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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:20, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Former mayor of small town (less than 10,000 people) who fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. The sources in this article do nothing to establish notability. They are: 1) a listing of his headstone; 2) a personal assurance from the author of the article that he called the mayor's office ; 3) A self-published online family history; 4) a self-published bio of Sevier from a family member on the same website; 5) a permanent dead link; a book that has no actual mention of Sevier; and 7) an unlinked article in a local newspaper. GPL93 (talk) 23:24, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable local politician....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:36, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mayor for 27 years. To quote from wp:N "Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article." As a mayor of more than 25 years standing he will almost certainly have several obituaries in state-wide newspapers and a lot of press in that quarter of a century outside them. Those will be enough to satisfy notability unless there have been a remarkable number of library fires. Neonchameleon (talk) 15:33, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not enough to just say that better sources probably exist "unless there have been a remarkable number of library fires" — anybody could say that about literally anything, including total hoaxes, if all they had to do was say it and had no requirement whatsoever to actually prove it. To get an article kept on WP:NEXIST grounds, you have to show hard evidence that the necessary depth and volume and range of sources to get him over the bar definitely does exist, not just guess that it probably does. Bearcat (talk) 14:30, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless somebody can actually show evidence that enough quality sourcing to change the equation actually exists out there. As I explained above, we do not extend articles an exemption from AFD consideration just because somebody theorizes that better sources probably exist — salvaging a poorly sourced article requires showing the actual hard results of an actual search for better sources, not just unsubstantiated speculation about the prospects of maybe finding better sources someday. Even outright hoaxes wouldn't be deletable from Wikipedia if all you had to do to save them was speculate that maybe there might be better sources out there in the world than anybody has actually found or shown. Bearcat (talk) 14:30, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mayors are not inherently notable, though ones of major cities almost always pass WP:GNG. He is not a mayor of a major city and does not appear to pass WP:GNG after source review, which isn't surprising given the article's beginnings. SportingFlyerT·C 07:59, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat. As it stands, this article fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. The sources that do exist are mainly self-published or unverifiable sources. The article also alludes to famous relatives, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:23, 5 May 2019 (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.
Does not pass WP:NPOL being a mayor of a town with only a five-digit population. Most of the other bios of mayors of the same town (all created by the same person) have already been deleted at AFD. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 21:42, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per reasons cited, I will add that the creator has made 100s of similar articles, some of which contain copyvios. The more deleted, the better. Thank you for nominating this, as it will make cleaning up his mess easier.💵Money💵emoji💵💸 11:26, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pineville LA is not large enough to automatically confer notability on its mayors just for being mayors per se, but the article is not reliably sourced well enough to actually get him over WP:NPOL #2 as the subject of significant press coverage: there's a lot of primary sourcing that is irrelevant to establishing notability at all, and even the stuff that is reliable source media coverage is still split mainly between glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things or people and the routinely expected local reporting of local mayoral election results. The notability test for a smalltown mayor requires evidence of much wider, deeper and/or more coverage than just the bare minimum needed to offer technical verification that he exists. Bearcat (talk) 19:36, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. It was created along with a slate of other articles by a long since discredited editor. Local coverage of a mayor of such a small city is just not notable in the slightest. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:40, 5 May 2019 (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 article was already PRODed for rationale "Subject fails WP:GNG and meets no inclusionary notability standards". But given that this a Billy Hathorn bio we're talking about, I'd like this to join the 90+ articles that were AFD-deleted. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 21:35, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per reasons cited, and what I said in your other afd.💵Money💵emoji💵💸 11:30, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and was created by a long since discredited editor who mass created articles about unnotable figures. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:45, 5 May 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:19, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not finding significant coverage of this charity (now called Chance for Childhood). The link I have added says they have 6 staff and a budget of about half a million - so this small size is probably why there is not much coverage. Tacyarg (talk) 20:30, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP because it lacks enough WP:SIGCOV demonstrating that it is a notable charity. The article also fails WP:NOPROMO and seems like nothing more then an advert seeking donations. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:58, 5 May 2019 (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.
There is nothing but a cast listing here, and the entire page is only supported by one single source. Grapesoda22 (✉) 20:26, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Obvious keep. Regardless of the current sourcing, the film meets WP:NFILM. #1 to be exact, as the film was widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics, which a simple WP:BEFORE would have shown. Onel5969TT me 21:10, 28 April 2019 (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. Tone 21:08, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is rife with WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and is an essay. I'm not sure if the topic itself is suitable for inclusion but as it's currently written, it's definitely not. Praxidicae (talk) 20:15, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like it fails WP:SYNTH and it is a not encyclopaedic worthy tone. Sheldybett (talk) 16:36, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article needs cleanup not deletion. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:45, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What reliable, in depth coverage is there specifically relating to "politics and football in Africa" that mention it directly? Anything less is synth. Praxidicae (talk) 18:00, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it should be merged with Association football and politics but a number of the page’s sources do make explicit connections between politics and soccer in Africa, particularly Banal Nationalism, Football, and Discourse Community in Africa which was published in a notable academic journal (this one source alone satisfies your reliable and in depth requirements). Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete interesting, but I agree the article has the problems identified by the nominator. SportingFlyerT·C 09:27, 3 May 2019 (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.
List for the sake of having a list. Fails WP:LISTN, with a total lack of independent, reliable sources that discuss this grouping. Sources are almost entirely from the AVGN website. More WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:FANCRUFT.
Just because a show or youtube series may be notable, does not mean we need to make a giant poorly sourced list of all the episodes.
Nominating for the 5th time because the recent Jan AFD discussion was poorly argued. The keep votes cited WP:SPLIT to justify the article. That would be valid if third party RS were found. WP is source firt, as in, the sources dictate whether pages should be made. If there are no reliable third party sources demonstrating the need for this grouping or list, then there's no need for this list. If I were to remove everything not sourced to third party sources for this page, I would effectively blank the page. Thus it would just be merged into the main one.
In other words, this WP:SPLIT does not come into effect because there's no sources demanding us to expand the main AVGN page to include a list of episodes, which is then split off.
Other Keep votes said that having a list of episodes is common or standard for web-series or television shows, which is an argument covered in WP:OTHERSTUFF. Each page is evaluated on its own merits, and the fact other pages exist is irrelevant. In fact, those other pages may themselves not be notable. Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:08, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep SPLIT can also be evoked if the main topic page is WP:SIZE-breaking, which it would be if this list was back in that. Then one fair question is to ask is "if SIZE was not an issue, would the list of episodes be part of the content on the coverage of AVGN" and to that question, I would say yes, based on RSes that discuss certain episodes (either based on the games, or his guest stars). (And I would also evoke that it is standard to list out episodes of any tv show or web series that has gotten this much coverage). Yes, when SPLIT the bulk of sourcing falls to the primary web site but this is no different when TV episode lists are split based only on schedule lists. As long as the principle topic shows notability, there's no requirement the SPLIT LISTN must too. --Masem (t) 21:57, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're ignoring the main issue which is that there's no sources to establish the notability of this list. There is no rule of Wikipedia that state we need to list the episodes of every single television and web series ever. If there's few or none third party sources then there's no need to make the list. If there are particularly notable episodes highlighted by third party sources, then they can be discussed in the body of the article for the AVGN. That' the spirit of Wikipedia: using third party sources to create scholarly articles. It is not in the spirit of Wikipedia to make indiscriminate list for the sake of it or because other pages do it. That's WP:LISTCRUFT.
