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. The controversy surrounding the article's notability stems from discussion over what constitutes "routine" coverage in relation to WP:GNG's requirement that articles have "significant" coverage. Even one editor arguing in favor of deletion concedes one source may pass the threshold of routine coverage, while several other editors staunchly believe the article has received coverage that is beyond routine. Moreover, one editor notes that the game may meet WP:NEVENTS, an argument which proponents of deletion fail to adequately refute. As such, my reading of the consensus here (though I will stipulate it is not an overwhelming consensus) is that, at the present juncture, the article should be kept and perhaps improved with some of the newly found sources. Thanks to all who participated in the discussion. Go Phightins! 01:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shamrock Rovers XI vs Brazil

Shamrock Rovers XI vs Brazil (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 am missing something or this match is not actually that notable? Nergaal (talk) 22:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - non-notable friendly match. Cannot see any significant, reliable third party coverage anywhere outside of WP:ROUTINE match reporting. Fenix down (talk) 07:37, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The significance of this match is that the "Shamrock Rovers XI" was code for an all-Ireland team, rather than it being a normal match involving either Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland. Therefore when the subject of having an all-Ireland football team is raised (as is the case in Irish rugby union), the 1973 "Shamrock Rovers" match is usually mentioned. Coverage: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7]

WHY is the initial game of a specific nation notable? Did this game get people in the streets at least? Nergaal (talk) 11:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I'd like to know what policy "getting people in the streets" is based on. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I'm not seeing any significant coverage here. GiantSnowman 09:58, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the distinction you are drawing here. The links I have added above are from articles 35-40 years later, which is clearly not WP:ROUTINE coverage (i.e. these aren't match reports or analysis pieces written within a day or two of the game). The links all cite this game as a prominent example of an all-Ireland team playing an "international" football match, which is clearly of wider cultural and political significance given the history of Ireland. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - To discuss them in more detail then, my view on your sources would be as follows:

1. The first is an extremely brief article more concerned with showing a couple of photos than anything else. It merely confirms that the match took place and does not provide any significant commentary.

2. the second is just a brief match report with no commentary on any wider impact of the game.

3. The third is only tangentially related to the match as it is an article about one of the people involved.

4. The fourth I can't see past the pay wall, but this looks like it might add colour to the game beyond routine.

5. The fifth again is only tangentially related to the match itself and is more to do with the prospect of an all-ireland team.

6. The sixth also only mentions the match tangentially in an obituary and says nothing of substance about the game.

7. The final source is also only tangential, discussing again the wider prospevt of an all-ireland team.

From these sources, I see nothing at all that provides significant coverage of the wider impact of the match. Friendly matches are themselves inherently non-notable as well, although from the sources you have provided, there would certainly seem to be scope for a section in both national teams articles for discussion on the prospect of an all-ireland team, in which this match can and should be mentioned, but I see no reason why a standalone article is needed. Fenix down (talk) 11:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought Ireland national football team (presently a disambiguation page) would be the best place for such content, in the way that the United Kingdom national football team article discusses the (theoretical) concept of a national team for the whole UK, rather than the present situation of four separate national teams (plus Gibraltar). But this is an argument for moving and/or merging, not deletion. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is. None of the sources you mentioned above are used in the current article, nor could they realistically be as they do not include substantial coverage of the match. What I was saying was that the article should be deleted for this reason - that there is no substantial coverage of this match that is not routine. However, the sources you note could be used for a very different purpose, namely the discussion of an all-ireland team in the relevant national team articles, of which, a brief mention of this one off, unofficial friendly would be relevant, a merger of what is essentially a match report would give undue prominance to this event within its wider context. Fenix down (talk) 13:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"What is essentially a match report". Most of the text in the article ("background") is about the context of the match, as discussed below. There is almost no "match report"; the only details of the match given are the two lineups and who scored goals. The "Shamrock Rovers" lineup is important because it demonstrates the mixture of players from the two associations (it was pretty much an even split). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – The match was unusual and historically significant because it established football as an act of diplomacy between Ireland and Northern Ireland during the most tense phase of the Troubles. The significance of the match and and the notable career consequences for some players due to the political tension at the time is explained in the Background section, although perhaps the narrative could emphasise the significance and notability further. Better citations might be desirable, too. The convenient and tempting perspective that it was "only a friendly football match" obscures the deeper political, diplomatic, sociological, and historical meaning of the event. — O'Dea (talk) 10:37, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - please provide sources containing significant, reliable coverage of your claims, that focus specifically on this match, not a wider political environment. Fenix down (talk) 12:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, needs improving but definitelty passes GNG for events, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" and not what is suggested above ("Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular"—although not irrelevant—is secondary"). An All-Ireland soccer team is indeed very unusual, I cant think of a more unusual one invovling soccer in Ireland. Murry1975 (talk) 11:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - please provide sources indicating the level of significant coverage required by GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:50, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As pointed out, it passes WP:NEVENTS, "or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". Do you not think its unusual? And it is sourced, sources provided span 3 years, the article needs attention and work but is indeed an event that is unique and has had a lasting level of coverage. Murry1975 (talk) 22:35, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And as per routine

"Run-of-the-mill events—common, everyday, ordinary items that do not stand out—are probably not notable." Not a common everyday occurance name another time in 92 years this has happened? Murry1975 (talk) 22:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:11, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Symbols of the Donetsk People's Republic

Symbols of the Donetsk People's Republic (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 improvement seen from before, the entire article is sourced by one pro rebel website. See also: The AfD regarding the flag that was deleted. Fails notability on their own in terms of sources. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there such a republic? Delete its symbols now, and if it survives 5-10 years then we may make them a page. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 22:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The flag and coat of arms are shown in Donetsk People's Republic. All else is unreferenced speculative drivel. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:22, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article has close to 0% substantial information (the little it has (it being The flag of the Donetsk People's Republic is inspired by the flag of the Donetsk–Krivoy Rog Soviet Republic) can be merged with Donetsk People's Republic) + its 1 source looks questionable to me... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 20:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no redirect per nom. and Clarityfiend. No reliable sources, blatant propaganda attempt. --Bejnar (talk) 22:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:OR and WP:SOAP. For those readers unfamiliar with this place, it's a break-away state, and the only source is an open-access website. Russia, its ally, is known to have funded the creation of lots of agitprop on Wikipedia, and this looks like one of those pieces. Bearian (talk) 16:33, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nomination and the above comments. This one is a straightforward Delete. --Jersey92 (talk) 03:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 16:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Byungho yoon

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

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

Does not appear to meet GNG or WP:POLITICIAN Connormah (talk) 21:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable musician and political party hack. Article built around a single source, a party propaganda piece. WWGB (talk) 23:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No other sources seem to exist besides a couple of obituaries in the Marxist-Leninist Daily, a party organ. Lots of ghits but they're all for other people (it's a pretty common name apparently). Fails WP:GNG, WP:POLITICIAN, and WP:MUSICBIO. And WP:TITLECASE too. — Gwalla | Talk 18:05, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As per the reasons already described by the editors above. Non-notable. Ref ^(chew)(do) 20:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. and Gwalla. Fails WP:GNG, fails WP:CREATIVE, fails WP:MUSICBIO. --Bejnar (talk) 22:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NOTABILITY and whichever subsets we try to apply WP:CREATIVE, WP:BAND, WP:POLITICIAN, etc. --Jersey92 (talk) 03:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 16:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tulip Lock

Tulip Lock (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 doorknob without references. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Tulip Lock is an unsourced article with major grammatical issues. At this point, the article does not meet notability guidelines and I am finding it difficult to find reliable information about it, not to mention the claim that it appears in many TV shows, etc. Even if the information is verified, I don't think the article provides enough encyclopedic value to automatically make the current content suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. MJ94 (talk) 22:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I can see lots of doorknob sets of this design offered for sale, but I can find no coverage about this design. -- Whpq (talk) 15:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Perhaps should be speedy deleted A7. --Jersey92 (talk) 03:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 05:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rendille–Boni languages

Rendille–Boni languages (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)

Polyphyletic wastebasket taxon; the article provides no information other than its proposed existence. The current consensus classification is reported by e.g. Tosco (1994), Banti (2013) to be that Aweer (Boni) is a Somalic variety closely related to Garre. Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 21:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. 21:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 21:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 9. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 21:31, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • OT: what's the Cyberbot time delay for jumping on this? This was bot-handled before I had time to even attempt manually transcluding it. --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 00:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. Wikipedia is not the place for linguists to work out correct taxonomies. If reliable sources (preferably secondary or tertiary sources) differ on the status of the family, that controversy needs to be noted, with due weight to the published sources on each side. But that does not suggest that the controversial conclusions should be deleted from Wikipedia. True, the stub article currently cites only one source, but that source, Ethnologue, is for better or worse often the key work for such issues. Cnilep (talk) 02:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The current de facto WP NPOV standard for taxonomic articles is to cover units that are either more or less accepted by consensus (e.g. Balto-Slavic), or failing that, otherwise notable proposals (e.g. Hokan). One can easily find in literature thousands of "small" groupings of this kind that were proposed in one or two publications and that have never been subject to closer analysis. These are typically noted, if at all, in articles on the lower unquestioned node (e.g. Sino-Tibetan languages#Classification). Do you thus mean to imply that you'd grant Ethnologue (a tertiary source, here contradicted by secondary sources) the role of arbiter on what such groupings are sufficiently notable for an article of their own?
    (FWIW I suppose for a more fleshed-out article a merger might be a better proposal, but the current article covers literally nothing else than the fact that this grouping has been proposed. Amending the proposal to note this…)
    --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 19:10, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding, "you'd grant Ethnologue... the role of arbiter", it was not me that made that (not uncontroversial) grant; it was the International Organization for Standards. Wikipedia need not slavishly adopt ISO 639-3 or ISO 639-6 standards, but those standards do have a certain weight with regard to controversial definitions. (And, lest we forget, although Cnilep claims to be a linguist and Tropylium claims to be a university student interested in linguistics, there is a slim possibility that we are both precocious canines. Thus the deference to published sources, even if we disagree with them) Cnilep (talk) 00:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this is relevant. ISO-639-3 does not standardize classification. Ethnologue being an unambiguously reliable source on what languages exist does not make it one on issues of their history. The disagreement is not between them and me, it's between them and reliable secondary sources.--Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 19:45, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - where current social science consensus is mixed, proper weight should be given to the controversies. Here, I am leaning to a keep with the added sources, but a merger to an appropriate target would also be reasonable. Bearian (talk) 16:36, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Cnilep. It looks like there are reliable sources (including the ISO standard) sufficient to establish notability and also to support the description of the various POVs in this controversy. --Mark viking (talk) 19:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:46, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Bootmakers of Toronto

The Bootmakers of Toronto (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 topic does not seem to have encyclopedic merit TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:14, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for detecting this unencyclopedic piece. So it has been around for two months? Speedily delete please. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This probably could be speedied as pure unambiguous promotion. At the same time, I'm not really seeing where the organization has received enough coverage to really merit an article at this point in time. I did find this article, but other than that everything is predominantly done in passing. ([8], [9]) It's very, very close but we'd need more than this to really show a good depth of coverage. If someone can find it, I have no problem with the article being re-created, but this promotional version would have to go. On a side note, there is merit in potentially having an article on the Sherlock Holmes fanbase since they've been around in various forms for years now. I think that the only reason we don't have one is probably because they don't have a set name like Trekkies or Beliebers, so there's not a truly good article title. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:40, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The Sherlock Holmes Handbook is ample evidence of notability. The rest is a matter of ordinary editing. The fact that the article has not be wikified into our customary format yet is unimportant. AFD is not cleanup. Andrew (talk) 21:47, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm mostly worried about there not really being a depth of coverage. There's mentions but the sources are fairly few and far between. It's the type of coverage that could muster up a weak keep but it's so little that someone could probably nominate it for deletion in the future because essentially we only have about 2-3 sources. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:48, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 16:11, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect and merge a little to either Sherlock Holmes#Societies or List of Sherlock Holmes societies. It doesn't really merit an standalone article. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:20, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Clearly, no one wants to close this toxic subject, so I'll put on my flak jacket and hard hat and stand by for the flying shrapnel.

