Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 November 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 10 November 12 November >

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to Tiger versus lion. To allow a very limited merger from history to the extent editorial consensus supports this. Sandstein 08:41, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Physical comparison of tigers and lions[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Physical comparison of tigers and lions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Physical comparison of tigers and lions (2nd nomination) Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

As I stated the last time this article reads more like a personal essay than a proper Wikipedia article. Only a few of the sources used focus on comparing lions and tigers. The rest have lions only as a topic, tigers as a topic or are about big cats/Felidae as a whole, with differences between lions and tigers mentioned in passing.

I would also like to add that this article has problems beyond just notability and sourcing. It is pretty much just "lions X while tigers Y". There isn't anything covered in this article that isn't or can't be covered in the lion or tiger article. Those article already give descriptions of the animals. Why do we need an article describing them together? LittleJerry (talk) 23:39, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. LittleJerry (talk) 16:21, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. LittleJerry (talk) 16:21, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As for the nominator's comment about why this can't be covered in other articles like lion and tiger, he has opposed having what he would call "too much", "trivial" or "unimportant" information in pages like those, even if it's covered in WP:reliable sources and is directly related to the subject, such as in this case, which led to the necessity of articles like this being kept separate from those pages, and as I have made it clear already, this is not WP:OR, but a subject that has been directly covered in detail, in a number of reliable sources, for example:
1) Heptner and Sludskiy covered this in great detail in 2 chapters
2) Dr Craig Packer compared them in great detail
3) Charles Frederick Partington Charles Frederick Partington
4) Yamaguchi et al.
5) Nyhus and Tilson
6) The English Cyclopaedia
If it had not been the case that people like him opposed keeping all that relevant information in pages like them, despite his question about why it could not be covered elsewhere, then I would have supported efforts to have all that information covered elsewhere. Leo1pard (talk) 07:54, 12 November 2018 (UTC); edited 09:25, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Read what I said again. We already have physical descriptions of the animals in their respective articles, why do we need an article stating "lions weigh this while tigers weigh this". The problem with this article exists beyond just sourcing and notability (which are still weak), so repeating "this subject has been discussed in reliable sources" is not enough. LittleJerry (talk) 14:50, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why you used your IP address (2602:306:36ED:7500:B10C:DEAA:7928:898) to make a statement about this in the talk-page of a related article, even though you had been logged only a while before and after that edit, which suggests that you logged off to make a statement about this before logging back on, but I've already read your comment, and answered it. For example, you would not always tolerate material that is properly referenced and related to the subject in pages like Lion, and yet you asked why information like this can't be covered elsewhere. Leo1pard (talk) 15:40, 12 November 2018 (UTC); edited 15:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Quiet simply, I forgot to log back in when I typed that message. I don't know why that's important to you, but its irrelevant to this discussion. Anyway, please explain what information in this article can't be covered in lion, tiger or Tiger versus lion. LittleJerry (talk) 16:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In the context of Wikipedia, that's important because using your IP address to influence what's going on in a page like this, despite having an account, is not good, and it's a way of gaining attention to what's going on here, considering how many people look at articles like Lion, and I thought that you weren't keen on articles like Lion having what you'd call "too much information", but if all that information covered in relevant sources can be kept there or the other 2 articles, then I would be happy to do that. Leo1pard (talk) 16:25, 12 November 2018 (UTC); edited 16:26, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or very limited merge to Tiger versus lion. Mostly WP:SYNTH that could similarly be done for every possible species pair combination by aligning the (excessively-detailed) data from references to each that for the most part never themselves compare the two. Agricolae (talk) 17:29, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read at least the references given for the content here before commenting 'WP:SYNTH', which has unfortunately become used quite a lot by people who don't bother to read the references to see what they say? Leo1pard (talk) 12:58, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, enough of them to get a good feel for what appears to be going on. Some of them are directly comparing, but a lot of them are about one species only or give general data about a broad group of species and we are the ones pulling out the specifics and making a direct comparison not made by the source. (And while we are talking about sources, I have concerns about citing the Gettysburg Compiler for anything, given the state of journalism in 1899. Another issue is that significant parts of it seem little more than a grand data-dump of any characteristic that could be found for both species, plus any subspecies of either. It is not what I would consider to be of encyclopedic value, for the most part, and I don't think the removal of all of the fine-grained detail in the grey tables would represent a loss in terms of what I think of as an appropriate level of detail for an encyclopedia. But this is not the place to discuss content decisions.) Agricolae (talk) 20:43, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I really can't see the point (per LittleJerry).Deb (talk) 19:37, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • At a glance, delete, with prejudice. Detecting synthesis in content requires examining references, not so with an obviously baseless assemblage of geewhizzery. This is a hodge podge of data shoehorned into a user's narrative, to make some disruptive POINT they have long forgotten in their edit warring hijinks across talk pages, utterly cunning in their disruption of civil discourse, bombing pages with text walls of copypasta and not averse to dragging users to AN/I to refactor their comments. Any verifiable content of this topic should be added and developed in proper article space, but it should be noted there often little to support the users assertion in our article content [a worse sin than SYN]. The creator's contributions are indistinguishable from an elaborate troll, and should be censored, as I said, with prejudice. cygnis insignis 19:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You have said that your comment has prejudice, and once again you are showing WP:disregard for referenced content, and making an allegation of trolling, even as I have said to you already, I have read plenty of WP:reliable sources, and I edit articles using them to show what they say, not to make WP:OR, WP:SYNTH or "blatant misrepresentation of sources", which you like to allege. For example, I have used these sources ([1], [2]) to help explain why it is the case that the size ratio of the elephant to the lion is significant as mentioned, or what they said about lions hunting elephants, but there are others who may do WP:biased edits on those articles, and oppose my attempts to correct such edits, which is why I make use of talk-pages like here to try to talk to the opposing user(s) about what they have done, but the opposing user(s) don't always want to listen, and may ignore the consensus, amongst other things, and after repeated attempts to try to talk to the opposing user(s) that I would make complaints like at AN/I. I have debunked your claim more than once, so stop making such claims again. First check the referenced content, then see if what someone like me says is correct or not. Leo1pard (talk) 02:02, 14 November 2018 (UTC); edited 03:13, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not alleging trolling, I stated that the actions are indistinguishable from trolling. If a vindictive, jilted, or sad person wanted to draw attention to themselves and create disruption for an extended period, this is a model