The rest of your post relies on WP:OTHERSTUFF. 1. It's irrelevant that other pages exist. This page has to stand on its own merits. 2. What if we've gotten to permissive with "List of" episode pages and we shouldn't in fact consider it "standard" to make them for every single series ever? The problem with citing other pages is that it references to how things are done on Wikipedia, rather than the policies. And WP should be guided by policies, even though often they're ignored. Listcruft should not justify more listcruft. Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:18, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Why is this written as the 5th nomination? There was only one prior AfD. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs) 22:33, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then please make sure all prior discussions are directly listed here. postdlf (talk) 00:20, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, a couple of those deletion discussions were for similar articles, or an article with a slightly different title. This should, realistically be Nomination 2. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs) 14:57, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually this is the 4th nomination. Two of the older discussions were for this article before the was removed from the title in 2015 and not about a separate similarly named article. The only discussion not about this page was attempt to delete the main AVGN page.--64.229.166.98 (talk) 01:53, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SPLIT nor LISTN do not require a list split off from a notable topic to be notable, only that it is a logical separation and that there is a SIZE driver for the split. --Masem (t) 00:16, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Masem, purely an issue of whether it's a proper WP:SPLIT, not the convoluted reasoning that the nominator is throwing out. This is now the fifth time our time has been wasted. "I think there is too much coverage of this topic I have never edited, so I'm going to start a seven-day bureaucratic process to strike it out with a sledgehammer rather than make talk page suggestions to trim it down with a scalpel, or just leave it alone." postdlf (talk) 00:20, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The rationale behind having a reference list of episodes in threefold: a) whether the show itself is notable (the "group" or "list topic" in WP:LISTN refer to the series as a whole, in this case); b) whether WP:SPLIT applies; c) in case §b is borderline - whether usefulness to the reader (and by extension convention) suggest one way or the other. This case checks all three boxes. François Robere (talk) 11:32, 6 May 2019 (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. Tone 21:08, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This article on a UK charity looks WP:TOOSOON to me. I have added a ref but everything else is primary or The Sun. Tacyarg (talk) 20:07, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is a reference from the British House of Commons. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:31, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTINHERITED. The article has a long list of notable people who have endorsed the memorial project, which serves no real purpose except to bulk up the article and disguise the fact there is nothing to say about the memorial yet because it is only in the planning stages. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:20, 5 May 2019 (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 article only consists of a plot section and a cast listing. It is only supported by one single source. The article was created back in 2017, and nothing has changed since back then. Grapesoda22 (✉) 19:59, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Obvious keep. Regardless of the current sourcing, the film meets WP:NFILM. #1 to be exact, as the film was widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics, which a simple WP:BEFORE would have shown. Onel5969TT me 21:03, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources and passes WP:NFILM, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 16:25, 4 May 2019 (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. Tone 21:08, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
List for the sake of having a list. Fails WP:LISTN, with a total lack of independent, reliable sources that discuss this grouping. Sources are mostly the show itself. More WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:FANCRUFT.
Just because a show or youtube series may be notable, does not mean we need to make a giant unsourced list of all the episodes. Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:57, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While the YouTube webseries itself may be notable (though an awful lot of its article's references are primary sources from the creator and appears to be a WP:REFBOMB), I see zero evidence in RSes that individual episodes receive any substantive coverage/reviews that warrant a listing of the episodes on Wikipedia for their notability even as a whole. A rather absurd amount of Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw is also sourced to his own personal website and non-independent publishers so I'm not entirely convinced he's even notable, at least not as the size of the article suggests... Reywas92Talk 04:04, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Reywas92. The article fails WP:LISTN, and is nothing more then a giant list of poorly sourced WP:FANCRUFT content that doesn't belong on Wikipedia, but a fan website. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:25, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Does WP:SPLIT come into play in any way here? That is used to justify these list of episode pages on other AFD. Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:57, 5 May 2019 (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 subject fails WP:GNG. The compilation is five albums (that already have Wikipedia articles) that were bundled into a set. Article is nothing more than track listings that we already have on the main articles for these albums. StaticVapormessage me! 19:50, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the articles on the template at the bottom of this article could probably just all be redirected there really... Sergecross73msg me 21:46, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sergecross73: I entirely agree with you, but the container article needs a severe rewrite first. Richard3120 (talk) 22:08, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I went through a good chunk of them. Most (if not all) have AllMusic reviews. The majority of the older ones pre-2009 charted on Billboard, so I was unsure about nominating anything else. StaticVapormessage me! 23:18, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If I get a chance, I'll edit the individual pages to note the bonus tracks from this release (unless someone beats me to it) and then I'd say delete as they'd be no new information on this page IanPCP (talk) 11:44, 1 May 2019 (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. Tone 21:08, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I think possibly working with the writer to develop a non-promotional stub would be appropriate. I think there is way too much on the page. Or perhaps an article on the surgery which this page redirects to. There seems to be significant coverage of a couple notable surgeries he was involved in. I think the author should also be directed to a list of acceptable references as IMDB and a couple others aren't acceptable. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 20:01, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If the subject passes WP:NACADEMIC then that Google Scholar search certainly doesn't show it. There is one co-written paper with 62 citations, one with 15 and a handful with between 0 and 4. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:28, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Although the article needs to be developed by more sources, but successful tumor surgeries ,with coverage, make it notable. Alex-h (talk) 17:23, 4 May 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:06, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I recently PRODed this. PROD was declined by another editor on the grounds that there refs in Google books. Actually only one person, Bhagwati, Jagdish, ever seems to have used this term with the meaning stated in the article. As such I judge this to be a neologism that has not caught on, is confined to a single author and is thus not notable. The other refs on Google Books are not for this meaning at all, but for a completely different meaning in Church history, and thus have nothing to do with the current article. Mccapra (talk) 18:08, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment thanks Phil those links kind of make my point. They’re all links to work by Bhagwati with a few critical commentaries of Bhagwati by other authors. Mccapra (talk) 19:26, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, the majority of those links point to work by people other than Bhagwati, and, secondly, of course most of them are about Bhagwati's work, because his name was included in the searches. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:42, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as the term is so closely associated with Bhagwati perhaps a merge to that article would be the best outcome? Mccapra (talk) 19:28, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article for neologism; the fact that it is only two sentences long shows a lack of use, context, utility, and/or importance. Add the information to Bhagwati's page if necessary. MinervaELS (talk) 04:25, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The length of the article shows nothing whatsoever about the use, context, utility, and/or importance of the subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 06:38, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:04, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article fails WP:GNG because there is no evidence that this is a real term that has been used by more then one person. I found no evidence that Intrusionism is a real term in a WP:BEFORE search I did. