Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 August 16

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 15 August	17 August >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:37, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting Action Sports

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

Article about a how-to book, referenced only to its own publisher and Amazon.com with no evidence of reliable source coverage about it in media shown at all. As always, every book does not get an automatic free pass over our notability standards for books just because it's available on Amazon -- it has to be the subject of reliable source coverage for an article to become earned. Also probable WP:COI, if you compare the creator's username TGFILMS to the name and occupation of the book's author. Bearcat (talk) 23:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage exists. Mr. Magoo (talk) 00:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:42, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable, secondary source coverage: lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?). A lack of reviews on the publisher's page is usually a sign that there aren't any significant reviews to paraphrase. czar 04:30, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no reliable, independent sources exist. Elliot321 (talk) 13:23, 23 August 2017 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:37, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Metcalfe

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

WP:BLP of an actor, screenwriter and casting director, referenced solely to his IMDb profile and not to any evidence of reliable source coverage about him. As always, everybody in the film industry does not get an automatic free pass over our notability criteria for film industry workers just because IMDb verifies that he exists -- he needs to be the subject of media coverage about him to pass the test. Bearcat (talk) 23:39, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:43, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:43, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no citations or reliable sources, no critical reviews or media coverage. Nothing to establish notability. Pupsbunch (talk) 19:45, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No significant media coverage.Elliot321 (talk) 13:25, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I checked Google web, news and newspaper results, using '"Ken Metcalfe" writer', '"Ken Metcalfe" screenwriter' and '"Ken Metcalfe" toad' (after the titles of the two books); the closest I came to finding a useful result was on Smashwords, which of course isn't independent. (Moreover, the actor and screenwriter doesn't even seem to be the same person as the children's book author!) Fails WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR and WP:NAUTHOR. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 13:29, 23 August 2017 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:38, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan & The Reformation

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

Per WP:NBAND. Insignificant coverage in reliable secondary sources, and no major chart-toppers or awards since forming the band in 2015. Could be notable later on down the road, but right now this looks to be WP:TOOSOON. Comatmebro (talk) 23:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Support per nom. Matt's talk 12:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. They have only released two singles and there is no indication that those releases were noticed. -Lopifalko (talk) 10:29, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom and Lopifalko.

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:38, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Peddle

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

Fails WP:NHOCKEY, contested prod. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:35, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:47, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:48, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:48, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable player who has only played in lower-tier professional leagues. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 09:15, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NHOCKEY criteria2 as has played in the highest level league in Australia Atlantic306 (talk) 12:30, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Atlantic306: it's a little confusing but NHOCKEY directs us to see if the league qualifies as professional on the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/League assessment -- and this league is not on that list. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:39, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Criteria 2 says the top amateur league counts where there is no professional league which is the case in Australia~~ Atlantic306 (talk) 14:46, 17 August 2017 (UTC) struck keep vote as league is not on the list Atlantic306 (talk) 14:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I guess. But that seems to be contradicted by the ending of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/League assessment: "Those leagues not otherwise listed are considered to confer no presumptive notability to players..." Anyway, no !vote from me. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:50, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

yes it's confusing (to me) but I do think the list takes precedence, as the preamble begins: "For lists of the leagues considered to satisfy each of the criteria below [italics added], please see the ice hockey league assessment..." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Routine sports coverage fails to meet WP:GNG and playing in lower level leagues fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY. Papaursa (talk) 20:50, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete has not played any leagues required in WP:NHOCKEY. LibStar (talk) 08:02, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:09, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Young (politician)

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

On the surface, the subject of this article meets WP:POLITICIAN as a former member of West Virginia's state legislature; however, further investigation reveals that the level of coverage about him in reliable sources is insufficient to support a standalone encyclopedia article about him. Young served a two-year term in the legislature from 2012-2014, then lost the 41st district election in 2014 and then again in 2016. Within his two years of office, Young co-sponsored various bills, some of which I have attempted to add to the article in efforts to expand it, but all of the coverage that even mention Young do so in passing. Attention is entirely focused on the bills themselves; there is no real biographical information to write about.

As a result, this article is destined to be either a WP:Permastub or a WP:COATRACK article about all of the bills he's ever supported, both of which are unsatisfactory encyclopedia articles. Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Additional criteria states that meeting [WP:POLITICIAN] does not guarantee that a subject should be included. This is one such case where a satisfactory encyclopedia article simply cannot be written about this subject due to the lack of any significant coverage about him, despite technically satisfying WP:POLITICIAN. Mz7 (talk) 22:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 22:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 22:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Lots of coverage exists about an Adam Young from Minnesota, who is the musician behind the musical project Owl City. That Adam Young is completely unrelated to this one. Mz7 (talk) 22:55, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Member of a state legislature. Passes WP:NPOL. The presumption behind a SNG is that there is enough secondary information for a complete article. Even a quick search of online sources shows what committees he served on in the legislature, election results, and a story about his swearing in as a legislator, in addition to several independent sources talking about where the subject stood on issues and a campaign FB page that provides clues about the subject's life (and opportunities for other searches). This search does not include any local papers or news sources which may or may not have an online archive. --Enos733 (talk) 04:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It does carry that presumption, but the problem is, an in-depth search reveals that there is not nearly enough information. The committees, election results, swearing in – that's all routine stuff that can be summarized in a few sentences. Where the subject stood on issues is important, but it is also important that the coverage be about him and not just the issue with a passing mention of him – otherwise, the entire article becomes a WP:COATRACK for issues he's supported. A campaign Facebook page is not the best place to cite for neutral, biographical information per WP:PRIMARY, let alone to support notability. Do you think you could point me to a few high-quality secondary sources that are primarily about Adam Young? (That's the kind of material we need to build a "complete" article.) Mz7 (talk) 05:21, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A good example is the information I added about the "Nonprofit Youth Organization Tax Exempt Support Amendment" Young supported. The citations are primarily about the bill itself, and they only mention Young in passing, listing his name a cosponsor. The rest of the article is analysis of the bill, which is not really relevant in a biographical article. Mz7 (talk) 05:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The footnote to WP:NPOL says that the goal of Wikipedia is to be a complete record of coverage of "major political offices," which is defined to include members of state and provincial legislators. ("However, this criterion ensures that our coverage of major political offices, incorporating all of the present and past holders of that office, will be complete regardless."). As editors, we are not limited to the use of online sources. As an example, the subject's hometown paper, the Nicholas Chronicle, has its content behind a paywall and again, the presumption is that there would be relevant information in their archives. The subject is also name-checked in several articles in The Register-Herald; the AFL and West Virginians for Life, documented the subject's voting record on particular issues. In addition, several West Virginia papers wrote about the subject's trip to North Dakota to study the state's Legacy Fund. (And, fundamentally, once a subject meets the primary criteria for notability, the "notability guidelines do not apply to content within the article" WP:NNC). --Enos733 (talk) 15:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-I'm reluctant to support the deletion of any article that meets WP:Politician, but Mz7 makes a pretty good case here for why this should be an exception. With that said, I would oppose deletion if Young were currently in office. Orser67 (talk) 05:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Our stated intention is to be as complete as feasibly possible a reference for all legislators at the state or federal levels, not to pick and choose based on some criterion outside of whether they got covered as politicians or not. NPOL doesn't require that we be able to source biographical information about him — that's certainly nice to provide whenever possible, but what's essential in an article about a politician is coverage of his work in politics, not necessarily his birthday or the name of his mother or where he went to high school. We actually can't source that type of personal information about most politicians at all, if the legislature's own website hasn't actually included that information in the self-published biographies present there — because outside of the topmost tier of Trumps and Obamas and Trudeaus and Merkels and Macrons, most politicians' private lives just don't actually get covered that much at all. Lots of politicians' articles don't contain that sort of detail at all, and just stick to covering and addressing what we can source about their work in the legislative office they held — that's the stuff that's critical for our article about a politician to address, because their political work is the core reason why they have an article at all. Personal stuff is nice to include when we can, but not essential enough to be the inclusion dealbreaker for a person who has held a notable office. We need to be able first and foremost to source his work as a legislator, not necessarily his personal life — and nominator was clear that the sources we need for his work as a legislator are exactly the ones that are available. Bearcat (talk) 00:52, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability is not temporary, so if a person was a state legislature member they are always notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:POLOUTCOMES. State legislators have a huge amount of influence and power over millions of peoples' daily lives - everything from marriage laws, to taxes, to energy law, to zoning and economic incentives - and for that reason any legislator is notable, and remains notable for ever and ever. This guy was more than a mere back bencher. Bearian (talk) 15:39, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bearian. State legislators are inherently notable, if they have done something important, which this one has. Elliot321 (talk) 13:30, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Enos733, Bearcat and Bearian. The fact that he ran and lost after his term suggests he may continue running in future races, in which case many Wikipedia users are likely to want to look at his legislative record and other details, and Wikipedia is (for good or ill) many people's first stop when googling. This is a textbook example of why WP:NPOL exists. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 14:02, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
After reading through all the comments above, I am having some second thoughts about my stance. As Bearcat mentioned, I did make clear that we could plausibly write a whole article about all of the bills that Young has ever voiced his public support for, but the reason I brought this discussion forth is because such information struck me as off-topic for an article that should be about the legislator. Yes, the article should principally be about Young's legislative work, and not solely his personal life, but in my mind when I nominated, there needed to be legislative work substantive enough for Young to be more than just a passing mention. None of the sources I'm reading describe his legislative work in any greater detail than "among 20 others, Young supported this bill." It's true that state legislatures as a whole have immense influence over the daily lives of people, but I think some degree of caution is healthy before jumping straight to the assumption that each individual member of such a legislature is automatically notable solely for their membership (and as I mentioned in my nomination, our guidelines do call for this degree of caution). As it appears consensus agrees that this particular member is notable, I respect that outcome. Mz7 (talk) 21:49, 23 August 2017 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:39, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Yonder Films

