Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 December 22

Guide to deletion

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 Imagery of nude celebrities. (non-admin closure) Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 14:06, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Nude photo leak

Nude photo leak (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 reads almost as a perverted directory on who's nude photos to search for, even more so given that no males are mentioned in the article at all. Many of the people who's photos have been exposed are already mentioned in the 2014 celebrity photo hack, fails WP:LISTN. Azealia911 _talk 23:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 00:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 00:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 00:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 00:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• Redirect to 2014 celebrity photo hack. Plausible search term. sst✈^(discuss) 00:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
• Redirect to Imagery of nude celebrities. That seems to be the main article, and this one basically duplicates it (with a directory). The 2014 photo hack was highly publicized, but it's about a specific incident. I don't think it's as good of a redirection target. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:25, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
• Redirect as NinjaRobotPirate above. No reason for this to be a standalone article and nothing in it to warrant it in terms of quality. 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 04:40, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
• Redirect to Imagery of nude celebrities as although the 2014 event is the most recent, there certainly have been others so this will likely be the best search term. SwisterTwister talk 08:25, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
• Redirect to Imagery of nude celebrities per others. Note that a large portion of the article has been removed after the AfD nomination. sst✈^(discuss) 13:07, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Looking at the list again I can see a weak argument for keeping the list while renaming it to something like List of celebrities with leaked photos. Such a list would meet WP:LISTN and WP:CSC, but may fail neutrality as it would focus on generally negative aspects of multiple living persons. sst✈^(discuss) 13:24, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

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 as mentioned, with this seeming easy and obvious enough (NAC) and since this article was started last September and tagged for Wiktionary moving, nothing has happened at all (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 06:04, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Skirmish mode

Skirmish mode (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, abandoned, uncited stub for a generic term. Vintovka Dragunova (talk) 23:44, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 01:00, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• Redirect to Glossary of video game terms#Skirmish mode. I added my own sourced definition to that page, so this doesn't need to be merged. As a dictionary definition, I think this is best handled in the glossary article. I didn't see much in the way of in-depth coverage of the concept itself, but it's conceivable that such exists. If so, I suppose it can be spun-off into its own article once again. Right now, it doesn't seem necessary. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:39, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
• Redirect to Glossary of video game terms#Skirmish mode per NinjaRobotPirate. --The1337gamer (talk) 12:01, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

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. Mkdw^talk 00:43, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Mato (illustrator)

Mato (illustrator) (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)

Illustrator known mainly for Pokemon Adventures manga but nothing else. Media Arts DB only shows that one title as notable. Recommend redirect to Pokemon Adventures. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:33, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:33, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:33, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - Nothing to suggest WP:N in Japanese sources. Mato doesn't even work on Pokemon anymore, or in other anime/manga. Not even worth a redirect. Jun Kayama 03:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:18, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails WP:GNG in the absence of any in-depth third-party coverage. --DAJF (talk) 04:23, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:36, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Diamond Foxxx

Diamond Foxxx (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 pornbio and gng. One credited reality show appearance does not push you over #3 Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable pornographic film actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:20, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails PORNBIO as sole award win was for a scene.Has not been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media. Not sufficient coverage in reliable sources to satisfy GNG. Finnegas (talk) 16:58, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 22:39, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:Pornbio.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:26, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy deleted and salted by RHaworth, CSD G3: Blatant hoax. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:40, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

List of the tallest buildings in Sheboygan Falls

List of the tallest buildings in Sheboygan Falls (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. None of the buildings have their own page and are of local importance only. Cubbie15fan (talk) 22:55, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Delete This is a recreation of an article that was just speedied as a hoax. I've put it up for a speedy again. The supposed 18-storey Brickner builfin is actually 4 storeys http://sheboyganhistory.com/b/brickner.htm . The supposed 14-storey Pine Haven Christian Home appears to be one or at most two storeys tall on Google Earth. The supposed 15-storey Wisconsin Bank and Trust is actually 3 storeys https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.7337165,-87.8232833,3a,27y,6.62h,92.91t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1scYUB0lwqk3DC7R6JycIJUw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656. I didn't look any further. Meters (talk) 23:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

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 speedily deleted by User:DGG under criteria A7 and G11. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 23:02, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Athena Marcus Calhoun Key To The City Of Las Vegas

Athena Marcus Calhoun Key To The City Of Las Vegas (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)

It may be that Athena Marcus Calhoun is notable enough to warrant an article, I'm not sure. But the fact that she recieved a key to the city of Las Vegas certainly isn't enough to warrant its own article. Quadraxis (talk) 22:43, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - only source found is this which seems self-written by the subject. No significant independent coverage. Also, it should be noted that a duplicate was created at Athena Marcus Calhoun, which I've redirected, for now, to Athena Marcus Calhoun Key To The City Of Las Vegas. If by some chance this article is kept, it should be admin-moved over the redirect to Athena Marcus Calhoun, but that seems unlikely. --Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 23:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

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. Definitely passes WP:NACTOR (non-admin closure) Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 14:36, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Brooke McCarter

Brooke McCarter (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 believe this actor is non-notable and doesn't meet WP:NACTOR standards. His primary claim to fame is a role in Lost Boys but he didn't have a sustained career and doesn't meet WP:GNG. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:34, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Delete I agree. He did not do much. I could see if he was in a major TV show for a long time. With not many credits to his name, I don't think this article should be included. - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 22:40, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Disagree. Yes, his best known role was in The Lost Boys (for which he still has a cult following), but he did some more work in film as a producer, composer and manager of Corey Haim. JAEVI (talk) 10:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Even if all he did was have a part in this movie that would be enough. What exactly is the problem with him having a wikipedia page?--Dr who1975 (talk) 14:58, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
• Strong Keep When notice of one's passing is widely covered as headline news in notable, reliable sources as diverse as: Time Magazine, the BBC, US Weekly, People Magazine, the U.K.'s Daily Mail, USA Today, TMZ, TV Guide, Variety, the Huffington Post, CBS, Yahoo News, the Boston Herald, the Business Standard and even the National Enquirer among many others, then it really begs the question of why this person's notability is even an issue. His cult following is more than well documented. Whether it comes from 1 film or a dozen doesn't matter. The subject easily meets WP:NRV and in this case, especially WP:NEXIST. As a result, certainly WP:NACTOR as well. X4n6 (talk) 13:54, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Also May I also recommend, that the editor putting this article up for deletion, might want to review the very first sentence of WP:GNG. The post-mortems on this subject couldn't provide a more textbook illustration of that sentence. X4n6 (talk) 22:47, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
• Keep The internet and wikipedia is a large and wide place with plenty of room for this mildly notable person. Mild notability is still notability. I really wish the people on wikipedia would get the sticks out of their butts and re-examine their ideas of what notability is. It's not like we're printng a phone book of notable people with limited space. What exactly are you concerned about? Space on the wikipedia servers?--Dr who1975 (talk) 14:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I just wead WP:NACTOR... holy crap did YOU GUYS read it? This person's death alone has significant media coverage to meet the notability criteria... here's 3 articles...
  • http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-35167035
  • http://www.people.com/article/lost-boys-star-brooke-mccarter-dies-52
  • http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0565029/news?ref_=nm_nwr_1#ni59320630
  • --Dr who1975 (talk) 15:04, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Per above. Certainly notable as the coverage of his passing in reliable sources shows. Harry ^{Let us have speaks} 15:01, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
• Keep V. Joe (talk) 16:49, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Keep. AAT Deficiency (his cause of death) desperately needs more awareness. 100,000 Americans have it, but only 10,000 have been diagnosed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.59.13.231 (talk) 23:03, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• Keep Seems fairly notable to me. His death was reported by BBC News and others. This is Paul (talk) 23:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
• Keep, but some coverage from when he was alive would help. Everyone's at least a bit more famous right after they die. Right now, the article gives the impression that Wikipedia either just heard about or just remembered him. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:30, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
• Keep, per X4n6, with multiple obituaries in reliable sources, easily passes WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 13:25, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

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. Opened by sockpuppet NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:40, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Pometenik

Pometenik (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)

Pometenik not mountains but the landscape on the eastern edge of Pešter plateau near the village Duga Poljana. Mountain Pometenik doesn't exist already exist landscape and therefore this page should be deleted.Philipsontheevil (talk) 22:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:32, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Taured mystery

Taured mystery (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 unexplained mystery visit from another world or something sourced only to credulous websites. I found one book source, equally credulous. Mangoe (talk) 22:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, as the article mentions, the story has been mention on page 86 in the 1989 book The Directory of Possibilities by Colin Wilson and John Grant (ISBN 0-552-119946) and also on page 64 in the 1999 book Strange But True: Mysterious and Bizarre People by Thomas Sleman (ISBN 0-760-712443). Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 22:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, as the article states, while this incident might be mentioned in these books, there is no verification that it even happened. It is hard to argue to keep an article that itself states that there is no way the information can be verified. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:40, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:08, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:08, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Things that cannot be verified can appear in Wikipedia under such guidelines as WP:NFRINGE. The subject of the article then becomes less whether the event really happened than the phenomenon of such an urban legend or fringe theory. In that case, independent and significant reliable sources are needed that talk about that phenomenon. Sources that promote that legend or fringe theory, however, would be hard to consider independent. I've searched Japanese sources in this case and find a lot of blogs and fringe websites that mention the incident, but nothing looking like an RS yet. Michitaro (talk) 05:44, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I believe that by writing "is considered by many to be a hoax or urban legend" I did make it clear it was not solid facts (WP:NFRINGE). Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 14:15, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

That's fine, but you will need more sources that approach it from the same neutral, objective standpoint. Sources 3 and 4 are definitely not that. Source 1 is somewhat skeptical and source 2 more so, but these two sites are likely not the "major publications" that are mentioned in WP:NFRINGE. The two books cited also do not look neutral and objectve, and mentions only on one page are not significant coverage. I think you need more sources to prove notability. Michitaro (talk) 18:45, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• Delete: Unfortunately (hey, it's a good story!) it just doesn't seem notable enough, as I can find no significant coverage in reliable sources - only blogs and forum posts. The books cited above appear to contain only passing mentions, and the other results I can find on Google Books that aren't just OCR gone wrong are all self-published. Kolbasz (talk) 19:14, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - There is nothing which meets WP:RS criteria in Japanese. There's a brief account supposedly in the pages of a Japanese paranormal magazine dating back to September 2013 [1] but the article is not online. There is however mention by John Grant in some blog commentary [2] that he wasn't the source, but it was a Paul G. Begg who started it in some other book. Considering how fond Japanese are of paranormal phenomena, if this was an actual incident or had origins in Japan there would be references in abundance. I very much doubt there is any chance of establishing WP:N for what is evidently a work of fiction from the UK. Jun Kayama 03:16, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
• Delete Complete lack of english WP:RS sources. A few foreign language pop culture sources [3] but nothing that warrants a stand alone article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:04, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:29, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Brandon Newton

Brandon Newton (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 American football player. Did not appear in a regular season game, thus he does not meet WP:NGRIDIRON. Natg 19 (talk) 21:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 21:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 21:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 21:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:NGRIDIRON and does not seem to pass any other notability measure such as WP:GNG. Generally, college offensive linemen are not found to be notable because they just don't get the coverage, so it is not surprising. Unable to find any news articles on this particular Brandon Newton in my cursory review. If they are found and presented, I will happily review.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
• Delete does not meet notability requirements for players of American football.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:25, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
• Delete. College football players can qualify under WP:GNG or WP:NCOLLATH. Here, I am not finding the award of significant coverage that is required under those guidelines. Cbl62 (talk) 00:39, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
• Delete Fails the GNG and WP:NGRIDIRON. Jakejr (talk) 21:41, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:29, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

A Kumaran

A Kumaran (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 The Banner talk 20:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - Subject is not notable. Only references are to IMDb and his personal website. Meatsgains (talk) 22:28, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 02:26, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 02:26, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 02:26, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - Hardly even much here to suggest even minimal notability, only a behind the scenes man it seems. SwisterTwister talk 08:26, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - WP:GNG - No reliable secundary sources. Article does not clarify why the subject is notable. Assistant cameraman does not automatically make someone noteworthy. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 12:28, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

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 speedily deleted (most recently) by User:Just Chilling under criterion WP:G11. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 23:04, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Historyism

Historyism (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 WP:WEBSITE, cannot find any secondary sources on this subject. Cubbie15fan (talk) 20:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Speedy delete non notable (A7), spam (G11) and copyvio (G12). It has already been deleted today as non-notable and the new article still gives no indication to the contrary. It is written in a promotional way, and is a copyvio of the website itself. A7 was apparently contested when this AfD was raised but I have tagged G11 and G12. RichardOSmith (talk) 21:22, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - Non-notable history blog with no support from reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 23:30, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:29, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

The Vinnys

The Vinnys (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)

Promotionally toned article about a band with no strong claim of notability under WP:NMUSIC and no strong evidence of coverage in reliable sources: the article is far too dependent on the existence of social media profiles as a priori proof of notability (which it isn't), and the sourcing is far too dependent on routine concert listings, primary sourced verification of existence on the self-published websites of directly affiliated organizations and musical colleagues, and commercial sales platforms like iTunes and Amazon.com — and even the stuff which does count as media coverage leans far too heavily on college radio stations and smalltown community newspapers rather than sources of the type that would actually count for anything at all toward WP:GNG. This was tagged for prod by User:SwisterTwister about a month ago and deleted accordingly, but was recreated earlier today with no improvement in the notability or the sourcing over the deleted version — so I thought it better to take it to AFD this time. It also warrants mention that the article was originally created by User:Thevinnys, making it a WP:COI. It's still a delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:55, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:55, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• Delete as I easily PRODed it as my searches found only trivial local coverage. SwisterTwister talk 17:56, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:GARAGEBAND. Montanabw^(talk) 04:27, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