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:37, 5 May 2019 (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. Some mentioned a potential redirect but there was not clear consensus for that. There was consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) -- Danetalk 02:53, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is an article on Tai Nuea language but no reliable sources are provided for this article’s historical account. It mostly seems drawn from tourism sites and I can’t find any RS (in English). Mccapra (talk) 11:21, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If there's consensus for deletion, then instead of deleting, the article should be turned into a redirect to Tai Nuea language. – Uanfala (talk) 09:43, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. While the term describes the language, the various peoples that form its users are usually collectively described as Dai people. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:28, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Update: It appears that there are indeed sources which cover Tai Nua people as an ethnic group, e.g. [1] (actually two ethnic groups with the same name; one in China and Myanmar, and another in Laos). The article still needs to be completely rewritten though, as it fails to distinguish between the two and appears to be based mostly on original research and non-reliable sources. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment thanks Paul_012 in that case it seems the best outcome is a redirect to Dai people. Unless anyone objects I’ll do that and ask for this AfD to close. Mccapra (talk) 18:49, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather let the AfD ran its course. I think Tai Nuea language is still probably the better target, since readers arriving via the term would be WP:ASTONISHed to be directed to Dai people. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Really? But Dai people is about the people and customs whereas Tai Nuea language is just about linguistics, so surely the former is a closer match to what the user is searching for? Mccapra (talk) 06:06, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dai people doesn't have content about the Taineua people apart from a brief mention of『Tai Nüa』inside a table, if that counts for anything, so it's not particularly useful to readers who search for "Taineua". If it did have more substantial content, then Taineua could be turned into a disambiguation page listing the ethnic group/s and the language, per the naming conventions: in English a given name is used for both the ethnicity and the language, and the two topics don't normally tend to attract vastly different readership, so there's usually no primary topic). – Uanfala (talk) 06:44, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
KeeporDraft this article needs rework or improve. see source 1. MyanmarBBQ (talk) 20:58, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 03:26, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can see many sources on the people - [2][3][4][5][6][7][8], therefore while the article needs fixing, the rationale presented by the nominator is not valid. Given that there appear to be a number of different ways the name of the people could be spelt (the Chinese also called them by different names) - [9], and I only did a quick search for a couple, with the number sources (I only give a few of those I found) it should easily pass WP:GNG. Few sources however uses Taineua, most use Tai Neua or Tai Nua, so I would suggest moving the article to a better name, maybe Tai Nua people?Hzh (talk) 22:47, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment thanks Hzh. Based on the sources you’ve found I think it would be best to move the article to the new title you suggest, not merge as previously suggested. Mccapra (talk) 02:00, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:59, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
KeeporDraft this article needs any reliable sources in English.- MA Javadi (talk) 20:08, 28 April 2019 (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.
Originally tried to redirect but was reverted. Single character from a movie with no independent coverage and is basically WP:FANCRUFTPraxidicae (talk) 18:20, 28 April 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:05, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:PORNBIO and WP:GNG. No qualifying awards, no independent reliable sources. Virtually all content is promotional and/or drawn from promotional sources and even video. Prior AFD was under the name Jake Bass. Mysticair667537 (talk) 18:02, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:PORNBIO has been superseded by WP:ENT and WP:BASIC, both of which the subject fails. The only plausibly independent secondary source is a brief mention. An independent search for reliable source coverage comes up empty. • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's not notable itself and also look like a PORNBIO.Forest90 (talk) 23:49, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010Talk 17:36, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:PORNBIO and it's successors. Not notable. -- Danetalk 02:48, 1 May 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:04, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Far WP:TOOSOON. Fails WP:GRIDIRON currently as they haven't played in regular or post season game and only just got drafted, which is obviously subject to a lot of change. Praxidicae (talk) 17:44, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now, per WP:NGRIDIRON. No notability from his college career or evidence of playing in the AAF. Obviously, the article could be recreated if he makes an NFL (or CFL) roster and plays in a regular-season game. —C.Fred (talk) 18:17, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there's a lot of current "noise" in online searches from the NFL draft and free agency, and based on that I don't see any notability yet. However, I have to confess that I have not been able to weed out any potential articles that may exist from the college career. I have found no evidence to support notability at this time, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I recommend others take a look at any coverage from his college days and see what we find--and I ask for help in that endeavor. Based on what I can find, it doesn't look good for the article...--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:14, 29 April 2019 (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.
Far WP:TOOSOON. Fails WP:GRIDIRON currently as they haven't played in regular or post season game and only just got drafted, which is obviously subject to a lot of change. Praxidicae (talk) 17:44, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now, per WP:NGRIDIRON. No notability from his college career or evidence of playing in the AAF. Obviously, the article could be recreated if he makes an NFL (or CFL) roster and plays in a regular-season game. —C.Fred (talk) 18:18, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Daily Progress is a member of the Virginia Press Association. I've never heard the term "hyperlocal" -- but MVP for the Belk Bowl does speak to WP:Impact and it was a nationally-covered post-season bowl game. So that wouldn't be "local" at all.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:21, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the articles mentioned are either game coverage at the amateur level or local coverage not satisfying WP:NCOLLATH, I think he will probably become notable soon though but the season isn't for another few months I think? SportingFlyerT·C 17:38, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
CommentWP:NCOLLATH is inclusive and not exclusive, the sources provided and others not in the article surpass WP:GNG. There is more than one path to notability.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:09, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I've noted many times before, games coverage typically does not count towards WP:GNGinany sport. SportingFlyerT·C 21:35, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not confuse feature articles with basic sports stats and box scores or transactional data. Significant coverage such as feature articles about the athletes (and for that matter games) do apply toward notability.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:26, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not. The wtkr.com article is about a game, not a feature article on the player. The two other articles are from the same publication, which is also local to the area the player plays in. SportingFlyerT·C 04:34, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you have. The article titled "Record-setting day for Olamide Zaccheaus propels Virginia to win over Ohio" actually mentions the subject in the title. Further, there is nothing in WP:GNG that disqualifies local coverage (plus having a circulation over 20,000 puts The Daily Progress outside the range of a tiny little "local" paper). There are enough other such articles to build a more thorough article over time just from the time period before this latest NFL draft. That is way more than enough to meet the standard in WP:GNG of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". And the subject wouldn't "lose" notability just for not making the cut of the NFL draft.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:28, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article titled "Record-setting day for Olamide Zaccheaus" is four paragraphs long and mentions him only once outside of the headline. Hardly WP:SIGCOV. There's nothing wrong with local coverage per se, but we do tend to delete sports figures who only have local notability. Not to make an other stuff exists argument, but here is a deletion discussion I was on the wrong end of due to the delete !voters only mentioning the local coverage of the player, and unlike Zaccheaus that player had multiple feature articles written on him. SportingFlyerT·C 07:54, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SIGCOV: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. -- the references in the article do indeed combine to meet that standard. There is no original research here, the content of the article was garnered from the sources. The standard is met.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:05, 4 May 2019 (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.