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

Page does not meet notability guidelines. No factual information to backup claims of notability. Citation listed does not attest to any fact of notability nor does it show any factual information for the page in question. Geejayen (talk) 19:26, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:47, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:48, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:48, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Was there a first AFD? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue Yonder Films is a redlink. --doncram 01:01, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not think so. It was prod'ed once but not sent to AFD. --Ifnord (talk) 20:14, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed, I've gone ahead and moved this discussion to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue Yonder Films. (It was originally located at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue Yonder Films (2nd nomination)). Mz7 (talk) 22:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A quick Google found a Guardian review of one of their movies from 2007. That movie isn't even listed in the article. It's a crappy stub now but I believe the company is notable. Ifnord (talk) 20:12, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Can you please provide a link to the Guardian review? This review in the Guardian is the only one I can find discussing Hoodwinked (which is listed in the article). That Guardian article mentions the company once, labels the company as obscure and does not provide any details about the company. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:44, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- You are correct, my reference was incorrect. I have removed it from the article, and removed my vote as well. --Ifnord (talk) 22:41, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 22:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG and references provided fail WP:CORPDEPTH. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:44, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and HighKing, the one reference I thought proving subject notable proved to be completely unrelated. Ifnord (talk) 22:41, 22 August 2017 (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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:19, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Skylar Prockner

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

Although no murder should ever be considered run of the mill, there is nothing to distinguish this particular murder from being just another news story. No precedents were set in the case or the verdict, and although the case received some sensationalistic coverage, there is no evidence that this case will have any long term encyclopedic significance. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:02, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:10, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, this murder conviction did set a precedent for being one of very few cases of a child being sentenced as an adult in Canada. This has long term encyclopedic significance as a historical and precedent setting legal case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jd7450 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:23, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Jd7450: The article makes no claims of this as a precedent-setting case. You'll need to expand the article to provide that information, with citations, before I'd be willing to change my opinion of the notability of the case. And being "one of the few cases" would not be precedent-setting. In order to be precedent-setting, it would need to be cited as a precedent in other cases; i.e. other judges sentencing other youths as adults based on the precedent set by this case. Although youths charged as adults may be rare in Canada, that alone is not sufficient to make this a notable legal case. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:37, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Murder is unfortunately far too common in this world for us to automatically create or maintain an article about every convicted murderer in existence just because of the standard media coverage that every murder would always get — to justify an article, what would need to be shown is some evidence that it satisfies the ten-year test for enduring significance. And as correctly noted by WikiDan, the fact that a youth being tried and convicted as an adult is relatively rare does not in and of itself make this a precedent case. The precedent that it's possible is set by the first case of it happening, not by every subsequent case that follows the precedent afterward — and this was not the first instance in Canadian history. Wikipedia's mandate does not include naming and shaming every person who ever committed a crime by immortalizing him for the rest of time in an international encyclopedia — we would need a reason why this is important enough to need an encyclopedia article, but none has been provided. Bearcat (talk) 21:33, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bearcat put it perfectly, we cannot have an article about every convicted murderer. Elliot321 (talk) 13:33, 23 August 2017 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:39, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Popescu (politician)

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

WP:BLP of a perennial fringe candidate, whose coverage is entirely local to a single city except for one brief blip of wider coverage in 2008. However, since candidates in local elections always garner coverage in those elections' local media, local coverage isn't enough in and of itself to build a WP:GNG claim -- and the brief blip of wider coverage just makes him a WP:BLP1E. In a nutshell, this is nothing more than another case where we confused temporary newsiness with permanent notability -- it's now almost ten years later, and he's clearly failed the ten-year test for sustained or enduring significance. Bearcat (talk) 21:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN as is. Possibly some other refs out there, I am not convinced that there isn't so this might be a case for cleanup, but I don't think the odds are high enough to make me completely confident that notability can be fully established. South Nashua (talk) 22:35, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not going to stand in the way of the article being deleted, but this isn't really a case of WP:BLP1E – there have been several instances where Popescu has received coverage for incidents involving hate speech, and his prior conviction (for assault) attracted both non-routine attention in the local media and some attention in the national press. One can argue that this still doesn't add up to enough to keep the article in place, but I don't think that the terms of WP:BLP1E obligate us to delete it. CJCurrie (talk) 00:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Agreed on BLP1E and the article's deletion. South Nashua (talk) 03:40, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails the SNG high bar for politicians. Unelected politician, not a party leader, fringe candidate. Carrite (talk) 02:19, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - one of many local candidates, by precedent, not notable. Bearian (talk) 15:42, 22 August 2017 (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. Mz7 (talk) 20:43, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doomworld

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

Grossly lacking in independent references to denote notability. All references are either to the site itself, or very passing mentions. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 21:48, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not contain any sources that are independent or non biased , seems to be non notable also.--JSon94 (talk) 22:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment note the existence of Doomworld (disambiguation) -- if this page is deleted, the dab page will become superfluous, so the closer of this AfD, if it is to delete, will need to take care of that page as well. -- 67.70.35.17 (talk) 05:40, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Along with Doomworld (Legends of Tomorrow), an unnecessary redirect which also would need to be deleted (and probably should be regardless)._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:55, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Many mentions, but all of them are insignificant._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:57, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Searches do not reveal significant, third-party coverage. Doomworld does not satisfy the general notability guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia. Malinaccier (talk) 06:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and delete disambiguation page with it. Elliot321 (talk) 15:35, 24 August 2017 (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. Looks like the sources are not deemed sufficient Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:40, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indoor Gridiron League

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

Finding very little sources or references required for WP:GNG on this regional semipro league that played a few seasons (their facebook page posted about a champion in June 2016). For a league supposedly backed by the professional Arena Football team, the Philadelphia Soul, it seems like there would be at least WP:ROUTINE sources. Everything else is either primary or about the league's owner other professional team, the Philadelphia Yellow Jackets. Yosemiter (talk) 21:22, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:33, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 21:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at this point I have to agree. We have some semi-pro leagues that meet muster and some that do not. At this point, it appears that there is nothing in the news (at least that I can find) to pass WP:GNG or any other notability measure. I would happily change my position were such references presented. However, now it just seems that the only sources are their own web page. I have WP:ADV and WP:COI concerns too.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:11, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits} 02:38, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing in the article or online suggests notability.--Rpclod (talk) 03:03, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Sources that mention the Indoor Gridiron League. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 20:00, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment interesting and worth considering. I'm not sure that they pass WP:GNG, but it certainly puts it on the table. I'm still in a delete position for now because of potential COI and ADV concerns, but those could be addressed by editing. Not ready to flip yet, but I think it's worth more discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:09, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I found those same articles, they are absolutely nowhere near GNG quality. 8 out of 11 merely just mention that it exists. The others are of the local newspaper variety, as in "local kid joins a semi-pro team" type headlines. Yosemiter (talk) 20:20, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Could we get some more eyeballs on the sources turned up by User:WikiOriginal-9, please?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 21:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Yosemiter's take on the references; they focus more on the individuals than the league. One of them [12] is literally a paid advertisement. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 09:51, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Situationship (Odunsi song)

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

This song fails WP:GNG and WP:NSONG. It hasn't gained significant coverage in reliable sources. Spotify Velocity is not a notable music chart. The artist himself isn't notable so this article cannot be redirected to its parent article. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 21:23, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 21:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 21:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Song has not been critically reviewed by reliable sources and didn't chart on a notable music chart. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 21:22, 17 August 2017 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:40, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rafiqul Islam Masum