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 Miss Alabama USA#Winners. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 03:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Madison Guthrie

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Madison Guthrie
• Articles for deletion/Madison Guthrie (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Madison Guthrie (3rd nomination)

Madison Guthrie (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 WP:NOPAGE this college student should not have a separate article but rather her 15 minutes of fame is best noted at Miss Alabama USA where her name can be redirected after the article is deleted. Note I am not arguing no notability (though I think she has none, but rather that whatever notability this community college co-ed has is best handled in a list. Legacypac (talk) 09:35, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 10:04, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 10:06, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:48, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• Keep Incredibly prejudicial nomination with two personal attacks against the subject of the article and taking in the nominator's history against these articles, I suggest they stick to neutral policy in future noms rather than throwing ad hominems towards the subjects they're talking about (the "15 minutes of fame" line shouldn't ever be used in an AfD, for instance). I hate to use the 'you've been here long enough to know our policies' scold...but the nominator should at this point. Nate • (chatter) 02:43, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Artw (talk) 03:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps the editor is unfamiliar with WP:15MOF as a policy which I was referring to. If you look at at the first Nom you will find about 15:4 went delete before what was a procedural close. Many similar articles about people that won one pageant and went back to school have been deleted or redirected after being nominated by myself or other editors, so please don't try to mislead other editors. Personal attacks against me are not appropriate and I trust that the closer will take the evident reason to vote keep being based on a desire to attack me into account when tabulating votes. Previous noms did not consider Wp:NOPAGE so please explain how the meager info in in the article would not be better presented on a table with other winners, and maybe a mini bio below the table if there is something else to say. Legacypac (talk) 07:32, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment There was no personal attack against you at all; going on my talk page and telling me I did so for simply stating that I disagree with your nomination rationale is not that by any means. I'm sorry, but on principle I do not support nominations that are based on denigrating article subjects than presenting policy (you cited one, then went on to the subject attack). That's my last word on this manner and I stand by my rationale completely. Nate • (chatter) 10:30, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I used policy in my nomination, but your vote cites no policy reason to contradict only saying you don't like I pointed out she is a otherwise low profile college student (not a model etc). I need to remind you again to focus on improving Wikipedia not voting no because of some perceived issue with another editor. My "history" includes successfully nominating for deletion many similar articles in the face of dedicated pageant hobbyists who ignore all Wikipedia policy in the quest to cover every bit of potential trivia on every girl to win a crown somewhere. Legacypac (talk) 10:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be great to have more editors comment on the specific merits of keeping or deleting this article, rather than a general discourse about how similar AfDs are handled. Deryck C. 17:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 17:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

It would be great indeed. Unfortunately, when dozens of similar articles are nominated simultaneously, editors grow weary, and feel the nominators are wasting their time to no real purpose.

*Weak Keep as there is a considerable volume of coverage in a variety of media outlets including print, television and digital. Suggesting direction of articles to lists based on NOPAGE while simultaneously suggesting redirection of the lists feels wrong.Jacona (talk) 23:17, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

to clarify, redirection of lists refers to many similar articles and lists recently nominated, not the list to which this article is being suggested as redirect, so far as I know. Jacona (talk) 23:19, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Don't confuse the effort to consolidate annual event articles with redirecting non-notable winners to lists. If an editor is tired of reviewing pageant articles, stop looking at the nominations. No one is required to look at anything here. Legacypac (talk) 07:42, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Keep She has won a reputed competition and a notable personality . Age is not a constrain. Always :) (talk) 19:44, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Redirect to Miss Alabama USA; no notability outside of winning a state beauty pageant. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:37, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

• Redirect to Miss Alabama USA#Winners, per WP:BLP1E. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:28, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Liz, CSD A11: Article about a subject obviously invented by article creator or associate, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:15, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Glen Rice II

Glen Rice II (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 and WP:NHOOPS. Appears to be a made up person. Cubbie15fan (talk) 17:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Delete This is an article about someone's virtual pro on the NBA2K10 video game. Seasider91 (talk) 17:51, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:02, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Alice Pung

Alice Pung (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:AUTHOR. Out of her 3 published works, the only 2 awards are minor eg a state award. She's not an established writer in the same league as other authors on Wikipedia. LibStar (talk) 16:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Delete Has not yet reached the level of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:07, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
• Weak delete keep Has won two "newcomer" awards, but by now they are getting a bit dusty and she hasn't "old-come" yet. Was able to find book reviews of first book (I added those refs); no idea how important those Australian publications are. I'm torn between keep and delete, but with only one book I find it hard to support notability as an author. LaMona (talk) 19:07, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Changed !vote to weak keep thanks to cites found by duffbeerforme, Still not sure she's more than an average author. LaMona (talk) 18:28, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:45, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

• Keep. Satisfies WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG.

In addition to this article (from LaMona) already in the page, articles primarily about her include

Bogle, Deborah (22 September 2007), "Another's perspective", The Courier-Mail

Neill, Rosemary (8 November 2014), "Hard Lessons", The Australian - url is subscriber only.

There are also many lenghty reviews of her books

Her Father's Daughter

Stubbings, Diane (10 September 2011), "Daughters in a family minefield; MEMOIR", Canberra Times

Starford, Rebecca (17 September 2011), "Love lies at the heart of a harrowing tale", The Age

Walker, Brenda (1 September 2011), "'Her Father's Daughter' By Alice Pung", The Monthly

Unpolished Gem

Hughes, Juliette (2 September 2006), "A walk between cultures", The Age

Hetherington, Alison (30 September 2006), "Gem to make you go wah", Herald-Sun

Harrison, Jessica (1 February 2009), "'Gem' poignant tale of family, cultural ties", Deseret Morning News

Growing up Asian In Australia

Farouque, Farah (21 June 2008), "Other voices, shared lives", The Age

Laurinda

On, Thuy (19 October 2014), "Schoolgirl tyrannies come to life", Sunday Age

Shorter reviews of Our Australian Girl: Meet Marly

"REVIEWS:", The Advertiser, 8 March 2015

On, Thuy (22 February 2015), "THE BOOKSHOP", Sunday Age

Note that Deseret Morning News is outside Australia, as it a short review un USA Today - Memmott, Carol (22 January 2009), "Memoirs ; Roundup", USA Today

Her website indicates other coverage.

Other independent writers have created teacher's notes for her books. [4]

See also Auslit. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:45, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

• Keep Definitely passes WP:NAUTHOR and per Duffbeerforme. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 16:38, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

• Keep As well as frequent articles and reviews in every major Australian newspaper, Pung ahs been analysed in Prose Studies, Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies and many literary journals. -- haminoon (talk) 03:10, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Worm That Turned CSD G5: Created by a banned or blocked user --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:03, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Auto inquisition

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

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

A few websites (although no strong secondary sources) recognise this as a variant of autosuggestion, but my attempt to merge the basics of this article into the other was (quite reasonably) rebuffed by User:Prolumbo.

I can't find any reliable sources that define auto-inquisition, just a few blogs that mention Edison. This article seems to have been one of several apparently created to promote an eBook on the subject published by Ratan Puri last week. McGeddon (talk) 15:54, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment It looks like we may have a sock of User:Sadhu Ratan Puri here - pinging @OlEnglish: (who dealt with that user earlier today) for admin attention. Plus Speedy delete A11 as made up RichardOSmith (talk) 18:48, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
• Another comment as sockpuppetry is confirmed (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sadhu Ratan Puri) I have tagged the article for speedy deletion (WP:G5). RichardOSmith (talk) 14:16, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

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) 15:23, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Yan Dhanda

Yan Dhanda (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)

Deleted by PROD before, fails WP:NFOOTBALL JMHamo (talk) 15:34, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 15:36, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 15:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
• Keep I feel that the player represents clear significance in that he is only the second player of Indian heritage to sign a professional contract in for a Premier League club, and that he is the first to do so for Liverpool FC, a major club. The lack of South Asian professional footballers is a much-debated topic, hence these articles by the Independent, Channel 4, the Guardian and the BBC. Furthermore, when Dhanda signed the contract, news organisations such as the Daily Mail, BBC and the Metro covered the story highlighting the fact of his heritage and it's implications for the South Asian community. With national news coverage of his recent contract, it shows a clear public interest in with regards to professional footballers of South Asian heritage and as such I feel it is clear that he is of cultural significance and thus worthy of a Wikipedia article. (Rcp8690 (talk) 17:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC))

• Comment - Asian footballers in Britain may be a significant topic, but the first four sources do not discuss this specific player in detail. The remaining sources you provide are simply routine transfer talk, which is generally considered insufficient for GNG as it allows little to be said about the player other than he has signed for the club. This is the problem in a nutshell, yes the player has signed for a premier league team, but he hasn't actually played any football at a significant level yet. Fenix down (talk) 17:35, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• On a tangentially related note, I notice that the article claims that Neil Taylor was the only previous player of Indian heritage in the Premier League, yet our article on Michael Chopra says that he was the first player of Indian heritage in the Premier League...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:08, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I think it's meant to be talking about current players (but poorly worded). Spiderone 11:34, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Either way I agree with Fenix down's comment, the subject if the article should be independently notable. The articles on Neil Taylor and Michael Chopra where created because they play professionally, not because of their heritage. Inter&anthro (talk) 15:25, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 18:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
• Delete Despite recent coverage of this player in the national press it is not enough to pass the general notability guidelines. Seasider91 (talk) 19:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - I know none of those original sources mention Dhanda, but as the stories are about a lack of South Asian professional footballers, it can hardly be expected that he should be mentioned, as he wasn't a professional footballer at the time. And while those recent stories may just be 'routine transfer talk', the Mail and BBC ones both make specific reference to his heritage and it's significance, highlighting that his signing of a professional contract with a Premier League team is not only important, but is near enough unique – when you consider the amount of footballers to play in the Premier League, and how only he, Neil Taylor and (after a bit of research, indeed), Michael Chopra (think Neil Taylor's article needs to be updated?), have Indian parentage, it's incredibly rare. Especially when it includes – not just people who have played but out of everyone to hold a professional contract – it must be thousands of footballers. Also, if a footballer like Jake Brimmer has a page, he has achieved nothing greater than Dhanda. Both U17 players, both at Liverpool, but one does have the page and one doesn't. (Rcp8690 (talk) 10:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC))

Your argument doesn't really make sense. What you seem to be saying is that if player of nationality "x" signs for a club of nationality "y" where "x" is rare within "y" as a player's nationality, that without even playing for a club the player is inherently notable. What is needed are sources that discuss the player in detail, particularly when he is just a hot prospect who has never even played. I would also note your comparison with Brimmer is flawed. Firstly Brimmer went to AfD as well, but the result was no consensus, so there is not an agreement to keep. however, in this instance, there were a number of sources indicating widespread non-routine international coverage of the player. If you can show similar sources for Dhanda then I am happy to reconsider my position. Fenix down (talk) 09:12, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 04:48, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 04:48, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 04:48, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

• Weak keep -- If it were not for his ethnic heritage, I would have no doubt about voting to delete as would clearly not yet be notable: U18 players, even at a national level are generally NN. In view of the death of South Asian football players, we should possibly make an exception here, since he is only the second to be signed. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:24, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Actually at least the third (see discussion above)..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:40, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - GNG requires detailed discussion of the player and this has not happened in the sources provided. Spiderone 11:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
• Delete for now - Clearly fails NFOOTY. Although I was guilty of the same thing in the past, creating articles simply because of the ethnic origin of their subjects does not make them notable. Also there are very few sources with the exception of one that clearly mention his Indian heritage in depth. Faiq Jefri Bolkiah is the first Bruneian to be part of a premier league academy but that doesn't make him notable does it? Article can be recreated if the subjected meets WP:GNG in the future. Cheers. Inter&anthro (talk) 15:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
• Delete We don't have different rules for people of different racial backgrounds. That would be by definition prejudicial. Does the subject meet WP:GNG? That should be the only question in play. Mkdw^talk 05:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
• Delete for now as per Inter&anthro. Interesting story, though. Notability will probably be achieved in the future. JTtheOG (talk) 06:18, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
• Keep For the mention of the first Bruneian in the Premier League academy, I counter by asking has the lack of Bruneians been a consistent feature of football reporting for the last 15 years? Mainstream press and television have consistently investigated over that time why 10% of the British population is so underrepresented in football. Yan Dhanda is not becoming the first person from that sector to sign professionally for (insert League Two team here), but for the 18-time English and 5-time European champions. Dhanda's story is not going unnoticed in India, see here for example. '''tAD''' (talk) 20:18, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

We don't right the wrongs of the mainstream media by adjusting our notability guidelines. We require significant coverage and if there are other factors that prevent an individual from having significant coverage, then it is not on Wikipedia that this will be remedied. Mkdw^talk 02:36, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• Delete for now. Player is signed to a development league. Press coverage must meet WP:NTEMP. Blue Riband► 15:01, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

List of foreign trips of Prime Ministers of Pakistan

List of foreign trips of Prime Ministers of 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)

It's unencyclopedic to begin-with, i mean who needs to know about foreign trips of Pakistani prime ministers and who was with them on those trips whether all family members or some. It seems like somebody created this page to make a joke of Pakistani prime ministers. I know saying that it's just unencyclopedic is not good enough. I am new to deletion discussions but i am sure someone would find a better reason to give for deletion of this page than me. I have searched Wikipedia for any articles beginning with "List of foreign trips" and did not find any except "Pakistani prime ministers" and "presidents". Doesn't heads of states of other nations go on foreign trips? Sheriff | report | 14:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Sheriff | report | 15:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Sheriff | report | 15:07, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• delete all prime ministers/presidents of the world do foreign visits. This would just be an endless list. LibStar (talk) 16:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