Anthony Bliss was an eighteenth century clergyman whose notability has not been established. The article was nominated for deletion on 11 April 2019 and the discussion was closed as keep on 18 April 2019, but I am renominating for three reasons.
Seven references were added but there was no discussion of whether they meet WP:GNG.
When nominated the article was about an Anthony Bliss who died in 1815, however all of the evidence for notability added appears to relate to another Anthony Bliss, the subject's father. I have rearranged the article to separate the information about the two men.
The discussion was closed 18 hours early.
I therefore suggest that a new discussion is needed to establish whether either Anthony Bliss is notable. I believe that the references do not establish significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
Alumni Oxoniensis refers to both men. It is a list of Oxford students so it does not establish notability. The older man had MA (1719) and DD (1733) degrees and the younger had a BA degree (1751) and was the son of Dr Anthony Bliss of Portsmouth. It is independent but does not provide significant coverage.
God in human thought, an 1874 book, has a brief reference to a book by Dr (the older) Anthony Bliss. It is independent but does not provide significant coverage.
The remaining five references are links to works or listings of works by Anthony Bliss MA or DD (the older), Vicar of Portsmouth. They are primary sources and not independent.
Keep--I rearranged the page in chronological order, with the father being first. There are occasional bio pages on Wikipedia that refer to both a man and his wife. It would not be too much of a stretch to have a father and son page referring to both of them. I am of the opinion that "God in human thought" discusses the book sufficiently to be considered significant coverage, especially given that book reviews of that era had to be shorter due to cost. I am of the opinion that the father is notable on his own, as he is an opposition figure to Thomas Chubb. I included him on the Deism sidebar, along with Thomas Chubb. Because the son has the same name, it is prudent to keep some mention of him with birthdate, deathdate, positions, and location so that people who are looking for information about the father are aware of the differences between the father and the son. Lastly, I am of the opinion that the son himself alone is not notable. I am not in favor of splitting this into two articles.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:06, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sourcing suffices to support the notability of this father/son pair of old time clergymen. gBooks search here: [11].E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:16, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His workers are notable enough to have been copied and distributed by google books. Hardyplants (talk)
Keep but focus article on the father. Son seems somewhat less noteworthy. Content can remain essentially the same, just change first line and son’s header. Hyperbolick (talk) 00:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (as nominator) I think there are now enough references to keep the article as it is now a (90%) new article on Anthony Bliss (father), rather than an eleven year old stub about Anthony Bliss (son). As the subject was active in the eighteenth century, there will be potential sources which are not available on line. The article should be rearranged to cover Anthony Bliss (father) and include a paragraph on his son, as suggested by Hyperbolick. Query to closing admin: the subject of the article has changed from Anthony Bliss the son (as created) to Anthony Bliss the father (last week) to both men (this week), however its wikidata item has the date of death and Clergy of the Church of England database ID of Anthony Bliss (son): is this a problem and what, if anything, needs to be done about it?TSventon (talk) 11:52, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in its present structure. The father seems notable as a theologian campaigning against the then popular theological view of the deists. The son is probably NN, but can remain as being the other's son. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:40, 1 May 2019 (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. Tone 21:09, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I will circle back if an editor decides to add sources to show GNG. Lubbad85 (☎) 15:22, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMODEL, WP:NACTOR, and WP:GNG because she lacks any WP:SIGCOV of her life or career both in the article and in a WP:BEFORE search I did. There just is not meaningful coverage of her in reliable sources. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:10, 5 May 2019 (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.
Lack of notability, no coverage of person; book is self-published and all related material is promotional, with the exception of a single HuffPo piece, which does not suffice. Fails WP:NBIO, and the book per se would fail WP:NBOOK. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:10, 28 April 2019 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:10, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article meets the notability criteria. Roberto Liccardo is an authoritative source when it comes to media coverage and marketing internationally; recently featured among others by Venezuela #1 newspaper [1]. He is the founder of GoodNoon, a company ranking #3 on the "Best Online Marketing Companies" TrustPilot chart [2], with coverage, among other large media, in Forbes [3]Johnvertel8 (talk) 19:20, 28 April 2019 (UTC)— Johnvertel8 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Tellingly, the Forbes article does not even mention his name. The TrustPilot listing is exactly that: a mention in a listing... of the company, not him. And the El Nacional piece is an interview where he is questioned about other topics; again, it's not about him. - I fear those don't do much for personal notability. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:30, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Forbes article and Trustpilot ranking as best online marketing company refer to the company he founded and where he is currently working as CEO. The HuffingtonPost piece and the El Nacional article feature are notable sources featuring him directly. El Nacional piece is clearly not an interview, but it is an indipendent article recognizing Roberto Liccardo's international efforts to sensibilize media regarding the Venezuelan Crisis. Not sure what "interview where he is questioned about other topics" refers to, because the article starting from its title talks about Marketing and PR (PR in Spanish is translated as RP=Relaciones públicas, Medios=Media). Thus, I believe the notability criteria needed are met.
the Forbes column is not a WP:RS; just a personal column by one of Forbes' enormous stable of bloggers. And TrustPilot is NOT a WP:RS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:20, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The person has enough notability and proven tracks of success with the company he founded. He is covered by top media such as HuffingtonPost, El Nacional and Forbes. BOGLA (talk) 10:43, 29 April 2019 (UTC)— BOGLA (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete as PROMO for a "marketing and growth hacker consultant, businessman and best-seller autho". Fails WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:20, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note that both "keep" opinions are by SPAs.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:18, 2 May 2019 (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. Tone 15:49, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Very few if any of these planets have any real-world coverage. Merge what can be merged into Transformers, but this is more fit for a wikia than Wikipedia in any case. DonIago (talk) 14:25, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the notable entries can be adequately described in-line in related articles when needed. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:45, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Pretty much none of these planets, save a couple, have any secondary sources at all, and those that do (Cybertron and Unicron) have individual articles. There is really nothing here worth keeping or merging elsewhere. Rorshacma (talk) 16:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:FANCRUFT from beginning to end. There's effectively no sourcing and all the arguably notable locations have articles already so there is no point to this. ReykYO! 07:44, 2 May 2019 (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.
Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 14:00, 28 April 2019 (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. Tone 15:51, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
GNG fail. I couldn't find any WP:RS to back of the claims. Do note that there are two previous AFDs that ended as !delete, though they may not be the same person (one mentions PORNBIO). Theredproject (talk) 13:28, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not seeing any real level of independent notability.Slatersteven (talk) 13:46, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Working with famous musicians is of no value as notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. All the coverage you linked to is for a single concert that occurred at 7 p.m. on Sunday, Dec. 16, 2016. Can you find more? ThatMontrealIP (talk) 12:38, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your right, I can't find any more coverage. Mysticair667537 (talk) 14:48, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article fails WP:GNG because its subject lacks lasting WP:SIGCOV of his life or career. The one concert a few years ago is pure WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:34, 5 May 2019 (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. Tone 15:52, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
GNG fail. I couldn't find any WP:RS to back of the claims. Theredproject (talk) 13:26, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Serious lack of real notability, all very trivial.Slatersteven (talk) 13:45, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yeah, that's a delete and a half right there. No notability and the Discography segment is all over the place, not in Chronological order or anything. Not worthy of a page, and seems as if it was written personally. Cheesy McGee (talk) 13:48, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems quite easy to find a book and news sources using the links in the afd. Also the discography is in a sortable table, which works perfectly well. Oculi (talk) 13:50, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The book is published by Books LLC: "Its primary work is collecting Wikipedia and Wikia articles and selling them as printed and downloadable". ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:28, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to recall that some of their books cite edits I have made here and there (me by name), not an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Does the book even exist? As pointed out above, Books LLC is little more than a publish-on-demand business that collects free content from wikipedia and packages them as print or downloadable files. In this case, it is simply a list of this subjects credits. ShelbyMarion (talk) 12:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
At this point "the book" has been thoroughly discredited.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 12:37, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable, sources not available even for GNG.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:28, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be an experienced, accomplished professional in his industry. Plenty of credits on notable projects but generally in lesser roles that typically don't merit encyclopedic importance. Bigger problem is the subject lacks significant RS coverage. ShelbyMarion (talk) 12:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Not notable, lacks coverage. Alex-h (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2019 (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. Tone 15:52, 5 May 2019 (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. Tone 15:53, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. Not a single mention in any issue of Billboard magazine or any other reliable source. The two keep votes in the previous AfD were both from SPA accounts editing articles related to Mr. Battiloro, and this article was recreated two months after deletion by another SPA account... I suspect some promotional efforts by people closely connected to Mr. Battiloro. Richard3120 (talk) 16:12, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Most of the article text is effectively the same as that at IMDb where it is attributed to one "N. Carey". AllyD (talk) 17:39, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Considering the listed portions of the subject's career in turn: (1) While a few discographical sites do name-check the subject as an engineer on some jazz recordings, I am seeing no indication of WP:CREATIVE notability; (2) Similar for his job at Nabisco; (3) The article makes award claims for the "Wes's Way" film but I am seeing little beyond notes that "The film was distributed to high school health classes and focused on the importance of exercise and nutrition.", insufficient for WP:FILMMAKER; (4) His involvement in the re-release of the Rolling Stones film or a "Put Them Back Together" song don't appear inherently WP:CREATIVE notable; (5) his business at theconsultanc.com does not appear notable either. Neither individually or together do these seem sufficient to demonstrate notability and overturn the previous AfD consensus. AllyD (talk) 17:39, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly "too soon"... he's been in the record business since 1973. Richard3120 (talk) 00:44, 1 May 2019 (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. Tone 15:53, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:GNG/WP:CORPDEPTH. I found no more than a few passing mentions and that includes the sources cited, which are mainly puff-pieces. Kleuske (talk) 13:04, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , It looks as article missing half of its text, no sign of notability. Alex-h (talk) 20:29, 2 May 2019 (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. Tone 15:53, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Biography of an actor who has appeared in several movies, but as far as I can tell he has never had a major part (for most of the films mentioned in the article I can't even find his name in a cast list - that may be because English-language sources only mention the major or starring actors, but it is certainly an indication that he does not meet WP:NACTOR). I couldn't find any sources to support most of the info in the article, and he clearly doesn't meet WP:GNG at this time. bonadeacontributionstalk 11:34, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as does not seem to have had any prominent roles in notable productions at least not in the ones on Wikipedia where he is not in the cast list, and there are no incoming links from other film articles, the only reference is about one film where he is about eighth in the cast list so that may well be his best role. If am wrong, please ping me, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 17:25, 28 April 2019 (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.
Does not meet WP:NEVENTS and WP:GNG due to the lack of sources and coverage for this crash. Most sources which do talk about the crash mention it in passing (from what I can see always only it happened, but nothing else). Also not much happened because of the event (from what I can see from the draft), except of course from the usual investigation. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 10:32, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lean keep I was able to find [16] quickly but can't find much more apart from the usual directories. That's WP:SIGCOV though, it's from 2000, commercial flights with casualties are generally notable, I'm sure there was local coverage, and this is a brand new article. At worst I think draftify. SportingFlyerT·C 10:49, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but potential draft There's not quite enough information to really keep it as a noteworthy air crash, it is literally only a paragraph of information, which is why I said "Potential Draft", if some information does eventually get resurrected, then there could potentially be enough to keep the page running. But at this stage, I'd leave it to the Nominator or whomever as to what he'd do with it, as, in all honesty, this article is a first for me, as I've never seen one quite like it. Cheesy McGee (talk) 13:10, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of sources available, I have added a few to the article. Few, if any, of the news reports I've dug up in the 30 minutes I've tried have mentioned the crash by the flight number, so don't try searching by that, but there is coverage out there. RecycledPixels (talk) 20:59, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominators comment: I have no problem with this being closed as keep, as the article has been significantly improved from the time the AfD has been opened (WP:HEYMANN). Although I tried to do a full WP:BEFORE on the article, I obviously haven't (my mistake). Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 21:21, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dreamy Jazz: I wouldn't worry too much - you were taking action in a move war, and sometimes WP:BEFORE searches don't bring much up, especially when it's a 20-year-old plane crash in rural Laos that's not referred to by its flight number. SportingFlyerT·C 21:42, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Meets some criteria for an aircraft accident article, but unfortunately (for the articles sake) no notable persons were on board and the aircrafts MTOW is less than 12,000 Lbs, which is a factor in notability. - Samf4u (talk) 00:59, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, the article clearly passes WP:GNG after RecycledPixel's WP:HEY, and WP:GNG doesn't mention maximum take-off weight anywhere. SportingFlyerT·C 03:31, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AIRCRASH is an essay (well regarded), not policy. And this is very much an edge-case for AIRCRASH's 12,500 MTOW threshold (Harbin Y-12 being 11,684 pounds) - I'd say however that carrying 15 passengers would be more significant than 816 pounds vs. an arbitrary threshold). I suspect this is notable - however I'm holding off !voting since I want to see better WP:SUSTAINED coverage (and not just reporting from around the event). Icewhiz (talk) 10:49, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Having articles for accidents during scheduled passenger service resulting in multiple fatalities and hull loss is the norm, within the WP Aviation project. The aircraft's maximum takeoff weight is immaterial: who says there's a 12,000 lbs threshold for inclusion? Coverage on international media has now been established, after the recent edits. --Deeday-UK (talk) 10:27, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - fatal crashes of scheduled commercial flights are notable, as demonstrated by the multiple sources added by RecycledPixels. -Zanhe (talk) 23:38, 30 April 2019 (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.