of how to do that ad nauseam. You have happened on or acquired many tactics employed by those who invest their time in deliberate disruption. A major currency in this community is time itself, you demand much of it from many other users with no indication you value it. Not helpful, and the point arrives when prejudice is warranted and healthy for this community. Not a troll, but the actions are indistinguishable from those who are, and this venue is as good a place as any to make that point, before you suck up any more of the community's time. cygnis insignis 04:24, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have already spoken to you about this when you first had a suspicion about me not using talk-pages to improve content, or that I did not read good sources. If you were still suspicious about this, you could have asked me to clarify what I mean when I said that I indeed read good sources, or that I try to improve content. Instead of that, you have committed WP:Boomerang with your refusal to have a proper conversation with me about what I do, even though I had been talking to you about this, and going to other places like here to make prejudiced arguments with me about what I do, partly as you admitted yourself. Leo1pard (talk) 05:08, 14 November 2018 (UTC); edited 05:11, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would accept a merge as an alternative, but I hope this doesn't split the vote and make the article stay by default like last time. LittleJerry (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment: merge is always a less brutal word to embolden, but if this is a spin off then merging would be redundant. Nevertheless, I will change to merge if the consensus is likely to be split again, as noted above. The question as I see it at this point is, should the redirect exist?, having no current consensus for existence as an article the reasoning gets purdy thin. cygnis insignis 20:24, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now you mention it, I don't think the redirect should exist; it's meaningless. Crossed out. But anyway, I don't see any risk the closing admin will think the discussion defaults to "Keep", or to "No consensus". There's exactly one Keep !vote, from the article's creator. Bishonen | talk 20:43, 18 November 2018 (UTC).[reply]
  • I don't see the current page title as a likely search term needing a redirect. I also don't see the vast majority of the content on the page as being encyclopedia-worthy, as opposed to just indiscriminate data. I think the small number of details appropriate for tiger vs lion can be added directly without a formal merge. My concern with 'merge' is that it will be taken as licence to just transfer all of the indiscriminate data to the other page, when I am thinking no more than the equivalent of a very short paragraph highlighting a handful of specific characteristics, at most. (I also agree with the earlier comment about the tiger vs lion page itself being of dubious encyclopedic value, but that is a different issue.) Agricolae (talk) 21:00, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a judgement call, of course, cygnis insignis, but do you truly believe that a Wikipedia user would type and look up "physical"+"comparison"+"lions"+"tigers" instead of the obvious and plain "lions"+"tigers"? I highly doubt it. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 08:24, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's been a lot of tiger vs. lion articles needing to be deleted lately for these same problems. Looking over this one, I don't see anything really worth merging, especially considering previous AfDs in this general subject. Better to just prune it out and let the other articles handle the subject matter that's already covered appropriately. Tiger versus lion is still a mess of a topic in terms of what is WP:DUE, so better to avoid a redirect and further WP:COATRACKs we've been trying to clean up here at AfD. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of supercentenarians by continent. And merge from history where deemed appropriate. I have to disregard the opinion by Crveni5 because it is not based in any Wikipedia policy or guideline. Sandstein 10:22, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dutch supercentenarians[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of Dutch supercentenarians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is effectively redundant since the relevant people will still be listed at List of supercentenarians by continent. Relevant content should be merged with the European section. This country specific list is much too narrowly focused with only three notable people and one source for the other entries. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 23:04, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and Redirect. Redundent and too narrow. There is significant precedent for merging country specific lists of the superold into the master list. Legacypac (talk) 23:08, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • (as creator) Merge and Redirect. I created this list page 11 years to merge various stub articles (see my comment at the 1st AFD). However, this shows no sign of growing beyond its tiny state, which is too small. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:11, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore redirect This is essentially a duplicate article. Natureium (talk) 19:21, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Natureium: It's not: only one person from the Dutch list is mentioned on the European list. — JFG talk 10:17, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is small overlap, but these lists are about age only and that one entry is the only truly notable age on the Dutch list. The important information is redundant, not the old person directory that is this article, and any future cases of notable age will be on the European list to. Newshunter12 (talk) 11:21, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, but expand European list to the top 100 people. Otherwise, in the current status listing the oldest 50 Europeans, only one person from the Netherlands is mentioned, negating the AfD rationale of duplicate information. We have lists of the 100 oldest Americans, British, French, German, Italian, Japanese, etc. It would be odd that a list for all of Europe would include fewer individuals than national lists. — JFG talk 12:21, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – I have worked to improve the article today: new lede section, updated sourcing throughout, two additional people who died recently, added a freely licensed illustration. Merging would lose too much information, because only one Dutch supercentenarian is currently on the list of the 50 oldest Europeans. I would still suggest expanding the European list to 100 people. — JFG talk 17:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was previously running on the assumption that these were some of the oldest Europeans. As they are not in the 50 oldest, expanding the list to the oldest 100 or 150 would be sensible. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 17:40, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Assumption is the mother of all fuck ups and now you have trigered the Wikipedia trolls. Crveni5 (talk)
We should not increase the European supercentenarian section to accommodate "young" un-notable Dutch people. Wikipedia is not a WP:MEMORIAL nor a directory of every really old person editors can conjure up. Newshunter12 (talk) 23:51, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to List of supercentenarians by continent. The relevant supercentenarians, both present and future, are/will be on that list, so keeping this list is redundant. Adding pointless things like one picture and un-notable people to the article should not save it from being merged to a more appropriate article, nor should we increase the European supercentenarian section to accommodate "young" un-notable Dutch people. They lived. They avoided the Reaper longer then most. They died. Wikipedia is not a WP:MEMORIAL nor a directory of old people. Newshunter12 (talk) 23:51, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Another attack on Wikipedia articles related to human longevity. This is a systemic attempt to delete all articles one by one. Lists by continent - gone. List for Australia - gone. Numerous attempts at deleting the Japanese article - failed to date. List of oldest people - under threat. Now this is the next list to be targeted. Jimmy Wales where are you? Crveni5 (talk)
Nothing you have said is a valid argument to keep this article or grounded in any Wikipedia policy. Your "argument" is a conspiracy theory opinion not grounded in fact List of supercentenarians by continent. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:17, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 18:59, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert W. Metcalf, MD Memorial Meeting[edit]