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

Poorly referenced WP:BLP of a person whose only stated claim of notability is being a political party's volunteer coordinator. Of the four sources listed here, three just link to the front splash pages of newspapers without specifying where in the newspaper any content about him is located, leaving us unable to verify whether any such coverage is substantively about him or just passingly namechecks his existence, and the fourth is his own self-published Facebook profile -- and all four of them are just contextlessly listed at the bottom of the page without actually footnoting any of the body text. This is not how you demonstrate that a person at this level of significance is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 21:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable WP:POLITICIAN.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:42, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If Bearcat hadn't nominated this party functionary, I would have. The incomplete citations are unverifiable. Searches of the usual Google types, HighBeam, and the Bangladeshi press, including by name in Bengali-script, returned two hits from 31 March 2016 in which he is listed among 38 BNP "leaders and activists" charged with a fatal petrol bombing. Nothing more is said of him.[13][14] Does not meet WP:BIO or WP:POLITICIAN. --Worldbruce (talk) 20:57, 20 August 2017 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:40, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lynn Clark (actress)

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

Delete: as insufficiently notable actress. Quis separabit? 21:07, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:19, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:19, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – non-notable actress, does not meet WP:NACTOR.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 22:51, 22 August 2017 (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. (non-admin closure) Jdcomix (talk) 01:48, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Helium Systems

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

Not sure that there is a speedy category that fits; cannot see why this passes WP:GNG TheLongTone (talk) 15:07, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:16, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - TheMagnificentist 09:21, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Two sources in ten minutes Rhadow (talk) 16:37, 29 July 2017 (UTC) $40 million in VC money Rhadow (talk) 20:28, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient notability. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:07, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:23, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:37, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: AfD was not in relisted 3 or more times Category. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 21:07, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: R4
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 21:07, 16 August 2017 (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. Alex Shih ^Talk 03:25, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shakeelur Rahman

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

Not notable per WP:WRITER. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 10:46, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:17, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - significant coverage is provided by the sources already in the article. PhilKnight (talk) 22:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:16, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:36, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:07, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:07, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. May pass WP:Prof#C6. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:49, 10 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. Much of the content of our article appears to be a copyvio of the Indian Awaaz source. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:04, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I'm seeing some book mentions, as in: "Professor Shakeelur Rahman, a critic of Urdu literature, was the Vice Chancellor of two universities of Bihar and then became India's Health Minister in 1990..." Muslim Politics in Bihar: Changing Contours - Page 247. A full professor + minister = notability, in my book. Also seeing enough citations in Google books [15] to justify a stub. If kept, remove the copyvio. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:14, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 21:06, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not sure what the relist is in aid of, since there appears to already be a unanimous consensus. The VC of two major universities and minister in the national government is clearly notable, and this is attested by the sources already in the article. – Joe (talk) 11:55, 21 August 2017 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:40, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Huxley

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG per only WP:ROUTINE sources. Fails WP:NHOCKEY by never playing in a high enough league and never in the top-tier of the IIHF World Championships, the only level that actually plays for The World Championship, the others are just for promotion relegation. Yosemiter (talk) 21:52, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:01, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:01, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:01, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails NHOCKEY, no evidence the subject meets the GNG. Ravenswing 05:18, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously declined PROD, so cannot close via WP:NOQUORUM.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 21:02, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Some routine sports coverage is not enough to meet WP:GNG and WP:NHOCKEY is not met by playing in the lower tiers of the IIHF championships. Papaursa (talk) 02:23, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NHOCKEY LibStar (talk) 08:05, 23 August 2017 (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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:21, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Schwartz

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

Doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY. Was made a redirect to Axios (website) but creator has edit warred to restore it 5 times, despite being directed to WP:3RR and WP:EDITWARRING. WP:COI? Boleyn (talk) 19:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:20, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:20, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:20, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. He's borderline notable. The article is atrocious. He has lots of passing mentions - often as one of Jim VandeHei's lieutenants. He also has a few more in-depth pieces (e.g. [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]) - but in most of them he's not the subject (Politico or Axios are). I wasn't really able to source his personal life story (with the exception of some names/dates in - [22] and [23]. They also hosted a veep party as a couple: [24]). Looks to me like WP:TOOSOON, and given article state this leans to D.Icewhiz (talk) 19:50, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The primary reason he might be notable is that he helped found a company this year. However, there are not enough articles specifically talking about him to prove his notability. He may become more notable in the future, but right now it is WP:TOOSOON to tell. CoolieCoolster (talk) 23:05, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A notable company doesn't necessarily have a notable founder; subject needs to make it on his own merit. --Ifnord (talk) 21:43, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Subject clearly meets WP:NFOOTY as a full international player. Am assuming the nomination was erroneous given there was clear text to state this at the time of nomination. Fenix down (talk) 09:05, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

József Andrusch

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

Delete: article has no text. Quis separabit? 19:04, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:10, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Article is definitely a stub but certainly does not have "no text". CJK09 (talk) 19:29, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - claim that article has no text is false. Also several foreign language Wikipedia versions of the article have significant text; could just add more text! Former player easily meets WP:FOOTY with their national caps. Nfitz (talk) 23:23, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - passes WP:NFOOTY. Also AFD is not cleanup, I might add that it was not difficult at all finding a suitable reference for information to add to this article, and certainly more content can be added. Inter&anthro (talk) 00:29, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - article about a notable football player and manager which passes the NFOOTBALL guideline and based on a cursory review of online sources (I added one to the article) will easily satisfy the GNG. Article needs improvement, but AfD is the wrong place to request that. Jogurney (talk) 03:56, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As a former Hungarian international, he meets WP:NFOOTY. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:25, 17 August 2017 (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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:21, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adeniyi Akintola

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

Planning to be a political candidate in 2 years' time. Doesn't meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 18:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: concur with nominator. Quis separabit? 19:05, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Maybe an article someday. TJRC (talk) 21:01, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People don't get Wikipedia articles just for declaring their candidacy in an election that's still two years in the future — if you cannot demonstrate and reliably source that he was already eligible for a Wikipedia article for some other reason independent of his candidacy, then he has to win the election and thereby hold office to be considered notable on the basis of the election itself, but nothing here demonstrates any preexisting notability at all. Bearcat (talk) 22:04, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is not primarily about politics as it is prominently mentioned that he is a Senior Advocate of Nigeria. Title is equivalent to Britain's "Queen's Counsel". You will find many lawyers from the Commonwealth who have wiki articles for this reason. His year of birth is mentioned in the "early life sectioned". Many politicians e.g. Jon Ossof had wikipedia entries before securing their party nomination." — Preceding unsigned comment added by EbaOdan (talk • contribs) 13:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Queen's Counsel isn't an automatic notability freebie on Wikipedia either. Lawyers, QC or not, get Wikipedia articles if they can be reliably sourced as the subject of enough media coverage to satisfy a Wikipedia inclusion criterion, and are not handed an automatic "no sourcing required" freebie just because they have a QC after their name. Bearcat (talk) 20:55, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: concur with nominator. --Dthomsen8 (talk) 21:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are lots of needed artilces on Nigerian politicians. I recently created an article on the chief judge in Edo State. However that is no justification for creating articles on people who are not yet notable. Wikipedia is not a platform for people to run political campaigns with.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:27, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The page consists of the name of his college, the name of his wife and his intention to run for political office. Some people just don't understand the function of Wikipedia! Pupsbunch (talk) 19:25, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Cleanup Concur with EbaOdan. This subject could be notable but right now there isn't enough information to show notability. In my opinion, running for office is "important enough" that this subject warrants a page. If someone were to run for US office, would they get a page? KindleReader (talk) 01:31, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, they wouldn't, and several articles on Americans have been deleted due to this recently. It's not about 'in your opinion', how does it meet WP guidelines? The guidelines have been developed by consensus. Boleyn (talk) 18:58, 23 August 2017 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:41, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mario D'Andrea

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

WP:BLP of a film producer, referenced entirely to IMDb and primary source press releases from his own company with not one whit of reliable source coverage about him in media shown at all. This is not how a film producer gets a Wikipedia article -- he needs to be the subject of enough media coverage to show that he passes WP:CREATIVE for something, and does not get an automatic inclusion freebie just for existing. Bearcat (talk) 18:41, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:45, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:45, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not sufficiently notable yet; maybe TOO SOON. Quis separabit? 21:09, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - producers are not inherently notable, and in this case, I don't see what he's done that was notable. Bearian (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 keep. (non-admin closure) Jdcomix (talk) 01:48, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rimal Ali

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

WP:BLP of a model and actress, whose only stated claim of notability is that she just started filming her first-ever film role two weeks ago, in a film not slated to be released until sometime next year. As always, every performer does not automatically get a Wikipedia inclusion freebie just because she can be verified as existing -- she needs to pass WP:NACTOR, and she needs more sourcing than has been shown here, for an article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 18:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:45, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:55, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:55, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - See: Express Tribune, Forbes, Dunya News and The News. - Mfarazbaig (talk) 00:55, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Week Delete agree with nom. the subject received press coverage but this is WP:TOOSOON. --Saqib (talk) 06:46, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I know she fails WP:NACTOR but we keep article based on achievement. She has achieved the status of first transgender model in a strict religious country and the coverage is enough as other sources always exist in Urdu language or other local language. Greenbörg (talk) 10:56, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Greenbörg. The transgender background is significant in terms of coverage. Mar4d (talk) 16:46, 17 August 2017 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:41, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis Oakley