I have pretty much dismissed the argument for POVFORK since no credible argument from policy has been presented showing that this actually is a fork of something. True, it concerns Operation Protective Edge, but an expansion of one aspect of a main article is not the same as a fork. From the guideline "On the other hand, as an article grows, editors often create summary-style spin-offs or new, linked article for related material. This is acceptable, and often encouraged, as a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage." The POV part of POVFORK would have some grounds if it were not for the existence of List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2014 which pretty much gives the other side. That article is also at AfD and if deleted would put a different light on this one. However, at the moment it looks like that one is going keep as well. If that changes, there would perhaps be grounds for a new nomination. It is also arguable that attacks and casualties of both sides should be covered on the same page for NPOV reasons. I sympathise with that, but it is a matter that can be handled outside the AfD process. The consensus in the debate is strongly leaning keep. Without the POVFORK argument it is overwhelmingly keep and the close decision is unambiguous.

Another policy argument raised was NOTDIR. I have a great deal of sympathy for that argument. After all, the casualties for much larger conflicts, such as the Battle of the Somme are sourcable in principle, but we do not create such articles for a number of poicy reasons. However, there is no consensus in this debate for deletion on those grounds. SpinningSpark 11:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Israeli strikes and Palestinian casualties in Operation Protective Edge

List of Israeli strikes and Palestinian casualties in Operation Protective Edge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article, by its very name and content is a WP:POVFORK of Operation Protective Edge - it is a list dedicated only to casualties of one side, and attacks by the other side, without the corresponding casualties/attacks of the other side. Were we to include the missing content , it would be a copy of Operation Protective Edge Brad Dyer (talk) 20:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 15:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I told my conclusions really gently in the Talk page Gunrpks (talk) 21:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep I have read the article and it is fine. I have addressed your Vague POV points in the Article's Talk page. Ia m not even sure why this article is nominated for deletion. I am strongly for keeping this page as it carefully list the Israeli strikes and casualties caused by them. If you need to add to the page any Palestinian strikes inside Israel and the Israeli casualties - if you know of one till now :) - please don't hesitate to edit and modify the page as you see fit "neutrally"! We did not attack you man :) You are our friend :) We have a Hatikva to be free --علي سمسم (talk) 21:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Basically I don't have problem with list article about attacks during a war (or operation, never mind), but this specific article seen to me not show the full picture and really biassed.By the way, yesterday nigth, when I wrote here in Wikipedia and we "fought" about this article I had to run to the shelter 6 times, so maybe you don't attack me, but rockets not launched from themselves. Single-aisle, I hope that one day we all will be free, from siege and from rocket attacks, and we have to make peace between peoples and not between governments. Gunrpks (talk) 08:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment'. You gave no reasons on the talk page for why you think this article should be deleted. Please provide them here. That an article might have POV problems is not an objection, because nearly all articles need tinkering to iron out imbalances. (What happened to you yesterday, happens with great intermittently to people in Gaza since 2005. In late last year, the IAF threw several sonic boom sorties over Gaza for over five successive weeks. See 'The Sonic Booms in the sky over Gaza,' B'tselem 1 January 2014. Take the time to read of Israel's use of this practice with its devastating impact of the health of denizens of that prison camp which is the Gaza Strip, by clicking on the follwing links: (a) Juliette Volcler Extremely Loud: Sound as a Weapon, New Press 2013 p.34; (b) Stephen Graham, 'Disruption by Design:Urban Infrastructure and Political Violence,' in Stephen Graham (ed.) Disrupted Cities: When Infrastructure Fails, Routledge 2010 pp.111-130 p.123; (c) Howard Friel, Chomsky and Dershowitz: On Endless War and the End of Civil Liberties, Olive Branch Press, 2013 p.178; (d) Chris McGreal, 'Palestinians Hit by Sonic Boom Air Raids,' The Guardian November 3, 2005, etc.etc. As McGreal notes, once Israel withdrew its settlements, it could deploy a device that causes sleeplessness, neurosis, vomiting chronically in the Gaza gulag to punish the indigenous population even when a ceasefire was in place, when not conducting its 'responses' to flimsy lamppost tubes and steel pipes stuffed with explosives that are devastating the southern deserts sands mostly (I've lived there and hitchhiked all over Gaza as well), though you would never get this impression from Western newspaper reports. Mind you, it has a positive side: the use of sonic bombs increases miscarriages by 40%, thus reducing the number of future terrorists. My apologies for this personal aside responding to your personal remark that you lost a night of sleep. Such comments are not appropriate to this Afd page)Nishidani (talk) 12:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. As soon as I notified the creation of the page, both editors attacked it, breaking the IR rule of ARBPIA articles, and when I requested that they address the talk page, (see presently) the objections then were garbled or showed signs of not having even read the article.

The objections are a matter of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Look at List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel with its ten lists (none of which mentions anything about Israel strikes in the context of each rocket firing) and Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel. Brad Dyer, and many others, have never expressed the slightest worry over those articles, and the moment a similar type of article is proposed for Palestinians, a deletion is called for. Worse still Gunrpks is a major contributor to one of the articles I listed above, as his edit history shows (List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2013 see here, here here and here). It's very hard to find Israeli casualties. I tried before writing the article, but with 52 Palestinians dead, all I came up with (and refrained from registering on any article) was this:

8:20 P.M. One person sustained light injuries when running for shelter in Bat Yam. He was taken to the Wolfson Medical Center in Holon for treatment. Emergency services treated two people suffering of shock.(Live updates, July 8: Israel launches aerial offensive in Gaza Haaretz 8 July 2014).

The article is amply and reliably sourced, and, given the prospect that this war will drag on for a week or two, it will require by its nature very extensive additions which the other article so far (only interested in Israeli strikes against terrorists or militants, and calling all casualties 'terrorists') is wholly disinclined to register. Regardless, there are a great many lists for rocket attacks, and the damage done by them, on Israel. Nishidani (talk) 21:21, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes there are other articles about X, Y, and Z but just because something is sourced doesn't mean it passes here on Wikipedia. In wars people die, where is the enduring notability of the people killed here? This is why we have WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:NOTDIR we don't need a list of everyone who died from rocket attacks made. If you want to go over a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument on you saying what about the rocket attack articles, can you explain to me why we don't have a list of all of those killed in World War II by X country? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:13, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Could do with do with some improvement but it is notable and well sourced. This nomination seems like an attempt to white-wash. AlanS (talk) 13:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  It owuld be a little more helpful if you addressed the actual reasons for deletion- POVFORK - rather than the strawman of "notable" and "well sourced". The latter are true of most any POVFORK, but PVFORKs are still not allowed. As to the aspersions on my motivations, you would do well to observe WP:AGF, which is wikipedia policy, and to refrain from the outright hypocrisy involved in voting to keep this article while nominating for deletions articles like this. Brad Dyer (talk) 16:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  It would be even more helpful if you not engage in personal attacks. Do I need to quote wiki policy about that for you? As per your comments about me attributing any motivation to you, I did no such thing. I commented on the nomination itself and I maintain that this nomination appears to me (I make no assertion about the truth of my perception) to be an attempt at white-wash. As per your allegations of hypocrisy. You've never heard of taking a position of devils advocate I take it? AlanS (talk) 16:34, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment- It seems a bit odd when we have so many one sided List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel type articles, that the only one slated for deletion is the sole article trying to add some balance the other way, so that Wikipedia's conflict coverage is a bit more neutral. Personally I would rather not have this type of one sided article genre at all. But as so many already exist documenting Palestinian attacks on Israel, it is not rational or neutral to prohibit this type of list only when it documents Israeli attacks on the Palestinians. Dlv999 (talk) 14:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  See Wikipedia:Other stuff exists Brad Dyer (talk) 16:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but just linking that essay is not contributing to the discussion. If you have any policy/evidence based reasons why our coverage in the Israel Palestine conflict should include numerous articles that cover Palestinian attacks on Israelis only but strictly prohibit any article that covers Israeli attacks on Palestinians only then you need to articulate them. Just linking an essay and leaving at that is not going to cut it. Dlv999 (talk) 11:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: factual information that is reliably sourced. More than 88 Palestinians now confirmed to have been murdered by Israeli air strikes and will likely increase over the coming hours. A separate article is eventually needed to list the growing number of victims. Al-Andalusi (talk) 16:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. By the way, thanks for the link to the names' page source. Names, as I have already shown, are not only intrinsically worthy of note, but they assist editors in their search for RS that can provide details of each particular 'incident'. That is a key reason why this page is required, for such a list is not thinkable on the main operational page (which, it seems,(if I may intrude a comment on systemic bias), is basically edited to reflect mainstream sources deploring defective home made rockets and praising modern technology's capacity to destroy people efficiently.)Nishidani (talk) 17:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This page violates NPOV policy, it severely suffers from lack of factual accuracy, it is based about only two sources. It fails to mentions that many of the casualties were Hamas and PIJ activists and armed militants. MathKnight 19:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. You have not addressed the issue that no one challenges the numerous lists of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, over a dozen articles which do not mention the Israeli strikes and Palestinian casualties which either precede or follow them. The precedent exists for articles of this kind (b) you have not indicated where the factual inaccuracies are (c) unless you mean that it so far has failed to note who were Hamas and PIJ activists or 'armed militants' (sources in Israel and abroad never state if the dead were armed or not, by the way). if (c) then you are incorrect because the article, as specified, will check the death lists with RS to enter how each casualty is described politically. So far many sources fail to mention this, and close to half are too old or young to bear a 'militant' designation. (d) that its list is formed from the only two RS sites who provide casualty compilations cannot be avoided. The 'two sources' are no longer two, and several dozen will be added as the search progresses for other RS that give more details.Nishidani (talk) 19:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep or Merge : If we keep a list keeping track of the usual rocket attacks on the Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel page, there is no reason to get rid of this when its linked to a specific event. Perhaps a merger could occur, but the thing is that this page is much more detailed and is more concerned with the event at hand. --Riadse96 (talk) 19:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  See Wikipedia:Other stuff exists Brad Dyer (talk) 16:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The reasons are general and specific. In general, there is no need for "breaking news" articles, which will be filled every minute with information's that may be or not be accurate. In this way Wikipedia could become a journal and not an encyclopedia. Specific reasons are, as stated above, this article fell short of WP:NPOV policy. Claims like "The forces in the conflict are Gaza-based militants using mainly home-made missiles, mainly Qassam rockets, most of which often hit open fields, versus Israel's combined military forces, which are equipped with F-15 fighter jets, AH-64 Apache helicopters, Delilah missiles, IAI Heron-1 drones and Jericho II missiles.[3]The Israeli civilian population has, in addition, access to shelters, early-warning sirens and is defended by the Iron Dome missile detection defence system" can be seen as WP:SYNTH. Israeli shelters are not subject here. Also, Hamas does not use only home made rockets and according to many sources, they fire them indiscriminately on civilian targets. Symmetric claims on Palestinian side point out that Israelis are also hitting Palestinian civilian targets causing widespread casualties..Symmetric claims on opposite side have been made regarding alleged use of civilians as human shields and a lot of sources can be found on this issue as well. All of this claims can be properly sourced, depening how they are picked, and as we do not need "the absolute truth" sections, claims falling short of neutrality, should be dealt with equal standards. However as I said, first and foremost we do not need a "breaking news" article and this article contrary to the article mentioned above is looking like that.--Tritomex (talk) 23:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.