This actress does not appear to meet WP:ACTORBIO. And no source that discuss the subject directly and in detail Akhiljaxxn (talk) 07:39, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete This article is an example of what we do not need on this website. Abysmal sources and all people can manage to say is she has 20,000 followers? That’s not an accomplishment. Trillfendi (talk) 13:22, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see how this fails to be a worthy article topic. She's a star of a major TV show that is a huge franchise, I've seen more obscure people with pages and don't see why you two are so eager to delete hers. As for coverage, if you Google her there are all kinds of stories about her. Why does Liana Ramirez not meet criteria?
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. Tone 15:55, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because he served for many years on the national executive of India’s governing party. Mccapra (talk) 01:52, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Being a member of national executive of India’s governing party doesn't make him notable. There is no in-depth coverage in reliable sources that are indepndent of the subject and no evidence he played a major role in politics or election campaigning .Thus Delete.Akhiljaxxn (talk) 05:24, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of in-depth coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and I have listed that below. 137.97.184.23 (talk) 08:08, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:30, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : Notable enough according to the references cited by (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dheerajmpai23 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Needs an independent assessment of the sources added by User:137.97.184.23
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 07:00, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources appear to establish notability but the article needs a lot of work to get the information from those articles onto the page. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:15, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources indicated by 137.97.184.23, GNG/NBASIC notability established. Given that the individual could get as high as possible and not qualify under NPOL I would clarify that they are therefore not limited by not satisfying NPOL (as it doesn't apply to them). I thought I'd be piling on but I realised it was actuallt 3, not 2 deletes so far. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:11, 5 May 2019 (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.
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSONG. First five pages of Google search reveal lyrics sites and metal blogs. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:43, 28 April 2019 (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.
Comment I think the topic is notable, but it's insane to me that it exists without mention of the raid,[1] embezzlement and fraud,[2] website shutdown,[3] and most recently suspension of operation.[4][5]Pegnawl (talk) 15:29, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
neutralkeep a multinational corporation with 3,000 employees will generally be notable.Graywalls (talk) 10:36, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't seem to be an adequate argument per WP:BIG: "Notability isn't determined by something's quantity of members, but rather by the quality of the subject's verifiable, reliable sources." Pegnawl (talk) 14:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. This was a poor argument. I spent a few more minutes looking around, so thanks for commenting. An analyst from their firm was quoted in RT.com about a plane crash... and if RT is like the Wall Street Journal equivalent of Russia, then, being cited in such would be an indication of credibility, thus potential notability. I'm going to say neutral, I initially casted keep, but switched to neutral because I don't really know the standing of RT. This is the article in which I am talking about linkGraywalls (talk) 22:08, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 03:24, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would vote for Delete unless the citations brought into the discussion by User:Pegnawl were added, in which case I would switch to a Weak Keep. As the article currently stands, its advertising and non-notable; with the inclusion of the criminal investigation under WP:ILLCON/WP:NCRIME it's possible to establish notability (technically it would be the Russian Bank Crackdown that would be notable and deserving of an article, which is why I'm a Weak Keep). Userqio (talk) 05:20, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26(spin me / revolutions) 04:10, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Delete As is this article needs to be deleted. There is no actual coverage, no 3rd party to establish his claim they have 3,000 employees, and one of the references he does provide is the company site. That being said if they can establish some facts in the article through coverage from reliable sources I might switch to a keep. I havent done anything but look at the page, so there may be coverage I am not seeing. Virtually any large brokerage will have significant financial coverage out there so this one might be a little tricky. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 20:38, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
CommentHiGraywalls, Mosaicberry, having an employee provide a quote is not a criteria for notability of the firm they work for. Would you please review your !vote? HighKing++ 16:45, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 2HiGraywalls, you appear to have registered two !votes on this topic (yes, neutral could also be considered a !vote) - please fully strike one, thank you. HighKing++ 16:48, 29 April 2019 (UTC) My bad, didn't register two. HighKing++ 20:40, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. I would expect a large analyst firm to have coverage that meets the criteria as described in WP:NCORP but none appears to exist. The inclusion of a quotation by a comapany analyst does not meet the criteria. As such, topic fails WP:NCORP and GNG. HighKing++ 16:45, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Supposing the material from the references I've noted above was properly integrated into the existing entry, and unsourced material was removed, this entry would then be near 100% negative coverage, as no neutral coverage in RS seems to exist. Since operation has been suspended, there's no reason to believe more neutral information in RS will surface anytime soon, maybe ever. As mom used to say, if you can't write neutrally, you shouldn't write anything at all. Pegnawl (talk) 15:47, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DELREASON4 - it's seriously rare for me to suggest deletion for being excessively advertorial rather than advising cleanup per WP:ATD. However, the failures here are so huge that the current form doesn't meet requirements and is actually rather deceptive in its nature. No prejudice against recreation IFF it is sufficiently improved. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:17, 5 May 2019 (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.
Article was completely off-topic from the subject of aviculture; even with many off-topic sections removed, the article has no substantial information on the aviculture of this species. This article was written in an informal, blog-post style featuring opinions in place of facts. See Talk page for more reasons as well as a list of information that would be needed to salvage the article. MinervaELS (talk) 03:26, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteonWP:NOTESSAY/not a how-to guide grounds with an important note this is a completely different topic than the article Cockatiel, which should absolutely remain. SportingFlyerT·C 03:43, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for above reasons, article also redundant since there is already one for Cockatiel. MinervaELS (talk) 04:13, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost entirely not sourced. At best trim and move into its own section in Cockatiel, with which it has significant duplicated material. (I see it was split out some time ago.) Aoziwe (talk) 11:58, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Several users appear to be trying to "fix" it but are continuing to add blog/essay type material related to pet-keeping and not aviculture (breeding/commercial raising). It seems that this is a persistent issue with this article, so deletion is likely the best option. MinervaELS (talk) 15:14, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is a persistent one in Wikipedia, especially common in the decade that this article was created, exhibited by Green Eggs and Ham in popular culture (AfD discussion), Tang_in_popular_culture (AfD discussion), and Syrinx_in_popular_culture (AfD discussion) amongst many others: an editor sees poor content in an article, and instead of dealing with it properly xe cuts and pastes it into a new article, where it languishes for years until nominated for deletion. All too often, the deletion discussion points to a merger, of content that was not wanted in the original article and that came from it in the first place. And we go around the cycle again.
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.
Giant list that cites only credits for the show itself. This is a list for the sake of having a list, not because the list is notable. This is material that's fine on a fan-wiki, but not here. In other words, this is WP:FANCRUFT. Fails WP:LISTN, with a total lack of independent, reliable sources that discuss this grouping.