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

WP:BLP of a person with no strong or properly sourced claim of notability. As written, this literally just states that he exists, and references it to one piece of media coverage about him posing for a photographer — and he's simultaneously the bylined author of that piece of coverage, and is therefore writing about himself. The simple fact that he can be shown to exist does not, however, automatically qualify him for a Wikipedia article in and of itself, and media coverage has to be independent of him to count toward notability as a person does not get to "cover" himself into Wikipedia — so there's simply not enough substance, or enough reliable sourcing, present here to justify an encyclopedia article. Bearcat (talk) 18:03, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Creator has now tried to reference-bomb this by padding it with a contextless linkfarm of every single web URL they can find that happens to contain Oakley's name at all — but they clearly lack understanding of what kind of sources support notability and what kind of sources don't, because every link provided is still one of (a) a piece where he's the bylined author and not the subject, (b) a piece where he's the interview guest speaking about a topic other than himself, and thus isn't the subject, (c) an article where he merely gives brief soundbite about a topic other than himself, and thus still isn't the subject, or (d) not a reliable source at all. And they're all just linkfarmed at the bottom of the article, rather than being correctly used to footnote any of the article's content. None of this bolsters the case for inclusion at all — a person gets a Wikipedia article by being substantively the subject of third-person coverage in reliable sources that are independent of him, not by being the author of the sources or a soundbite-giver in coverage of other things or by getting blogged about. Bearcat (talk) 15:50, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:47, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:55, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; fails the WP:GNG and appears to be a violation of WP:PROMOTION & WP:SELFPROMOTION - GretLomborg (talk) 22:04, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the excellent case made by nom. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:02, 18 August 2017 (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. (non-admin closure) Greenbörg (talk) 11:35, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Petarian Foundation

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

No coverage found for this organization. Fails WP:ORG. Better to redirect to Cadet College Petaro. Greenbörg (talk) 09:09, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cadet College Petaro. Mar4d (talk) 09:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:22, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:22, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 17:56, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy Deleted under WP:G7. (non-admin closure) MassiveYR ♠ 20:12, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MLS Licensing System Links

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

WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTHOWTO Cahk (talk) 17:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn, with thanks.(Don't know how you found that stuff so quickly...) Drmies (talk) 20:32, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tillicum Village

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

This is nothing--it's not a real geographic location, and the whole thing is part of a marketing effort. Drmies (talk) 17:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:52, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was able to rewrite using independent references. (I suspect there are more from earlier years.) Yngvadottir (talk) 19:40, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This column/blog article (probably added by Yngvadottir) is substantial coverage. It's a tourist attraction, and in practice we cover those, including other semi-authentic/semi-fake ones like miniature train rides. This one costs $80 apparently so it had better be pretty good! --do ncr am 19:43, 16 August 2017 (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 Eric's Trip. (non-admin closure) — Za wl 18:30, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eric's Trip (album)

(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)

(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)

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

Followup to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Live in Concert November 4th, 2001. While there once was a time when albums and EPs didn't need to show or source any notability claim besides "was released by a notable band", that's no longer the standard that applies today. They now need to be reliably sourced as passing WP:NALBUMS for something more than just existing -- but these are all self-released demos released either before or separately from their Sub Pop contract, and are all either entirely unsourced or are "sourced" only to discogs.com and/or glancing namechecks of their existence in overviews of the band's entire history. Which means that none of them is substantively the subject of enough reliable source coverage to clear NALBUMS. The band's three studio albums are all repairable, so I won't be nominating those -- but these demo cassettes and EPs don't make the cut. Bearcat (talk) 16:47, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:56, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:56, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:15, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. I generally agree that these releases are minor with limited distribution, and with few (if any) reliable sources that convey their importance. One possible exception is Peter (album), which was released on Sub Pop and had a wider distribution. However, I think a redirect is more appropriate, to either Eric's Trip or Eric's Trip discography. I should note that several of these cassettes are highly collectible, but this is related to their limited distribution. +mt 22:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to artist's page per WP:ATD-R. – electricController 02:17, 18 August 2017 (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 further discussion after HighKing provided several sources, despite relist. So Why 07:18, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Payzone

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

No references. Very "marketing" language, although not outright promotional. WP:GNG doesn't seem to be met based on a search of Google sources. I was able to find the following, but I don't think it's adequate for notability. It's mostly press release rehashes. [25] [26] [27] ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:21, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:13, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:13, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have removed the section which was promoting the company's various services so that it is now providing largely referenced text about the company. This leaves the question whether the coverage, largely about the successive private equity sales and routine announcements, is sufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 07:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me, at the time there was a lot of similar services that had articles so it seemed logical to give Payzone one too. No problem if it goes. RoyalBlueStuey (talk) 11:50, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Parent company has no Wikipedia Page. It lacks Corporate Depth concerns. Article is trimmed down to 1 Paragraph. It is acquired and serves the Directory purpose alone. Such acquisition and business news are common. wikipedia is not Newspaper. Light2021 (talk) 04:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- as corporate spam and for lack of sufficient sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. I'm seeing some mentions but the article in its current form is 100% promo and this content should be excluded per WP:NOTSPAM. Any marginal notability is cancelled out by the promotional intent and content. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:39, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the article could do with some improving, there are multiple sources that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Here are a small number by way of example: betterRetailing article from very recent times in relation to a minor PayZone-related controversy, forecourttrader article covering the same minor controversy, this national newspaper article, while mostly about the founder, provides a simple summary of the company and highlights its notability as being the dirst Irish company to float on London's AIM in 1997 and finally this national newspaper article while again being about the founder also includes some information on the company. Therefore the topic meets GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:43, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither of the last two sources qualify as "substantive coverage" about the company in the sense of GNG. It is only briefly summarized in connection with the founder, who is the subject of the actual substantive coverage. Further, the former two articles are in highly obscure trade websites; they don't appear to publish their editorial policies, and it's questionable whether they'd be considered reliable. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:35, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I disagree because you are incorrectly dismissing sources. There is no requirement for "substantive" coverage, only "significant" coverage which is defined as "more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material". Both national newspapers are more than a trivial mention as it is more than a name-drop and goes on to provide details of the company even though the company is not the main topic. Also I disagree that betterretailing or forecourttrader are not reliable sources. Nevertheless, only two sources are required and there are two national newspaper sources that meet the criteria. There are a number of other sources available if you search for previous names of the company such as this one, and this and even this from The Times. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:52, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 3rd
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 16:40, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Additional source searches are listed below, based upon the company's former name. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:07, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(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)

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. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:12, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thaddeus Rutkowski

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

fails WP:AUTHOR. Limited coverage. Hardly subject to critical acclaim. None of his publications are notable LibStar (talk) 10:20, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:56, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:56, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep ... This is incorrect there is considerable critical coverage of this author's work as well as his award and and slew of published pieces. The article is strong enough as it stands but I will add numerous citations. This is the umpteenth time the editor above has nominated an article for deletion without informing the creator; why is there not a rule for this. Is it so that those who would make an opposing argument will be blindsided? Is this an encyclopedia or UFC? This article should standMasterknighted (talk) 13:11, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

you found the AfD regardless. You mention awards plural but article states only one award. LibStar (talk) 13:59, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are other times I did not find it and the point is not that i found it but that a certain someone nominated with the intention of it not being discovered by I. But that being cast aside as the main issue of the debate is at hand yes it is one award (no come to think of it awards Nuyorican Poetry slam champion) and the author has been nominated for others but it is a major award and the writer has been brought back as a panelist for the same award. Further it is an major award for a body of work.Masterknighted (talk) 14:14, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

being a panellist for an award does not meet WP:AUTHOR. the standard is significant contribution and recognition. And your arguments on being notified or not are not arguments that advance keep so you can keep mentioning it till the cows come home. I also fail to see how this person strongly meets WP:AUTHOR. in fact a closing admin is likely to overlook your use of strong LibStar (talk) 14:41, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

having a "slew of published pieces" is not a criterion for notability. Unless these pieces are notable or have achieved significant acclaim like with major awards. Again I don't see any strong keep indeed keep here. LibStar (talk) 14:46, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You may have appointed yourself prosecutor but be far from it from you to put yourself in the shoes of being the decider. First there are awards, second slew is your word in this case as if to shift it into my discourse from some other arrangement of words the case being they are not only citations but in the case of the New York Times and Salon publications which he has written for. If you choose to ignore what the ground rules of any fair discourse are so be it. There is a preponderance of criterion here whether or not a single article is credence alone for notability the subject has written three reviewed novels, has a fellowship from a major notable foundation (being a panelist is not the main argument put forth here) a poetry slam championship, an academic role and plenty of other publications the combination makes him notable. If you want to put me through my paces like a show horse go ahead.Masterknighted (talk) 16:23, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An online search turned up a fellowship, two awards and several reviews of the subject's books by national publications. There is sustained news coverage of his books. Passes WP:GNG and WP:Author. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 20:23, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TheMagnificentist 15:56, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Like AuthorAuthor I found multiple reviews in independent reliable sources, and it didn't take me even five minutes. (I'm also concerned by the lack of notice to the article's creator, and the antagonistic tone of some comments on this page; that's not how we should behave towards one another here.) —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 16:11, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep serious author, often reviewed. Not entirely clear why he has been AfDd. gidonb (talk) 04:26, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

being a "serious author" is not a notability criterion. LibStar (talk) 08:08, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that this article violates Wikipedia policy on original research. While the sources in this article could be synthesized to form a nice section at Race_and_health_in_the_United_States#African-Americans, this would require more than a complete prose rewrite. If somebody is interested in doing this, please contact me for a copy of the article. Malinaccier (talk) 06:11, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mental Health Stigmas in the African American Community