Robert W. Metcalf, MD Memorial Meeting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage exists for this meeting. SL93 (talk) 21:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it is an annual seminar, notability not established with the refs in the article. Szzuk (talk) 21:10, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Two of the listed links are dead; one is to an obituary (here) that does not mention the subject; and the last one is to a Wikipedia article on the Arthroscopy journal. Trying to scare up something more than that leaves the searcher empty handed. -The Gnome (talk) 16:38, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy Delete. Article has already been speedy deleted. (non-admin closure) CThomas3 (talk) 21:00, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Air India Express 611[edit]

Air India Express 611 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable aviation incident. Plane hit something and kept on flying. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:57, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:58, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:58, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:58, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:58, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment About a minute after I deletion sorted this page, I remembered an article on this incident had already been deleted. I have since nominated it for speedy deletion....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:03, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. User:Aimee.ball, welcome to wikipedia! As you have noticed, our processes are often chaotic, but somehow we manage to keep building the encyclopedia. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:08, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Purnell Model for Cultural Competence[edit]

Purnell Model for Cultural Competence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG; pretty much all the sources are self-published. It would possibly be a candidate for a speedy as blatantly promotional but for the fact that it is so difficult to make sense of that I could possibly cite WP:NUKE. TheLongTone (talk) 14:10, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure you mean WP:NUKEIT? CThomas3 (talk) 21:09, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify This appears to be an ambitious first effort by a new editor who has gone through some introductory exercises and seems to be editing as part of a course assignment. The new editor even requested a peer review of the article. It clearly needs more work, so move it back to user/draft space to let that happen, give other editors a chance to help, and maybe retain a new editor in the process. Bakazaka (talk) 18:30, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify Bakazaka makes a good case for this article simply being a work in progress with a new editor wanting to learn. There seems to be some evidence of independent coverage in the intercultural competence literature. Transferring to draft space is the best solution to work on improving prose and sourcing. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 19:07, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:14, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, did a bit of digging, yes article creator, Aimee.ball, may be enrolled in a tertiary education unit (see here) called OLES 2129 Writing for the Digital World (see here), appears that they may have become a bit impatient about getting their article onto mainspace?, anyway, it might be nice if the unit coordinator/instructor(?), Fransplace, ensures that all their student article talkpages have a Educational assignment template so that editors are aware of the situation. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:36, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See also Wikipedia:Education noticeboard/Archive 18#OLES2129. Bakazaka (talk) 17:12, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given a split opinion on what should be done with it (as a side-note, I've counted the creator's comments as a Keep). It is probably worth editors having a look at the changes made since the 26th
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 18:07, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (updated from previous draftify !vote) as subject is sufficiently covered in multiple, independent, reliable sources, some in the article and some noted above in this discussion. The article needs a lot of work (e.g. removing all of the definitions, pruning non-RS), but it can be edited into shape. Bakazaka (talk) 19:37, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's an unfortunate and unjustified decision. You were right first time. The article is much more wrong than you imply, see below. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:39, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. The topic looks as if it could support an article if suitable secondary sources can be identified. This particular article in this state does not demonstrate notability, and does not begin to discuss the model's applicability. Instead, it simply explains (WP:ESSAY, etc) what the model consists of. If this was a novel article, it would consist only of a plot summary, without the all-important reception section to show why and how it was notable, and without the equally all-important context section to show what it was competing with and what it fitted in with. In short, it is nowhere near ready for mainspace: it needs a wholly new structure, a whole new lot of content, and a complete set of citations. I wouldn't oppose WP:TNT for this case but since the user seems willing to work on it substantially, I think they can work on it as a draft for some months and resubmit. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:39, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:TNT is neither policy nor guideline -- it's just a disruptive essay with no standing. Our actual policy is WP:IMPERFECT which states clearly that "Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress. ... Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome.". The process of working on articles is done in main space where everyone can find and edit them. Drafts are a backwater and their philosophy is contrary to WP:OWN, which is another policy. The draft concept failed in Nupedia and Wikipedia is successful because it doesn't work like that. Andrew D. (talk) 21:20, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've just rewritten the article's lead, which should help clarify the claim to notability and preview the proper organization of the article along the lines of (short) description, (examples of) application, criticism. Bakazaka (talk) 20:20, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nomination's claim that the topic is not notable is blatantly false. A list of sources follows to demonstrate this. The rest is then a matter of ordinary editing which is not the business of AfD per WP:NOTCLEANUP. Draftification would be disruptive as it would discourage existing work, make it more difficult for other editors to get involved and put the topic in the hands of AfC which is not fit for purpose. Andrew D. (talk) 21:08, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Transcultural Nursing Theory and Models
  2. Cultural Competence in Health Education and Health Promotion
  3. Human Simulation for Nursing and Health Professions
  4. Men in Nursing
  5. Making the Transition from LPN to RN
  6. Service-Learning in Occupational Therapy Education
  7. Pharmacology: A Nursing Process Approach
  8. Leininger's Transcultural Nursing
  • Comment I have updated the article through adding three new sections: Applications, Strengths & Limitations/Weaknesses. I hope that these sections will help improve some of the issues everyone has identified. I will now work towards fixing the rest of the article and cleaning it up. If anyone believes something should be address urgently please post to my talk page. Thanks Aimee.ball (talk) 01:27, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: User:Andrew Davidson has presented some new sources. It would be silly to close this before people commented one way or the other on the quality of those sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 19:23, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CThomas3 (talk) 21:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CThomas3 (talk) 21:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Kudos to Andrew Davidson for finding some excellent sources; most of these have significant sections devoted to the Purnell model, with at least one having an entire chapter on it. I'm comfortable that we should keep this article and allow Aimee.ball to continue to work on it in mainspace. CThomas3 (talk) 21:35, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 18:59, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of High Madrasah Schools in Nadia District[edit]

List of High Madrasah Schools in Nadia District (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

AFAIK, Wikipedia is not a directory of school names, neither is it a indiscriminate database of school names, all of which do not have standalone articles.  — fr + 16:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:01, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:01, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:01, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete directory of non notable schools. Ajf773 (talk) 03:13, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Nadia district which already mantains a verifiable list of this sort. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 21:53, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:NOTDIR Spiderone 22:30, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Problem is that it doesn't clarify the differences among a "high madrasah", "higher secondary madrasah", "junior high madrasah", and "alim madrasah", all of which have madrasahs in the Nadia district, and also there are many schools that fit multiple categories. [3] Given that there isn't even a list of high schools in Nadia district, this wouldn't be that useful. Also only 14 entries, doesn't really need a separate page from the education section. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:21, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I did a little digging into these "high madrasah" schools yesterday at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beltala High Madrasah School. Our current coverage of education in West Bengal is (not shockingly) poor. If this list is verifiable, its short enough to include at West Bengal Board of Madrasah Education, but that probably won't even be helpful, as Nadia is only one of 23 districts in West Bengal.--Milowent • hasspoken 15:41, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Milowent the list can be sourced to WBBME as shown above, but given that there aren't similar lists for high madrasahs or madrasahs in general for the state, this is over-specified. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:35, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Nadia district#Education. Per WP:ATD -- RoySmith (talk) 15:17, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beltala High Madrasah School[edit]

Beltala High Madrasah School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Besides a mention at the West Bengal Madrasa Board website and and another document listing it among the schools having sanitation facilities in Nadia district, there is a chronic unavailability of third party coverage. Wikipedia should not become a free advertisement/website hosting company for non-notable educational institutions.  — fr + 16:41, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S : Could somebody please explain what the phrase "high school in high madrasah" is supposed to convey to the average reader.  — fr + 16:41, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Never have stumbled across an article on a West Bengal high school before, but a very quick look suggests to me that the West Bengal education system has a separate "madrasah" system and "higher secondary" system of schools. The "madrasah" system arises out of Arabic Muslim systems (but students are not limited to Muslims), are often located in poorer areas in West Bengal, but are effectively very similar to the regular system. The West Bengal government has recognized these schools and provides oversight and funding, as best I can tell. (See, e.g., [4]). So a "high school in high madrasah" seems to be an awkward English way of expressing that this is a high school in the high madrasah system. I will note that the Wikipedia articles on West Bengal education could use some serious work.--Milowent • hasspoken 14:38, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:04, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:04, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - lack of reliable coverage to pass WP:GNG; see WP:NSCHOOL; schools need to pass normal notability criteria Spiderone 22:30, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect to Nadia district#Education The only information available is that it exists as a directory entry in listings for schools and madrasahs so would not qualify because of WP:WITHIN. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Re the nomination, this doesn't really strike me as an advertisement for the school. The original version of the article was more boastful, but that's a very typical style we see from newbie Indian editors. The likely only reason we can't show notability (assuming we don't) is because the school is in a poor place without easily found press coverage of the type we'd see for most American or many other "first world" schools.--Milowent • hasspoken 14:13, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 08:59, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Martha Speaks (book)[edit]