If any of these guest appearances are notable, they can discussed on the page for ATHF, or on the actor's biography pages. That is, if there are third party sources for that. Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:17, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- yes, I agree that this poorly sourced and overly intricate content is more suitable for Wikia than here. ReykYO! 09:23, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is not a case of having a "list for the sake of having a list". Lists of guest appearances in TV quite common, which is why we have Category:Lists of guest appearances in television. A general clean-up and better sourcing is very much feasible to help improve the list. Grapesoda22 (✉) 02:33, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lists of appearances is quite common and it is not actually near WP:FANCRUFT, at least we need clean up. Sheldybett (talk) 10:15, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, you're refering to WP:OTHERTHINGS, which is an argument to avoid. Maybe those lists themselves are not notable? Maybe the idea that every series should get a "list of guest stars" list wrong? The main issue is that is this concept itself notable enough for a list? It's not reallynotable outside the show. That's why it'll be covered in the pages for the show or episodes. You need third party sources for that. And saying that these pages need "clean-up" is vague cover. What does that mean? Cleanup should mean trimming primary sources and using third party sources, but few of those exist for this. Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:35, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pure and simple fancruft. Both of the keep !votes above are simple WP:OSE, and should be avoided. And perhaps those other worthless lists also need to be looked at for deletion. Onel5969TT me 14:45, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Onel5969. —烏Γ(kaw)│ 21:39, 04 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Onel5969. This article is just WP:FANCRUFT that belongs on a fan website, not Wikipedia. Newshunter12 (talk) 22:00, 4 May 2019 (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.
Non-notable video game character and boss, fails WP:GNG. The character has no notability outside of the game series. Sources are mostly reviews of the games which make passing reference to the character. There are no sources that deal specifically with the character. Like many pages, this strings together several trivial references to the character from multiple reliable sources to make some semblance of an article. However, it fails to pass notability.
Almost all the cited sources simply talk about the censorship when the game came to America, changing the character's name from Vodka Drunkenski to Soda Popinski and how the character is an ethnic stereotype. They mostly just say the same things over and over again, and the profiles on the character are exceptionally brief.
Also, much of the article is unsourced. Trimming the article of unsourced information would turn it into a stub. Using just reliable sources it would be a WP:PERMASTUB.
We are 10 sources in, and this is only the 2nd article that actually has a sub-heading specifically for Soda. It's decent, but it really doesn't a lot.
A profile on several of the characters from the Punchout games, and how they're ethnic stereotypes. Section of the Soda character says more or less the same as all the other sources have said.
RedirecttoList of Punch-Out!! characters. The coverage of this character is not enough for an entire article, but it is enough to discuss in the mentioned parent one. Geolodus (talk) 04:32, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. For your 4th source, Complex is a reliable source per WP:VG/RS. MarkZusab (talk) 14:12, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I wasn't sure. In any case, it's still pretty trivial as it's like 2 sentences, and says the same thing all the other short sources are saying. Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:15, 28 April 2019 (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.
Clearly fails WP:NCORP and WP:ORGCRIT. Current sourcing is bogus. Nothing found on the internet that is independent, significant and reliable. Dial911 (talk) 01:34, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Delete - I started this article around the time of corporate mergers and acquisitions involving Chime and Bell Pottinger. The latter no longer exists; while Good Relations is now a brand within Chime's VCCP Group. Maybe retain a redirect to Chime Communications Limited. Paul W (talk) 18:58, 28 April 2019 (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.
BLP with one source that currently 404s and doesn't appear to be reliable in any case. Article has been tagged since 2011 without evident improvement. Concern was raised at the Talk page that it was self-authored (no comment from me on that one). DonIago (talk) 01:30, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on two fronts. 1) No sources, therefore not notable, 2) Who? Cheesy McGee (talk) 13:40, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this advertisement. Trillfendi (talk) 23:37, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete author of 2 self-published books. my searches find no SECONDARY sources on either book. Kudos to User:Doniago for noticing this PROMO for a non-notable author who has used Wikipedia as a BILLBOARD since 2013 and bringing it to AfD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:10, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just blind luck; I was looking for a Will Black who's a musician and apparently doesn't have his own article, and came upon this. Thanks though! DonIago (talk) 15:31, 1 May 2019 (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.
I had already PRODed this but was removed by article creator. The reason for deletion is that it's already covered in the intro and aftermath section of the 2019 Sri Lanka Easter bombings and I think it's covered well there. I don't think a separate article is needed here but want to see what other editors thoughts are. This incident occurred during the search operations that are taking place following the bombings. Also per WP:DEL#5. Please see this discussion with some other reasons I mentioned. Thanks Steven (Editor) (talk) 01:25, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by nominator: It doesn't look like anything else is being reported on this incident. So far, I've seen reports on the shootout and explosions with the deaths and then reports that it included relatives of the suspected mastermind of the Easter Sunday bombings. The references I've given also confirm the link. I'm not sure if this article can be expanded any further, and as this is part of the Easter bombings, I believe this will fit well in its own section and this could become a redirect to that section. Anyway, I wanted to see what others thoughts are and it seems at the moment the majority are in favour of keeping it. I'd like to withdraw this nomination if that's possible. It's still early anyway for this incident (3 days) so I think it's best to wait and see from then, also per some of the comments. Thanks everyone! Steven (Editor) (talk) 18:31, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@Steven (Editor):While the nominator may withdraw their nomination at any time, if subsequent editors have suggested an outcome besides keep or added substantive comments unrelated to deletion, the discussion should not be closed simply because the nominator wishes to withdraw it. It's not relevant that the majority believe the article should be kept, Wikipedia is not experimenting on WP:DEMOCRACY, a closing admin will carefully read the discussion, weigh all the facts, evidence and arguments presented and determine if it inline with Wikipedia deletion policy. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 19:17, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and consider speedy close. An unnecessary fork, does nothing except makes monitoring vandalism more complex. Rehman 02:31, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Major incident involving 15 deaths and 2 injuries, has been widely reported by WP:RS[1] , the aftermath of this incident resulted in house to house raids in the area which recovered evidence linking three persons to the murder of 2 police officers in November 2018 (Which being investigated as the possibly the first incident to be linked to the group that carried out the Easter Sunday bombings). [2]--Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 03:17, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Two different events though they are related These are two different events and the raid with the militants definitely deserve a special article . The raid itself has more to do with organized militants hiding out than the easter attackBrief mention is not enough about this raid Chandrani876 (talk) 04:23, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Update ISIS claims responsibility ISIS has claimed responsibility for the raid [3]. This definitely is a separate incident and media report it as a seperate incident Chandrani876 (talk) 05:48, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Separate event with more deaths that are not specifically because of the easter bombings.