  Comment I concur with Libstar, some of Tarja Halonen's visits may be worth mentioning in her article, but nothing these guys do is worth discussion. Siuenti (talk) 20:39, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• delete I'm not sure we should delete an article just because there are no other similar ones. After all, there has to be a first in any category of article. However this particular one could become very long (there have been a lot of Pakistani Prime Ministers) and is of limited encyclopedic value. In any case, as it currently exists the article is something a coatrack for an attack on the current Prime Minister - he's the only one whose section contains a "companions" column and the section is headed with an unreferenced paragraph about controversy caused by the lavish nature of his trips and the large number of people involved. Neiltonks (talk) 17:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
• Delete why not a list of speeches or visits by state. Not useful. 20:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
• Delete (1) There is no claim made to notability. See als WP:NOTESAL (2) This list fails WP:Stand alone lists, the selection criteria (also known as inclusion criteria or membership criteria) are not supported by reliable sources. (3) This list appears to constitue WP:OR being based entirely on primary sources. --Bejnar (talk) 06:20, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
• Delete, Pakistani prime ministers aren't as notable as Vladimir Putin or Tarja Halonen or someone like that. Siuenti (talk) 12:14, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

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#3 and WP:SNOW. Lacking references isn't a valid reason for deletion. What's more, the article did have references (in the form of in-text external links) at the time it was nominated. Nominator should read WP:BEFORE prior to future nominations at AfD. (non-admin closure) clpo13_(talk) 01:02, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Panikera

Panikera (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 Alvin the Almighty (talk) 14:20, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Keep According to WP:GEOLAND all named populated places, no matter how small, are notable. And the first word "Panikera" is linked to a map indicating that it exists. It doesn't matter if it's formatted as a "reference" or not. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Keep - Looks like a real village to me. As is common with Latin character translations, there are alternate spellings This one is Panikara. --Oakshade (talk) 04:50, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
• Keep. References added since nomination confirm this village satisfies WP:GEOLAND. Human settlements are considered notable regardless of size per editor consensus, and this one has about 1,110 people.[5] • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
• Keep: populated place, with refs. PamD 22:09, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:GEOLAND.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:49, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
• Keep per Shawn in Montreal. Named populated places are always notable, and there seems to be no dispute that this place exists. _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 11:12, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:26, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Classes of Rubies of Eventide

Classes of Rubies of Eventide (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 topic fails WP:GNG with no reliable, secondary, in-depth sources covering the scope of "list of Rubies of Eventide classes". The contents are WP:GAMECRUFT and individual classes do not have reliable sources covering them. The fact that the game has an abundance of classes can be sourced (for example, [6]), but this content can be included as prose in the parent article. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:52, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. As nominator states, this doesn't belong here. It would be more appropriate at Wikia. If there weren't 106 classes, it might be possible to merge something to the main article, but I just can't see it in this case. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:06, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
• Delete. Entire content is inappropriate per WP:VGSCOPE. I'm surprised this page went unnoticed for such a long time... --The1337gamer (talk) 11:58, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

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. Sam Walton (talk) 11:09, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

USM Alger–ES Sétif rivalry

USM Alger–ES Sétif rivalry (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)

Appears to fail WP:GNG. The only source provided is an unofficial website. There may exist some good French/Arabic websites for this rivalry but I can't find any. Also a possible violation of WP:NOTSTATS. Spiderone 12:31, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 13:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:09, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - Aside from WP:NOTSTATS issues, WP:NRIVALRY requires GNG to be met. Yes, these teams have played a number of times, but that in itself does not create a notable rivalry. I see no indication of significant, reliable coverage of the the notion of a rivalry between the two clubs. Fenix down (talk) 13:34, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 18:07, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
• Keep - This article concerne a rivalry between two of the best clubs in Algeria (Football in Algeria). It's considered as one of some classicos in the country. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 19:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - can you provide links to sources that provide significant discussion of the rivalry, not just match reports? Fenix down (talk) 08:55, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 04:55, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

• Delete The burden of proof is on those arguing to keep the article. Right now the article is mostly a table with the match history and nothing has been provided to substantiate the depth of this rivalry. Even then it would need to be looked at beyond WP:ROUTINE. As it stands now, I don't see that WP:SIGCOV is being met. Mkdw^talk 05:19, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

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. Sam Walton (talk) 11:08, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

USM Alger–MC Oran rivalry

USM Alger–MC Oran rivalry (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)

Appears to fail WP:GNG. The only sources provided are unofficial websites. A quick internet search doesn't seem to reveal much but I admit that there may exist some good French/Arabic websites for this rivalry. There is also a severe lack of prose in this article and, instead, just pure statistics. WP:NOTSTATS. Spiderone 12:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 13:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:09, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - Aside from WP:NOTSTATS issues, WP:NRIVALRY requires GNG to be met. Yes, these teams have played a number of times, but that in itself does not create a notable rivalry. I see no indication of significant, reliable coverage of the the notion of a rivalry between the two clubs. Fenix down (talk) 13:33, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 18:07, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
• Keep - This article concerne a rivalry between two of the best clubs in Algeria (Football in Algeria). It's considered as one of some classicos in the country [7]. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 19:39, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't see that link providing in depth discussion of the notion of a rivalry. Fenix down (talk) 08:54, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - This link explain that this match is a classico. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 22:41, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

There is no in-depth discussion provided. That's what we're looking for here. Spiderone 09:32, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 04:55, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

• Delete If this is a well known rivalry then there should be WP:SIGCOV beyond WP:ROUTINE. The article primarily makes up a record of the matches between these two teams which are redundant as a list of matches is available elsewhere, just not filtered out. At present the article does not focus on any prose outlining the rivalry between these two teams. The WP:BURDEN is upon the keep camp to demonstrate that this is indeed a well written about rivalry significant enough to satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. AFD is not clean up, but there must be something to clean up in the first place. Mkdw^talk 00:57, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

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. Opened by sockpuppet NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:40, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Pometenik

Pometenik (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)

Pometenik not mountains but the landscape on the eastern edge of Pešter plateau near the village Duga Poljana. Mountain Pometenik doesn't exist already exist landscape and therefore this page should be deleted.Philipsontheevil (talk) 22:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

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. Despite the verbosity of some editors in this discussion, the consensus here is delete. No prejudice against the creation of an appropriate redirect as that can be an editorial choice. Mkdw^talk 05:32, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Festival-day

Festival-day (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)

1. Fork of Jewish holidays. 2. Non-existent English term "Festival-days". 3. Factually incorrect (see no need to elaborate here, since that pertains to the article proper, but it comes down to not including Yom Kippur and Simchat Torah). Debresser (talk) 09:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

That is a disingenuous argument, User:Debresser, since every orthodox Jew knows that the word "Festival-day" (Yom Tov) is used in Hebrew to describe only six specific days in the Jewish calendar; no more and no less, excepting the additional Yom Tov prescribed for Jews resident abroad. To prove this, why not ask other Orthodox Jews here to confirm what I have said, such as User:IZAK,among others. Quoting directly from Maimonides' Code of Jewish Law (Seder Zemanim, Shevitat Yom-Tov 1:1), we read:

ששת הימים האלו שאסרן הכתוב בעשיית מלאכה שהן ראשון ושביעי של פסח, וראשון ושמיני של חג הסוכות, וביום חג השבועות, ובאחד לחודש השביעי הן הנקראין ימים טובים. ושביתת כולן שווה, שהן אסורין בכל מלאכת עבודה, חוץ ממלאכה שהיא לצורך אכילה, שנאמר אך אשר יאכל לכל נפש ---- which, translated, means: "These six days that are prohibited by the Scripture from doing labour therein, being the first and seventh days of Passover, the first and eighth days of the Feast of Booths, and on the day of Shavuot, and on the first day of the seventh month, they are called Festival-days. The cessation of labour in all of them is equal, since it is forbidden to do in them any kind of physical labour, except that labour which is needed for eating, as it says: 'Only that which shall be eaten by any person', etc." ---Davidbena (talk) 14:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• — Note to closing admin: Davidbena (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:05, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 December 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

reason #2 seems weak, I've found the term in a lot of references referring to Jewish holidays. I don't know about reason #3 but reason #1 seems to be strong as at least some of the content is replicated. I therefore think it is probably a WP:REDUNDANTFORK and should be deleted. JMWt (talk) 10:19, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

"Festival-day" with a dash? If you mean without a dash, well, isn't that the same as "holiday"? Debresser (talk) 10:39, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I could add that the article implies that "Festival-day"s is something that exists only in Judaism. That is incorrect. That is reason #4 for deletion, or at least a rename. Debresser (talk) 10:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

That presents no problem, User:Debresser, as the word "Jewish" can be placed in parentheses after the word "Festival-day" in the title so as to distinguish it from other non-Jewish festival days.Davidbena (talk) 13:52, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

It is without question that this article should NOT be deleted, for the simple fact that there is presently no article on Wikipedia describing the Jewish "Festival-day," as described in rabbinic literature. In orthodox Jewish law, a "Festival-day" (Hebrew: Yom Tov) cannot be construed with an ordinary holiday, such as Hanukkah and Purim, since labour is permitted on those days, but NOT on a "Festival-day." And there are many other distinguishing factors which put the bona-fide "Festival-day" in a category of its own.Davidbena (talk) 13:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Delete there are articles for Jewish_holidays, for the Three_pilgrimage_festivals (which would be festival days) and we don't need one more superfluous one. I do understand the point that Hanukkah is not a "major" holiday, but that point is/or should be made in the articles already existing. We don't need another article to confuse readers. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:48, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:48, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. Redundant to Jewish holidays. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:36, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
• Keep That is incorrect, User:StevenJ81 and User:Sir Joseph, since there is no article which treats specifically on the Jewish technical term, "Festival-day." All other articles have conflated this issue with other Jewish holidays which are not "Festival-days" described in Mishnah Betzah (Yom-Tov). The "Festival-days" described in Mishnah Betzah are specific days, namely, the days mentioned in our article. There is no valid reason to delete our article. In fact, anyone checking the Jewish Encyclopedia will see that there is a distinction, as noted in our article.Davidbena (talk) 15:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

That could be fixed with one sentence in the Jewish holidays article, that not every holiday is a major holiday where work is prohibited. The article Three_pilgrimage_festivals already exists which is what you are looking for. What you are proposing is a fork and is not needed. Your festival days is already covered. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:51, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely. No need for this article. Debresser (talk) 16:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, your reasoning is incorrect, since any qualified Rabbi can tell you that the word "Yom-Tov" in Hebrew (commonly translated as "Festival-day" in English) refers to a specific six days in the Jewish calendar, during which time labour (Heb. מלאכה) is forbidden, with the one exception of preparing food on an existing flame. These strictures do not apply to any of the other Jewish holidays, therefore there is a definite need for this current article.Davidbena (talk) 16:35, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

See Jewish_holidays#Terminology_used_to_describe_holidays at יום טוב. Yom Kippur was included there, but colloquially people do use the term to apply to Yom Kippur as well. But everything you're saying is included elsewhere, as Yoninah says below. And nobody, but nobody, uses the term "festival day".

That said:

Hebrew Wikipedia has two separate articles: he:חגי ישראל ומועדיו, which is the one corresponding to Jewish holidays, and he:יום טוב, which has corresponding articles only in French and Italian, both called "Yom Tov". So if you really want a separate article that badly, rename it to "Yom Tov" (since nobody calls it "festival day") and make sure you cover the ground in the Hebrew article. But I don't personally think it's necessary. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:54, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

It is not necessary, period. A long, long time ago, when Wikipedia started, everything was being translated into English using academic sources such as the Jewish Encyclopedia. Since then, foreign-language terms have been introduced (such as my articles on Kvitel and Chavrusa). At most, Davidbena, you should lobby to have Jewish holidays changed to Yom Tov. But the reason that that article encompasses a broader array of moadim is because this is an encyclopedia for all faiths, and that is how the non-Jewish world perceives dates like Yom Kippur and Hanukkah. You would be better off dropping this crusade and working on improving sourcing on the Jewish pages instead. Yoninah (talk) 17:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

To "lobby to have to have Jewish holidays changed to Yom Tov would be misconstruing the term, User:Yoninah, since all learned orthodox Jews understand the words import, and what it does not imply. The article Jewish holidays is, as its name implies, an all-inclusive article on Jewish holidays, but it does not deal specifically with the subject of "Festival-day" as understood in Jewish law.Davidbena (talk) 18:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're saying. I am an Orthodox Jew, and I have never heard of a Festival-day (Jewish). Yoninah (talk) 21:07, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Yoninah, have you heard of the word, "Yom Tov"? It, my friend, is commonly translated in English as "Festival-day," although it literally means in Hebrew, "good day." In this case, I'm sure that you've heard of it, as there are halachic responsa treating on the subject, and which word(s) refer(s) to six special days in the Jewish calendar, excluding Hanukka, Purim, Yom Kippur and Sabbath days. Tell me, my friend, are you trying to be facetious?Davidbena (talk) 21:55, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Yom Tov is not commonly translated as Festival Day. Being that we are the English Wikipedia, we refer to Google. Look up "Festival day" and you get 1,300,000,000 hits, none of which refer to Yom Tov. Your insistence on renaming Yom Tov is turning into a neologism. Yoninah (talk) 22:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Yoninah, Yoninah, calm down! If you have access to an English translation of the Mishnah, Tractate Betzah, you'll find the word used often, just as it is called here. Look, for instance, at Herbert Danby's English translation of the Mishnah. Notwithstanding, the English name presents no problem since the page can also be accessed through the name, "Yom Tov (biblical)."Davidbena (talk) 22:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and per WP:CFORK. Firstly, it is ridiculous to translate the term Yom Tov into English because no one uses the term "Festival Day" – they all say "Yom Tov" or "Jewish holiday" (or "Jewish festival"). Secondly, all this information is already in the Jewish holiday article. Yoninah (talk) 16:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, my friend, this current article has nothing to do with your designation, WP:Content Forking, insofar that this parameter is defined as: "the creation of multiple separate articles all treating the same subject." Currently, there isn't any single article on Wikipedia that treats on the particular subject of "Yom Tov" (Festival-day), except for this one.Davidbena (talk) 22:19, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