Martha Speaks (book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The book fails WP:GNG and has only one source which is a dead link. Thanks. 2407:7000:A269:8200:C74:70FB:2A75:F307 (talk) 07:02, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note IP requested create AfD in WT:AFD, I am neutral in this AfD. Hhkohh (talk) 14:18, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:31, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:31, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if not speedy keep. I have added two reviews, this has been adapted to a TV series, and is the first of six books. Notability was clearly present before and there are now a couple more sources added. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:18, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:GNG with reliable sources reviews and has been a TV series so passes WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG regards Atlantic306 (talk) 21:09, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG, multiple reviews, a couple cited in the article. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:34, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep & Rename to List of synagogue shootings. I'm going to strip out the WP:DAB boilerplate. There's clear consensus that this should continue to exist in some form, even if there's not a clear consensus on exactly what that form is. The rename looks like it's the most popular option, so that's what I'm going to do. People can continue to discuss other possible names and/or reorganizations on the list talk page. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:26, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Synagogue shooting[edit]

Synagogue shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

"Synagogue shooting" is neither a valid topic for an article nor a valid disambiguation page. Bus stop (talk) 13:48, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:32, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:32, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but rename to List of synagogue shooting (or perhaps - a more widely scoped attacks). Meets WP:CSC. Icewhiz (talk) 14:46, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • list of synagogue shootings (should be plural) would be fine, or could be directed to a more widely scoped name that would include the 2 non-synagogues, but I don't know how to phrase that. What noun enscapsulates synagogues and community centers? "Jewish places of worship"? Ash Carol (talk) 19:13, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, shootings, plural. I personally would support a rescope to List of attacks at Jewish community buildings (to catch community centers, yeshivas, and other Jewish community buildings that are not synagogues, as well as widen from just shootings) - but that's really an article discussion and not an AfD discussion). Icewhiz (talk) 09:46, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree that "List of attacks at Jewish community buildings" would be a good title. Bus stop (talk) 13:09, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to Keep per WP:NOTDUP, thank you. "Synagogue shooting" is a phrase used around the world since the Pittsburgh shooting, and I can find coverage of incidents using this term going back to 1981. (Sorry - attempts to strike my first vote and rationale through end up striking through the whole rest of the page!) RebeccaGreen (talk) 06:51, 13 November 2018 (UTC) I was going to say Keep as a List of synagogue shootings - but then there should also be Lists of Church Shootings, Mosque Shootings, and Temple Shootings not to mention Synagogue, Church, Mosque and Temple bombings. Then I discovered there is already a Category:Massacres in places of worship, which would bring up all shooting mass murders in synagogues tagged with that category. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:27, 11 November 2018 (UTC) Category:Massacres in places of worship.[reply]
  • @RebeccaGreen:, per WP:NOTDUP - the existence of a category is not duplicative with a list - this guideline specifically says that "arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided.". Icewhiz (talk) 15:35, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Feel free to make those other lists. Categories simply alphabetize, they cannot provide useful information like the years they happened like disambiguation pages or lists can. Ash Carol (talk) 19:11, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I created the disambiguation. Ash Carol (talk) 19:15, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but convert to a List of synagogue shootings.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:56, 11 November 2018 (UTC) On closer examination, I think delete. Fact is that the phrase "synagogue shooting" has not been sufficiently applied to other incidents to make a disambig necessary.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:24, 12 November 2018 (UTC). Withdraw.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:41, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nominator. "Synagogue shooting" does not constitute a valid article topic. The article presently has no sources supporting the existence of that topic. Just because an editor makes up a fictitious scope for an article does not mean that topic is valid for an article. In fact this so-called article is not even about its topic area suggested in its title. The article says nothing about synagogue shootings. Nothing—not an iota. We don't just concoct articles to suit our fancy. You can know this is gibberish because you can ask yourself—what is a synagogue shooting? The answer is that it is the mere putting together of a "shooting" with a "synagogue". The title of this article implies the simplistic joining of two obvious factors. No sources are in the article addressing or supporting the simplistic joining of "shooting" with "synagogue". Nor are there any sentences in the article addressing this made up subject. An article has to make assertions. No assertions are made in this article. Bus stop (talk) 13:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • And yet it would be simple to make it into a list, and more than one editor has proposed doing so.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:24, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Yoninah (talk) 21:18, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to List of synagogue shootings, which is what it is. Debresser (talk) 22:27, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Keep only if it is converted to a standalone list. It appears that Ash Carol didn't understand what they created. As it stands ("Synagogue shooting"), it doesn't qualify as a disambiguation based on the way it's being implemented, and it's obviously not a notable subject. But unless someone can convince me otherwise, I don't see why it shouldn't simply be a standalone list and be renamed List of synagogue shootings (plural). Also, if you want widen the scope for it to include all synagogues and other organized Jewish places (JCCs, Jewish schools, etc.), then rename it to something that encompasses all of them. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 04:27, 13 November 2018 (UTC) 13:56, 13 November 2018 (UTC) Withdrawn. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 19:12, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as list, renaming appropriately. PamD 14:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not just delete it? What is so difficult? It isn't anything. It isn't a disambiguation page. It isn't a list. And it isn't a regular article, meaning an article that is not a list. It contains no sources. It contains no sentences. It makes no assertions. After it is deleted a list can be created called "List of synagogue attacks" or "List of attacks on Jewish institutions". Bus stop (talk) 19:43, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:ATD, we generally prefer alternatives to deletion when they are available. Conversion of this list like article to a list only requires a rename.Icewhiz (talk) 20:33, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is anybody interested in this entity? There are only 7 articles linked-to in this pseudo-list. It is not as if a lot of work went into this entity. If anybody is interested in this hodgepodge of a page, just make a note of the 7 articles that are in it. And create something new from scratch. Yes, "we generally prefer alternatives to deletion", but I think that refers to an article that has undergone a more full development than this. We also have another essay that says blow it up and start over. (Different philosophies.) If I were interested in this article, I would be enthusiastic about starting over and doing it right the next time. These are only electrons. No trees need to be cut down. Sheesh. Bus stop (talk) 20:52, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And title the list what? Bus stop (talk) 06:44, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Calthinus said "per Icewhiz and Coffman" (List of synagogue shootings). Are you absolutely opposed to that option? If so, I'd like to know why because I agree with them. Am I missing something that should disqualify it from being converted to a list? 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 15:18, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as the IP also stated, I said per Icewhiz and Coffman. Right above, you see Coffman saying List of synagogue shootings. I'm clumsy and miss things like this too sometimes, it's cool :). --Calthinus (talk) 15:58, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for confirming my interpretation of what you said. On an unrelated note... you may be "clumsy", but I see you've been editing since 2006 and have never been blocked. That's very impressive. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 16:12, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thanks :)! Though probably it would be better if that was not impressive haha, it would be nice if people would get along and didn't have to be blocked. --Calthinus (talk) 16:19, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Are you absolutely opposed to that option? If so, I'd like to know why because I agree with them. Am I missing something...? I think we should keep it broad such as "List of attacks on Jewish institutions" or "List of attacks at Jewish community buildings". A broader scope makes it more useful for the reader. These are related institutions and related means of attack. A "shooting" at a Jewish house of worship clearly is of similar significance as a "firebombing" at a Jewish community center. Bus stop (talk) 16:22, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bus stop this is a good idea, actually. I missed it above. I support List of attacks on Jewish community buildings. --Calthinus (talk) 16:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Makes a good deal of sense. Category:21st-century attacks on synagogues and Jewish communal organizations in the United States is a good place to start. However, given the number of incidents in the presumably incomplete categories Category:20th-century attacks on synagogues and Jewish communal organizations and Category:21st-century attacks on synagogues and Jewish communal organizations, we may want want to narrow this to List of attacks at Jewish community buildings in the United States. Leaving all of the incidents in the vast and incomplete Category:Antisemitic attacks and incidents out of this particular list.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:48, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, narrowing it geographically makes sense. "List of attacks at Jewish community buildings in the United States" makes sense to me. Bus stop (talk) 17:09, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one would think of looking for a synagogue under "Jewish community buildings". Yoninah (talk) 19:00, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I totally agree with Yoninah; the term "Jewish community buildings" is a bad fit. It's awkward terminology when used to refer to synagogues and even Jewish schools. What's most problematic is that "Jewish community building" would certainly be confused with Jewish Community Center, causing readers to wonder if it's solely about attacks at JCCs. They just sound way too much alike. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 19:22, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. Yes, as I said in my !vote, I would fully support "List of attacks at Jewish institutions in the United States". The only difference is I have "at" and you changed to "on". 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 04:26, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so it looks like we are making progress and yes, you said it first with only the relatively minor distinction between the word "on" and the word "at". So in recapitulation we have:
"List of attacks on Jewish institutions in the United States"
"List of attacks at Jewish institutions in the United States"
I'm OK with either one. Bus stop (talk) 14:38, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with whatever everyone decides. Maybe if we look at a few existing articles, it will help us to determine if "on" or "at" is better. For example, with the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting, would you say it was an attack on Tree of Life synagogue or an attack at Tree of Life synagogue? Or, with Los Angeles Jewish Community Center shooting, was it an attack on the LA JCC or an attack at the LA JCC? Which one feels more right and seems to make more sense when you say it? 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 15:52, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus—would you support keeping this page as "List of attacks on/at Jewish institutions in the United States"? Bus stop (talk) 14:44, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:34, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A good title might be "List of attacks on Jewish institutions in the United States post World War II". Bus stop (talk) 17:30, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anything but a relist is my vote! Szzuk (talk) 19:00, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Steve Waugh. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 16:10, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Waugh[edit]