(a) If there is no reason for breaking news articles, you don't read wikipedia's main page every day. And secondly, you should place your objection at Operation Protective Edge

(b) Falls short of WP:NPOV policy. Specify where, and we or you, can address that.

(c) WP:SYNTH is wrong. The sentence comes from the cited source.

(d) 'Israeli shelters' are mentioned in that source. The accompanying contrast in the source, that Palestinians in Gaza lack them, I omitted. So much for NPOV violations.I left that as implicit.

(e) Hamas does not only use home-made rockets. Quite true, and I emended to mention Grad missiles. The majority of those fired however are home or better still 'factory-made' Qassams.

(f) Many sources state that these rockets are fired on civilian targets. True, many sources repeat that. They are fired however mainly 'into Israel' from the south, and the overwhelming majority never strike civilian areas. Did they, you would have big casualty lists, but none are forthcoming. The entire length of the Gaza strip is dotted with kibbutzs. How many have been targeted? I know of three that have suffered slight damage (apart from Sderot, a particular point of animus because large numbers of Gazans descend from the 7al hundred Arab villagers driven off that land at gunpoint and crammed into Gaza, so their agricultural land could be given to fresh immigrants from Morocco and elsewhere).

(g)'Symmetric claims ' These sentences are garbled, and hard to understand. Reformulate them. As to human shields, one IDF hand out says that, I believe. Human shields have been used throughout the conflict for decades, by the IDF as well, as the Israeli Supreme Court stated on at least two occasions, and unless sources specify where concrete evidence shows their use among Palestinians, we cannot impose this suspicion on events.Nishidani (talk) 11:31, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:POVFORK pretty much describes the issue, are we going to have List of Palestinian strikes and Israeli wounded in Operation Protective Edge next?, even if the article is renamed to something more neutral the issue would still be notability for each case. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article also falls under WP:NOTDIR. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

It is certainly not a fork but an article created after considerable experience of the past, that these matters drag on, and the quantity of information stretches articles beyond reasonable limits unless one has specific sub or sister articles.

Notability for each case? I guess Palestinian deaths, even when multiple sources attest them for families, are not notable. Wikipedia is dedicated to WP:NPOV, but in practice within the I/P area, we don't get that by proportionate articles. We have large numbers of killings of Israelis articles, and I for one have always deplored this use of the encyclopedia, but they keep on being written and passing the rare AfDs where questions are raised. To name just a few.

(a) Murder of Koby Mandell and Yosef Ishran

(b) Death of Yehuda Shoham

(c) Murder of Shalhevet Pass

(d) The Death of Asher and Yonatan Palmer

(e) Murder of Neta Sorek and Kristine Luken

(f) Murder of Ofir Rahum

(g) Murder of Tali Hatuel and her four daughters

(h) Murder of Eliyahu Asheri

(i) Murder of Helena Rapp

(j) Kidnapping and murder of Nissim Toledano

(k) Kidnapping and murder of Yaron Chen

(l) Kidnapping and murder of Avi Sasportas and Ilan Saadon

(m) Kidnapping and murder of Nachshon Wachsman

Off the top of my head I could imagine a much larger list of potential articles for Palestinians murdered in similar wise. I dislike writing such articles on principle. I think it saner to make one general encyclopedic article, and a list serves that purpose. As to Israeli casualties, from past wars they range from 1 for every 10, 20 or 100 dead on the other side, so they normally never have sufficient numbers to justify independent articles, but then if anyone wishes to write them, I won't complain. I will list them (as I have twice already) here in any case.

The other point is that all of the objections here blithely ignore the fact that there is a 10 to 1 disparity in Isael's favour for the article I am writing. I.e.

List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel

List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2001

List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2002–2006

List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2007

List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2008

List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2009

List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2010

List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2011

List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2012

List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2013

List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2014

My impression is that NPOV is being adduced to strike out the one article on Israeli strikes on Gaza, but not to challenge the presence of the above articles in the encyclopedia which mirror this one. That itself shows that the objections are indifferent to, or violate WP:NPOV because the weigh in against one side. They are saying:it is not neutral to write in wikipedia about Israeli strikes and consequences, but there is nothing objectionable in creating such articles if Israel suffers attack. Please address this concern.Nishidani (talk) 13:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Other stuff exists Brad Dyer (talk) 16:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did, and read:

The generic form of this argument, that "loads of other crap articles exist" is also common. However, Wikipedia recognizes that it suffers from systemic bias (see WP:BIAS).

I guess you are suggesting that a article closely documenting the unfolding groun level effects of a war on a people' is just "stuff" and "crap".Nishidani (talk) 16:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nuumber of reason of above.--
    – HonorTheKing (talk) 04:44, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is not a POV fork. There is already an article covering List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel. There are also other examples on wikipedia which focus on one side's military activities: Lists of allied military operations of the Vietnam War, Strategic operations of the Red Army in World War II etc. The article Allied war crimes during World War II specifically talks about the bad things done by one side, even though it was the Axis powers (including Nazi Germany) who were the most barbaric during WWII. Support renaming this article to the simpler List of Israeli strikes in Operation Protective Edge or List of Israeli strikes on Gaza. Bless sins (talk) 07:05, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  See Wikipedia:Other stuff exists Brad Dyer (talk) 16:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did, and read:

The generic form of this argument, that "loads of other crap articles exist" is also common. However, Wikipedia recognizes that it suffers from systemic bias (see WP:BIAS).

I guess you are suggesting that a article closely documenting the unfolding ground level effects of a war on a people' is just "stuff" and "crap".Nishidani (talk) 16:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am suggesting that an article closely documenting the unfolding ground level effects of a war on JUST ONE SIDE of the conflict is much worse that 'crap' - it is a gross violation of Wikipedia's NPOV polices, and the people involved in creating should probably be prevented from editing in this topic area. Brad Dyer (talk) 16:37, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Fine. As the link you provide suggests, by all means work positively to help balance the article by making concrete improvements to improve it. In all AfDs I have witnessed it is normal for participating editors who are critical to edit and improve the article, something singularly lacking here.

I have listed the two Israelis injured or dead as a result of the conflict, you are welcome to add any I miss. NPOV does not demand that in a situation where casualties are overwhelmingly on one side, they must not be mentioned because there are conspicuously fewer casualties on the other. That is a farcical reading of WP:NPOV, which simply asks us to take a topic and deal with the relevant RS sources comprehensively and neutrally.