If any of our friends here can read Hebrew, the Hebrew Wikipedia also discusses the definition of Yom-Tov (Festival-day), and explains it precisely as I have explained it in our current article. See: Hebrew Wikipedia. The academic consensus is unequivocal, namely, that a "Festival-day", in Jewish law, is only one of six days, just as outlined in our current article. There is no need, repeat, no need, to delete it.Davidbena (talk) 16:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

We're not the Hebrew Wikipedia, we use common English usage. On the English Wikipedia, there is no need for a Festival-Day article. It violates policy. It's a fork, it's not needed. Anything you want to add, can be added to the Jewish holiday or the Three_pilgrimage_festivals article. Also, you have already voted, so you should strike out your second vote, you would not want to be called out on voting twice. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:54, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. The creator apparently wants an article "specifically on the Jewish technical term, 'Festival-day.'" But Wikipedia is not a dictionary – let alone a Hebrew dictionary. Maproom (talk) 17:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

The article not only explains the term, as would a dictionary, but elaborates on its halachic ramifications. It is, therefore, a needed article.Davidbena (talk) 22:23, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - it is clear from the above that I don't have enough knowledge to make a !vote here, so have deleted my above. JMWt (talk) 17:20, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Friends, this is an article related to Jewish subjects, and as such, it is wholly worthy of its place in the articles reflecting Wikipedia/Judaism. This is not merely a "technical name," but a well-defined term used throughout Judaism. In fact, the foremost authority on Jewish law, Rabbi Yosef Karo, has written an entire treatise in his Code of Jewish Law on the "Festival-day," Hilchot Yom-Tov, Shulhan Arukh, (Orach Chaim, section # 495), as also Maimonides, in Hilchot Shevitat Yom-Tov. So much is it a part of Jewish law that we say, "If an egg was laid on a Festival-day, it may not be eaten" (Heb. ביצה שנולדה ביום טוב לא תאכל), [Mishnah Betzah 1:1], and, "They are not permitted to bake or cook on a Festival-day for a regular week-day" (Heb. אין אופין ומבשלין מיום טוב לחול) [Mishnah Berurah, on Orach Chaim §495]. Now, we all know that Hanukkah and Purim, being not true "Festival-days," it is permitted to eat an egg laid on those days, just as it is permitted to bake or cook on either of those days for the day that follows. This proves, without question, that we are addressing a specific term used in Halacha, which warrants our keeping this article.Davidbena (talk) 18:42, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

You can comment all you want, but you are missing the point. This is English Wikipedia, not the Hebrew Wikipedia and it's not the Shulchan Aruch. Yom Tov is not translated as festival-day, it's translated as holiday. If Purim and Chanukah is a working holiday, that should be mentioned in the holiday article but it does not need to be in a forked article. You shouldn't continuously argue the same point over and over again. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:08, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

English Wikipedia caters to Jews (English speaking) who use this term, just as it appears in many English translations of the word "Yom-Tov" (i.e. "Festival-day"). Look at the English Soncino edition of the Talmud. This term, "Festival-day," in its Jewish connotation, has a limited meaning. There's no need, my friend User:Sir Joseph, to expunge this fact from our readers. This specific article was made to accommodate that need of being precise and accurate; after all, that's what a good Encyclopedia does. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 19:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Davidbena, would you please relax? Several of the other people writing here are Orthodox also, we are perfectly familiar with these sources, and we don't think you need an extra article. All of this information is available in the article Jewish holidays. If you don't think that quite handles it accurately, look to make some careful edits to that article. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

User:StevenJ81, I'm fully relaxed, my friend. The problem with the other article (i.e. Jewish holidays) is that it does not deal specifically with "Festival-days," per se, but "Jewish holidays," in general. The two terms are not analogous, seeing that there are specific rules which apply to a Jewish "Festival-day" (Yom tov). I do not doubt that we have some fully-qualified and able orthodox people here. Be-well.Davidbena (talk) 20:33, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Davidbena, somewhat against my better judgment I played with the Jewish holidays article to try to accommodate your point of view. I removed "Jewish festivals" from the grouping section, because (a) nobody in the universe calls them that in English (see Lisa below), and (b) the appropriate place is in the terminology section below. In the terminology section, I tried to accommodate the point of view that Yom Kippur is not the same as the other six.

Beyond that, I think some of the details about which melachot are permissible on yom tov and which aren't can be moved to the article Melacha. If you do that, the only thing left in your article that is not included anywhere else (that I know of) is "half for us, half for Hashem". And I'll find a way to get that into the Jewish holidays article if you absolutely insist. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:50, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Steve, while it is true that the proscriptions for the Sabbath days and six Festival days are similar, they are still dissimilar enough to warrant a special article on this subject, which can be expanded later to incorporate many of the other laws defined in the Shulhan Arukh and in Maimonides' Code of Jewish Law. The bottom line is that we find in Judaism the term "Yom Tov" (Festival-day), which is not the same as the Sabbath day, and which excludes other holidays days in the Jewish calendar.Davidbena (talk) 21:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

We already have an article for Yom Tov and we already have an article for Shabbos and we already have an article for Melacha and we already have an article for the Three Pilgrimage Holidays. We don't need another one just because you are literally translating a word that nobody uses. Can we please just close the AFD already since you seem to be making the same arguments and not listening to anyone? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:34, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, Afd's run for a week. Debresser (talk) 22:08, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Not under the Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Early_closure , WP:Snowball_clause. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:14, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Of course, dear Sir. However, this is not a snowball case, and even though I have no doubt as to the outcome of this discussion, it doesn't live up to snowball standards. Debresser (talk) 07:34, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

thank you, my friend. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:40, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

That is incorrect, User:Sir Joseph, as there is no article on Yom Tov, excepting the one that is here-named Festival-day (Jewish), which, mind you, is also named, "Yom Tov (biblical)." There is, however, a different WP page entitled "Tov Tov (disambiguation)," and an article entitled "Yom Tov Torah readings." Of course, that is something else. The term "Yom Tov" isn't the same as having an article for Shabbos, nor for having one on Melacha (forbidden labours).Davidbena (talk) 22:05, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - No one on the planet would ever search for an article by this name, even if they were looking for something specifically dealing with Yom Tov. And yes, Yom Kippur is Yom Tov. Sheesh. Jewish holidays is fine. There's no reason for this. Yamim Tovim are a subset of Jewish holidays. If you want to make a יום טוב article in Hebrew Wikipedia (assuming there isn't already one there), go right ahead. In English, it's just silly. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 20:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

That is your view, Lisa, and I take it that it comes from a lack of adequate knowledge about this quaint and arcane "Jewish term," namely, Yom Tov. The Soncina edition of the Babylonian Talmud admits that the word is strictly used for certain Jewish holidays, saying: "...we see that festivals differed from the Sabbath mainly in the preparation of food; and indeed with but few exceptions (e.g., carrying and kindling) this represents the final ruling. Consequently, for the most part, the laws of festivals are the same as those of the Sabbath," meaning, Purim and Hanukkah are not to be included in the category of festivals.Davidbena (talk) 21:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

You think too much of yourself, Davidbena, and wrongly think too little of others. I know what ימים טובים are. And if someone were to look Yom Tov up on Wikipedia, it would be as Yom tov, and not "Festival-day". Your suggestion is bizarre. And we don't pasken by a simplistic reading of the Gemara. I find it amusing, to say the least, that someone who appears to be limited to an archaic translation of the Gemara, rather than the original, would question the knowledge of Orthodox Jews here. Yom Kippur is most certainly considered Yom Tov, despite the fact that it carries all of the issurim that Shabbat does (other than the prohibition of fasting, obviously). Every holiday in Judaism has its own rules and regulations. Purim is not in the same category as Hanukkah (we say Hallel on the latter and light chanukiot, rather than reading megillah and giving shlach manot and matanot l'evyonim). Pesach is not in the same category as Sukkot, which is not in the same category as Shavuot. Do those three have something in common that Purim and Hanukkah don't have? Sure. At the same time, Pesach and Sukkot and Hanukkah have something in common that isn't shared by Shavuot and Purim. Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur have a common category called Yamim Noraim (Days of Awe, or the High Holidays), but that doesn't mean they need a separate article on English Wikipedia.

No one calls Yom Tov "Festival-day". Not with the hyphen and not without it. You appear to be demonstrating the adage that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. It's even more dangerous when the person with a little knowledge erroniously thinks he has a lot of knowledge. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 15:24, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree with Lisa. In addition, I don't see how your reply detracts even the least bit from what she wrote. In general, don't feel obligated to defend your position against each and every person disagreeing with you in a discussion. Not good form. Debresser (talk) 22:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Without belaboring this point, just to show you that our "dear Lisa" is mistaken, the article can be accessed by writing "Yom Tov (biblical)," and, since it is an English article, it is only natural that it carry an English title, "Festival-day," which word (yom tov) is translated as such in most English translations of our Mishnah. Lisa, obviously, does not speak for the entire planet, as our English translations of this term will show. I feel that it would be a great error and disservice to Wikipedians to have this article deleted, since it fills a gap in what is clearly outlined in Halacha. I appeal here to people of sound minds, Shawn in Montreal and Sir Joseph and StevenJ81 and Debresser, to reconsider their judgment.Davidbena (talk) 22:34, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• it seems clear that the consensus is that everything is already covered with existing articles and Hebrew terms that exist on that Wikipedia doesn't necessarily mean that it has to have an article on this Wikipedia with the exact literal translation. I think at this point all that can be said has been said and the AFD should be closed. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
• Delete and merge/redirect if needed There has got to be a way to accommodate this somewhere within Jewish_holidays#General_concepts, if this is what the article creator claims it to be. If it's truly that significant, then it's glaring by its absence. Forking off the main article on Jewish holidays may serve the article creator's wishes but it does not serve our readers, who can reasonably expect to find this explained within the "Groupings" section, or maybe better yet, "Terminology used to describe holidays," rather than a split-off stub. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• It's already there. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:33, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• I didn't see it there, not as "festival-days." That term would need to be added, would it not? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:35, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Nobody calls it "festival days". It's commonly translated as holiday. The differences among the days are already in the articles. Also, the condescending tone of David is not cool at all. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, my fellow co-editor, Sir Joseph, I would totally respect your view if it were correct. However, a brief look at English translations of the Mishnah and Talmud, or books on Halacha, will show you that the word "Yom Tov" is either transliterated "Yom Tov," or translated "Festival-day," or "Festival." The word holiday is too general of a word.Davidbena (talk) 14:57, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, Shawn in Montreal, I just added "Yom Tov" to Groupings. StevenJ81, please go ahead and edit what needs to be edited. Yoninah (talk) 22:42, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Yoninah, I took "yom tov" out of groupings, because I thought it belonged in "terminology", where it already exists. But, look, if it's going to make Davidbena happy, I'll stop fighting it.

I'll be honest with you all: (1) I absolutely do not believe that this article is necessary. I personally would still !vote to delete it. (2) I absolutely do not believe it actually hurts anybody if we keep it. As it stands right now (15:32, 23 December 2015 (UTC)), the consensus is clearly to delete it. But if Davidbena gets enough support (without canvassing) that the consensus becomes muddled, I'm not going to insist on deletion. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:32, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• Friends, one very good reason why this article should NOT be deleted or merged with another, may G-d forbid, is because I hoped to expand it, bringing down other aspects of Halacha relating solely to the "Yom Tov." If elements of this current article should be merged with another, say, in an article which speaks on more general terms, it would seriously limit my capacity to expand on the subject in the realm of Halacha. With this, I say "good night," gentlemen.Davidbena (talk) 22:49, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

"G-d forbid"? That's a bit strong language for a deletion discussion. :) Debresser (talk) 07:33, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• Note to Closer: Davidbena possibly canvassed users by placing notices on specific user talkpages.