Austin Waugh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per this discussion, another U19 cricketer who doesn't yet meet WP:NCRIC. Mainly notable because of his father. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:56, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:57, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:57, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable enough, and notability is not inherited. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:18, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not yet notable. Can be recreated when he is. If he is. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:07, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom. If and when he debuts in the three main formats, then he can have an article! StickyWicket (talk) 22:53, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probable Redirect to Steve Waugh for now. Tricky - although almost all of the coverage mentions his father, at least in passing, there are examples of exactly the type of independent, in depth sources that we need to pass GNG: this, this and this in particular - none are match reports, all have some decent depth. Frankly that's a lot better than we can do on many biographies. If he does ever play a top class cricket match then the match report for that will likely also mention his father and his father will likely be the reason for the depth in that report. There's a case for keeping the article, but on the whole I think a redirect is more likely - Arjun Tendulkar and Tom Healy (cricketer) are both redirects in not dissimilar situations for example. Redirecting also preserves the work already in place. Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:49, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This cricketer has not played any First Class or List A cricket.Fail WP:NCRIC and WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:38, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Steve Waugh (and edit that article to include a mention of Austin and his cricketing progress) until he meets NCRIC. The-Pope (talk) 00:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Steve Waugh as in the case of Arjun Tendulkar.--RHcosm (talk) 01:06, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Blue Square Thing. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:19, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. A valid rationale for deletion is not present. While nothing in the nomination has been stated regarding notability, also note that per WP:NEXIST, topic notability is not based upon the state of sourcing in articles (non-BLP articles). See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America1000 06:00, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmopolitan Television[edit]

Cosmopolitan Television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No references and not much content Rathfelder (talk) 12:18, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:05, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Guinean films. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:13, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Guinean films of 1994[edit]

List of Guinean films of 1994 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only two items in list; neither has an article on English Wikipedia. These single-item "List of Guinean films of XXXX" need to be consolidated into one list or article, if kept at all. Softlavender (talk) 12:11, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:06, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:07, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:08, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Guinean films. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:13, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Guinean films of 2003[edit]

List of Guinean films of 2003 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only one item in list, with no article on English Wikipedia. These single-item "List of Guinean films of XXXX" need to be consolidated into one list or article, if kept at all. Softlavender (talk) 12:09, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:09, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:09, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:10, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Guinean films. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:13, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Guinean films of 1997[edit]

List of Guinean films of 1997 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only one item in list, with no article on English Wikipedia. These single-item "List of Guinean films of XXXX" need to be consolidated into one list or article, if kept at all. Softlavender (talk) 12:09, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:10, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:11, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:11, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Guinean films. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:12, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Guinean films of 1995[edit]

List of Guinean films of 1995 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Virtually an empty list. Softlavender (talk) 12:06, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:11, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 18:59, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Raidashir[edit]

Raidashir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Looks like a piece of epic fantasy WP:OR / hoax. This figure never existed as far as I can see. Been tagged since 2009 (almost 10 years). - LouisAragon (talk) 11:52, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:13, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:13, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Tried to verify some of the details with little success. No cited sources. Fails WP:V. Icewhiz (talk) 13:56, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:OR material. If you google it, almost all results are based on this WP article. I couldn't find even a single reliable source for it. Also, the only article that links to it is Tun Ledang Shah. Both article created by 202.186.157.3 and sound like made-up stuff. --Wario-Man (talk) 14:41, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A search of Google books and Jstor resulted in nothing. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:00, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the fact that this uncited article has existed for nine years is a sad commentary on how easy it is to create article on Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:18, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • DElete -- The whole thing seems wholly improbable: it does not even seem to be an article that is supposed to be about a single person. It even cites rumour which is certainly not a reliable source. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:34, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. A valid rationale for deletion is not present. See also: WP:NEXIST, and WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America1000 06:06, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arabesque TV[edit]

Arabesque TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unreferenced Rathfelder (talk) 11:50, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:14, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 18:59, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Schoolcraft[edit]

Jamie Schoolcraft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unfortunately this Wikipedia article appears to fail a number of tests for WP:NOTABLY. That Mr Schoolcraft was at some time the mayor of Willard, Missouri is WP:VERIFIABLE, but being the mayor of a town with a population of 5,288 is not an indication of notability. That Mr Schoolcraft went on to be an unsuccessful an candidate for Missouri's 7th congressional district in the United States elections, 2018 is also verifiable. It would appear to me that this article fails the WP:POLITICIAN test for notability. In alternative tests of notability, in my opinion this may well fail WP:ANYBIO Shirt58 (talk) 11:26, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:16, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:16, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:16, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a defeated candidate for public office. We have some similar articles dating back to about 2008. There needs to be a general review of all articles we have on defeated candidates for US house, and probably a removal of most of them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:15, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Willard, MO is not large enough to hand all of its mayors an automatic notability freebie just for existing as mayors, but there's nowhere near enough substance or sourcing here to deem him a special case over and above most other smalltown mayors — and being an unsuccessful candidate in the congressional election is not grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of itself either. Bearcat (talk) 16:45, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator - fails WP:GNG, WP:NPOL. SportingFlyer talk 00:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Missouri, 2018. As failed candidate for federal office, fails WP:NPOL. As small-town mayor, would not meet the municipal government conditions of WP:NPOL. Bkissin (talk) 16:35, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons stated above. Fails notability. No significant treatment in reputable independent sources. Doesn't even appear notable enough to include in article for Willard, MO. Levivich (talk) 23:21, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:NPOL ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 12:20, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:29, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ron DiNicola[edit]