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

Appears to be WP:OR. reddogsix (talk) 15:42, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete An essay, not an encyclopedia article. Mangoe (talk) 16:47, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a repository for essays. CJK09 (talk) 17:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Falls under our NOT policies. KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 19:14, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:47, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:47, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:47, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:47, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - everything is absolutely true, and cited, but can be merged into Race_and_health_in_the_United_States#African-Americans. Bearian (talk) 15:46, 22 August 2017 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:42, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wouter Soomer

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

Article about a footballer who has played only 5 minutes in the Dutch second-level league. I have found no coverage that suggests it could satisfy the general notability guideline (a few routine blog posts about signing with an amateur club), and we should use common sense in applying the NFOOTBALL test to a player whose professional career appears to have come to an end without really achieving anything notable. Jogurney (talk) 15:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Jogurney (talk) 15:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Jogurney (talk) 17:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:02, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:02, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - one substitute appearances a number years ago (to technically meet NFOOTY) is not enough when he comprehensively fails GNG. Some COMMONSENSE is needed here, and plenty of AFD precedent exists to say that barely passing NFOOTBALL is not enough when you fail GNG, see Oscar Otazu, Vyacheslav Seletskiy, Aleksandr Salimov, Andrei Semenchuk, Artyom Dubovsky, Cosmos Munegabe, Marios Antoniades, Scott Sinclair, Fredrik Hesselberg-Meyer, Matheus Eccard, Roland Szabó (2nd nomination), Metodija Stepanovski, Linas Klimavičius, Takumi Ogawa, Nicky Fish and Andrei Nițu, amongst others. The player is no longer with PSV and is playing at an even lower non-professional level. Can readily be restored if he ever reaches fully pro level again. Fenix down (talk) 09:03, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per past consensus. Giant Snowman 15:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. Inter&anthro (talk) 22:00, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. There has been some discussion of adding mentions of the crash to other articles, if anyone would like a copy of the deleted text (or references) in order to do this let me know and I'll provide it. Hut 8.5 21:02, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A34 crash

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

While undeniably a tragic event, this does not appear to be a particularly notable vehicular accident, as the coverage it has received has mostly been the usual routine coverage for such cases. It does not help that the article title is quite vague and could refer to any crash that took place on the said highway. Although it appears one of the drivers involved was jailed, the accident did not seem to have any long-term effects on British transportation. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:26, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not particularly noteworthy road accident like many that happen all the time around the world, it would need to involve somebody or something notable to even get a mention in wikipedia and that may still not be enough for a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 15:30, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hello, the article is not yet finished, the case lead to the penalties for using a mobile phone whilst driving be doubled from 3 points and a £100 fine to 6 points and a £200 fine. Also, as a result of the case, parliament is going to review sentencing for causing death by dangerous driving and it could potentially increase the maximum sentence to life imprisonment in order to deter other drivers from dangerous behaviour whilst on the road. I was going to add another paragraph about this called 'aftermath'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 10^10a (talk • contribs) 15:35, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Classic WP:NOTNEWS. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:17, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. Ajf773 (talk) 17:51, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since WP:NOTNEWS and this article reads like a regular incident that happens on highways. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. 🖉←} 17:58, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Dear PlyrStar93, If you read the sources, you would notice that it was a very significant case that has been widely reported as headline news around the UK. There was a complex police investigation involved that lead to the lorry driver being jailed for 10 years. Because of this case, UK parliament doubled the penalties for using a mobile phone whilst driving. I mentioned this in the aftermath section. They are also reviewing the sentencing for causing death by dangerous driving. Before recommending an article for deletion, you should read the full article and check all the sources. It was not a minor incident, in fact it is one of the worst traffic collisions in the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 10^10a (talk • contribs) 18:32, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nothing in the article or about the incident is convincing me that is particularly notworthy either, similar to those expressions of deletion above. It doesn't help that the references are jammed together, poorly organised and with zero in-line citation so you can't easily tell which one refers to the respective information. *If*, as you say, it is/was one of the worst traffic accidents EVER in the UK, then you need to offer multiple, reliable sources to back that claim up. All I see at present is a desperate claim that it resulted in a penalty increase (which could have already been under review anyway). Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:16, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I remember reading about this case in the news. I have found this article and do not believe it should be deleted. The source layout was not very good so I have sorted it out and have also added more sources including videos made by the police to hilight the tragic incident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.72.59 (talk) 10:33, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the reasons from the other agreeing editors, plus my own rationale from yesterday. The above "IP account" wishes to continually remove my notice that their account has made "no or few edits outside this topic" (which is clearly evident), so I will instead make that belief clear in my delete vote (which cannot be undone), here. Furthermore, I have seen no evidence this event, as tragic as it is, is any more notable than the numerous multi-car collisions that so unfortunately occur on our roads. We can't document and have an article for all of them. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:24, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete main article, BUT put a brief mention into A34 road. The article is not notable on its own, however a passing mention will ssuffice in the main article, if it is not already added in. Only reason for doing this is because it is an accident which changed driving laws in the UK. Nightfury 06:59, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to Mobile_phones_and_driving_safety#Legislation. This article already includes a sentence about the fine's being doubled, I think another sentence about which accident exactly lead to the change in legislation is useful. Regards So Why 09:21, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mobile_phones_and_driving_safety#Legislation. That is the main purpose of this article, is the fine being doubled, so a redirect would make a lot of sense.

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 redirect to List of Monster High characters#Frankie Stein. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frankie Stein

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

Redirect to Monster High. WP is not Wikia or a fansite. No sources or evidence of notability outside of show/toys/whatever else ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 14:56, 16 August 2017 (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 The Boys from Brazil (film). (non-admin closure) — Za wl 18:33, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Black (actor)

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

Minor actor. Does not pass WP:NACTOR. Minor role in Boys in Brazil and a role in an off-broadway play. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 14:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Boys from Brazil (film). Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 16:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:12, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:12, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Let me just say that his role in the film is not "minor", it's crucial. In fact, the title of the film refers to the four characters that Black portrays, which are four of the ninety-four clones of Hitler. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 18:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will admit I have not seen the movie, but I just saw he was listed 12th on the IMDB cast list and assumed. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 19:14, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was a great movie and yes the appearance of the clones was crucial to the story but the actual screen time of the actor reflects his notability.PRehse (talk) 19:34, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PRehse: I understand that, which is why I recommend that it be redirected to the article about the film. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 22:13, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is a good compromise.PRehse (talk) 22:17, 16 August 2017 (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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 03:21, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Jackson (defensive end, born 1996)

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

Fails to meet WP:NCOLLATH ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 14:48, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:12, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:12, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:16, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:NCOLLATH is an inclusionary standard not an exclusionary one. College athletes who receive significant coverage in multiple reliable sources can also qualify under the over-arching WP:GNG standard. Here, Jackson has received such significant coverage in a number of major metropolitan newspapers (in addition to smaller outlets). Examples include this from The Palm Beach Post and this from the Miami Herald and this from the Sun-Sentinel. Enough to pass GNG already, and this guy is just getting started and expected to be a superstar. Cbl62 (talk) 19:45, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First source is a blog post, which is not reliable. Second counts, third is just a passing mention regarding the contributions of freshman players. Per WP:crystal we can't keep the article just because he is expected to be good. And WP:NCOLLATH states when a college athlete is notable... I'm not sure what you mean. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 19:48, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs are not all unreliable. Depends on the blog. A blog from a major metropolitan daily, featuring the work of one of its professional staff writers, is reliable. See WP:NEWSBLOG. In any event, WikiOriginal-9 has now found abundant further examples of significant coverage. Cbl62 (talk) 21:12, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG. [28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35] WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 20:50, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those are either routine coverage or articles that mention his name but are on a broader or completely different topic. Comparing another player to him or discussing the recruiting class is routine. It's all routine. I don't believe that every college athlete warrants an article. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 21:26, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@El cid, el campeador: Feature articles about college athletes are not routine. Your last comment is a red herring. Nobody is saying that every college athlete warrants an article. Only the exceptional ones like Jackson (< 0.1% of college athletes) who generate significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources. Cbl62 (talk) 03:17, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen the coverage of college football (and basketball) in their respective cities and states? It's extensive. But, alas, I am alone here. Keep your article, I don't want it. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 03:19, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep some of the sources provided above go beyond routine coverage and are sufficient to pass GNG. Lepricavark (talk) 21:49, 16 August 2017 (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. I am closing this early per WP:SNOW, and because there are obvious BLP problems here. Only person interested in and arguing for inclusion is the author. Drmies (talk) 02:08, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Luigi Capozzi