  I'm only aware of one so far, and that user came down on the delete side. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:32, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

  Gentlemen, I will not hide the fact that I requested from people (most, whom I do not even know) to voice an opinion, one way or the other, but I NEVER requested from anyone to sway the vote in my favor. So, is that "canvassing"???--Davidbena (talk) 15:50, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

  This is how one should let other users know about an AFD:

  Hi, you might be interested in this discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Festival-day. Davidbena

  This is how you let people know:

  Hi, User:Lisa. As of yesterday, there was no specific article on Wikipedia dealing with the specific Jewish festivals known as a "Festival-day" (Yom-Tov). That means 15-years of Wikipedia without an article on the Jewish "Festival-day." This prompted me to write an article yesterday on the subject, which you can read here: Festival-day (Jewish), but now a person has wrongly suggested that it be deleted. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Festival-day. Can you please interject here and voice your opinion whether or not the article should be deleted, as your view is important here, I would think. It's urgent.Davidbena (talk) 19:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

  What you wrote is not only canvassing, it's trying to sway people's !votes. Yoninah (talk) 15:56, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

  I'm still not sure if that is categorized as "canvassing," Yoninah. The bottom-line in my address to Lisa (whom I do not know personally) was this: "Can you please interject here and voice your opinion whether or not the article should be deleted."Davidbena (talk) 16:02, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

  So why didn't you say it that way? You really must re-read WP:NPOV. Neutrality is one of the 5 pillars of Wikipedia. Yoninah (talk) 16:22, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

or delsort or wp:Judaism?Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:40, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• For the sake of being exact and precise in our understanding of etiquette, the WP rule states: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV)," which means, on WP's main pages, but it does not limit us from being a little biased in our own private conversations. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 19:18, 23 December 2015 (UTC)]

It has nothing to do with pages or userspaces, but it has to do with the canvassing policy. You should read WP:CANVASS Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:55, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Sir Joseph, I have no idea what you mean by saying that I'm "condescending." I do not think that I am better than anyone here. As for your accusation that I have been "canvassing," that allegation is flatly wrong. The rules state explicitly: "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." What is wrong to do is try influence or sway a decision in one's favor.Davidbena (talk) 14:48, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Scroll down a bit to the 4 descriptions of canvassing, which includes Campaigning: Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner. Yoninah (talk) 16:13, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, Yoninah, but there it is not actually defined as "canvassing," but only as a breach of "inappropriate notification," which "may be seen as disruptive." This was only a gray area, but since I definitely made it clear that they could vote any way, and I have been transparent about the whole thing, I think it pretty-much rules out an infringement of "canvassing" laws. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 16:40, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

This is for everyone's general information, a page scanned from the Oxford edition of the Mishnah (Tractate Betzah), ed. Herbert Danby. It shows the proper use, in English, of the word rendered in Hebrew as "Yom-Tov," and which has a very limited meaning. Here, it is translated as "Festival-day." File:Page_from_Mishnah_Betza_(Oxford_edition).jpg. ---Davidbena (talk) 16:29, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Since you love quoting Mishna and Talmud, doesn't the Talmud ask if you want to know the correct halacha to go out into the street and you will see? Go out in to any English speaking community, WP:COMMON, and you will see the way they translate Yom Tov. It's irrelevant how a 1930 translation of the Mishna does it, I can find you others that do it differently, and just because you found one that matches your crusade doesn't make it the proper use. Nobody in the English speaking world says "festival day" and Wikipedia is built for common usage. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:01, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Sir Joseph. And so does the Mishna, which titles the whole page Yom Tob (hey, why not use that instead?). Yoninah (talk) 17:42, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Yoninah, that is a legitimate suggestion. I'm all for changing the title of the page to "Yom Tob," if I can get your vote on it.Davidbena (talk) 19:18, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Agree as well. Sign. When will this editor back away from the dead horse? Debresser (talk) 17:54, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Sir Joseph and others, the famous dictum which you've mentioned, פוק חזי מאי עמא דבר, "Go out and see how the people have it as their practice," refers specifically to a custom that is not readily known, but can be adduced by how the people observe the practice. This has little to do with terminology, and especially not with translation of a Hebrew word! True, we all say in Hebrew, "Yom-Tov," and rarely use the English word when we mention in passing the first and last days of Passover, or the first day of Sukkot, but, still, there is an English word for "Yom-Tov." A good encyclopedia should, I would think, be interested in disseminating knowledge, and in defining certain terms such as this. After all, it is used all throughout the Talmud and in our Halacha. By the way: The Oxford edition, which is in most Public Libraries, is not the only edition to use the word "Festival day" as the proper English designation for "Yom Tov." The Soncino English edition of the Talmud writes in every place for "Yom Tov" the word "festival," which is not meant to include Yom Kippur, Purim or Hanukka.Davidbena (talk) 19:08, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Another sigh. Could someone please close this AFD now? Yoninah (talk) 19:58, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree, I still think we can WP:SNOWBALL this. According to the clause, "If an issue does not have a snowball's chance in hell of being accepted by a certain process, there's no need to run it through the entire process." I think we can safely say that consensus is safely in favor of deletion and running this AFD is just not fair to all involved. We can work on the articles involved within this AFD. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:00, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

I disagree for a very good reason. Some of our good friends here are beginning to change their minds, as has been shown by their comments above. Besides, Joseph, I do not know why you'd wish to label this as "snowballing," as if the issue here discussed does not have a "snowball's chance in hell" of being accepted, when it does, and when the entire subject matter is relevant to Jewish law.Davidbena (talk) 03:09, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

The main problem of this article remains that it is a fork. If there is anything here, that isn't in other articles, basically Jewish holidays (or Activities prohibited on Shabbat), then it can easily be dispersed there. You have found one instance of the term "Festival-day" in some ancient translation of the Mishnah, and you have renamed the article to "Festival-day (Jewish)" (which should be "Festival-day (Judaism)", by the way). There is nobody who disagrees this article is a fork and should be deleted (or at best redirected). Yet, you keep on improving this article and you reply to each and every person who disagrees with you. Davidbena, please do us all a favor, accept consensus and back away from the dead horse. Debresser (talk) 12:56, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Debresser, User:Sir Joseph, while I definitely respect your opinions, I beg to differ in this one case, for the very reason that an expanded page dealing with the specific issue of the Yom Tov, although it is a branch of the Jewish holidays, should not be considered a fork, no more than an article dealing with Shalosh Regalim (the three Jewish pilgrimages) is considered a fork, although the same holidays are mentioned in Jewish holidays; and no more than Afikoman is considered a fork, although the subject matter could have easily been covered in Passover; and no more than Muktzeh should be considered a fork, although it too could have been covered in Sabbath day. You see, Yom Tov (the proper Hebrew designation for six specific days in the Jewish calendar) has a myriad of Halacha that deal specifically with these days alone. I agree that "Festival day" is not used much by us Yids, but we can always change the title to "Yom Tov," per se. At least, in this case, we'd be explaining its rules and laws in accordance to what has been defined in Halacha. Shabbat Shalom!Davidbena (talk) 14:14, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't even know what language that article is in at this point in time. You really need to drop the stick as Debresser pointed out multiple times. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-arbitrary section break for convenienceedit]

Suggested Compromise: Since a recurring theme in this discussion, mentioned by many contributors, is that the current English name, "Festival-day," doesn't seem to be very applicable, since today we all refer to this special day as "Yom Tov" and rarely, if ever, make use of its English name. I am, therefore, in full-agreement that the title of the page should be changed. I would agree to have the current article deleted, on the condition that Reb Dovid and Sir Joseph will agree to have the article posted anew, either by one of them or someone else, and under the new name "Yom Tov," but also with a more expanded entry on the halachic parameters of the Yom Tov. I have no qualms about having someone else repost the article under a new name, and with a better encyclopedic entry.Davidbena (talk) 17:07, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Just copying my post from above, since this editor is not getting the point The main problem of this article remains that it is a fork. If there is anything here, that isn't in other articles, basically Jewish holidays (or Activities prohibited on Shabbat), then it can easily be dispersed there. You have found one instance of the term "Festival-day" in some ancient translation of the Mishnah, and you have renamed the article to "Festival-day (Jewish)" (which should be "Festival-day (Judaism)", by the way). There is nobody who disagrees this article is a fork and should be deleted (or at best redirected). Yet, you keep on improving this article and you reply to each and every person who disagrees with you. Davidbena, please do us all a favor, accept consensus and back away from the dead horse. Debresser (talk) 12:56, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

• Delete a textbook fork. AddMore der Zweite (talk) 18:29, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

There is no question in my mind that this article is NOT a fork, since there is no other article in WP main space that treats specifically on this major Talmudic and halachic issue, namely, the day known as Yom Tov. This article is meant to cover the halachic issues concerned with that day; what is permitted and not permitted to do on those days called as such in rabbinic writings.Davidbena (talk) 20:25, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

One of the things lending to confusion, I believe, is the lead line in the article, Jewish holidays, which reads: "Jewish holidays, also known as Jewish festivals or Yamim Tovim (ימים טובים, "Good Days", or singular יום טוב Yom Tov." First, the words, "Jewish holidays," are wrongly translated in the page's title as "Yom Tov" / "Yamim Tovim." It is a misnomer, and should have rather been translated as " Chagim Yehudim " (Heb. חגים יהודיים). This is because, in classical Hebrew (or in rabbinic Hebrew), the word "Tom Tov" has a limited meaning, and excludes some Jewish holidays, such as Purim, Hanukkah and Yom Kippur.Davidbena (talk) 21:04, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

No. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:41, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

1. I won't support a snowball close. But we're actually closing in on a week anyway, I think.
2. I don't know if your point about Yamim Tovim in the lead of Jewish holidays is really complicating things or not. Most of the people who have been discussing this article understand that point and still believe this article is an unnecessary fork. I will, however, edit Jewish holidays in the next day or two to fix that problem, which you are basically correct about. (I will point out that while in places like Betzah and Shevitat Yom Tov, Yom Kippur is not part of the mix, many people really do think of Yom Kippur as a yom tov in practice, because it's a Biblical holiday where melacha is prohibited. So to the extent we keep this article, or blend it into others, please do not be excessively pedantic on the subject of Yom Kippur's inclusion or not in practice.)
3. The article does not need to be deleted and rewritten. What you have written is a perfectly fine start, if we are to keep this article in Wikipedia. (As I've mentioned to you elsewhere, the name needs to be changed, but that's a different question.) The question here is whether this is really a necessary new article or an unnecessary fork. I will point out that the Hebrew, French and Italian Wikipedias each have two separate articles. In all other Wikipedias there is only one, so there is precedent to go on either way. I personally don't believe that the general readership has a need for the complete second article, which is why I lean toward deletion. I'd really rather have you incorporate the bulk of this article into a new section of the article on Melacha. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:39, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and many other suggestions. Moreover the article may well be incorrect as Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur are considered Yomim Tovim as well (at least according to the Rambam to the best of my recollection - albeit without Simcha Yesayra); there is no specialness to the term Yom Tov—if anything the proper term is Moed; and any discussion of a class name for the Moadim should be in the existing article Jewish holidays or similar. Avi (talk) 18:27, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Avi, thanks for your interjection. Perhaps, though, you hadn't seen that the article clearly states that Rosh Hashanah is, in fact, a Yom Tov. There is no dispute between us in this matter. As for Yom Kippur, it too is treated in the article, where it is called "holy convocation," just as the other festivals. The use of the word "Yom Tov" is not used in the Torah, but it is used by the Sages of Israel. RAMBAM does not call Yom Kippur by the name "Yom Tov" (See Hil. Shevitat Yom Tov 1:1). However, our modern-day use of the word "Yom-Tov" might indeed include the Fast Day, Yom Kippur. Perhaps we can add this in the article. The main thing to remember here is that the Talmud distinguishes between these days and, let's say, Purim and Hanukka where we learn in Beitzah 36b: "The festival only differs from a Sabbath in regard of preparation of food for the individual alone," meaning, all other labors are forbidden during the Yom Tov. This proscription, of course, was never meant to include Purim and Hanukka, neither the interdict of Mukzeh which applies to the biblical days known as Yom Tov. In my humble opinion, these distinctions are very important and worthy of our inclusion in a separate article.Davidbena (talk) 23:29, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

"Delete per nom (by name)," I take it to imply that the name of the article ought to be changed. I'm in full agreement that the name, "Yom Tov," may be a better choice for this article.Davidbena (talk) 23:38, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Davidbena, the term "Festival-day" is almost unheard of in English and is certainly not notable enough for a wikipedia entry. Anything that could even conceivably be handled in an article titled "Festival-day" is better handled in the article about Yomim Tovim & Moadim, namely Jewish holidays. -- Avi (talk) 07:39, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Avi, Let us then change the title of this article to "Yom Tov," and then let us give unto it its due weight (i.e. expand it). To add all this material to the article of "Jewish holidays" would distract from the more general subject of "Jewish holidays." IMHO.--Davidbena (talk) 12:51, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

No need, we have Yom Tov as a redirect to Jewish holidays. If there is anything in specific that you think necessary to add to Wikipedia, I'd suggest bringing it up at Talk:Jewish holidays. You can also engage in discussion there about specific information which you believe is 1) appropriate for the English Wikipedia project yet 2) Inappropriate for the Jewish holidays article. Perhaps an even better place to discuss this would be Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism, where you can state your case and engage similarly interested editors in discussion as to the merits of your suggestion. However, it seems pretty clear that this article, at this point, does not have consensus to continue. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 15:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Avi, while I appreciate your views (assuming Good Faith), it is still the firm belief of this editor that just as having a separate article on Shalosh Regalim, although it is a branch of Jewish holidays, does not subtract from the latter, there should also be a separate article on Yom Tov, although it too is a branch of Jewish holidays, and would not subtract from the latter. The reason here is clear, namely, Hanukkah, Purim and Yom Kippur are not included in the general halachic rules that ought to be covered under the title of Yom Tov, just as the title is used in a Tractate by that name, Beitzah (Yom Tov), and as the authors of works on Jewish Halacha have given special treatment to this category, using this same name. Having an expanded article on this one topic, with all its pertinent information related to the six days of Yom Tov, does not subtract from the more general article on Jewish holidays. IMHO.Davidbena (talk) 00:26, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Meseches Beitzah also includes nolad and muktzah and a lot of other topics (kutach haBavli, anyone?) that doesn't justify a new article. We will have to agree to disagree and let the consensus process do its job. -- Avi (talk) 00:30, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

But, Meseches Beitzah does make it clear in 36b that "Any act that is culpable on the Sabbath, whether by virtue of the rules concerning Shavus (Sabbath rest) or concerning Rashus (acts of choice) or concerning Mitzvah (pious duties), is culpable also on a Yom Tov." It then goes on to list these proscriptions, such as, in the case of Shavus, "climbing a tree, riding a beast, swimming on water, clapping the hands or dancing, etc." The rabbis here were making a fence about the Torah so that people would not inadvertently break-off a branch from a tree, or make a sailing vessel from rafts, or fix a broken musical instrument. The laws require explaining in its place.Davidbena (talk) 00:45, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