Editors might like to peruse List of Israeli civilian casualties in the Second Intifada and Israeli casualties of war; List of Palestinian suicide attacks to name just a few more. I had no hand in any of these 20 odd articles, which like nearly all I/P conflict articles are deplorably inadequate. NPOV which fundamentally demands that editors strive for comprehensive coverage, is maimed if it is used to systematically ask for the deletion of articles that manage to provide very precisely sourced information, readily available and yet unaccountably opposed for inclusion into the encyclopedia. If this is deleted, then a very substantial amount of information bearing on Operation Protective Edge goes down the gurgler. In that article, every second time I see a POV requiring a balancing POV statement, and I edit that in, it disappears in edit-warring if it attends to the Palestinian perspective, a practice of prioritizing one side and making the other disappear I have always deplored and fought against. The edits I made to the lead giving details on Israel's perspective remain stable. Go figure.Nishidani (talk) 19:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, for the reasons given in the nomination I support deletion. AlanS (talk) 16:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• keep I try to avoid this subject, but the present article seems like a reasonable NPOV attempt to deal with the subject , especially considered in view of other articles here. I personally rather doubt NPOV writing is really possible on the whole general subject, but attempts to cover both sides are to be encouraged. DGG ( talk ) 17:43, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• keep - Basic NPOV. This is an attempt to cover this situation completely.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per my !vote and comment on this related AfD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:07, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AFD is not determined by voting but by reasonable arguments based upon Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Please read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. --Bejnar (talk) 22:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a very good argument and falls under WP:OTHERSTUFF, the fact is that this article is not List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel. One article discusses in prose attacks on Israel over a long period of time, this article limits it to one conflict that can very easily be discussed in the main article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:56, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 21:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a POV list, which shrieks a potential for WP:SYNTHESIS. Also per DGG, and WP:NOTNEWS. --Bejnar (talk) 22:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• strong delete Definitely has factual and NPOV problems, but I think the main issue is that these events are not notable on their own but rather are part of the story of Protective Edge. I don't believe we keep similar pages for most other military conflicts. For example in the ISIS conflict we have articles about the parties and about the current campaign but not each attack. Analogously I don't think there's a wiki page listing Basketball games Michael Jordan played in even though they were all mentioned in newspapers. IMO the total figures and maybe a few of the most newsworthy incidents should be merged into the main article if anything. I would say the same about a list of each rocket Hamas fired in a single operation.Avraham (talk) 23:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment What I find truly disturbing is the difference between voting on this nomination and WP:Articles for deletion/List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel. AlanS (talk) 07:18, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why find this siturbing, Alan? Anyone with I/P experience knew from the moment you (logically) added the parallel 'Palestinian rockets on Israel' articles, to this, and called also for their deletion, that the former would automatically survive deletion while the Palestinian casualties argument would have to struggle to survive and obtain a minimum NPOV dignity in the area. Well, I knew that, and it is one reason I don't add my logical vote to keep the Israeli victim articles. It is in the nature of things here and elsewhere that parity of discourse is deplored in this area, mostly because the systemic bias of sources frames readers the world over to think one state has right and history on its side, and the other has no right to existence, being congenitally 'teroristic' in its battle to survive the tragedy of its history.Nishidani (talk) 07:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep In the interest of balance against WP:Articles for deletion/List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel. AlanS (talk) 07:47, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The article is well-sourced and I fail to see any neutrality issue in it. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 08:18, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The article is fine. It does what it says, lists the Israeli strikes and Palestinian casualties in Operation Protective Edge and it doesn't violate any policies or guidelines at all by doing so. It's not a POVFORK because there is no POV involved in listing details of the Israeli strikes and the Palestinian casualties that result from them during Operation Protective Edge published by reliable sources (some of which even frame their coverage the same way as this article). All of the numerous List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel articles have the same level of detail as this article. There is nothing special or different about this list. Details about the Palestinian attacks and the Israeli casualties that result from them can be covered in List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2014 or incorporated into this article by simply renaming it, if there is too much information for the main article. And the nomination statement "Were we to include the missing content, it would be a copy of Operation Protective Edge" is patently false. Try it, then compare the articles. They won't be similar at all. Either way, there's no justification for removing this information from the encyclopedia. I'll also add that rather than trying to delete this article, time would be better spent fixing the Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel which seems to have a number of issues related to the casualty data and its sourcing (which is either poor, out of date or broken) among other things e.g. in the article's table for 2001 it lists 1 death, which I assume was IDF Sgt 1st Class Medmon Barak killed by mortars near the Neve Dekalim Israeli settlement in the Gaza Strip rather than in Israel. Several Israelis, mostly civilians, were killed by mortars in the Gaza Strip rather than Israel. That article needs the same level of attention currently being given to Israeli strikes and Palestinian casualties in Operation Protective Edge to get the details right. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:37, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep I came to the Wikipedia because I imagined that here I would find the most comprehensive and up to date list of Palestinian casualties of Israeli actions during Operation Protective Edge. This page provides the information I was searching for. I think this page provides the information that it claims to provide. It does not promise to present the list of Israeli casualties of Operation Protective Edge because that wouldn't make sense. I find it to be NPOV because it is just a list of strikes and the names of casualties. It is not claiming that Operation Protective Edge is immoral and anti-human and part of a history of oppression against the Palestinian people etc. nor is it claiming that the Palestinians want all Jewish people dead and Israel has a right to protect itself or any other claims about the rightness or wrongness of the action. It just presents in a list, the names of Palestinians who have been killed during this operation. It does strike me that the desire to delete this information is, in itself, not neutral and is ideologically driven. If the article were about a list of fictional Jedi Knights who had been killed by the Empire or what have you, I doubt people would be wanting to delete it because it wasn't neutral. But the lists would be the same in that they presented information about casualties. Saudade7 17:51, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Again people are trying to compare this to List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, which is a Separate article. None of the policy related arguments have been addressed here that people arguing for this article's deletion have raised. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:18, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. The comparison is with, among other things, 10 lists of Palestinian rockets on Israel articles. It is, also, rather hard to understand what the policy links have to do with the issue. None survives examination, and few who wave them argue in any detail: a link is apparently argument enough. But that leaves us second-guessing. Nishidani (talk) 21:24, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we need all the lists? It goes against WP:NOTNEWS, the enduring notability lies with the effects over time and not each attack. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to say it but rocket attacks on Israel have become routine news. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, Palestinian deaths ain't 'routine news', so the fact that Israel has killed 2 Palestinian children, to mention one category, every week for 14 years is a not a routine statistic, and not worthy of mention (You won't be persuaded but our source bias on all of this was eloquently and elegiacally expounded by Mouin Rabbani Institutionalised Disregard for Palestinian Life as the 'institutionalized disregard for Palestinian life' ( London Review of Books 11 July 2014)), and that is what the objections here mirror.Nishidani (talk) 21:44, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is an encyclopedia not a WP:SOAPBOX or a newspaper, I feel sorry for Palestine and Israel both but deaths and injuries are reported almost daily on each side, this being an encyclopedia we do not need a list of every attack that has or will take place. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Waving WP:SOAPBOX is grasping at straws, since there is none in the article. That's incoherent. First you argue Palestinian deaths are not 'routine' unlike Israeli deaths, and would exclude the first. Now you come back and say we do not need lists of this type, i.e., the 10 articles listing attacks on Israeli are also unencyclopedic. So now your position is, implicitly, that those ten articles, unchallenged, which set the precedent for this, are to be AfDed. Wiki is full of lists, so be coherent and make a general protest, rather than show up and single out one list because it happens to deal with Palestinians.Nishidani (talk) 21:56, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again you keep going on and on about how I have something against Palestinians, first with your link to an article called "Disregard for Palestinian Life" and saying "that is what the objections here mirror" and now "because it happens to deal with Palestinians" Please stop with the accusations and focus on the content. Yes there are lists here on Wikipedia each list is handled differently, where is the enduring notability of each attack mentioned in the lists? Why cant this be summed up in the main articles? On both sides rocket attacks are reported almost daily. Deleting the lists will not rob people of knowledge they are lists on an encyclopedia that are not needed as they go against policies here. Cant a person get the knowledge they want without having to look through a list of attacks by X? I made an argument above, why don't we have a list of attacks in World War II? The answer is because they were not all notable and the enduring notability was summed up in main articles. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:06, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how familiar you are with the historiography of WW2 (or 1) but it is now standard in narrative works to interleave general descriptions of battles, massacres, bombings with focused episodes in which a series of individual experiences are reported, so that the reader has a concrete sense of what it really is like, behind the abstractions of grand strategy. These supplementary lists have a similar function. Nishidani (talk) 22:18, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep In the interest of balance against WP:Articles for deletion/List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel and for WP equilibrium. It's not a POVFORK, well-sourced and neutral. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 07:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Moderate View Both sides have suffered casualties, but this article is a good start. Perhaps an article about civillian casualities in this conflict could be made?--Arbutus the tree (talk) 00:55, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment In the name of balance perhaps it's time this page be forked out a bit into lists of IDF attacks and Palestinian casualties by year. AlanS (talk) 08:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can't fork out this page into year by year lists. It deals with events from 8 July this year to a week or two later, and is strictly connected to a specific military operation. It is not a year list. I'm sure Jim Cairns could have seen this.Nishidani (talk) 09:39, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Alan, the nomination of this for deletion has a formal defect, and for this reason, the AfD should have been dismissed as improperly phrase because it violates WP:POVFORK's words: "do not refer to forks as "POV" except in extreme cases of persistent disruptive editing." It is arguable whether it is a fork. But the arguments that it violates WP:NPOV goes in the face of the fact that there has been zero persistent and disruptive editing.Nishidani (talk) 09:45, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason it can't be broadened out to casualties as a result of IDF activities more broadly. Bit of a title change is all that is needed. AlanS (talk) 09:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani:, I didn't nominate this one. Brad Dyer did. I did however, very deliberately, copy the wording from this nomination for my nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel. AlanS (talk) 10:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I wasn't implying that. Brad Dyer, whose alacrity in trying to remove the article instantaneously, prompted me to mull his contribs. I think the point of this exercise is just to hang that banner up there over the article for a month or so, while the battle lasts. Of course, this is just my own impression, but, since I've edited these I/P articles for 8 years, I have a fair intuition as to the logic of these things.Nishidani (talk) 10:26, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If this discussion goes on for a month, I think there is something seriously wrong. Especially considering Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel. AlanS (talk) 10:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That of course is obviously asking for administrative close as keep because virtually unanimous. This has a split vote predictably because it concerns Palestinians, but as you pointed out, the article here does what those do, and if the former AfD is closed, I think it only fair that the logic there apply here. I don't care what editors do, or what their POVs are, as long as they are coherent over different articles, as both you and kowledgekid have been.Nishidani (talk) 10:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your turn to renominate it if it gets closed down before this one. AlanS (talk) 07:55, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• As proposed above, Keep but rename to List of Israeli strikes in Operation Protective Edge. This is the format of these type of lists. Also, there is always a strike but not always a casualty, making inclusion criteria into this list ambiguous. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel articles the format usually includes who is doing the attacking and also who is being attacked. Dlv999 (talk) 16:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't oppose including the information in the article. My issue is only with the anomalous name. What is the standard for inclusion, only airstrikes that resulted in Pal causalities? If it is either or, can a Pal causality be included even where it was not the result of an airstrike? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:08, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why the Israeli-edited titles of preceding articles should impose their terms on this article is not clear to me. Anything not following the former pattern is 'anomalous'? Your suggestion retains 'Israel' and 'disappears' Palestine/Palestinian. Nishidani (talk) 16:19, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about "Israeli-edited"? So you're a Palestinian because your editing this article? Why do you have to make this about the ethnicity/race of the authors?

It's anomalous because that's the pattern until now and its anomalous because the inclusion criteria is ambiguous.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Passes GNG. We additionally have a nearly decade-long precedent that non-related rocket events in the region may be listed; this is a list of directly related incidents. Carrite (talk) 16:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Articles like this which are encyclopedic-bordering-on-the-dull very useful for my work as a journalist. Yudel (talk) 16:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Given the number of sources in the article, it seems to me that there is sufficient material here for a separate article from Operation Protective Edge. Certainly including all of the notable material from here in the parent article seems unfeasible. Therefore, it seems that accusations of POV-forking are off the mark; this is a legitimate article on a more specific topic. If there are POV issues, then these should be addressed, but a failure to meet NPOV is not a reason for deletion. Ideally, there would be an article called "List of airstrikes and casualties" irrespective of nationality; if such were created, I would support a merge into that. As things stand, feelings have probably run too high for that; so I can live with the current non-ideal. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:45, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep and Rename In the interest of balance against WP:Articles for deletion/List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel I say this page be renamed List of IDF attacks against Palestinians. AlanS (talk) 08:01, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep To balance out the Palestinian rocket attack page.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 20:39, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep seems allright to me 80.43.179.249 (talk) 15:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Keep and Rename. It is notable and rename to List of Israeli strikes in Operation Protective Edge. Frmorrison (talk) 22:35, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions that it be renamed thus, distort the content of the article which should be visible to the reader when seeking information. This is not a list of Israeli strikes, which will number a few thousand in a few days, and there is no newspaper record of them. This is a list of the strikes that produce casualties among the Palestinians. To expunge reference to the casualties is absolutely pointless or POV. The 10 pages on Palestinian rocket strikes on Israeli are very good at listing strikes, but have very few casualties, and therefore the suggestion of title mimesis is misplaced. The list will, in a month, if I'm still around editing it, have a comprehensive cross-referenced list of the several hundred people who will be killed by the end of this war.Nishidani (talk) 22:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Palestinian casualties as consequence of IDF attacks?AlanS (talk) 04:34, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alan, I don't know why the word 'Palestinian' raises such anguish. All of the objections here to the natural descriptive title relate to the benchmark of the article on Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel. Fine. No one thinks twice. But in turning over in my mind for a title, the first thing I wanted to avoid was the obvious title. 'IDF missile strikes on Palestinians. So I put in and thinking I'd sidestepped the usual predictable objections. It sums up the article, and is neutral.Nishidani (talk) 07:01, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as a WP:POVFORK and the fact that Wikipedia is not a place for nationalist propaganda. The existence of Israeli propaganda on Wikipedia is not a free pass for the creation of Hamas propaganda. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:29, 19 July 2014 (UTC).:[reply]

Comment. So a necrology of deaths in a military operation (there are dozens of these in the articles on suicide bombings in Israel) is Hamas propaganda? It is not a fork, since the article it is supposedly 'forked' from has almost zero information on the effect of Israeli strikes, and a maximum of information on Gaza rocket attacks on Israel, and is a massive POV operation itself. A list of who was killed and when, limited to strike details, cannot be POV, unless those who throw such complaints around consider death itself POV.Nishidani (talk) 10:24, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a brief list of dozens, where Israeli victims of terrorist strikes are listed by name and age

• Dolphinarium discotheque suicide bombing
• Dizengoff Street bus bombing
• Coastal Road massacre
• Avivim school bus massacre
• Sbarro restaurant suicide bombing
• Beit Lid massacre
• 1997 Mahane Yehuda Market Bombings

I.e. your objection is to the parallel listing of Palestinian names, and you imply that it is no excuse that wikipedia has dozens of such lists in terror articles that one editor make a similar list for Palestinians. The objection is, again (see several delete comments above), reflective of ethnic discrimination: Palestinians must remain nameless.Nishidani (talk) 10:37, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Title salted. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Knooby The Fox

Knooby The Fox (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)

Contested PROD, no reason given. The article fails to indicate that the character is in any way important. Doesn't meet any of the speedy criteria so I'm taking it here. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 20:34, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This has way too many promotional links, and after a quick Google search it looks like this is just the pet project of one person who figured Knooby should have his own Wikipedia page along with a FB page and a website. Probably could have been speedied with A7/G11. Gilded Snail (talk) 01:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt as a promotional article and as something that someone came up with one day. This is the second time that this has been created, as the previous attempt was at Knooby the fox. I'll drop the article creator a note and ask him not to re-create the article again, but salting would probably help ward off any potential temptation. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 16:12, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Preacher (TV series)

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

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

This is not an upcoming series (as stated in article), but rather a non-notable potential pilot that is in development. There is a good chance this will never become a series. (They have been trying since 2006, according to the article.) Work has begun on a script, that is all. WP:TOOSOON. Logical Fuzz (talk) 19:49, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete According to the article, the "series was officially picked up on May 9, 2014, for the 2014–15 season". According to the cited source, "AMC and Sony TV have officially announced the development" and so on. "Development" is the key word here; lots of projects get to be under development, but never come near to being given the green light. This is the case of an enthusiastic comics fan, reading essentially speculative news, and assuming it will all come to pass. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --VeryCrocker (talk) 07:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, due to its development hell. (Pardon the pun!) — Wyliepedia 16:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 16:12, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Kuhn (politician)