Ron DiNicola (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable politician. This was a contested PROD (Per longstanding tradition, a mere candidate for public office with no significant "claim to fame" other than said candidacy should not have a Wikipedia article).PRehse (talk) 10:42, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:21, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:21, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as article creator. He doesn't meet WP:NPOL but I believe he meets WP:GNG. Note that the coverage cited on the article is not exclusively about him as a candidate, and notice the dates of the coverage, going back years. He has a "claim to fame" in his association with Muhammad Ali. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He is only noted as a politician. As such he needs to meet the notability guidelines for politicians, which he does not, so we should delete the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:19, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The "preexisting notability for other reasons" test is not passed just because you can find some preexisting journalism in which his name gets mentioned, it is passed only if and when you can find some preexisting journalism in which he was the subject — but the only pre-campaign source here which meets that standard comes from the university student newspaper of his own alma mater, which is not a notability-assisting source. And as always, unsuccessful congressional candidates don't get over GNG just because the campaign coverage exists, either, because campaign coverage of all candidates in all congressional districts always exists — so the existence of some campaign coverage is not in and of itself enough to exempt a candidate from having to pass NPOL, but nothing else here is properly sourced as strong evidence of preexisting notability for other reasons. Bearcat (talk) 16:53, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Bearcat: Where does it say a losing political candidate would require "preexisting notability" to be kept? How does coverage of him in his campaign declaration not count towards GNG? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:45, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Every candidate always gets some local coverage in the campaign context — so if the existence of local campaign coverage were in and of itself enough to exempt a candidate from having to pass NPOL by winning the election first, then we would automatically have to keep every article about every candidate, and deprecate NPOL as meaning absolutely nothing anymore. No candidate would ever be deletable at all if campaign coverage contributed to a GNG pass that exempted them from having to pass NPOL, because no candidate ever fails to get some campaign coverage. But it's not our job to be a repository of campaign brochures for unsuccessful candidates — our role is to have articles that people will still be looking for ten years from now, which means officeholders and not unsuccessful candidates. So the established consensus on candidates is, and has always been, that a candidate can certainly have an article if they already had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten them an article anyway, but they have to win election to a notable office, not just run for one and lose, before they get to derive notability from a political campaign itself.
        Politics is one of those areas where Wikipedia is extremely vulnerable to an extremely high volume of partisan/advertorial abuse of our mission — every candidate always wants a Wikipedia article for the publicity, and every candidate's opponent always wants to dirtwash the other guy so people will vote for the opponent instead. So the rule is not that the merely expected and routine volume of local campaign coverage makes a candidate pass GNG in lieu of having to pass NPOL, it is that campaign coverage does not contribute to a GNG pass at all unless and until the candidate has won the election and thereby passed GNG+NPOL together. Bearcat (talk) 22:48, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think being Muhammad Ali's lawyer is enough to get over the hurdle of failing WP:NPOL as none of the coverage on him in this regard is significant. SportingFlyer talk 00:03, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:12, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Programs Broadcast by TV One (Pakistan)[edit]

List of Programs Broadcast by TV One (Pakistan) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced arbitrary list of programs. Not notable in its own right. Rathfelder (talk) 10:27, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:26, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:26, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:26, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:LISTPURP and WP:CLN. No valid argument for deletion has been presented and the nominator fails to demonstrate a basic understanding of the content. I'm at a loss to see what about this list is "arbitrary", as the inclusion criteria is clear and determined by a significant fact shared by the entries. Indexing TV series by their originating broadcast network is standard, and nearly every bluelink in this list notes in those series' individual articles that they first aired on this network. Whether this list should also include acquired series or nonnotable series for sake of completion, or whether it ultimately should be merged into the parent article TV One (Pakistan) if WP:SIZE does not merit a WP:SPLIT are questions for ordinary editing and development that need not (and should not) be resolved here. On sourcing, I see no serious question as to whether this information is verifiable and that's all that is relevant to deletion. As a side note, Category:TVOne Global should be renamed to match the parent article TVOne Pakistan, and also likely to Category:TVOne Pakistan series to better reflect its content and match the other members of Category:Television series by network. postdlf (talk) 14:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a valid topic for a list as there are many others as shown above and it is a valid split from the main article as it is quite a long list, passes WP:NLIST references are easily found for improvement Atlantic306 (talk) 14:59, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wouldn't a category of "Programs Broadcast by TV One" serve the same purpose more effectively?Rathfelder (talk) 16:11, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per reasons outlined by postdlf and Atlantic306 -- Whats new?(talk) 03:06, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This needs cleanup including a title change. While most of the list is unsourced there still exists some programming that appears to be original broadcasts (and which have articles), which is acceptable. I support trimming the excess and retaining the more verifiable and useful content. Ajf773 (talk) 19:24, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2018#District 1. Almost all votes are for redirect or delete. Per WP:ATD and WP:CHEAP, I find that a redirect is the best option here. (non-admin closure) Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 19:24, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Audrey Denney[edit]

Audrey Denney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NPOL: only assertion of notability is being an (unsuccessful) candidate for elected office. Kurykh (talk) 09:17, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:19, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:19, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:19, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete she lost in the general election. Defeated candidates for congress are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As always, candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — a person has to win the election to pass WP:NPOL, and otherwise qualifies for an article only if either (a) she can already be shown to have already have had preexisting notability for other reasons independent of the candidacy, or (b) she can be extremely well-sourced as having received a volume and depth and range of coverage that went far enough beyond the merely expected to give her candidacy a credible claim to being special. But neither of those things are shown here at all. Bearcat (talk) 16:58, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dreamyshade: thank you for this. I wasn't aware of the recent centralized discussion about notability of political candidates before reading your comment, and it looks like it's not too late for me to participate. Shortly after I made my "Rename" suggestion below, there were AfD nominations for the CA-10 and CA-39 election articles for 2018. Now that Josh Harder is the presumptive winner in CA-10, it's arguable that the content of the CA-10 2018 article should be upmerged into the Josh Harder page and/or Jeff Denham article, and possibly much of the content of the 2018 CA-39 article could be upmerged into the Gil Cisneros and/or Young Kim article. Elections that result in the notability of the winner seem they should be considered wp:notable events to me, and thus, I'm still firm in my belief that California's 1st congressional district election, 2018 would also be notable, but your comment convinced me to add "Keep" to my opinion below. -- RobLa (talk) 19:38, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I remain incredibly unconvinced that we need a standalone article about each individual congressional district's individual election results. Bearcat (talk) 17:16, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I remain incredibly convinced that you are wrong. I would be delighted to have that conversation over at Talk:United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_California,_2018#Splitting_off_election_articles, where I've detailed my rationale. That is a far more appropriate place to have that conversation. -- RobLa (talk) 00:51, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In no way was this candidate's challenge of Doug LaMalfa the equivalent of Denham-Harder or Kim-Cisneros. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:27, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose this as well. This wasn't a notable race. SportingFlyer talk 00:55, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pretty clear failure of WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. No reason to turn this into an article about a non-competitive election when there is already a page that covers all U.S. House elections in California. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:26, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:GNG, WP:NPOL. Happy with a delete and redirect to the house elections page. SportingFlyer talk 23:34, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Rename The original article in question has multiple citations and passes the WP:NPOL policy you all keep going on about. I'd like to see some attempt by the delete voters to enumerate the harm caused by leaving the article. Emceeaich (talk) 23:38, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
NPOL is passed by holding office, not by running for it and losing. Bearcat (talk) 17:21, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The current content and depth/range of sources in this article is somewhat thin, but Wikipedia:Deletion policy says "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." I took a quick look for potential sources, and I found many newspaper articles from a range of regional papers with in-depth analysis of why this campaign was unusual for this region and interesting in the context of patterns in the overall 2018 midterm election. I see a reasonable argument for this topic passing WP:GNG. I haven't yet found any larger national papers such as the LA Times, Washington Post, or New York Times covering her campaign in detail - with that, I would have a stronger Keep vote, but I think this is reasonable enough coverage for GNG.
Dreamyshade (talk) 08:56, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Dreamyshade: Those sources all seem to be about the election, rather than the candidate who ran in the election. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:26, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of these sources have substantial details about Denney and her work, including her campaign work, as part of describing her campaign. Combined with the existing sources in the article, the information would be sufficient for putting together a reasonably substantial article about her. I also included a few sources with brief mentions (such as the LA Times article) to show that she received some broader notice outside of the regional papers. Dreamyshade (talk) 23:06, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. A valid rationale for deletion is not present in the nomination nor in the following !vote. See also: WP:NEXIST (notability is not based upon the state of sourcing in articles). Also see WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America1000 06:16, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arab Motors TV[edit]