As for your concern about being over-burdensome with laws about "Muktzeh," this will not be necessary since there is already an article that deals with that issue. Only the major issues ought and will be discussed there, and not, of course, kutach haBavli.Davidbena (talk) 00:56, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• Jeez Louise can we please close this? It's been seven days, the mourning period is over and the horse is stinking. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:40, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  • אפשר שיש דין שלושים על סוסים? -- Avi (talk) 00:46, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • תני רבי אבי, קל וחומר מאדם. מה אדם שהוא מהלכי שתים יש לו דין שלושים, סוס שהוא מהלכי ארבע לא כל שכן. פריך ר' אבי על עצמו, מה אדם שהוא חייב במצוות, תאמר בסוס שפטור ממצוות? אלא לא זה כראוי זה ולא זה כראוי זה, מה הצד השווה הוא שהם על וויקיפדיה.
  • And I'll leave it there . -- Avi (talk) 00:53, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
    • אין צורך להספיד סוס שאינו סוס ובודאי לא סוס שכבר מת, כיוון שאנחנו עדיין מלבנים את הסוגיה. אני מבקש שנהיה כולנו סובלנים יותר לשם כלל ישראל ---Davidbena (talk) 01:00, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • User:Davidbena, it should be obvious to you by now that your arguments and counter-arguments are not convincing anyone. Please keep in mind for future AFD discussions that it is not good form to reply and argue to each and every editor who submits an !vote, as User:Debresser mentioned above. You say what you have to say in your initial !vote, and then let the process play itself out. Yoninah (talk) 01:23, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Yoninah, as in any discussion with pros and cons, merits and non-merits, sometimes our arguments are weak in one area, but stronger in another. I do not mean to be disrespectful at all, as I respect every man's opinion, and I think that all of us here have the same desire and wish to make Wikipedia a good online encyclopedia.Davidbena (talk) 04:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

In addition, you should not be renaming or moving articles during an AFD. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:47, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I realize now that that was a mistake. Since many have mentioned that "no one uses the word 'Festival-day,' and on more than several occasions it has been stated, I thought to myself that this may actually have been the cause for some to vote "delete." I was simply trying to "meet-them-halfway," and to remove all obstacles. Sorry about that. I won't do it again, unless our friends will agree to give this article a standing chance.Davidbena (talk) 04:59, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:25, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Gilbert Chamber of Commerce

Gilbert Chamber of Commerce (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 ORG with only coverage in reliable sources completely local. John from Idegon (talk) 09:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Regards, James(^talk/_contribs) 06:42, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• Delete (1) No claim to notability is made, see WP:LEAD. (2) Coverage is just their own publications and local news stories, mostly The East Tribune, of the quotidian business of the Chamber, local business awards and such. The two news stories cited for coverage in the article are dead links. I was unable to recover them from archive data, but they appear similar to "Gilbert Chamber, Town honor Higley’s Community Excellence Award winners" and "Gilbert Chamber of Commerce Encourages Residents to "Adopt a Senior". The most exciting stories, still local, were where the Chamber was asked for a comment on "Two Arizona cities named among top 20 hardest working in U.S.", and "Andy Biggs' endorsement by Gilbert Chamber highights business’ political quandary". I found nothing outside the Phoenix area. --Bejnar (talk) 18:15, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - Certainly not anything here, especially with the article's history and age, to suggest even minimal independent notability for a local chamber of commerce. Notifying local user Onel5969. SwisterTwister talk 06:11, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - this could be the poster child for why the added parameter of non-local coverage was added for Orgs and Corps. If this was about a person, would qualify under WP:BASIC definitely, and most likely under WP:GNG, but all of the coverage is local (AZ Republic, AZ Central (the Republic's online arm), East Valley Trib, etc.). Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:59, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

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. No prejudice on recreating with a different focus of the article but that is an editorial decision, not a deletion discussion decision. Mkdw^talk 00:49, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Ronnie J. Seaton, Sr.

Ronnie J. Seaton, Sr. (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 bringing this to AfD because I feel it needs discussion. The subject alleges he was a chef at the White House, and has written a book about it. Various press sources allege that he was never there. Whether he was or wasn't a White House chef, the question is - is he notable? Peridon (talk) 10:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• Probable delete. I suppose his book has the potential to become notable as a (possible) hoax, or alternatively as culinary quasi-fiction. The review/investigation in yesterday's New York Post is a substantial piece of independent reporting. [8] The story has also now shown up in a few other national publications, but as far as I can tell, these are essentially reprints or reports about the Post article. Other sources that mention the book tend to be routine mentions for book signings and the like. So at the moment the page probably fails WP:GNG, and WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E also militate against keeping it. If the story develops further, or if other media start covering and reviewing the book, this could change. (Also note: assorted news stories from the New Orleans media note that Ronnie Seaton is part of the family that owns the famous Willie Mae's Scotch House—a New Orleans institution that doesn't yet have its own article but certainly could, given that it's received a James Beard Foundation "America's Classics" award—but I didn't see anything relating to that restaurant that would make a case for Ronnie Seaton's individual notability.) --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

As to the book's accuracy, he (according to reports - I haven't read the book) cooks for the Queen at Buckingham Palace one Christmas. Which is a bit odd, seeing as the Royal Family are always at Sandringham over the Christmas holiday. I was interested to see a load of negative reviews on Amazon - proves that reviews there aren't all from the author's close family. Peridon (talk) 17:49, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Deleting. There are videos on YouTube of public service announcements, well pre-dating the book, where Mr. Seaton made these claims in the New Orleans area. Including ones aired on New Orleans television. Wikipedia is an excellent tool for identifying someone who has apparently committed fraud. Considering this individual has had indeed had their book published (by a small, but national publishing firm), it is worthwhile to have an article on him... either if his claims are vindicated (unlikely) or if he is further indicated. It is likely if the latter occurs, the publisher will sue, adding to the norerity. In either event, it is notable due to the national press attention his book's dubious claims have received - several press organizations have contacted the White House, following the NY Post coverage, and confirmed it. That leaves several original sources.Tabris06 (talk)
  • TL;DR - A person pulling something like this today is quite rare. And notable. And Wikipedia is the best place to quickly assess an individuals past public indiscretions. Passes CNG and NOTNEWS in my book, though the article could be moved/merged under the book - I would oppose that though based on his prior public claims to be a White House Chef, pre-publication of the book. Tabris06 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:10, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - There's nothing to suggest fully satisfying the applicable notability guidelines for this biography. SwisterTwister talk 08:35, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
• Delete, but rewrite as Hoax This appears to be notable as a hoax. There are a growing number of stories about the book and its claims, including one which cites a press release by the publisher that they are stopping printing and distribution due to "some of the challenges made by the media." Harrison Daily, Christian Retailing, Daily Mail, etc. Articles about hoaxes can be notable. The article as written probably fails to stand up, but it could possibly be rewritten to focus on the hoax engendered by the book, "Sir White House Chef." An article containing that title would probably better serve the encyclopedia. This is especially true if the press coverage continues and becomes even more widespread. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 17:27, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  09:34, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - even if this guy has a ton of articles about him, they are all due to his alleged fraud, therefore WP:BIO1E would appear to apply. The book, on the other hand, because of the same issues, would most likely be notable, if the press is lasting. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:33, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree that a hoax book can be notable, but as best I can determine (looking at GNews and other search results for <Ronnie Seaton "White House">), there was about a week's worth of press when the story of the hoax broke in early December, and since then nothing new in reliable sources. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:02, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

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 History of the Central Intelligence Agency. Or such other target page as editorial consensus may subsequently determine. There is no consensus to delete, but the "keep" opinions do not address the pertinent argument that - as notable as the topic may be - this content topically overlaps with History of the CIA and United States involvement in regime change, creating a content fork. It is a matter for editors to decide through talk page discussion which (if any) of this content to merge to other articles, or how to better organize the general topic of the CIA's / the USA's regime change activities, but I see a (policy-informed) consensus here that we do not want to cover the same topic in multiple articles redundantly.  Sandstein  10:08, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Covert United States foreign regime change actions

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/CIA sponsored regime change

• Articles for deletion/Covert United States foreign regime change actions (2nd nomination)

Covert United States foreign regime change actions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete. This article is a giant mess of cobbled-together synthesis and original research, lacking any consistent criteria for inclusion and including several cases of U.S. nonintervention where it is alleged that the U.S. had intelligence on a coup but did not intervene to prevent it. In sum, there is simply no scholarly concept of "Covert United States foreign regime change actions" that would include everything from the rescue of European hostages in the Congo, to overt arms supplied to insurgents to "tie down" the Soviet army in Afghanistan, to bombing raids in Indonesia, to the AFL-CIO's support of Solidarity in Poland. Although CUSFRCA has not been renominated for deletion since the last AfD failed to reach a consensus, there have been several recent discussions where deletion was suggested, involving @Staberinde:, @Bobrayner:, @Vanamonde93:, @My very best wishes:, @Taospark:, @MyMoloboaccount:, @Jarble:, @Emijrp:, and myself. Throughout this time, opponents of deletion have conceded that CUSFRCA is a POV WP:Coatrack, but argued it might yet develop into a coherent article based on reliable criteria, someday. That's obviously never going to happen, because there are no reliable sources that discuss the alleged concept of "CUSFRCA". "CUSFRCA" is not a single area of study, but the singular obsession of a few Wikipedia users. TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:51, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ssт✈^(discuss) 07:09, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ssт✈^(discuss) 07:09, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

• There were some more documented and direct examples of American intervention which were deleted in edit wars last year and while it's not a cobbled list, it does have a lot of style and coherence problems. I've seen the references and article referenced well enough and while some sections are questionable, it has a contribution of information. In closing - there is also a very long history of scholarly recognition of the topic of "covert US regime change" ranging from Noam Chomsky to more dedicated political science and geopolitical analysis both for and against. -Taospark (talk) 08:15, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
• Rename to NPOV title/subject List of CIA operations and change accordingly. Redirect to History of the CIA per discussion below. We have already a similar page, Timeline of United States military operations. Claiming that every recent military or/and a CIA operation by US was a "regime change" is an inherently POV claim per Chomsky. This page was incorrectly titled or possibly a POV fork. "Merge" or "delete" are also possibilities. My very best wishes (talk) 15:42, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
• There are two good options here: we can rename this article to List of CIA operations or redirect the article to History of the CIA, which already contains a list of CIA operations. Jarble (talk) 20:43, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect to History of the CIA - this is one of those typical problematic lists where no proper inclusion criteria exist, and every editor is acting on his/her own gut feeling, which tends to result a mess. There is already dedicated CIA history article which among other things includes this kind of stuff, so no need for this article.--Staberinde (talk) 21:23, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
• Delete this WP:Coatrack a a confused mishmash of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Material now on the page belongs in individual articles about these events. Not in a list that does not and perhaps cannot offer any clear definition of how the list is bounded.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:35, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect to History of the CIA as per Staberinde, it is full of OR, and there isn't any clear criteria for inclusion. - SantiLak (talk) 02:06, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• Keep & Rename to "List of CIA Operations" or equivalent, in such a way that the description of each event can be pruned but not discarded. Yes, the page is a horrid mess, but that's not good enough reason to delete here, for a couple of reasons. 1) The notability of the topic is quite clear, as demonstrated by the numerous sources in the article, and these. 2) The criteria for inclusion are at present fuzzy; but there are several incidents that unambiguously merit inclusion. Renaming it will take care of the problem of inclusion criteria, whereas deleting/redirecting would no give sufficient weight to the source material. 3) Merging into "History of the CIA" is an option that I'm no directly opposed to, but size constraints and the sheer amount of material suggests, to me, that a separate page is necessary. Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:11, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

• I disagree with this proposal, as the article is very far from a complete or representative list of CIA operations.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:54, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not saying it is. I'm saying that "CIA Operations" is the closest coherent inclusion criterion, and that renaming/expanding is therefore a much better option than deleting encyclopedic information, the notability of which is fairly clear. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:07, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

• Keep/Rename Maybe CIA's role in coups (or involvement)? Or CIA operations to overthrow governments? It is obviously an important topic, and just deleting the article is whitewashing the United States foreign policy in the last century. emijrp (talk) 14:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I would find that argument more compelling if all of this information wasn't covered better elsewhere on Wikipedia. No-one has tried to make a similar article for Soviet involvement in regime change, which (if our inclusion criteria is equally broad and arbitrary) could include everything from Stalin's support for Mao during the Chinese civil war and green-light for North Korea's invasion of the South, to Soviet arms supplies to the Khmer Rouge during the Cambodian civil war, to the KGB's support for Allende and the Sandinistas, to WP:FRINGE allegations like those of this Iraqi Ba'athist defector who claims KGB agents helped put the party in power in 1968 or (even though it has nothing to do with regime change) the Soviet role in instigating the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, relying on the most extreme anti-Soviet sources and cherry-picking facts to convey the great danger of the domino theory and the "Evil Empire". But this isn't a whitewashing of Soviet foreign policy. Even List of authoritarian regimes supported by the United States manages to demonstrate that the concept is one discussed in secondary sources, thus not necessarily subject to speedy deletion on the grounds that every nation has had relations with dictatorships.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:30, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

TTAAC, that argument is purely other stuff exists, and you know it. If similar coverage exists of Soviet involvement in foreign regime change, then create such an article, by all means! But that is totally irrelevant here. The coverage exists; just look at this list. Most of the top results are coverage for this very topic.