Adam Kuhn (politician) (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 political chief of staff, fails WP:BIO as a WP:BLP1E. ukexpat (talk) 19:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomTwo kinds of pork (talk) 05:38, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clear WP:BLP1E and lack of notability otherwise. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 06:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Rarely are campaign managers notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, this is a BLP1E. Shabratha (talk) 12:57, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As above, per BLP1E. Tiller54 (talk) 17:17, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as scandals go, this up up there with Green balloons and Carlos Danger; however, the story has "no legs" (pardon the pun) -- it hasn't gotten any national media attention, and has disappeared after one 24-hours news cycle. This legislative staffer is otherwise not notable. Bearian (talk) 16:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Subject is not notable and is a WP:BLP1E. Meatsgains (talk) 15:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails the Politician SNG high bar; the other stuff is all BLP-1E tabloid dreck. Echoing J.P.L. above, rarely are political polesters notable. Carrite (talk) 16:36, 15 July 2014 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 16:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC) because I just couldn't resist![reply]
• Delete Is not notable. At best WP:BLP1E. --Jersey92 (talk) 03:33, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 16:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Koch

Ted Koch (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)

WP:Verifiability, WP:Notability (people); see also Talk:Ted Koch#Content and sources appear to be fabricated — Jaydiem (talk) 18:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails WP:BIO - Rameshnta909 (talk) 19:08, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It is high time that every unreferenced article be deleted from Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:01, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails our fundamental policy of verifiability. I looked into the history to pull the references used and did my own review and concur with the conclusion expressed in the article talk page and nomination that the references are fabricated. The reference are:
  • Davis, Jim (2010). Southwest Florida's Hidden Nature. Fort Myers, Florida: Southwest Florida Conservatory. pp. 210–240. ISBN 1-56389-606-0.
    • This ISBN is for "The Flash Archives, Volume 2" which i clearly a different book. I can find no book by the title "Southwest Florida's Hidden Nature", nor am I able to find a publisher or any sort of organisation by the name "Southwest Florida Conservatory".
  • The Directory of Nature of the World Photographers
    • I can find no evidence for the existence of a "Directory of Nature of the World Photographers", whatever that may be as the reference provides no indication if this is a book or web site or whatever....
  • Finally, I can find no coverage about a Ted Koch as notable wildlife photographer. -- Whpq (talk) 16:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - other than some photos on a social media website, I can;t even verify this person exists. Bearian (talk) 16:44, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per all the above this should be deleted. Maybe speedy deleted. --Jersey92 (talk) 03:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 16:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Intalex

Intalex (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 about a company launched five months ago. There are a couple of independent sources, but they don't really cover the subject in sufficient depth to pass WP:ORGDEPTH. A large part of the article is merely an exhaustive list of product features.- MrX 17:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC) - MrX 17:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. - MrX 17:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. - MrX 17:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Its looks like an advertisement to me; WP:NOTADVERTISING - Rameshnta909 (talk) 18:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom and per Rameshnta909. Snappy (talk) 19:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It's an interesting idea, but at this point, the coverage is scant, and insufficient to meet notability. No prejudice to recreation in the future if this catches on. -- Whpq (talk) 16:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Clearly a vanity article, as the user who created it has no other contributions. MiracleMat (talk) 03:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- Vanity piece, created by possible COI SPA. Murry1975 (talk)@

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 Steal This Film#Part two. Jenks24 (talk) 16:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Steal This Film 2

Steal This Film 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence of notability. Fails WP:GNG. - MrX 17:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails WP:NFILMS. Lugia2453 (talk) 17:59, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Coupla comments: Is TorrentFreak a reliable source? Because I do see at least one article there, on both this film and its producers, The League of Noble Peers. Which leads me to my second point: if this film isn't notable, then surely neither is The League of Noble Peers, which only existed to make this film. If for some reason editors feel the organization is more notable, then surely a redirect and merge to The League of Noble Peers would be the way to go. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • No, sorry, that's not correct: The League of Noble Peers was involved in the notable first film, Steal This Film, as well as its upcoming third film. It didn't just exist for STF2. Just to clarify... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I think Torrent Freak would be considered a reliable source, but we would need several more sources to that discuss the film in some detail to pass even the minimal notability threshold. A quick search reveals that The League of Noble Peers is mentioned in several books, so it may be notable.- MrX 02:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, indeed, right now it's probably WP:ONESOURCE and the similar film names will yield a lot of false positives. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:40, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Steal_This_Film#Part_two. There is some coverage, but not much and not enough to merit an entry separate from the first film, where it's covered in fairly good detail. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: somebody added more Sources and content. Kevin12345678911111111 (talk) 17:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: same reason as kevins. Davidisawesome123 (talk) 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• Redirect to Steal This Film#Part two. Yes, the article has been expanded, but does not even come close to meeting WP:GNG or WP:NFILM for a standalone article. --Bejnar (talk) 05:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was repurpose as Glacial erratics of Estonia. My sense of the discussion is that a free-standing article isn't warranted but that a list of such objects, including this one, would be notable. This amounts to a merge without a merge target (yet). Mackensen (talk) 13:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aruküla Rock

Aruküla Rock (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-sourced stub about a non-notable rock. Seconded ([10]) prod was removed without any explanation ([11]). Sander Säde 07:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails the verifiability requirements of WP:NGEOG. According to this, the Aruküla formation is a sandstone bed in the area but there is no mention of specific glacial erratics. The Eesti ürglooduse raamat mentioned on the article's talk page appears to mention an eponymous cave system, but not a specific rock.  Philg88 ^♦talk 13:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Phil. Jim Carter ^(talk) 21:12, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Large erratics of this sort are registered and protected in Estonia. We probably need an Estonian speaker to help with translation but this seems quite feasible and there's no reason to delete in the meantime. Andrew (talk) 22:44, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The only reliable sources I could find are Estonian nature registries, [12] and [13] - and both list close to 400 other similar erratics. Aruküla rock doesn't seem to have any other reliable sources discussing it - it is not among the biggest or best-known erratics in Estonia. It might be worthwhile to create a list article about the large erratics in Estonia, in the same vein as Glacial erratics on and around Rügen - it exists in et.wiki already, et:Eesti hiidrahnude loend --Sander Säde 06:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As a named natural feature, if there are enough verifiable content to write an encyclopedic article, it can have a stand-alone article per WP:GEOLAND.--180.155.72.174 (talk) 09:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed, but it doesn't appear to be a "named feature", which kind of stops your argument in its tracks.  Philg88 ^♦talk 11:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Here's the official registry entry. Andrew (talk) 18:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Per WP:GEOLAND, that still doesn't qualify the rock for its own article, which is why Sander Säde's suggestion of a list is a sensible one.  Philg88 ^♦talk 20:16, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Philg88 ^♦talk 16:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:GNG and there's just not much to say about it that would justify a dedicated article.- MrX 17:22, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep until there is a list article to merge it to. Incorporating this into an English language list based on et:Eesti hiidrahnude loend is a reasonable suggestion, but that doesn't mean that we should pretend this registered natural formation doesn't exist in the meantime. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I too agree it fails WP:GNG and I see no reason to keep as a dedicated subject page.--Canyouhearmenow 11:56, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and convert to List of Estonian glacial erratics. It is a named geographical feature and appears on a national registry. As such it should not be deleted altogether per WP:GEOLAND "If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature should be included in a more general article on local geography." There is one more Estonian rock listed at Glacial erratic so the list could start off with two entries at least with more possibly being extracted from the Estonian article by an editor with the necessary skills. SpinningSpark 01:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, it's an unremarkable rock with no substantial coverage. That said, I think that User:Spinningspark's idea of an article listing these may have merit, but in my opinion that would probably be best approached by creating a fresh new article rather than converting this one. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:33, 19 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • We should not be deleting encyclopaedic information just because we don't like the way it is presented, and we should not be discouraging a relatively inexperienced editor by unnecessarily deleting their contributions. The page should be repurposed rather than deleted in order to preserve attribution. If we are going to keep the information, then we should not be deleting anything—this page title will still be useful as a redirect at least. SpinningSpark 08:48, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This has already been userfied to User:Apwoolrich/List_of_biographies_of_musicians_in_Rees's_Cyclopaedia, where it can be worked on off-line and proposed for restoration in main article space at some later time. Please note, however, that if the new version does not satisfy the concerns raised at this AfD, it ls likely to be nominated again. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of biographies of musicians in Rees's Cyclopaedia

List of biographies of musicians in Rees's Cyclopaedia (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. Rees's Cyclopaedia is notable, but this list is not. This is essentially an index for Rees's Cyclopaedia. Wikipedia isn't a directory or an index for another source. Tchaliburton (talk) 16:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:NOTDIR #4. --gdfusion (talk|contrib) 17:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTDIR. Lugia2453 (talk) 18:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The material is of serious scholarly interest, and the list satisfies WP:LSC. There are various ways to go from here. I don't really accept the argument from GNG, since I don't find the GNG that helpful, unless all else fails. Music articles in Rees's Cyclopaedia is one possible home, and I don't really see why not. Summary style is good, actually, but if there is resistance to this application of it, then the material doesn't have to be split out. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:08, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per everyone above - Fails WP:DIR, The material is of no serious interest in the way it stands right this minute, If it was I'm pretty sure we'd not be here right now voting its fate. –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:59, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh but "C. Consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted" from WP:BEFORE. Point 2: "If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article." The nomination for deletion was 12 minutes after creation. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah I wasn't aware of that, But anyone can still improve it whilst it's here, If it's presented in a better way than this I'd ofcourse change to Keep –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I nominated it for deletion because I didn't see any way of improving the article without completely restarting it. But if it can be improved and made encyclopedic, I would support keeping it. Tchaliburton (talk) 02:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy. I'm in discussion with the OP about how to treat this material. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:05, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The main Rees's Cyclopaedia article has a number of similar listings, and this is consistent with them. I had just started writing the piece when the Delete notice went up, so maybe it would be best to wait until it is finished before making a final decision. I have a heading drafted to describe the background. I will be happy to Userfy if that gets round the problem. Apwoolrich (talk) 06:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have now re-started this article on my user page where I will finish it and Wikify the names. This AfD discussion can now be removed. Thanks. Apwoolrich (talk) 08:35, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete do not bring back, per nom. Wikipedia is not a Directory. And as to the fact that the material is of serious scholarly interest, that is why scholars would go to the source, not here. --Bejnar (talk) 22:53, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You do realise that the source doesn't give all the information, even if it were easily accessible? A little research on Google Books with "Rees"+"Burney" is recommended. "...the great series of articles on musical topics which [Charles Burney] wrote between about 1801 and 1811 and contributed anonymously to Rees's Cyclopedia." [14]. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (or userfy) and improve What we have here is a list, with clear inclusion criteria, of biographies from a notable encyclopedia of 200 years ago, all or almost all written by the most notable music historian of that period, of subjects all or almost all of whom are notable in Wikipedia terms (in fact, of the first eight musicians listed, I identified Wikipedia articles on seven in a five-minute search). The list can certainly be improved (for instance, it really needs links to the relevant Wikipedia articles), and I am not entirely convinced of the necessity for all the columns in the table (for instance, the one indicating the number of columns that each article occupies in Rees's Cyclopedia), and the article badly needs a (non-tabular lead section). But those are matters for improvement, not deletion. PWilkinson (talk) 14:14, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Please see Lists of musicians which shows appropriate lists for locating musicians by genre, instrument, location, and ethnicity. This list is not an access tool, it is a directory. --Bejnar (talk) 17:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to WP:MISSING - Looks like an article that might be useful to WP:MISSING instead of a standalone article. It can easily be checked and expanded. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 06:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete - While I agree that the subject matter is notable in aspects, I also agree that this is WP:NOTDIR nor do I feel it is worthy of having its own page. I think I would support merging it into another article that could better benefit from its content. Not sure there would be a way to build this page and still make it viable to stand on its own.Canyouhearmenow 12:07, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of NCAA college football rivalry games. Would have been closed as merge, but Kgwo1972 has kindly carried that out already so all that's left to do is redirect. Jenks24 (talk) 16:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of longest active NCAA Division I football series