Arab Motors TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unreferenced Rathfelder (talk) 09:02, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:23, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:23, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:23, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 09:17, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Big questions[edit]

Big questions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is as pure an example of an indiscriminate list comprised of original research as I've ever seen; the "big question" is whatever question one happens to want to know the answer to at the time (I can provide an impeccable Reliable Source that The Big Question is "what's the difference between a tangerine, satsuma and clementine?"). Neither of the two cited sources even use the phrase "big question" at any point. I have no doubt that this was created in good faith, but this is a misunderstanding of what the Wikipedia mainspace is for; at absolute most this should be split into FAQs at the Reference Desks.  ‑ Iridescent 08:21, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:09, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:09, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:09, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't have a lot of articles where the title is actually a question. The ones that we do have seem to have been so titled because the question is of such universal currency that it is more descriptive than a declarative statement of the topic. It's a rare criterion and as such seems to be worth a navigation list of some sort. Whether these have to be titled "big questions" is debatable, but as a useful hub list I would lean Keep. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:40, 11 November 2018 (UTC) Aaaand... double check shows I am wrong: I was pretty sure that at least "Why is the sky blue?" and "What is the meaning of life?" are the titles of the respective articles rather than redirects, but it seems none of these are. Colour me embarrassed; this kinda moots my argument. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I created the article, and as I noted on the talk, this was discussed at WP:VP/I#Articles which ask a question, with substantial affirmation. The article as I created it is in a new form, that's why its yet undeveloped, and requires you to help perfect it. And this is what Wikipedia is actually for, developing articles not deleting them. * I created the article, and as I noted on the talk, this was discussed at WP:VP/I#Articles which ask a question, with substantial affirmation. The article as I created it is in a new form, that's why its yet undeveloped, and requires you to help perfect it. Articles just simply don't start off as perfect. The topic is a clear keep, though it could be renamed. -Inowen (nlfte) 10:57, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, that's not what Wikipedia is for; you're thinking of Quora. We don't do, and never have done, a question-and-answer format here; Wikipedia is an tertiary source encyclopedia, not the FAQ page for the internet. Looking at the Village Pump thread you link, I don't see a single person supporting your suggestion, let alone "substantial affirmation"; the closest I see is someone suggesting that although such a page isn't appropriate for Wikipedia, it might be suitable for Wikibooks. ‑ Iridescent 13:58, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Iridescent. Its not a question-answer format, or the promotion of such. Wikipedia is not Quora, certainly, but some questions are perennial, and its not wrong to list some questions as entities in their own right. Why is the sky blue? for example is a now-classic introductory question to photon physics and cognitive optics, to talking scientifically about nature itself. Where did we come from? is a classical way of talking about human creation, either theistic or atheistic, life-genesis and evolutionary biology. Who is a Jew? is an example of a question-form which solves an editorial difficulty, but isn't really a general question, just a speciality question in the ethnic area. Some questions are universal is the simple point, and thats why some of the questions I listed off-hand were already extant as redirects, like Are we alone in the universe? So according to pre-existing editing form, redirects are a is a legitimate ways of handling question links, and question links are a legitimate string for making redirects. Compiling a list of questions is simple. -Inowen (nlfte) 19:13, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This just isn't what article space is for. It's far more amorphous than listing unsolved problems in a specific area of science, and we have enough trouble doing that. We could, however, have a page over in the "Wikipedia:" domain, like Wikipedia:What Wikipedia has to say about Big Questions, which collects Questions That Have Been Considered Big and lists articles that are relevant to them. That would be harmless and possibly entertaining. XOR'easter (talk) 15:51, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The existence of the page suggests a lack of understanding of what Wikipedia is about. As Inowen said, "Wikipedia is not Quora" and I think the article should be removed for that reason. Alssa1 (talk) 20:52, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete FWIW - yes - *entirely* agree with the comments above regarding the deletion of the proposed "Big questions" article - seems a very recently created similar article, "Brief Answers to the Big Questions (book)", about a newly released book by Stephen Hawking, may (or may not) have inspired (perhaps to some extent?) the article currently being discussed for deletion - this new Hawking book article seems much more appropriately notable and consistent with the goals of Wikipedia, whereas the proposed "Big questions" article is not imo atm - hope this helps in some way - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 00:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:13, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - entirely subjective. For me, What should I cook for dinner? is the big questions I contemplate most. Agricolae (talk) 19:01, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Delete: This discussion is already longer than the article, which doesn't have sufficient sourcing to show a standalone article is needed.--Milowent • hasspoken 21:15, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just arrived there via STicki while reviewing recent changes. There are no criteria for inclusion on this list - how could we exclude anything from it? 'Did I leave the hob on?' can be a much bigger question than 'is there intelligent extraterrestrial life?', at least for a forgetful individual... GirthSummit (blether) 21:51, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. These questions should be listed in sections in articles about philosophy, science, religion, etc. Levivich (talk) 23:48, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:06, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stefy Patel[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Stefy Patel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not seeing significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject and this looks like the subject was in news due to the recent event Femina Miss India 2018. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:33, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:33, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:33, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:33, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:06, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Superplastic (Company)[edit]

Superplastic (Company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable company with no significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:NCORP and general notability guideline. GSS (talk|c|em) 05:10, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 05:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 05:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sources fail WP:ORGCRIT, and I haven't found anything better. Not to mention, the vast quantity of inline external links make this appear to be nothing but WP:PROMO. Regardless, the company is simply not notable enough for inclusion. Jmertel23 (talk) 13:04, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. The involvement of several WP:SPAs is highly suspicious too. I filed a SPI case which found them to be technically unrelated, but WP:MEAT seems likely. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:02, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:06, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SafetyCulture[edit]