Google Scholar does not recognize your search phrase, hence why it asks if you meant "convert" rather than "covert". Almost all of the top search results refer to U.S. military action and the U.S. foreign policy of democracy promotion in general terms. Similarly, Google searches for CUSFRCA mostly lead back to this article and mirrored versions of it. The strange use of "covert" in the title is inextricably linked to earlier versions of the text, which were crudely written in an Alex Jones style, with the fictional premise that the U.S. public and the world knew nothing of these events (which was true only for some of the blatant hoaxes being promoted at the time). "Covert action" is often used in reliable sources to refer to fairly overt interventions, such as the CIA/Northern Alliance overthrow of the Taliban in 2001 or the CIA's key role in the landing at Inchon, which are excluded from this page according to a strange criteria that somehow includes alleged U.S. embassy knowledge of a Turkish coup one hour before it occurred.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:56, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Eh? Did you click the link I posted? There are 13,200 results there; so what do you mean it "doesn't recognize" the string? The results are mostly talking about regime change; and as a part of that, virtually all of them discuss covert actions. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I got the same result as TheTimesAreAChanging: Google Scholar does not recognize your search phrase, hence why it asks if you meant "convert" rather than "covert". --AmritasyaPutra^T 05:27, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Google scholar often offers alternative strings, even if there are results for your original string. If you are seriously claiming that there are no results in the link I posted, that is total (and demonstratable) bollocks. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:40, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Not if it's a normal thing to search for. To judge by the first three pages of results, "covert" most often comes up in reference to the covert nuclear programs of "rogue regimes" ([9], [10], [11], ect.) Some sources refer in general terms to "covert actions" but not in relation to regime change, while others do not use the word "covert" at all. (It should go without saying that "covert actions" encompasses a lot more than regime change.) That a large number of sources use at least one word in the phrase "Covert United States foreign regime change actions" shows that the U.S. has a foreign policy, but does not justify the spin this article would like to put on it.

Of course, no-one denies that the CIA has engaged in covert operations. If you're talking about specific CIA assassination plots against foreign leaders, we already have a dedicated article on that, just as we have articles on specific CIA operations (eg., 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état), CIA operations by country, and a list of CIA operations here. Renaming rather than deleting CUSFRCA would still require deleting most of the content, as in many cases it is peddling unfounded accusations ("Venezuela 2002", for example) or putting a spin on real events. (In relation to this last point, consider: As it happens, American Orientalism is the top result under your search phrase. The book has nothing really to do with "CUSFRCA" at all, but you should read its discussion of U.S. policy on Iraq during Qasim's administration on pages 198-206 for an example of how "CUSFRCA" grossly oversimplifies complicated facts. Yes, the Eisenhower administration was concerned about Qasim and considered various ways to deal with his government, including covert actions, but ultimately decided to take no action as "Eisenhower preferred a policy of 'watchful waiting' to afford Qasim 'the opportunity to stand up to the communists.'" Then, when Qasim was overthrown in 1963, the Kennedy administration recognized the successor regime and provided it with economic and military aid. Yet, by its inclusion here under "Iraq 1960-63", one would think that the U.S. waged a campaign to overthrow Qasim for several years and ultimately succeeded, which is very misleading.) There is just no end to problems with this article. Do you notice the frequent digressions into how democratic or autocratic the regimes in question were? Those were added a while back to counter one of the main themes in earlier versions of the text, namely that the U.S. has a secret policy of fighting democracy to promote corporate interests; in fact, as Mossadegh had dissolved the legislature and was ruling by decree and the communist admirer of Stalin Árbenz was elected without a secret ballot and murdered at least 108 to 500 political opponents according to Guatemala's truth commission, while neither Iran nor Guatemala had any history of stable democratic rule, Chile is really the only example—but, even if you disagree, it is necessary to make such an argument with sources rather than to imply it by synthesizing events cherry-picked by Wikipedia editors.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:21, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

TL;DR, TTAAC. But it seems to me that you are pointing to very real flaws in the article, which are still not arguments for deletion, because deletion is not cleanup. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:30, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

The previous post drags in some POV-laden nonsense at the very end, no doubt in an effort to position the existing article as "controversial". For example the source for Arbenz being a ruthless killer of the "opposition" is NOT the TRC, but the affiliates of the party of the Guatemalan death-squads (MNR). The source: Anticommunist Committee of University Students (CEUA), Guatemala's ordeal: horror and crime pages of National Typography, Guatemala, 1955. I am sure these cuddly defenders of democracy and freedom really suffered from unjust repression under Arbenz. So what we have here is a really careless use of sources to back an extremist view that no overthrow of democracy took place in Guatemala or Iran. Not the the kind of stuff that should figure prominently in this discussion.200.74.242.204 (talk) 15:42, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

In this case, I would beg to differ. I believe the lack of coherence is by design. Moreover, you have yet to explain what would happen to (say) "Venezuela 2002" if the page were renamed. That section refers to allegations against the State Department and the U.S. embassy, not the CIA, so I assume you would support deleting it? If renaming requires deletion of most of the content, I'm not really sure what your search results are trying to save.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:36, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Not most. CIA regime change actions are plentiful. Yes, if it's renamed, get rid of Venezuela, at least until better sourcing is found. Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:19, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• Delete Per E.M.Gregory & SantiLak. --AmritasyaPutra^T 06:00, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:55, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:55, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• Strong keep A quick check of e.g. this section shows that it is a well-reffed article about political developments not widely discussed elsewhere. Zezen (talk) 00:41, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

That section is one of the biggest messes and would be gutted under any scenario other than "keep". In particular, the sources related to the Carter policy of deterring Soviet intervention (not "CUSFRCA") seem to have been removed, with the text being crudely altered in a way that fails to coherently reconcile competing versions. Even if some of the material on Poland belongs elsewhere on Wikipedia, that is not a basis for keeping the article.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:57, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

You mean "American policy-makers viewed an internal crackdown as preferable to an "inevitable Soviet intervention."? is that the perspective that's not emphasized enough? You do realize this "fear" was an intelligence failure at best and a cynical ass-covering by Jaruzelski at worst. It turns out that the CPSU politburo refused to send troops to Poland under any conditions, and stated its position plainly right before the institution of martial law. Jaruzelski clearly knew that no help was forthcoming, which is why he instituted martial law himself. So you can believe whatever you want about the CIA's moral calculus (let that sink in), but they were not doing solidarity any favors by not warning them. More likely is that the CIA had no objections to martial law, because its imposition would exacerbate the crisis in Poland and ultimately weaken the regime. Yeah they really saved Solidarity from the non-existent threat of invasion.81.88.116.27 (talk) 16:47, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I do not claim to know how factually accurate the section on Poland is, only that it is poorly written.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:44, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

• Keep (though possibly renamed). CIA involvement in coups is widely commented on. I observe that mist of the subjects have main articles. However it may be that this article needs some pruning: the detail should be in the main articles not here. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:18, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
• Delete  I don't like to see the loss of work product, so any way to save pieces of sourced content would be fine, but the topic is not credible on its face, and the absence of sources in the lede confirms my concern that this topic does not exist.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:32, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Unscintillating, per WP:LEDE, sources are not required in the lede of an article, so long as the relevant information is sourced in the body. Besides, notability requires sources, not sources in the lede. The sources clearly exist, as seen in the reference section, or here. How then do you claim that the topic does not exist? Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:20, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
    • See WP:BURDEN.  If the topic existed, the editors who wrote this article would have reliable sources saying so, and we'd know from the reliable sources why the elements on this list are defined as "covert actions".  I've not found anything from skimming the article and the link you provided.  I read each of the first 23 reference links in the article.  A list of cases that have been determined using WP:SYNTH to create a pattern do not create a topic worthy of notice on Wikipedia.  And if your claim, that there are sources either in the article or in the search you provided, is valid, the effort you have put into replying to me could have been put into adding sources; as WP:LEDE does not prohibit sources in the lede.  Regards, Unscintillating (talk) 01:34, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  09:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Keep Topic is notable, and covered in numerous reliable sources. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Article is too valuable and novel to be lost due to the whims of white-washing Wiki editors with ridiculous burdens of proof. Gamer112 (talk) 15:05, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

@Gamer112: maybe you should have some faith that other editors have good intentions at heart and have some civility and not call them "white washing" editors. - SantiLak (talk) 10:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

• Keep - there are numerous sources available which means that the topic is legitimate. Dorpater (talk) 09:37, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
• Merge - I'm surprised to see that yet unlinked on this page is United States involvement in regime change, which has, since its creation, "encompasse[d] both overt and covert actions aimed at altering, replacing, or preserving foreign governments." That sure seems like an obvious merge target to me. What am I missing? Granted, the nominated page is older, but doesn't removing the word "covert" and generalizing with "involvement" rather than "actions" serve to assuage some of the OR issues and fuzzy inclusion criteria? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:07, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • User:Rhododendrites, you raise a good point, and perhaps that is a reasonable merge target; but my concern would be that such a page would almost certainly be too large, and would have to be split again. We can see if that is necessary post-facto, however, so I'm not necessarily opposed to such a merger. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• User:Rhododendrites, this is self-canceling reasoning.  Your proposal states that the word "covert" can be removed by merging to an article with an unsourced lede that states that covert actions exist.  In spite of an inherent element of validity to your viewpoint, by continuing to promote a WP:SYNTH of "covert actions", I think your logic here tends to strengthen the !votes proposing to delete or merge to History of the CIA.  Unscintillating (talk) 11:12, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• Redirect to History of the CIA - basically per Staberinde. Right now the article is half POV WP:COATRACK (basically a coatrack for "random complaints about US foreign policy") and half WP:POVFORK (of History of CIA). I think this one's actually pretty straightforward. Volunteer Marek  06:44, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to History of the CIA - The topic seems to be List of regime changes covertly performed by the CIA where the CIAs' covert actions were the primary cause of the regime change. Since the list never specified the degree to which the CIA needed to be involved for the regime change to be included in the list, the list is a mess. It also overlaps the History of the CIA article and its sub articles, so it is not clear there is a need for this particular article. Failure to comply with the prior AfD express close requirement -- "I call upon those who said things like "keep and rewrite" or "keep, but fix POV" to actually do it." - over the past several years is another reason to delete. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:34, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

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. WP:CSD#G5: Creation by a blocked user using a sock puppet (block evasion). Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Colombiabeauty. Mkdw^talk 01:16, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Miss Tonga

Miss Tonga (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:ORGDEPTH Best source I could see is [12] which gives one sentence on a winner. Don't confuse this business with the MUCH bigger event Miss Heilala [13]. Legacypac (talk) 09:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:22, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Rogers Park Chamber of Commerce

Rogers Park Chamber of Commerce (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 ORG. Articles like this are why we have ORG as a guideline. It's doubtful anyone outside of Rogers Park cares about this organization, and it's a near certainty no one outside Chicago does. Very promo, very little informational utility. John from Idegon (talk) 07:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Local coverage does not establish notability; WP:NOTPROMOTION. --Regards, James(^talk/_contribs) 08:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Regards, James(^talk/_contribs) 08:07, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. Article only promotes the organization and lists happenings in the neighborhood. Sources don't indicate notability. 331dot (talk) 11:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - Quite an article here, yes, but I'm not entirely convinced this is solidly independently notable. Delete for now and draft and userfy if needed, SwisterTwister talk 23:53, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
• Delete Promo starts in the lede, with content not summarized from body, and goes on from there. No mention of funding sources. "Chamber of Commerce" connotes membership-funding, but the primary funder of this organization is the City of Chicago. Too many sources lacking independence from subject. A replacement draft if attempted should proceed from most notable aspect or aspects, if any. Hugh (talk) 10:29, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
• Do Not Delete No evidence of City of Chicago funding. List of members can be found of Rogers Park Chamber of Commerce website. Are all chambers of commerce funded alike? I'm not sure this is a requirement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.247.4.18 (talk) 16:42, 25 December 2015 (UTC) — 73.247.4.18 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Do Not Delete This seems like a unique chamber of commerce. Major news networks and newspapers in Chicago recognize the Rogers Park Chamber of Commerce as notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:240:4500:848A:60A7:12D2:623:C3E2 (talk) 21:31, 25 December 2015 (UTC) — 2601:240:4500:848A:60A7:12D2:623:C3E2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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 Desert Sands Unified School District. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:42, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

John Glenn Middle School

John Glenn Middle 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)

Unremarkable educational institution. This article is an unreferenced stub that's been hanging around for a couple weeks. CatcherStorm ^talk 07:30, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Redirect to Desert Sands Unified School District. Nomader (talk) 06:17, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Redirect to Desert Sands Unified School District per our customary practice for all but the most unusually notable elementary and middle schools. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
• Redirect to Desert Sands Unified School District per our customary practice for all but the most unusually notable elementary and middle schools as expressed at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Jacona (talk) 13:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:20, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

2015 New Orleans shooting

2015 New Orleans 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)

This doesn't seem to be a very notable event, especially without any fatalities or outstanding motive made clear in the article. It just appears to be another tragic but run-of-the-mill shooting that's very common in that area. Parsley Man (talk) 07:15, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:40, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:40, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:40, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Delete tragic event, but good thing no one died. Most sources past two days after the event are local and standard like the finding of suspects. Higher profile than most crimes but not notable. TaylorMoore2 (talk) 16:08, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
• Keep or reformat - Article has five good references, shooting was unusual. If the article cannot be kept, it should be reformatted to Bunny Friend Park. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:23, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOTNEWS 68.213.239.194 (talk) 00:52, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
• Keep and reformat - NOTNEWS is not applicable here.. Five good surces and high amount of attention.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:45, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - Definitely not notable, especially since no one died and sources are mostly local. 75.80.175.107 (talk) 22:21, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. There is nothing notable about this crime since shootings are common in that area, no one died and there does not seem to be any noteworthy motive for the shooting or unusual/ questionable legal aspect. If and when some notable aspect emerged later the article could then be re-created, but there is no need or justification for it now. TheBlinkster (talk) 04:54, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:19, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

List of AFL left-footers

List of AFL left-footers (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)

Clear case of WP:INDISCRIMINATE and/or WP:NOTDIR. A list of players who happen to prefer to kick with their left feet is clearly unencyclopedic, as well as long and impossible to make complete. Aspirex (talk) 06:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - It's quite obvious that the subject of the article is unencyclopedic. How many AFL players are left-footed? Countless amounts of them. I agree with the nom, CatcherStorm ^talk 06:19, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
• Delete per Asperix's argument; impossible to keep up-to-date, plus with the amount of players who can kick on both feet, the topic almost becomes redundant. Flickerd (talk) 23:28, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:12, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• Delete: I agree with the nominator's statement. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:16, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
• Delete what next. A list of NRL or English premier league left footers. LibStar (talk) 03:54, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
• Delete: very difficult not to agree with this nomination. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:24, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:19, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Julian Smith (YouTuber)