List of longest active NCAA Division I football series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. This is WP:LISTCRUFT. Wikipedia is not a stats book. WP:NOTSTATSBOOK Tchaliburton (talk) 16:08, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. I believe the nominator is wrong, and the subject IS notable per the general notability guidelines as required by WP:NRIVALRY and WP:GNG. That having been said, how many different articles do we need on essentially the same subject? Please merge the unique data in this abbreviated article to either Most played rivalries in NCAA Division I FBS and/or List of NCAA college football rivalry games, with the first article subject being the more specifically related to the nominated article subject. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• As the author of the article I'd say Keep or Merge. I can easily merge it into List of NCAA college football rivalry games. I do believe the subject matter is notable, as college football rivalries are of enduring and wide public interest. I'd also daresay this article is even more encyclopedic than the list of rivalry games, because a rivalry is rather difficult to define (albeit number of games and length of continuous play – i.e., the subject of this entry – are two possible metrics.) Perhaps merging this article with the list of college football rivalries will kill 2 birds with 1 stone. --Kgwo1972 (talk) 19:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Kgwo, my major objection is that we don't need three different articles to present essentially the same information three different ways. The essential information presented by your version is the longest rivalries, played at least annually, without interruption. This data could easily be incorporated into a separate sortable column in one or both of the other two existing list articles. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:40, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure, I can do that. --Kgwo1972 (talk) 21:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge far as I'm concerned, the merging of the articles in question are basic editing questions and can be handled by regular merge procedures.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• UPDATE: I've merged this material into List of NCAA college football rivalry games. Hope that was okay to do with this discussion still open. --Kgwo1972 (talk) 15:52, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Working to improve an article during and AfD is expressly permitted, and under the circumstances entirely appropriate. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If anyone wants to merge this article somewhere, I am willing to restore the article for that purpose. ‑Scottywong| prattle _ 03:18, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eruthu Paar Kodi

Eruthu Paar Kodi (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)

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

I am going to withdraw my nomination and suggest that this be merged, as it has been suggested; the sources we find now do not support an article on its own but would in a merged article : Flag of Tamil Eelam. I will immeditely put that up for discussion in Articles for Merge. Staglit (talk) 16:25, 31 July 2014 (UTC) I cannot find any evidence of notability, also has little content. Staglit (talk) 15:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a translation of the German version of the page. Little content? There's hundreds of articles with much less content. What is the problem with this article? Why on Earth should it be deleted?!Mr A (talk) 17:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Wikipedias_in_other_languages Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#What_about_article_x.3F

You should look at these two Wikipedia guidelines. I cannot find any sources that show that this song is notable, only a few audio files. The little Find Source Bar only helps by point; I find zero news articles, one book that shows one mention and nothing else. Staglit (talk) 18:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't answered me. I've said there are countless articles with less content, and it is more or less a direct translation of the German page. It is sourced.Mr A (talk) 08:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Read the news article. The song was used when the Tamil Eelam flag was raised. Mr A (talk) 17:41, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• First: What on earth happened to the format of this discussion? Second, the sources that are listed in the article make absolutely no mention of the actual song, just that one must be created. This only supports my argument that this is not a notable subject.Staglit (talk) 20:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker^talk 15:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - even if the Germans didn't. (Did they?) Not notable. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 19:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion was out of order and confusing; I moved some things around to try to make it easier to follow. If I put anything in the wrong place, my apologies. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:05, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Can someone please give the Tamil script for the name of this song (I can't get it from the article because it is a scan, not text). I think a search of Tamil sources should be carried out before deleting this article, otherwise we are just adding to the systemic bias of Wikipedia. SpinningSpark 02:04, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - One reference link is dead. One reference link does not mention the subject at all. The other articles do not indicate that the subject is a "national" anthem. The article consists largely of language other than English.--Rpclod (talk) 05:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment One additional source appears to be: Daily Mirror [15], --j⚛e decker^talk 15:15, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Three of the four sources in the article make no mention of "Eruthu Paar Kodi" being Tamil Eelam national anthem. The fourth one is a dead link. We are losing time here. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 15:33, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also connected the article to the German version. No additional sources worthy of mention there. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 15:40, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see much that was in the article, I actually do believe the Daily Mirror article, which you appear to have missed, is a viable enough source as it goes, but isn't enough to sustain the article. I've added it to the article. I'd also like to echo SpinningSpark's request for the Tamil text. --j⚛e decker^talk 15:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please also see the so-called "sources" at Flag of Tamil Eelam.--Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 16:16, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joe, I've just spammed everyone in Category:Tamil Wikipedians who has edited at all recently. There's not all that many of them (even less now that I've cleaned out the ones who got in there accidentally) but hopefully one will supply that information. Request that this is held open just a little longer to give them a chance to reply. SpinningSpark 19:06, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have given Spinningspark the Tamil name on my talk page. I have asked some active tawp editors to provide some input. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:55, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I've added the find sources link at the top with the phrase in Tamil. Maybe somebody can find something substantial, but nothing is leaping out at me on first look. SpinningSpark 22:11, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have converted the scanned lyrics image to Tamil unicode and ISO 15919. I find many audio references and Tamil news references, which say it is national anthem and is being used as flag hoisting song. I find new English references from http://tamilyouth.ca/tamil-youth-life-a-danish-tamils-story/ --Neechalkaran (talk) 04:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Yes, I know, a third relist, but in deference to SpinningSpark's reasonable request for more time to obtain translations. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 22:04, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per sources at at the article. The IBNLive Reuters ref specifically states: "The Tigers currently have no anthem, usually falling back on the tune -Look the Flag is Rising which is played when their flag is raised". [16]. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 23:08, 27 July 2014 (UTC) This [17] is the Tamil version of the Daily Mirror piece which is already referenced at the article. [18] Provided as an aid for anyone trying to track down additional Tamil sources. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 19:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC) I'm going to change my mind and suggest that we merge this to Flag of Tamil Eelam. While the information is verifiable and significant, I just don't think there is enough to support a standalone article. This seems to be how most of the other language wikipedias handle it and the song article can always be broken out as a separate article in the future if more sources are found. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 15:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Churchtown, Dublin#Education. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:08, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Good Shepherd National School

The Good Shepherd National 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)

NN primary school. We don't generally provide stand-alone articles for such schools, absent a level of coverage not present here. Epeefleche (talk) 15:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Churchtown, Dublin per long-standing precedent stated at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Churchtown, Dublin per documented consensus at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Churchtown, Dublin per long-standing precedent as documented at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES - which is simply a review of the facts as they are and neither a policy nor a guideline. Nevertheless, the 100s of redirects in the 'R from School' cat are ample evidence alone of the way the community has generally agreed to treat such creations. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:25, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. Snappy (talk) 21:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 10:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Mohammad Waris Hasan Naqvi

Syed Mohammad Waris Hasan Naqvi (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 old obit posing as an article, I discovered this tramping through very old NPOV tagged articles. I don't see the sources here as meeting WP:BASIC, and I haven't found much more -- sadly lacking Arabic, I am unlikely to find the best available sources. I was tempted to redirect to Madrasatul Waizeen, and that should be considered before deletion is, but in case someone can suggest a better way to work with this content, I'm here. j⚛e decker^talk 05:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No evidence of notability. Wikipedia is not for obits. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP: NOTABILITY. --Jersey92 (talk) 01:27, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Waris Hasan comes from notable family of Shia Muslim clerics and he himslef was prinicpal of Madrasatul Waizeen an important Shia seminary in North Indian Shia centre of Lucknow. He had spent many years in Iraq seminaries and lived in UK and obtained Doctrate in Islamic studies (PhD Doctor of Philosophy from University of Edinburgh) there. He has also authored many articles, books, etc. He is notable in Shia circle of North India. Also I'm surprised to see delete reccomendations from users who are remotely connected to any of topics associated to Waris Hasan, and they themselves have created unuseful articles which have been deleted. IMHO, people who are connected or associated with the topic should look into merit of article. Following are some links of naotability I was able to collect recently:
  • Edinburgh Research Archive
  • Ali ibn Abi Talib - Department of Near Eastern ..., pg 12
  • Kitab Al-qabasat: The Book of Blazing Brands, pg 210
  • The Light - Volumes 14-15 - Page 36
  • Edited Works & Collections on the Middle East: Tables of Contents and Author Index, Issue 2
  • Shiʻism doctrines, thought, and spirituality
  • Alserat Vol VI, Nos. 3 and 4 November 1980
  • American Intelligence Journal Vol 30 No 1, pg 86
  • Other links

At last even above links fail to establish notability of Waris Hasan, then I'll suggest "redirect to Madrasatul Waizeen" with some content moved there.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 08:30, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker^talk 15:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Joe! I have listed so many RS stating notability of the subject. Do we still need discussion? or are you looking forward for more support for deletion? I fail to understand.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 08:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment from relister: Sayed, my role in this affair it largely to assess what the community (yourself included) says. Relisting gives a chance for the community to state its views on the sources you provide. When pressed, after a couple relists, it is sometimes necessary for a closer to invoke their own best judgment, particularly with respect to biographies, but in most cases we wait, whenever possible, for a WP:CONSENSUS to become obvious. --j⚛e decker^talk 19:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notable, may be a rewrite is required with inclusion of links provide by User:Faizhaider as above.--121.244.54.32 (talk) 15:51, 19 July 2014 (UTC)— 121.244.54.32 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep. S. M. Waris Hasan was a prominent member of Shia Clergy and a profilic writer in field of Islamic studies and specialist on Nahj al-Balagha[19], he worked/co-authored with prominent people/authors like Allamah Tabatabai, Seyyed Hossein Nasr and Hamid Dabashi on books like Shi'ite Islam, an important text on the history and thought of Shi'a Islam (Chapter 4 The Shi'i Interpretation of Hadith Literature [20],[21],[22],[23],[24],[25],[26],[27],[28],[29]).--180.215.85.240 (talk) 00:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC)— 180.215.85.240 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Comment - Is there any means of putting this discussion on hold and allow Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider et al to add the links and, hopefully, provide a little more detail regarding the content of Dr. Hasan's scholarship?--Rpclod (talk) 01:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AfD debates are open for a minimum of a week. This one has been open for nearly three. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I'll be more than intrested to reform the article but right now I don't have much time due to my personal life's busy schedule ; especially due to month of Ramadhan & subsequent travel plans I'll be tied up for next 3 weeks. Anyone else if wishes is welcome to reform the article till I have time for same, I have already put the links on article's talk page too. I hope that users/editors will agree that although article may be poorly written/structured/sourced but the subject is WP:Notable.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 20:21, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The sources given above are negligible and almost all primary. Multiple independent reliable sources are needed for notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Reply. Apart from 'Edinburgh' (which may be used for Waris Hasan's academic qualification and then as such valid), most other links are publication of repute who are using Waris Hasan's work as reference, hence, they are secondry/tertiary sources which are using his work for reference, hence, establishing reputation of Waris Hasan's work and in turn proving acceptability of Waris Hasan as important persomn in academic circles. As pointed above by an IP, Waris Hasan is one of the contributors of Shi'ite Islam, an important text on the history and thought of Shi'a Islam (he is co-author of Chapter 4 The Shi'i Interpretation of Hadith Literature), if a book is accepted as important in academic circle then by default prooves caliber and status of author(s)/contributor(s). Waris Hasan was most of time active in Iraq where he spent his time with likes of Allamah Tabatabai and later part of his life wast spent in India (in interim he was in UK at Edinburgh) so it is likely that he may not have much coverage in western media but that doesn't reduces his notablity, and he was principal of two major instututions in Lucknow viz. Madarsatul Waizeen (Shia Islamic Seminary, one of the oldest and most important in India) and Shia College (around hundred years old Post Graduate Degree College providing Secular Education including B.Sc, M.Sc, B.A, M.A, B.B.A, M.B.A, B.C.A, M.C.A, etc) that too is proof of his academic brillaince and acceptability in academic circles (both religious & Secular) of Lucknow. IMHO, over one dozen links are not negligible and they conform well to WP:RS and establish importance of Waris Hasan, at least as an writer of Shia Islamic topics.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 17:32, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is essentially minimaly sourced and I am not immediately finding much on the topic in English that would count to GNG, but there does seem to be a web footprint for the name that indicates (to me at least) that sources are out there if one knew where to look, and in what language. I believe WP is better off with this article than without it and that deletion would not serve any positive benefit. Keep under WP:IAR.-116.202.132.83 (talk) 18:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)— 116.202.132.83 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Comment. I have done some re-structuring at the article. I'll try to do more if time permits, meanwhile other editors are welcome to do same.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 08:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Rathgar. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zion Parish Primary School

