] ttps://www.viewsline.com/Interview.jsp?id=130163&/___Manan_Shah,_Founder_&_CEO_of_Avalance_Global_Solutions/___Interview_With.html

[15] ttps://social.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/fffec14d-3767-446e-8b95-985e2c0edf92/indias-top-10-hackers

[16] ttps://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/news/6MJkqu0LEYs

[17] ttps://www.ethicalhavoc.net/Thread-India-s-Top-10-Most-Famous-Ethical-Hackers-2016

[18] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delhi_Public_School,_R._K._Puram#TV and Print Media

[19] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parul_University#Notable alumni

[20] ttps://www.divyabhaskar.co.in/news/MGUJ-VAD-MAT-latest-vadodara-news-030007-681523-NOR.html

[21] ttps://yourstory.co/read/cf7d6afd57/a-journey-from-a-school-dropout-to-an-award-winning-ethical-hacker

[22] ttps://www.google.co.in/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=3OV5V_esM-2K8Qfvsa_YDw&gws_rd=ssl#q=site:nullcon.net+manan+shah

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[1]

[2]

v t e Orders of magnitude for length by powers of 10
One metre (10⁰) and shorter	< −12 −12 −11 −10 −9 −8 −7 −6 −5 −4 −3 −2 −1 0
Longer than one metre	1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 <