Julian Smith (YouTuber) (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 reliable, independent sources. I Googled and found one source that was using him as a case study, but nothing else; one source is not enough to meet the general notability guideline. By the way, there have been previous discussions about Smith at the title Julian Smith (director) (Discussions here and here. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 03:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - subject lacks notability, one source is not enough. The article is far too promotional as well. Meatsgains (talk) 03:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - agree with Meatsgains. There was not a single reliable source anywhere on the article and it was quite promo. Between he and I, multiple BLP violations removed leaving virtually nothing in the article. The name switch, making this the 3rd AfD is more than a little troubling. Hopeing the admin that closes this brings his salt shaker. John from Idegon (talk) 03:55, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
• Delete on notability grounds. The cleaned version now has no references at all and would qualify for a sticky prod. The full version before trimming had 14 distinct references consisting of a google search, a Soundcloud interview, 11 YouTube videos, and a YouTube user profile. Not exactly reliable sources. Unless Wikipedia accepts high counts for YouTube subscribers and views as evidence of notability there's nothing in the article to show notability, and I can't find anything online about him that isn't just more social media. I think that for this to pass notability we would need multiple reliable sources discussing the subject and his YouTube career. Meters (talk) 05:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Needs work, but I managed to find more than one source on this guy. This might help. Thanks --TheDomain (talk) 06:35, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - Thanks for your digging, but only the USA Today is a reiable source, and none were the discussion in detail that is required to show notability. John from Idegon (talk) 06:42, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 08:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 08:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

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. WP:SK1: "the nominator...fails to advance an argument for deletion or redirection - perhaps only proposing an alternative action such as moving or merging, and no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted." The correct venue for the proposed action (merger) is the target article's talk page as described at Wikipedia:Merging#Proposing a merger. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Population of Native California

Population of Native California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This page is too specific a topic for its own article. There is no page for Population of California, so why should there be an even more specific page for this? I propose this be moved to Indigenous peoples of California Greeninventor999 (talk) 03:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Oppose Greeninventor999, this is an inappropriate use of AFD. If you believe the article isn't sufficient to stand on its own and should be merged with another article, then you should pose that idea to the article's talk page and seek input from other editors where the merits of the stand-alone article and a possible merge can be discussed. Pinging other editors who have contributed to the article: Uyvsdi, Look2See1, Kintetsubuffalo, Jessemonroy650, Goldenrowley — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 06:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

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. Happy to restore to draft upon request. czar 03:40, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Brandon Allen (soccer)

Brandon Allen (soccer) (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)

Concern was that the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. PROD contested by the articles creator without providing a reason. – Michael (talk) 03:01, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I believe Brandon Allen (soccer) deserves to be a page due to the fact that the player in question signed his first professional contract. He may not have played in any professional games yet, but that is because the season has not started. All information regarding the player have been properly referenced. DBonino (talk) 04:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

It's all just routine coverage. Signing a professional contract doesn't satisfy the notability guidelines. So as of right now, this article should be deleted. – Michael (talk) 07:33, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 03:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. A case of WP:TOOSOON at best. Can be restored easily if / when he makes FPL debut. Fenix down (talk) 13:31, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
• Delete fails the notability guidelines for soccer players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:20, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 18:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
• Delete Not yet played in a fully professional league, nor has played a senior international game. Seasider91 (talk) 20:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
• Move to Userspace / Delete Allen is listed on the team's roster and the Red Bulls open their season March 6, 2016. Once he plays for a single minute in a professional game, NFOOTY is satisfied, all of the arguments for deletion evaporate and the article can be moved uncontroversially to mainspace, without destroying the existing article and all of its history. If he never plays professionally in his life, the article sits in userspace and is never moved. The failure to consider this option in this case -- and all such cases, as a matter of course -- is bizarre. Alansohn (talk) 11:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 04:38, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 04:38, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 04:38, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

• Userfy to DBonino as the original creator. If the subject plays this season, then the article can be moved back to mainspace. Until he plays, he does not meet WP:NFOOTY, and there is insufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 04:42, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - can be created again if and when he meets WP:NFOOTY Spiderone 11:41, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:06, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Trey Flamez

Trey Flamez (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:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Cubbie15fan (talk) 01:31, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Delete The subject is not included in any of the references as having produced the songs listed. Meatsgains (talk) 03:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
• Delete notability not established by existing references and unable to locate better ones. --Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 08:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:55, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:55, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - Searches found nothing better at all. SwisterTwister talk 22:09, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
• Delete not enough sources to pass notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:37, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Brian Les Lancaster

Brian Les Lancaster (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 independent sources. Positions and awards are superficially impressive sounding, but don't appear to me to meet WP:ACADEMIC. Can't find any evidence that the Scientific and Medical Network Best Book Award exists, much less that it's notable. Dust-jacket blurb by Jonathan Sacks seems awfully flimsy.

Article was created by a promotional sockfarm (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kspellskarthik). Grayfell (talk) 01:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Delete no indication of passing any guideline for notability of academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. Refs don't establish notability. Recently created article. Google returns nothing of interest. Unclear how sock puppet farm is related to the article, if the article is paid for I hope he didn't pay much. Szzuk (talk) 22:28, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:50, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• Keep -- Persons with the title "professor" in the English sense are almost invariably notable. I thinkthat the title "professor emeritus" is only given on retirement from being a professor. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:15, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I understand that it's a prestigious rank, per Academic ranks in the United Kingdom, but I still don't believe this meets WP:ACADEMIC. The only mention of him I could find on Liverpool John Moores University's website was this routine profile, which is underwhelming, even by the less stringent standards academics are held to on Wikipedia. Grayfell (talk) 22:49, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. Nothing particularly notable under WP:ACADEMIC. I'd expect a bit more for a professor to have enough material for an article. Article was also written by a blocked SPA account that was having issues with WP:FRINGE. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:25, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Chris Roe (psychologist)

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

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

Article lacks quality independent sources and Roe doesn't appear to meet WP:ACADEMIC. Many memberships and such, but none seem like they are highly selective/prestigious/major institutions. The Journal of the Society for Psychical Research doesn't appear to be a a major, well-established academic journal.

This article was created by a promotional sockfarm. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kspellskarthik Grayfell (talk) 01:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Delete no indication of meeting notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:22, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
• Delete. 4 refs of a very I do my job nature. No indication of notability in the article but didn't google to check. Szzuk (talk) 18:33, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:50, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• Keep -- Professors in the sense used in UK are almost invariably notable. His status is confirmed by his university webpage Psychic research/parapsychology is an esoteric subject, but it exists. An output of 60 academic papers is not inconsiderable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:12, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

That profile refers to him as a "Senior Lecturer" (comparable to an associate professor in North America), which indicates that the term "professor" is being used in a much broader sense, and should not be treated the same as the older, more prestigious usage. Additionally, being prolific isn't automatically noteworthy, as specifically mentioned by WP:ACADEMIC. Grayfell (talk) 23:21, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. Reading the article, I mostly get a sense of WP:PUFFERY items that don't strongly contribute to notability under WP:ACADEMIC. Being president of the Parapsychological Association is also a red flag in terms of WP:FRINGE. Multiple high level board positions can in sum contribute to notability, but that aspect is relatively weak with this subject. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:18, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

James Francis Gallatin

James Francis Gallatin (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:BIO Cubbie15fan (talk) 01:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Keep WP:Bio Does clearly not fail WP:Bio please look at references and consider key role in James Gallatin Diary hoax/fraud and key role in J. R. Ackerley autobiography. James Francis Gallatin has been mentioned in Financial Times and The Independent in 2015, 100 years after his death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirmoor536825 (talk • contribs) 02:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
• Delete: does not meet threshold of notability. Quis separabit? 02:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
• Delete The article has lots of coat-racking. It adds up to this guy went bankrupt 14 times, comissioned a stained class window, may have forged a diary by his grandfather on the work of his great grandfather, but the status of the diary is not fully known and the article never claims that James Francis Gallatin would have been the forger. He may also have been in a homosexual relationship with a notable person. None of these things make him notable. There is no reason to have this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:34, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
• A good article about this person might certainly be possible, if the sourcing and substance could be boosted up well beyond what's here now, but this article as written is extremely far short of the mark. Nothing here provides any substantive reason why he would qualify for an article, and far too much of it is indeed WP:COATRACKed information about his notable ancestors rather than having anything to do with him. The article falls far short of demonstrating a "key role in the James Gallatin diary hoax/fraud" — it certainly insinuates that he might have been the forger in a "presumption of guilt by association" sort of way, but doesn't even come close to demonstrating or sourcing that as a proven or known fact. And the Ackerley autobiography doesn't appear substantial either — admittedly I haven't read the book, but from what's described here I'm not seeing any reason to believe that Gallatin gets anything more than a glancing namecheck on one or two pages rather than having any sort of "key role" (if he really had as key a role as claimed, it would be possible to write a lot more about the keyness of his role than has been shown here.) Delete, without prejudice against future recreation if something a lot more substantial and better-sourced than this can be written. Bearcat (talk) 17:59, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mkdw^talk 05:35, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Children of Tsunami: No More Tears

Children of Tsunami: No More Tears (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)

Short non-notable documentary film. I can't find any significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to meet WP:GNG or WP:NOTFILM. Sarah-Jane (talk) 13:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 14:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 14:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 14:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: It looks like there is another documentary film by a similar name, Children of the Tsunami, so we'll need to be careful not to confuse the two while looking for sources. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:35, 3 December 2015 (UTC)'

• Actually, there are two documentary films created at the same time by the same production companies: Children of Tsunami: No More Tears is the shorter version, and Children of Tsunami: The Journey Continues is the longer version and both deal with the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami. Only similarly titled, Children of the Tsunami deals with the 2011 Japanese tsunami. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:49, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:29, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. I couldn't find anything either. It seems to exist and aired, but there just isn't any coverage out there that I can find. There may be coverage in other languages, so if anyone can find this then I'm willing to change my stance. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
• Note to Tokyogirl79: I find it surprising that my google-foo worked here... and I found these on archives of the non-profit's website: [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] But as this was a documentary film by an Indonesian non-profit, it is unlikely that we will find any major coverage in Western media. We definitely need input from Wikipedians who can search for and offer sources from Sri Lanka, Indonesia, India, and/or Thailand. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 23:01, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Keep: Keep, but get a lot more sources. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:46, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• Redirect/Add as section - Borderline. Most of the current article content is trivial. I can't see this developing past a stub, suggest incorporating into: 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami#In popular culture then creating a redirect. Aeonx (talk) 17:34, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

When the Bassline Drops

When the Bassline Drops (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 Musa^Talk ☻ 22:35, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 22:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 22:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 22:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Keep. On balance, the coverage and chart appearances, much of which took place after this was nominated, puts me in the "keep" camp.  Gongshow   talk 05:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Keep: Clear evidence of notability with chart positions and The X Factor performance amongst other things. Musa Raza please read WP:BEFORE next time you think about taking a 36-minute old article to AfD. Azealia911 _talk 00:00, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• Keep: Had chart success. Keep it. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:05, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Landon Bathe

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Landon Bathe
• Articles for deletion/Landon Bathe (2nd nomination)

Landon Bathe (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:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 21:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:01, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Delete - career minor leaguer, not notable enough. Article basically lists his statistics and teams he played for in prose form. Cubbie15fan (talk) 01:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Delete Non notable minor league hockey player. No significant coverage to meet the GNG. Jakejr (talk) 21:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Bristol University Select

Bristol University Select (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)

Looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union/Notability I don't think this club meets the criteria and I can't find enough reliable third party sources to show this meets WP:GNG — Rod ^talk 19:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. NN. Barely worth my delete vote. 17 edits since its creation 4 years ago. Surprised there are that many edits. Szzuk (talk) 21:35, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
• Delete Obviously NN. It is not a professional Rugby Club; not even a club. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:32, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

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. WP:SOFTDELETE The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

IBEAM Broadcasting Corporation

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

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

A large enough company that it warrants further search to show possible notability. DGG ( talk ) 02:37, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• Delete in any case as I actually PRODed this after I simply found a few passing mentions. WP:TNT at best. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:46, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:05, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:10, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Matt Bushell

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

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

Delete: as non-notable actor. Quis separabit? 00:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:58, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:58, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:58, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - Working actor? Yes. Solid notability even generally? No. SwisterTwister talk 06:02, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
• Delete: Not only no evidence he passes the GNG, but I'd be open to a speedy either for failure to make an assertion of notability or an unsourced BLP. Ravenswing 08:05, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
• Delete. Not a proper candidate for speedy deletion under A7 because the substantial list of movie credits, including a role in a blockbuster like Twilight, is sufficient to make a credible assertion of importance (a lesser standard than notability); nor under WP:BLPPROD because the article has had a source (IMDb) since it was created, thus taking it out of the purview of BLPPROD, and moreover I did manage to turn up a reliable source—a Boston Herald article [25]—that confirms in cursory fashion that he's a movie actor from Framingham. But beyond the one-sentence mention in that article, I've come across nothing informative at all.--Arxiloxos (talk) 01:10, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
• Delete per above points as notability is not established. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rubbish computer (talk • contribs) 13:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

• Admin note: The following content was originally posted on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Articles for deletion/Matt Bushell which duplicated the OP here. I have merged it into this AfD as this one is at the correctly parsed title; the transplanted !votes begin HERE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:08, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:45, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Delete per nom - Non notable actor - No evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 01:51, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Have found some sources for the page. This may help. Thanks --TheDomain (talk) 06:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Admin note: The transplanted !votes end HERE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:08, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

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.