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

Subject of the article lacks notability to have their own page Contaldo80 (talk) 12:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:51, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:51, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:34, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possible merge into Crime in Vatican City and Homosexual clergy in the Catholic Church. This one is tricky, especially given BLP. Arrests for drug-taking aren't normally notable, but WP:CRIME says unusual execution of a crime might be and recommends merging into another article. In this case, Crime in Vatican City would be the obvious fit. The article also talk about same-sex orgies, which are not crimes in Vatican City, but are serious offences under canon law, which is significant in a hierocracy. I would tentatively suggest that, since the RC disciplinary process resembles a criminal trial, we should treat the scandals using the same principles as WP:CRIME and merge them into Homosexual clergy in the Catholic Church. But the sources I read in English don't give the name of the suspect for either the crime or the scandal, which fails WP:BLP. Do the Italian sources actually link Fr Capozzi to either incident?? Matt's talk 13:42, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Italian sources do name him and make the link. I thought adding the material into Homosexual clergy in the Catholic Church might be an option too. My only reservation is that the article doesn't really list every Catholic cleric who is gay - for obvious reasons. And so it might look odd about why we're particularly focusing on one individual (the media reporting is, in any case, somewhat salacious). Contaldo80 (talk) 14:55, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for confirming that the article is about the right man, which is so important. On your second point, it's not called List of Homosexual clergy in the Catholic Church (HCCC), so we're not aiming for completeness, but for explanation. On the salaciousness of the media reporting: I am opposed to the current form of WP:NOTCENSORED, but it's policy and so we have to abide by it. I assume that their reporting is driven by the perceived exceptional hypocrisy of flouting the ethics of an ethics-teaching organization in their own HQ. I agree it's odd, even unfair, to focus on one individual, but that choice was made by the Italian and Catholic press, not us. TonyBallioni has rightly pointed out that we need to see whether there is further ongoing coverage. If so, adding Fr Capozzi to the HCCC section on "Notable gay Catholic priests" might give readers a particularly clear case of such hypocrisy and how the RC leadership, and the press, respond to it. That does not technically flout WP:BLPCRIME, though as I have said, it is analogous to a crime within the RC system. Although I'm still minded to merge, moving to draft would be better than outright deletion (six months in draft ought to make things clearer). Matt's talk 23:05, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The concern I have with draftifying is that if it isn't notable, we'd have a possible BLP violation sitting around in draft space, which is non-ideal. I've asked BLPN to weigh in on the article content. The likely best outcome here is for the author to save an off-wiki copy and consider recreation in 6 months or more if he is still receiving coverage beyond just trial updates. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:15, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLPCRIME and WP:CRIME. Being the secretary to a bishop is not notable unless they are also a bishop. The scandal is new, so we have no evidence that it will be notable past the current month or two. A gay priest who uses drugs isn't anything particularly noteworthy, and we should also remember that he is a living person: by our policies unless this crime is shown to have lasting impact, we don't make their number one result in Google be Wikipedia discussing the uneventful lowest point in their lives. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable subject and topic was covered in international news media across the world. This case is somewhat anomalous, because of the unusual nature of the crime (ie - it taking place in the Vatican City), which is probably why it got media attention. Claíomh Solais (talk) 22:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Short spurts of media coverage for a crime, even if international, are not enough to meet the notability guideline per WP:CRIME. Since the subject is also a a living person, we need to be exceptionally cautious about how we apply the standards of coverage here. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete smacks of WP:RECENTISM. I can't imagine this to be of any notable importance in a few months. Maineartists (talk) 02:59, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article seems deliberately salacious and the individual has no notability beyond the fact he was caught with drugs (fairly commonplace). As per BLP also question about whether individual self-identifies as gay to warrant references to being involved in a "homosexual orgy". We need to be very careful here.Contaldo80 (talk) 08:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Contaldo80, your nomination counts as a !vote. We typically don't have noms with bolder deletes. It would be best in this case to strike the delete and change it to "comment." TonyBallioni (talk) 12:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - thanks! Contaldo80 (talk) 15:02, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with TonyBallioni it should be deleted per WP:CRIME. I have removed the sourced information about the scandal with alleged criminal implications from the article following WP:BLPCRIME:

A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed a crime, or is accused of having committed one, unless a conviction is secured. If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory judgments that do not override each other, include all the explanatory information.

The priest is not covered by WP:WELLKNOWN and is only known for the event itself. Without the removed information there is nothing left in the article to justify its inclusion. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:57, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:BLPCRIME seems strong here as a reason. The subject is not of "high rank" or in any aspect of sufficient notability even to be named in related articles. Collect (talk) 14:03, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG let alone WP:BLPCRIME Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:09, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It is necessary to look at this version to see what this is about. Some one has (properly) removed all detail about the scandal as unproved BLP matter. However without that the article merely refers to a thoroughly NN Vatican cleric. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:11, 19 August 2017 (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. (non-admin closure) Jdcomix (talk) 01:51, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Punti

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

This is an odd article. Some of it seems to be on the term Punti/本地/Boon Dei, content better suited for Wiktionary. Some of it is on the people but it is unclear if the people described are any different from Cantonese people (see its lead). the history section is anecdotal and unsourced, so does not really clarify this. In fact the whole thing is unsourced, except for what looks like a mention in a work on another topic for the definition. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:09, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:15, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Punti-Hakka Clan Wars article as background information on Punti, excluding some of the unsourced materials. STSC (talk) 06:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That makes sense. Looking at what’s on other WP sites, the two Chinese language sites have stubs which are just definitions, and have fuller articles on the wars, while the Russian WP has a long article on which looks like the wars, and no separate article. Punti-Hakka Clan Wars seems to include all the encyclopaedic content already, I don’t know if there is anything else here to merge to that article – the definition could probably go on wiktionary.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:29, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the article is improperly sourced and I'm unable to locate significant coverage, thus making it unverifiable. Oppose merge to Punti-Hakka Clan Wars, since that article too seems to be in bad shape. - TheMagnificentist 09:18, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 11:10, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:51, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:14, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:35, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could someone who knows how to do so please move this into the sublisting for Hong Kong-related articles? It's clearly a HK topic as it stands, and this discussion might be missed by editors who go straight to the HK part. Matt's talk 09:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:56, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While I loathe relisting a fourth time, the discussion has only yesterday been listed in the appropriate delsort lists and we should allow people reading those lists time to actually comment here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 12:18, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and downscope or redirect Cantonese people. As an endonym meaning "locals" its definition is understandably ambiguous. Modern use of "Punti" is mainly promoted by Hong Kong History Museum and refers to a Hong Kong-centric ethnic group, mainly represented by the Cantonese-speaking indigenous (pre-1897) population of Hong Kong, as opposed to the boat-dwellers (Tanka), Hoklos and Hakkas. Under Hong Kong law, "Punti" as an ethnic group refers strictly to Cantonese people who lived in Hong Kong before 1897, but might more widely refer to Cantonese people as a whole (e.g. Punti-Hakka Clan Wars) and "Punti" as a language designation is simply Hong Kong Cantonese. The cited book by Nicole Constable provides good context of the various uses of this term. Deryck C. 15:57, 16 August 2017 (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 created by a sock of a blocked editor. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:46, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trump Speeches on Unite The Right