SafetyCulture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH; routine business announcements only. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:28, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Enough there to meet WP:GNG for mine. Doctorhawkes (talk) 01:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. The amount of coverage accrued by the topic may allow for a consideration of a GNG passing, but I doubt it given that GNG calls for significant coverage. Notably, many of the sources cited are not independent of the subject (as seen with both Business News Australia articles, which are both based on WP:PRIMARY information), and none seem to be in-depth. As noted by NCORP, sources cited must be in-depth and non trivial (Most pertinent to this AfD, NCORP is clear that press releases are not seen as in-depth coverage) if they are to be considered as contributing to a subject's notability. I am of the belief that the subject does not meet these criteria.--SamHolt6 (talk) 02:09, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination and per Sam. The article doesn't make any claims about this small company being notable. The references given are routine for small specialist firms. Nick-D (talk) 02:46, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete This subject looks like it should be notable if the claims made about it are even half true. My difficulty is that there do not appear to be sufficient IRS to back it up yet. It is certainly being given wide coverage by a very wide range of sources, but much of it is routine and-or churn/indirect primary. Aoziwe (talk) 10:10, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the delete vote, but disagree on the point that the company may have a claim to significance. Taking this source [5] from May 2018, the company has raised $60 million. In the view of an encyclopedia, this is frankly a paltry amount, and, when considering the majority of sources cited by the article are press releases about the company raising funds, indicates to me that there is no credible claim to significance.--SamHolt6 (talk) 16:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of claims such as "The SafetyCulture iAuditor mobile app is the world’s most used workplace inspection platform" and that it is used by very big very visible companies. I do not think it matters if we come to the same conclusion for different reasons. Cheers. Aoziwe (talk) 22:38, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 08:53, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Godfrey Okoye[edit]

Godfrey Okoye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

None of the sources are at all independent. One is a blog, one is a cite from a group he founded, and two are links to dioceses he headed. Nothing is at all close to indepdent. John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:54, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:41, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:41, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:41, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:N clearly states that notability is not based on the state of sourcing in the article. But a quick search finds coverage in Omenka, Nicholas Ibeawuchi (2010). "Blaming the Gods: Christian Religious Propaganda in the Nigeria-Biafra War". Journal of African History. 51 (3): 367–389. doi:10.1017/S0021853710000460.; and there's a whole biography: Amadi, Dan Chima (1995). Bishop G.M.P. Okoye : his life, his times. Lagos: Everlead Communications. ISBN 9789783336711.; and some discussion (on one or two pages, so arguable) in Okwu, Augustine S. O. (2010). Igbo Culture and the Christian Missions, 1857-1957: Conversion in Theory and Practice. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 9780761848844. Also there appears to be a whole university named after him: Godfrey Okoye University. Bakazaka (talk) 02:15, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as there is plenty of reliable sources coverage as shown above, so passses WP:GNG RC Bishops are mainly notable Atlantic306 (talk) 14:53, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. WP:GNG is not clear. Based on Bakazaka’s comment, subject matter is still notable outside it sources, per WP:N since there’s an existing article on the encyclopedia which is a university named after him, I’d suggest he’s added as a section under that.

Is Nutin 15:07, 11 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soltesh (talk • contribs)

  • Keep -- Bakazaka's research clearly shows his notability. Oppose merging to university. The fact that the university has his name is actually a further indication of notability. Furthermore, bishops of major denominations are normally notable per se. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:50, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bakazaka. Stanleytux (talk) 13:49, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources found by Bakazaka. Also, Roman Catholic Bishops almost always (if not always) pass WP:GNG, since there is almost always plenty of RS coverage of them, just like in the case here. SJK (talk) 17:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BISHOPS. This is the second Catholic bishop from Nigeria that nom has nominated for deletion. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 20:21, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BISHOPS. StAnselm (talk) 23:00, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We have always considered that diocesan bishops of major churches are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Nobody strongly advocates deletion, but on the other hand, ambassadors aren't normally considered automatically notable. Sandstein 12:05, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zvonko Mucunski[edit]

Zvonko Mucunski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An IP Editor nominated this as a speedy deletion claiming that is is a hoax. This page backs up the claim, but I'm not in a position to figure out what is true here. The bio seems to be lacking in evidence, but I will leave that up to the community to decide if this falls under some sort of special notability standard. Guerillero | Parlez Moi 03:24, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yugoslavia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:21, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:21, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:21, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Just a reminder that it sounds like it will need to be considered for deletion/retention on several grounds
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 01:44, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 00:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, it isn't a hoax, I've found refs that back up the claims made in the article. A brief scan of google would have me leaning keep but I haven't looked deep enough to vote. Szzuk (talk) 09:42, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:38, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Daniil Ilich Konstantinov[edit]

Daniil Ilich Konstantinov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article appears to be translated from Russian. The sources I have looked at do not seem to pass WP:RS. He seems popular among some Russians, and in many ways an admirable gentleman, but I am struggling to find sources that are provably both reliable and independent. Guy (Help!) 13:32, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:23, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:23, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:23, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:05, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There seems to be a decent amount of coverage in Russian language sources. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 14:03, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 00:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, i translated the first two refs and they are most definitely talking about him. Szzuk (talk) 08:48, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to White House Chief Usher#List of Chief Ushers. Sandstein 12:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Harleth[edit]

Timothy Harleth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Bringing it to you all to discuss. Now... this article is only two sentences, including one with citation overkill. In my view, this person is evidently a non-notable member of this administration. I mean, if Angella Reid wasn’t even mentioned here this article would have 0 legs to stand on. I’m not disputing that sources given aren’t reliable (except maybe Washington Times) but the only mentions of this guy in articles is about how he used to work for the Trump Hotels. No notability of himself. I recommend redirecting his name to the the Chief Usher page if it’s not chosen for deletion. Trillfendi (talk) 00:02, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:22, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:22, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:22, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The subject is non-notable, although I feel the same way about his predecessor. The gratuitous and unjustified attack on the Washington Times in the nomination is not worth having.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:57, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn’t an attack, it’s just that their editorial standards aren’t on par with their peers including the ones referenced in this article. It’s comparable to Daily Mail.Trillfendi (talk) 01:06, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete All of the coverage is on him being hired, it's not really about him, more a "the White House has a chief usher" public interest story. Now, all White House ushers have articles - I'm not sure how notable they actually are, though the historical ones seem better referenced compared to the problematic Gary J. Walters article. SportingFlyer talk 09:00, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete, unless the article can be expanded two sentences relating to his appointment as White House Chief Usher, and his previous service at the Trump International Hotel, otherwise I would not consider him to be as notable as his two immediate predecessors, Angella Reid, the article I previously created on the first woman Chief Usher, and Stephen W. Rochon who served as the first African-American Chief Usher.--TommyBoy (talk) 08:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there is a lot of RS coverage on his hiring, but it goes into little depth. If someone had written an in-depth profile, we might have a case for keep. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:55, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per BLP1E. EnPassant (talk) 18:25, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to White House Chief Usher. I can imagine that this search term isn't too uncommon for numerous political reasons I'd rather not get into. Anyone searching for the term would, at the very least, want a redirect to the article about his position in the Trump admin. Along with the WP:ATD and WP:CHEAP guidelines arguing for the redirect, I think the best solution is to do just that. Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 00:43, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2018_November_11&oldid=1142224276"