Zion Parish Primary 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)

NN primary school. We don't generally provide stand-alone articles for such schools, absent a level of coverage not present here. Epeefleche (talk) 15:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Rathgar per long-standing precedent stated at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. ––Davey2010 • (talk) 21:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom. Snappy (talk) 21:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per longstanding consensus at AfD that all but the most exceptional primary schools are presumed non-notable. Carrite (talk) 16:45, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Of note is that the link provided by User:Vejvančický provides additional scholarly papers about the topic (with the topic as part of the title of the papers) when viewing additional page results. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Correlates of crime

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

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

Not notable. Article topic is simply a common phrase used to describe many aspects of the world related to crime. The full topic itself is only discussed in a single source, with the rest of the sources representing editor synthesis. aprock (talk) 03:59, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, widely discussed topic [30], has room for improvements. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:02, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That Google search only lists three sources which discuss the topic. That doesn't seem very wide. aprock (talk) 14:00, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, most educational and encyclopedic and covered in multiple sources. — Cirt (talk) 16:59, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker^talk 15:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Notable concept within criminology. Needs some better sources and rewritten, but seems worth to keep it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep' - part of a series on Victimology. Bearian (talk) 16:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The "keep" advocates haven't established that the topic has received enough in-depth coverage in reliable sources to counter the nominator's WP:NSOFTWARE and WP:GNG arguments. Xthirtynine, if you want to continue working on the article in your user space, ask on my talk page and I'll userfy it for you. Deor (talk) 11:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OpenHAB

OpenHAB (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 only references on this article are to the sites of a couple of awards it has won - awards of the type that are presented at tech conferences and generally covered no where but in the press releases of the winners. The award site citations provide no detail on the software. I've looked, and aside from a couple of self pubished blogs and forum posts, I can't find any independent sources that discuss this software in any depth. This article does not meet either WP:NSOFTWARE or WP:GNG, and should be deleted. MrOllie (talk) 11:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As written, insufficient coverage to pass Wikipedia:Notability (software). It received Duke's Choice Awards (reference link broken...), but that award has no Wikipedia article. Ping me if further refs are provided.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Please note that my posting on the openHAB user group was not meant to start any "majority voting" - this is the only channel to contact users (which are - in contrast to myself - NOT involved in the project and thus neutral and independent) fill in relevant content. Besides the content, there are now also more external references.

Besides this, please note that imho this page definitely qualifies for the inclusion criteria "The software is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs." - openHAB is used at at least 20 universities for teaching home automation. A few can be found here], but the majority simply does not publish information.

Another issue is that as the project has its origin in Europe, many external references are in German or other non-english languages - and thus are not included in the article (or should they?). See e.g. the German Smart Home standardization roadmap, where openHAB is listed. Thanks, Xthirtynine (talk) 21:43, 1 July 2014 (UTC)— Xthirtynine (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• • @Xthirtynine: If we could show it's being used in more than on, than this criteria may start to apply. But more coverage would help, so far all we have is either niche or trivial sources. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Piotrus: I really believe that this article has relevance, so let me try to provide evidence for it. I linked above the page about universities that use openHAB. Regarding active use, I know that e.g. TU Dortmund University, Stuttgart Media University, HfT Stuttgart, Technical University of Darmstadt, University of Applied Sciences Cologne and Polytech'Grenoble are using openHAB actively for student courses and research activities. As Kgoderis mentions below, openHAB is really a major (if not the leading) open-source home automation solution. Regarding relevant sources referring to it. You might know "heise.de", which is THE leading IT news portal in Germany. They cover openHAB frequently, see [here]. Other "serious" mentions are the DKE roadmap mentioned above, [ACM (see reference section)], [RAALI] and [Golem]. Xthirtynine (talk) 11:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I don't see significant coverage in independent secondary reliable sources, and everything thrown in by Xthirtynine does not help either IMO. The only source that could potentially be counted in support for keeping is InfoQ's article, which implies notability but speaks more of Eclipse then of OpenHAB. Google Scholar gives some results, but all I've checked were trivial mentions. FWIW this article should be deleted for WP:RED rationale – its quality is so poor that it is basically easier to write a proper article from scratch then to edit this advertisment. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 23:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Czarkoff: Regarding relevance, see my answer to Piotrus above. Regarding quality: Please give the community the chance to improve the quality of the article. As there is no commercial company behind the project, there are no professional resources that are paid to write these articles in perfection to the Wikipedia standards. The text came from individuals, dedicating their spare time - and I always thought that this is much more what Wikipedia is about. So I would like to ask you not to directly ask for deletion because of bad quality, but to be constructive and allow addressing any concerns you might have. Xthirtynine (talk) 11:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Xthirtynine: If you genuinely want a chance to improve the article, just do it. Even after it is deleted, you can request this article to be restored somewhere out of main namespace and work on it. And when it is ready, submit it via WP:AFC. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 07:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. In the context of recent announcements made by both Apple (HomeKit) and Google (Made for Nest) any information on open-source alternatives to commercial solutions is very relevant, let alone important to stir a discussion and comparison between technology options available to anyone involved in the matter, both as end-user or as developer/company. In that sense, if the consensus is to delete this article, then in my opinion this article should be transformed to become an article that discusses home automation technologies in general, including a comparison of the technologies, and with an elaborate sub-section on each technology. Within the category of the open-source home automation softwares, openHAB is leading the pack in terms of recognition and awards, technology advancement (number of technologies covered, Eclipse Smart Home, contributions made by users,...) as well users running the software in a real-world environment. Kgoderis (talk) 08:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC)— Kgoderis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • @Kgoderis: Home automation software would be a good article to write, and it could certainly mention OpenHAB. If you'd like, you can ask the closing admin to WP:USERFY the article for you in case it is deleted, so you could rewrite/reuse it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are right: information about opensource implementation is relevant; but until such implementations become notable, any information about them belongs to the article about the software genre. In other words, your rationale has nothing to deal with this article. Also note, relevant does not necessarily mean that it must be included: although promotion of open source is a good thing to do elsewhere, Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 12:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker^talk 15:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for lack of coverage per Czarkoff. I agree fully with Kgoderis about the importance of information about open-source alternatives to commercial solutions; however, that has nothing to do with Wikipedia standards of notability, and what this encyclopedia is attempting to achieve. --Bejnar (talk) 05:19, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Bejnar: The Wikipedia standards of notability state: "Software is notable if it meets any one of these criteria: [...] The software is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs. [...]". It says "any", not "all", right? So as I have answered Piotrus above, this criteria is clearly fulfilled. What exactly are the arguments to claim that this software is not notable? Xthirtynine (talk) 11:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • {{tro|[[User:Xthirtynine|}}: It says "multiple", not "any". Lesser Cartographies (talk) 06:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as I thoroughly read the definition of "Notability" by Wikipedia itself, it does not specify the absolute amount of "coverage" that is required to meet the definition. It is subjective, at least. Also, but that is maybe out of the scope of this discussion, one could/should consider tweets on a subject also as sources to count against. That being said, as the article is in the process of being written, additional References or External Links could be added, but again, in my understanding of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability this is subjective matter. It is Work in Progress that should be abolished, but brought under the attention of its original author so that at least the effort can be made to improve the article.94.224.147.170 (talk) 06:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC) — 94.224.147.170 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • I think checking Twitter mentions is a very good idea for checking notability nowadays - you will find many independent references to openHAB from individuals, universities, publishers, etc. Xthirtynine (talk) 11:05, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Self published sources such as blogs, forum postings, and tweets do not build the case for notability - we require sources that meet the sourcing guidelines, and self published microblogs do not meet them. For more detail see Wikipedia:JUSTABLOG. - MrOllie (talk) 14:17, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Incubate/Userfy if need be. I suspect this could just be a case of too soon, the project still looks in the early days of attracting developers as I note most of the attention on google seems to have appeared in the past couple of months. Once the bleeding edge demonstrate useful real world implementations, I'd expect coverage to start expanding and better sources to start appearing. Dolescum (talk) 00:15, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete—Not sufficient coverage in reliable, independent sources to meet WP:NSOFT. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 06:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Article deleted as G7 per author blanking. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 06:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Castillo Vasquez

Alexander Castillo Vasquez (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 person, fails WP:BIO; WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY written by the subject; references are either other Wikipedia articles (WP:CIRCULAR) or self-published sources (WP:SPS). Drm310 (talk) 15:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:02, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 16:20, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Elysian Real Estate

Elysian Real Estate (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 UAE-based real estate company that lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. the creator of the article appears to have had a conflict of interest. The sourcing in the article is to unreliable sources and press releases. Whpq (talk) 13:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:NCOMPANY. Appears to be using WP for advertising. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 15:27, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: insufficient coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate notability. BethNaught (talk) 20:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:SPAM. The user's name was blocked in 2011. Bearian (talk) 16:52, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Delete: additional sources do not provide significant discussion of the subject. Drmies (talk) 20:29, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paras Hospitals

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

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

Not notable Shyamsunder (talk) 12:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker^talk 02:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, User Shyamsunder is intentionally keeping this page for deletion. Administrators are requested to warn/block this user. GKCH (talk) 05:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Gokulchandola: Not a valid argument to keep the article. If articles do not meet certain criteria, they are deleted. There nothing done intentionally and Shyamsunder is aware of what he is doing. — LeoFrank  ^Talk 15:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with User:LeoFrank that this is discussion section for article may keep/delete. If you read some links given by User:MelanieN feel relevance of page. Paras Hospital is one of the best hospital in NCR. Yes I agree information need to be added.GKCH (talk) 16:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Gokulchandola: You are not getting the point. Please read WP:ATA. — LeoFrank  ^Talk 16:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article itself contains only primary sources, but a search finds some coverage and many mentions in Reliable Sources.[31][32][33][34] Given that I was only searching in English, it is reasonable to assume there would be more coverage in other languages. --MelanieN (talk) 00:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: From the sources you have mentioned, this is a very small article. The other three: [35], [36], [37] are mostly about treatments that some people have received at this hospital and are not really covering the hospital as such. It fails WP:GNG. — LeoFrank  ^Talk 15:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per my comments above. — LeoFrank  ^Talk 15:39, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Relisting comment: Per the message left on my TP An editor feels I closed this early than needed be so thus reopened/relisted.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:12, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There are only passing mentions, as LeoFrank says. No indication of notability - thankfully, the idea of inherent notability has not yet passed from schools to hospitals. - Sitush (talk) 17:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete, only trivial or passing mentions in sources, although there could be substantial material in Indian languages that I can't read. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:14, 11 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
• Weak or strong but Delete - not notable enough to be here. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 10:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE. Jenks24 (talk) 16:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Fist Full of Stories (and Articles)

A Fist Full of Stories (and Articles) (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)

Collection of short stories and essays that doesn't meet WP:NBOOK. Mikeblas (talk) 11:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 15:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker^talk 15:19, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Taylor

Shane Taylor (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)