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

POV fork from Unite the Right rally which gives undue weight to one person's opinions on a riot Darkness Shines (talk) 12:10, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's rudimentary now, but it'll fill out. The weight of this stuff is more undue tacked onto the bottom half of a topic to which it's only tangentially connected than spread out on its own framework, linked to from the complementary article. People looking to read or write about a chaotic racial rally can focus on that, while people interested in presidential study can get as verbose and deep into that as they want, unconstrained by space. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:55, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (merge/redirect is unnecessary, as content already appears in the article Unite the Right rally). Strongly disagree with the notion that the president's reactions to the Unite the Right rally and "only tangentially connected" to the Unite the Right rally — that doesn't make any sense to me. The reaction of state and national leaders are of course inseparable from what occurred. Neutrality^talk 13:07, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A leader reacting is no problem. Happens in hundreds of these articles. Usually a good-sized paragraph, or sometimes a few more if a few reactions (condolences, assistance, new law). But no matter how many, it should pertain to the event. When various people start reacting to the reaction instead, the extra degree of separation makes that stuff tangential. If the leader re-reacts to the reactors, who react him right back, the debate by that point has general notability of its own and starts to overshadow the title event (though retitling the spin-off to include all reactions is probably better; a few had nothing to do with Trump and more might follow). InedibleHulk (talk) 14:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree. Sometimes the reaction to the response is critically important to understanding the event and its implications; I think that in such cases, both the reaction and the response to it are encyclopedic. Neutrality^talk 18:50, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete – Are we going to create a WP:CONTENTFORK article about each tweet and each public statement of the US president? Document his reactions in the main article, and be done with it. — JFG ^talk 14:50, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - does not warrant an article on its own, is duplicating information already in Unite the Right rally. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 16:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Unite the Right rally. Where this material already exists, in detail.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:39, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Obvious WP:POVFORK.- Mr X 18:41, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The 2017 Unite the Right rally thoroughly covers the president's response to the violence, making this WP:UNDUE and an obvious WP:POVFORK.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:51, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The section is getting unwieldy; and I did state that splitting this off would be better. In addition, given the lack of precedent on this matter, insofar as the multiple press conferences are concerned, I feel that cramming it all into one article will, no doubt, cause length and readability issues. However, the title of the page, referring to "[s]peeches" is wholly incorrect, and clearly a WP:POVFORK; the lack of precedent, in addition, requires that the President's responses be covered in detail (which they are, already, in the rally article). In addition, those responses (and the repercussions of said responses, including additional reactions) are entirely germane to the original article. As such, I must go for deletion. Javert2113 (talk) 19:02, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I believe there needs to be a separate article concerning the Trump controversy, surrounding his dud comments, as well as comments sympathetic to the white nationalists. His statements at this point could arguably be considered more significant than the riot itself, considering the unprecedented blowback. Therefore, I would approve of this article being deleted, on the condition that a new one is created that concerns a broader scope to his controversy. The speeches just don't cut it. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 21:14, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. Seriously? This is getting beyond ridiculous. We don't need a separate content fork article for everything Donald does. Unite the Right rally does well enough in covering this topic, including both Trump's reactions to the rally and the reactions to the reactions. In case there is something of value in this article that isn't in others, just merge it with Unite the Right rally. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 00:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The specifics of the speeches themselves can be covered, and are covered, in the main Unite the Right rally article. Details about Trump's presidency including the fallout from these speeches and other events of his presidency should be included in Presidency of Donald Trump. --Crunch (talk) 00:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The content is treated adequately in Unite the Right rally, no need to fork. WWGB (talk) 00:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:34, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename: This article could be the start of a deeper analysis on Trump's awkward relationship with extreme Alt-Right moments in the USA.Conrad Kilroy (talk) 06:27, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Already sufficiently covered at the main article. AIRcorn (talk) 11:55, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With 3 separate speeches that have generated a lot of controversy, it should remain a separate article from the article of the event itself]. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 12:11, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Re-purpose The entire reactions section at the Unite the Right rally article is getting long. Split off a Reactions to the Unite the Right rally, and include a condensed section for Trump's pontifications. ValarianB (talk) 16:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete POV fork created by a user banned for sock-puppetry. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:01, 17 August 2017 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:42, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nisha Pre School

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

Non-WP:Notable pre school. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:10, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:06, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:07, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An unreferenced article by a WP:SPA editor with promotional intent ("Very Easy to public to know more about us." [36]}. Not of encyclopaedic notability whether as a nursery school or as a business. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 10:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was the one who initially prodded the article (the prod was removed without explanation). Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Lourdes 11:30, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely unsourced. Fails WP:NSCHOOL David.moreno72 14:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I dont have any issue with it being unsourced as of now. But an online search doesnt show anything. I would have voted as "redirect to town/city", but the article miserably fails WP:NSCHOOL; so a redirect is not deserved either. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:27, 19 August 2017 (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 procedural close. The result was Apparently not a single source with more than a passing mention is enough. Procedural close. (non-admin closure) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGracefulSlick (talk • contribs)

White on White, Shangri-La, Charade & Other Hits of 1964

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

This is basically a track listing. The only "source", Discogs, is user-based website. No significant reviews, analysis, or chart listing were found in a WP:BEFORE search. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:11, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As creator, I have expanded and added references. No Swan So Fine (talk) 12:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe a blank AllMusic review and passing mentions in a biography about Frank Sinatra and an album guide really address the issue of WP:GNG.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Could do with more sources but there is sufficient commentary/reviews to make it a keep. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:18, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The album definitely exists, and there is enough coverage for it to pass WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 23:13, 21 August 2017 (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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) LibStar (talk) 01:33, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Dyktynski

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

fails WP:NACTOR. 2 gnews hits. He may have a lead in shock jock but article claims lead in movie Raw FM yet article makes zero mention of him. LibStar (talk) 07:23, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 08:39, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 08:39, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:NACTOR as had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. Raw FM was more of an ensemble show but Dyktynski's character was one of the main ones; see for example here in the Sydney Morning Herald where Dyktynski is noted as one of four named cast members. He has also lots of significant stage roles particularly for the Melbourne Theatre Company and the Black Swan State Theatre Company which are two of Australia's leading theatre companies. Also noting he is also known as 'Matt Dyktynski' (particularly as a comedian) and lots more Gnews hits with that name. Boneymau (talk) 11:01, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

this link says what's he's been in but not the significance of roles. LibStar (talk) 11:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you could do your own research, but he played major roles of the Balladeer in MTC's Assassins in 1994 and Billy Clinton in Clinton in Perth last year, as just two examples. In any case, Shock Jock and Raw FM is enough, and with solid supporting roles in notable films Japanese Story and Love and Other Catastrophes he flies over the WP:NACTOR benchmark. Boneymau (talk) 11:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Boneymau. Easily meets the notability criteria. CJK09 (talk) 17:07, 16 August 2017 (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. (non-admin closure) Jdcomix (talk) 01:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IFHT

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

Only one independent reference and that is an interview with these comedians. I can't find any significant independent references either. Derek Andrews (talk) 23:31, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. YouTube personalities are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they exist — but the referencing here is entirely to their own self-published content about themselves except for one interview with them on an unreliable local blog, and nothing claimed in the article entitles them to a free presumption of notability in the absence of legitimate reliable sourcing about them. Bearcat (talk) 18:30, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep References need updating / article needs tweak but substantial non blog media references found on a super quick search HuffPost reference Richmond News reference CTV News reference -- Tawker (talk) 20:35, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Huffington Post isn't a notability-assisting source in and of itself; it can be used, for example, when it's simply reprinting a wire service article from Canadian Press, or as supplementary sourcing for stray facts after GNG has already been covered off by better sources, but the fact that one of HuffPo's own staff bloggers wrote content about them is not in and of itself add to the GNG score — especially given that it's HuffPo's BC-specific section and not HuffPo general. Richmond News and CTV Vancouver both represent local media coverage in their own hometown market, offering nothing that would make them nationally or internationally notable, and the Richmond News source is a Q&A interview which represents IFHT talking about themselves. GNG does not equal "all possible sources that exist at all" — for instance, a local fire chief would not clear GNG just because the article cited a couple of articles from the local newspaper — GNG does depend on variables such as the depth and breadth and range of coverage, and whether or not the coverage offers any facts that would actually pass a subject-specific notability criterion. One article can be enough to pass GNG if it were a Globe and Mail article verifying "IFHT win a Canadian Screen Award for Best Sketch Comedy Series" — and ten articles can be not enough to pass GNG if they represent purely local coverage supporting nothing more than "IFHT exist". Bearcat (talk) 15:49, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:02, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:50, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:15, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:15, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more relist in hopes of getting more opinions from the new delsort categories.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 07:03, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:TOOSOON They have some minor recognition, particularly for their Ferda Girls video [[37]] but overall the media coverage isn't there yet. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:16, 22 August 2017 (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) Jdcomix (talk) 01:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorism in Turkey