--Blackknight12 (talk) 06:30, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or *Redirect This was a separate shootout and I was the one who add about this detail in the opening paragraph of 2019 Sri Lanka Easter bombings. The news sources later revealed that 15 have reportedly dead and I think this should deserve the article or create a subsection in the2019 Sri Lanka Easter bombings article or else redirect it. Abishe (talk) 07:59, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely Keep Two different incidents and with 16 deaths and ISIS claiming responsibility.This event did not happen because of the Easter attack but happened due to the army raiding the cell of militants--- Hirunika Balasuriya (talk) 12:54, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep As more information has come out on the incident, this is surely the AfD debate closed? I mean, it's definitely notable now... Cheesy McGee (talk) 14:09, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Requesting second reassess from those opposing and possible nominator withdrawal - It is a separate incident in that it happened on a different day but it is part of the Easter bombings, taken place during the subsequent search operations. Here's a few articles which also confirm the link; 12345 - the text related to this incident has become a new section which I think will give prominence for this and anything extra can be added here. What do you think? Chandrani876, Blackknight12, Hirunika Balasuriya, Cheesy McGee, Randeepa --Steven (Editor) (talk) 18:43, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It should be kept if there is more information. If the content can be added to Easter bombings page without loss of important information then there is no need for a separate article. - UmdP 18:52, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I still think It should be kept It definitely was related to the search operations but the attackers were a organized group of militants .The raid and the bombing are not completely related.There is no harm in keeping that article. There are many articles like this. Most people are asking to keep it as well.You cannot technically add the infobox into the Easter Bombing Article either. It simplify the events . Much more useful.User:Chandrani
Keep deadly shooting. widely covered. Possibility of merging can be raised again after the dust has settled.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:29, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I still strongly believe this should be kept : Reply to comment ---This is a deadly attack that happened after the Easter Bombing,This is not a small event. If this is to be deleted then the title of 2019 Sri Lanka Easter bombings should be changed to fit this in which is not practical . Though related this is not the same event and this is not a small event . 'I am completely opposed to deleting this and vast majority of the people here agrees . Take the Puluwama Attack for example it describes the border standoff that happened after the attack in the wiki article itself (the border stand off happened as a response to the attack) but there is also a wiki page dedicated to the border stand off link. The raiding was a response to the attack it definitely is a completely different event. The raid was deadly and not a small event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hirunika Balasuriya (talk • contribs) 23:09, 28 April 2019 (UTC) [reply]
Keep It is a significant event for Sri Lanka, as a deadly confrontation between army leading family of the islamic group. I'm sure the 'delete' question would not even be asked for a similar US event. English Wikipedia belongs to the people from Indian subcontinent too. We must be careful not to be ethnocentrist.ManuelParis (talk) 01:55, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ManuelParis Of course this is a significant event for Sri Lanka. The English Wikipedia is used worldwide, there is no ethnocentrism here. Also please see my withdrawal comment below. Steven (Editor) (talk) 18:31, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a deadly shooting in which 15 died including one civilian. 84percent (talk) 06:19, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Separate event from the bombings, covered extensively in the media. Deserves its own article. Applodion (talk) 20:11, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Applodion, it's not separate from the bombings, see above and here for example. Steven (Editor) (talk) 20:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC) Steven (Editor) However this is a major event and a lot media covered it as a separate event to the bombing,for example [1].And the event itself is a major event. There have being multiple wikipedia articles that have sub-articles describing major events happening as a linked result of the initial incident Chandrani876 (talk) 21:47, 29 April 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - It received ongoing coverage and passes WP:GNG. -- Danetalk 02:35, 1 May 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:43, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable single murder. No reason to expect continuing interest. This clearly falls under WP:NOTNEWS. DGG ( talk ) 21:11, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep (as the article's creator) The notability of this murder is in the public debate that it has started concerning sanctuary city policy, similar to the notability of the Shooting of Kate Steinle case. THIS WAS STATED IN MY CREATION AND EDIT NOTES. Santa Clara County just had a public meeting about revising their policy, specifically because of this murder.
The move to modify the county’s policy came in the wake of the brutal killing of 59 year-old Bambi Larson in her South San Jose home in February, allegedly by an undocumented immigrant wanted by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Local law enforcement leaders proposed an amendment to the policy that would allow notification in cases where an undocumented immigrant who had committed crimes of violence or other serious offenses was about to be freed. County police leaders and the District Attorney have already drafted language for such a change. Santa Clara County’s policy is stricter than state law, which bars law enforcement officials from aiding ICE by detaining undocumented immigrants but allows notification about inmates’ release. A majority of speakers at Tuesday’s meeting, however, appeared to oppose any alteration to a policy they see as a beacon for other counties.[1]
It was covered in the New York Times, and this is a continuing story; the county supervisors will be re-meeting in 60 days.
Additionally, I'd like to note that this article appears to be of interest to almost 1000 people in the barely over 30 days it has existed. ---Avatar317(talk) 04:52, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:09, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just seems like a random murder and doesn't rise above that. Per WP:NOTNEWS.Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:05, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet another WP:NOTNEWS story being used to advance a political talking point with WP:MEMORIAL and WP:BLP issues going on to boot (also, don't use nicknames like 'Bambi' in these articles; subjects have proper names which should be used). Let the deceased rest in peace, please. Nate•(chatter) 03:24, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a newspaper and even if the Sanctuary City policy did change, that’s a separate thing. Trillfendi (talk) 13:19, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is only here to advance a political agenda. It did not change the policy so the aftermath argument does not make sense and even if it had it still wouldn't meet the criteria for notability. Kate Steinle's case – as cited above by the original author – is only on Wikipedia because politicians made it into a significant event including a proposed federal law. The topic at a regular government meeting in Santa Clara county isn't to the same level of notability snood1205(Say Hi! (talk)) 15:28, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/reply (@Snood1205) OK, so looking at the Kate Steinle article history and article growth during the first month after the event occurred, I will concede that this event (Bambi Larson) did not generate anywhere near the amount of attention in the American right-wing press that occurred in the month after Kate Steinle was shot, and the US Congress didn't partially pass any legislation because of it. (Maybe more old news on the same topic?, and defunding of sanctuary cities has already been tried, so now this subject is old?) I guess it is clear that my prediction about this event is wrong.
So would this be a suitable article for Wikinews ? I like that articles in Wikipedia give a complete overview and understanding of an event, whereas a single news article generally spends all the article on new developments, and only one paragraph giving background to what the current news pertains to. (Yes, this article would likely only be of interest to people in Santa Clara County and the Bay Area, and others interested in sanctuary city policies.) ---Avatar317(talk) 17:36, 30 April 2019 (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.
Fails WP:NHOCKEY. Subject has played over 400 games in the EBEL but that league doesn't qualify for criteria 2. Only played international hockey at junior level as well. Tay87 (talk) 23:51, 21 April 2019 (UTC) Tay87 (talk) 23:51, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Indeed it doesn't, but with the subject having played nineteen seasons of professional European hockey, what was the result of attempts to find reliable sourcing in European media sources? Ravenswing 00:51, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:53, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete Fails WP:NHOCKEY and coverage doesn't meet the GNG. For example, the sources given by Tay87 are his retirement announcement and brief overview of his career and the other is an announcement he was returning for a second year at some team. The length of his career is irrelevant.Sandals1 (talk) 16:27, 1 May 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:42, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Promotional article, sources do not appear to be reliable. Does not meet WP:GNG. As a courtesy to anyone going through the article's citations, be advised that the links cited to magazines are NSFW. signed, Rosguilltalk 00:34, 28 April 2019 (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.