BLP has no visible verifiable references from reliable sources. IMDB is not a reliable source. Contested PROD.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 04:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 15:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to find sources about this actor but could find very little and added it to the article. Not very hopeful for his survival at WP. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 22:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I can find some interviews, but I'm not sure about the notability of the websites. Here is an article from a tabloid. The others I found are from blog type sites and forums. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 05:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete -Being an entertainment historian I have access to data bases that the public does not and upon a search of the subject I have yet to find any information that would validate the subject as being notable enough for a page. The regular searches turn up very little and what is turned up is primarily public edited so we cannot use those in my own opinion as reliable sources.--Canyouhearmenow 12:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 19:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tejinder Singh

Tejinder Singh (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)

Crummy article about a non-notable person: recently deleted under multiple criteria (A7, G11, G12). G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 14:43, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Highly promotional pseudo-resume about a non-notable person. Note: this is not the same subject as the previous AFD. MER-C 04:09, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ASAP. Clearly promotional. Deb (talk) 17:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Good grief, completely littered with BLP violations SpinningSpark 11:45, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of 2002 FIFA World Cup controversies

List of 2002 FIFA World Cup controversies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is WP:LISTCRUFT. Not notable on its own. If properly sourced it might be included with 2002 FIFA World Cup but as a standalone article it's wholly negative and unbalanced. Tchaliburton (talk) 14:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:05, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, don't merge - every tournament has some refereeing decisions which are deemed "dodgy" by fans or the press but which don't have any lasting significance or impact. This is the case here, a standlone article collating these really isn't justified -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:08, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - um what controversies? GiantSnowman 19:27, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment 2002 FIFA World Cup already includes discussion of controversial decisions including in Spain vs South Korea and Italy vs South Korea. Probably remaining content could be merged. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is a consensus here that this is a notable event, which should have a wikipedia article and that concerns about the article should be solved by editing. The discussion about what the article title should be needs to be discussed on the article talk page not here. Davewild (talk) 19:37, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Children's immigration crisis

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 10:01, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 10:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 10:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Children's immigration crisis (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 look like an encylopedia article to me, merely some minor news coverage of a story (WP:NOTNEWS). More problematically, it looks a little like a slanted political piece (even if that was not the intention) to make a point about Obama's immigration policy. Black Kite kite (talk) 13:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per WP:NOTNEWS (some of the text may be a candidate for Wikinews). ukexpat (talk) 14:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral, leaning delete - Immigration into the US has been in the news a lot recently, both due to its scale and to related law reform. However, the article here does not delineate its subject matter clearly enough; a reliable source would need to be produced, and preferably two, showing that the specific circumstance the article intends to cover both (a) exists and (b) is being treated as a discrete event in its own right by sources that may be regarded as reliable on such matters. (So no partisan blogs, for example.) And of course the entire thing needs to be rewritten in an encyclopedic style, and without the obvious bias towards a US-resident readership. (I make no comment as to any political bias of the current text; it's the cultural bias that struck me.) AlexTiefling (talk) 14:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article reads as a thinly veiled attack against persons migrating from Mexico to the United States and policies of the current United States administration. I got over-ruled on my nomination for a speedy and I'll wear that. However this article has no encyclopedic value at all. It's merely one persons political rant. Thanks for nominating here. Saved me the trouble. AlanS (talk) 14:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and improve The article's title is vague? OK, so change it. The article's WP:POV is showing? OK, then neutralize it. The article is an attack against Mexican immigrants? Not at all. Calling the immigration of these children illegal is not an attack against them, but merely a statement of fact. They are attempting to enter the country by means other than the normal legal immigration route, and thus their entry violates US laws and is de facto illegal. (By the way, the present crisis involves children mostly from Honduras, Nicaragua and Guatemala, not Mexico.) Surely this is an ongoing issue that is generating a lot of press, and there should surely be sufficient coverage in reliable sources to build an article that covers all sides of the issue. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I'll refrain from !voting for the moment. Can someone explain to me exactly how this is excessively slanted or an attack? It seems like a fairly neutral description of how a law that was intended to deal with trafficking has had an unintended side effect and how the current administration is dealing with that side effect. I don't see any slurs, statements to the effect that the original administration that passed the law was incompetent, or statements to the effect that the current administration is incompetent.—Kww(talk) 14:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Wikidan sums it up nicely and I found nothing there I disagreed with. This is more than a news story, this is an event. There are lots of political hacks trying to use it as a wedge issue on both sides of the isle, there is a real humanitarian issue at stake, but more importantly, this is getting lots of press. Headlines. It needs fixing, but then again, it was just started, but there is absolutely no question it is a notable topic that can be written in a neutral fashion, as demonstrated by the amount of air time and column inches the event is getting. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Needs a lot of work, possibly even a rename, but this is definitely a notable event that should be the topic of an article, and Fred's work makes a decent first draft. Keep. DS (talk) 14:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - WP:NOTNEWS does apply here, but this is still - even according to U.S. Homeland Security - an unprecedented event in immigration, one that would warrant a separate article. I do not see how the article's content constitutes an attack against immigrants. In addition, deleting the article because it makes the U.S. President look bad is a misinterpretation of WP:NPOV. I will submit that the article very badly needs further development to bring it up to encyclopedic par. --WaltCip (talk) 14:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Either re-write significantly or, if that can't/won't be done, delete until someone else wants to try (also, rename to something U.S. specific). I suspect there's nothing unencyclopedic or non-notable about the topic here (I, too, have been reading the media reports focusing on children's immigration issues that have been flooding in recently), the problem is just in the execution, so I'd be fine with either a re-write or a without-prejudice deletion. The trouble with this particular version of an article on this topic is that rather than being an encyclopedia article, this seems to be the first few paragraphs of a persuasive news piece, complete with a "hook"y intro ("Coming up later, on CBS...tens of thousands of children crossing into the US without their parents!") rather than a lede, and a sort of timeline of primary events related to the topic rather than a discussion of the actual article topic. This could all be incorporated into an article, but as it stands it's not an article, and the manner in which it's failing to be an article is actively problematic for readers who expect to see an encyclopedic discussion.

  For what it's worth, I don't agree with the calls that the article is biased toward or against immigration or that it's an attack page; I think it's so lacking in organization/a point that people are actually reacting to whichever "pro" or "anti" sentence (and there are both, because again, it's simply listing source claims rather than discussing their relevance) in it catches their attention.A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Switching to Keep. Though the article still has some tone and organization issues, it's now a quite serviceable first pass at the topic. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:17, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I created the article. I'm not wedded to the title but suggest that 2014 not be included in any new title as this seems likely to extend beyond 2014 and has roots in prior years, and in at least one film made in prior years. The most significant information is the interaction of the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 with the current wave of immigration producing unintended consequences. Remarks about my motives and possible bias are totally out of bounds. I have opinions, on both sides of the issues, but tried to write a neutral article. As to news, this is not some fool riding around in a Bronco. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:31, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about proposing a title that doesn't treat the USA as the whole world, then? AlexTiefling (talk) 14:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Children's immigration crisis in the United States"? --WaltCip (talk) 14:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Plausible. How are reliable sources referring to the situation? AlexTiefling (talk) 14:49, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By there way there is Unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in the United Kingdom User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• delete This is plainly a synthesis of news reports which constitutes original research. Mangoe (talk) 14:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New title Immigration of Central American children to the United States User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's very general, and could potentially cover historical situations dating back almost to 1776. Again: If this is a real, discrete situation that you've written about, what are reliable sources calling it? AlexTiefling (talk) 15:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would add to Walt's idea and make it "2014 children's immigration crisis in the United States". Yes, I know, a year, but that narrows it down to who (children), what (immigration crisis), where (US) and when (2014 is when it started), as otherwise assumes it is the only one that is or shall be with a title so generic. Like all ongoing issues, it will be subject to renaming anyway once the media all agree upon a common name. As a temporary name, this seems a reasonable compromise that is easily understood. You could say "Children" is vague, but they aren't coming from one country, but from many, so it is justified. I don't think substituting "Latino Children" would be helpful yet it is the only adj that fits and is concise. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep although it needs improvement. The issue has had substantial discussion on mainstream radio in the United States and therefore is notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above - Although It could do with a tidy up that can be fixed, –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:08, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This is not an encyclopedic topic, it reads more like a blogger advocating for a cause, grabbing various immigration-related news article to support the argument. Tarc (talk) 17:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but see if the article can be turned into a more general article about unaccompanied children who seek to immigrate to the US. For UK, there is a generalUnaccompanied asylum-seeking children in the United Kingdom article that may be used as a model. It doesn't seem like all or a majority of the children coming to the US are actually seeking standard asylum, so a somewhat different scope and title may be in order. But the topic is hardly restricted to 2013/2014 even if there is a surge now. Iselilja (talk) 17:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • My thinking was that the crisis happened in 2014, before that, we could handle the normal load. This is many time higher than normal, so much so that we are literally having to rent warehouses as temporary bunk houses. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:49, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:SYNTH WP:NOTADVOCATECombatWombat42 (talk) 18:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What am I advocating other than accurate significant information about a notable subject? User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not suitable as a foundation for a neutral, encyclopedic article, and, as such, theoretical other articles are irrelevant. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:13, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  It is an international crisis that affect tens of thousands of children rushing to the US from a variety of countries and has overwhelmed the world's only "superpower", enough to grab headlines on a global scale. If that doesn't serve as a basis for an article, nothing does. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:14, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep, based on the several hundred news accounts by now with wide international coverage; , this is of major political significance not just now but in the future. Tho the title should be qualified , perhaps to ' "2014 Children's immigration crisis in the United States", as suggested above. And we do need to be careful about NPOV. Even for the usual WP tendency to hide its collective head in the sand about serious matters, I'm amazed to see the opposition to the article. Along with Kww, I don't see this as an attack of any sort at all--the facts of the matter may imply political criticism, depending on one's own political view of the world, but that's up to the reader. And indeed the various press comments do need to be much more fully included. DGG ( talk ) 23:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per DGG. This is very big news in the U.S., and the news reports leave a lot of things very unclear that I would like to see Wikipedia delve into. For example, recently some anti-illegal-immigration protesters lined up and forced some busses loaded with illegal immigrant kids to turn back from an immigration detention center, while pro-illegal-immigration protesters were calling for them to be let through... no, I don't have that backwards. Issue worth explaining. Wnt (talk) 00:10, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Obviously passes GNG. The way it is written is not a reason for delete. Okay per WP:NOTNEWS as this should have "enduring notability", and WP:EFFECT with its likely catalytic and "lasting effects". Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep this not only meets WP:GNG it very easily exceeds it. This event is being as widely covered in the US as the 2014 Crimean crisis was, in some aspects even more so. WP:NOTNEWS does not apply as this will have significant impact on US immigration policy and political ramifications for the upcoming 2014 US Election cycle. If there are WP:NPOV issues, those can be dealt with on the talk page and with future edits. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 05:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment From what I have read of the delete !votes above, it seems to me that all but ukexpat's are little more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 05:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - sources in the article and others presented at this AfD lead me to conclude that this crisis is a major international event between the US and Mexico and therefore of encyclopaedic importance. However, I think a better title would be something more akin to "2014 United States immigration crisis". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and rename This is a verious serious and ongoing issue. If you search children immigration, you can find thousands of articles. I would suggest renaming to something like "2013-14 United States immigration crisis" or something similar. JayJay^{What did I do?} 19:10, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The reasons given in the nomination simply do not wash. The topic is clearly notable, and there is ample coverage in reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.113.31.233 (talk) 04:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WikiDan61 and others above. Notable event which is already frequently being cited as an influential factor in the 2014 elections. -Helvetica (talk) 06:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This issue continues to grow in relevance, for example, Sarah Palin's call for impeachment based primarily on immigration policy. Clearly notable. --Cayzle (talk) 10:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]