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

This page is a WP:POVFORK of Kurdish rebellions in Turkey, Kurdish–Turkish conflict (1978–present), Kurdish–Turkish conflict (2015–present), and possibly syrian civil war articles as well. Referring to Kurdish-Turkish conflict deaths as terrorism is Turkish POV.Icewhiz (talk) 06:55, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:04, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:04, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but improve Legitimate article, just a search on google proves this article has notability. Very plausible search term. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 07:07, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. A very obvious WP:POVFORK. Extreme POV language being used (i.e. "an estimated 30,000 to 35,000 Turkish citizens were killed in terrorism-related incidents."). Sources in article refer to the 30,000+ deaths as part of the Kurdish-Turkish conflict, not terrorism. Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:35, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but improve - article is not a fork off a PKK article but an attempt to cover the topic (which is a valid one) comprehensivly. The article currently has a number of groups mentioned, not just PKK. The article has multiple scholarly sources. And finally, it complements the category of terrorist incidents in Turkey. If you think the PKK angle is given undue weight, then by all means fix it (or tag it) but no need for an AfD discussion. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 10:26, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Content fork and pov problems. Kierzek (talk) 11:12, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but tag for improvement. Most terrorism is related to the conflict between the Turks and PKK, but some of the recent incidents may be by Al-Qaeda or Islamic State. Indeed, it is possible that an attack by one of these was the cause of the ceasefire in the long-running Kurdish conflict breaking down, when the Turkish government blamed it on PKK. I am not in a position to know who caused the outrage. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:29, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is certainly a notable and relevant topic. We must remember AfD is not a route towards improvement. This article needs tagging but certainly has the WP:RS required for an article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:34, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see it as a POVFORK. Seems a notable topic in its own right. Not all terrorism in Turkey has been related to the Kurdish conflict. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:55, 22 August 2017 (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 Pectoral cross#Roman Catholic practice. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:43, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Crux Pectoralis

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

Utterly non notable internal "law" of the Catholic Church with no real impact on the world (the vestimentary attributes of one subclass of priests). No significant attention in reliable, independent sources. Fram (talk) 06:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:19, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pectoral_cross#Roman_Catholic_practice, and possible merge from history, but I'm not sure if there is much there to merge. Many motu proprio are in fact notable (see Summorum Pontificum for the most notable one of this century), but this one does not appear to be, which was actually somewhat shocking to me: reforms of the cardinialite are typically very well documented in both religious and the secular press, but I don't find that here. The reform is significant in some ways, as it can be interpreted in retrospect a move towards a uniformly episcopal College of Cardinals, but at the end of the day, it is just about the clothing choices of the most notable class of clerics in the church. That can be covered elsewhere equally well as in its own article. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
merge/redirect to Pectoral_cross#Roman_Catholic_practice as I would agree there is not enough substance (and especially external reference) here to warrant its own article. Mangoe (talk) 16:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with merge/redirect to Pectoral_cross#Roman_Catholic_practice.--Jahaza (talk) 15:32, 18 August 2017 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:43, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Erich Caparas

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

I'm unable to find coverage in reliable sources that demonstrates that WP:CREATIVE is met. SmartSE (talk) 14:32, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:43, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:43, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:44, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TheMagnificentist 06:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I looked for sources as well, and the only independent RS I found is already cited in the article. Possibly a case of WP:TOOSOON. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 16:22, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: however unjustly, the world seems not to have paid much attention. -- Hoary (talk) 04:43, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:43, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shyam Aryal

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

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage. Fails WP:BIO and WP:NACTOR. Edwardx (talk) 16:23, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:16, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:16, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:16, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 19:49, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TheMagnificentist 06:25, 16 August 2017 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:44, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ferhat Bakal

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

Fails WP:NHOCKEY Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:05, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:06, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:06, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The notability guidelines say the "Played one or more games in an existing or defunct top professional league;" and the player has played in the top league in Turkey. Furius (talk) 09:23, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete playing in Turkey does not satisfy the conditions needed to pass WP:NHOCKEY. Furius, please read the supporting document about league assessment that is linked at the very top of the notability guidelines and you'll see where you went wrong. Deadman137 (talk) 19:39, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That seems a very sad rule to me, but does seem to be the rule. Furius (talk) 00:28, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TheMagnificentist 06:14, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication of GNG. Sources are all databases, stat sites or brief routine mentions. Fenix down (talk) 07:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Another in a long list of Turkish ice hockey players with several WP:ROUTINE mentions, but nothing with the significant depth needed for passing WP:GNG. Has only played in the fourth and third tier of the IIHF Worlds (with the team winning and being promoted to the third for 2017 and then relegated again), but that is nowhere near the top level as required by NHOCKEY #6. Yosemiter (talk) 20:06, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another article on a Turkish hockey player who fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY and whose sources consist solely of routine sports reporting. Papaursa (talk) 20:45, 22 August 2017 (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.

The nomination itself is curious, a new editor whose first edits are to initiate a deletion discussion? With all due respect to WP:AGF, I am probably not wrong to assume some previous editing experience. It also does not present a deletion rationale but merely argues for merging, which means the discussion was eligible for speedy keeping. Raising the merger proposal at AFD when just a few months ago there was consensus against it on the talk page also reeks of WP:FORUMSHOPPING. As multiple people have remarked, merge proposals should go on the talk page and in fact were already there. If you disagree with the outcome, nominating the article for deletion is not the correct way to handle it. Consensus can change of course but AFD is not the way to achieve this unless arguments for outright deletion can be presented. If you just want to merge, discuss it at the talk page as previously done.

As for the discussion here, the delete !votes can be summed up as WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST and a link to an essay while the merge !vote rehashes the argument already made in the previous RFC without addressing the WP:ARTICLESIZE issues brought up. Even Moe Epsilon is not in favor of outright deletion though. In the end, neither the delete nor the merge !voters were able to present a policy-based reason to delete the article which incidentally aligns with the previous RFC consensus.

On a side note @LM2000: While you might have been correct that Jdcomix' close can be considered a case of WP:BADNAC, reverting without discussion is not the correct way to handle it; see WP:CLOSECHALLENGE for future reference.

Regards So Why 08:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Persona and reception of Roman Reigns

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

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

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

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

this doesn't warrant it's own separate page . John Cena was just as, if not more controversial, and he doesn't have a page about how his reaction was polarizing. Put it as a subsection of his main page Jc360x (talk) 13:50, 8 August 2017 (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/2017 August 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:03, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:23, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:23, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There was an RFC about this a few months ago. I think it could be condensed and merged into the main article. Sro23 (talk) 18:24, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The failed push of Roman Reigns has been the big story in WWE over the past few years, it's clearly notable enough for WP:GNG. You can draw a direct link between his rejection by fans and the record low ratings WWE is suffering through now. Washington Post even used this situation as an analogy for the 2016 US election[38]. Separate articles for criticism or public image of individuals are not uncommon. I know this article comes up a lot when we discuss other topics we neglect (including our lacking coverage of Cena's awkward reception) but that's WP:OTHERSTUFF and shouldn't be considered during deletion discussions. I have always suggested that renaming the article would be an alternative to deletion but I haven't been able to come up with a better name and nobody else has suggest one either.LM2000 (talk) 23:11, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge/Delete~~ this appears to be a POV fork of Roman Reigns. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:06, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is the topic of extensive reporting and clearly passes GNG. At 66kb, WP:SIZERULE suggests it should probably not be merged with the main article. Like the previous discussion: Talk:Roman_Reigns#Request_for_Comment_on_Proposed_Merge, no policy-based reason for deletion or merge has been offered. Proposal reason appears to be "other stuff doesn't exist". Cjhard (talk) 03:22, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep looking at the talk page, there appear to effectively be two merge discussions with significant participation in the past year, not just one. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:30, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no argument to keep this article beyond the purely procedural one. I agree with the arguments of the Merge voters. Power~enwiki (talk) 07:30, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Roman Reigns isn't the only wrestler who has been pushed to a negative reaction. As said earlier, so has Cena. So has Lex Luger. In a different but related vein, so had Muhammad Hassan. None of these have pages dedicated to them, they are included in the main articles for those individuals. This page should be deleted and it's content added to a subsection of the main article on him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OzraSar (talk • contribs) 21:56, 13 August 2017 (UTC) — OzraSar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete this WP:CRUFT article and keep the reception section in Reigns' article at its current appropriate size. The never ending overwritten descriptions of his audience reactions and storylines has gone way out of control. As said above, no other wrestler has this kind of nonsense attached to their articles. JJARichardson (talk) 18:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 05:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and delete into the main Roman Reigns article. His push, de-push, reception, whatever is of course going to have references as the topic is discussed (at least among those who care). However, the reception of a wrestler's image to fans doesn't merit it's own article on Wikipedia. If anything, a subsection is all that is required. There could literally be hundreds of these articles about other wrestlers, but because of him being the current "face of the company" to WWE, he draws the most attention. John Cena and Triple H's persona and reception are probably the two most documented but even they have minimal content about that in their articles. In several years, either it will be irrelevant or not worthy of documenting. As of right now, it's just a weekly update of opinions on his fictional character, which is duplicated contents from the main article. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 07:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue that it could be possible for a wrestlers reception to be warrant it's own article, but this isn't necessarily it.★Trekker (talk) 10:56, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. There is the reception/reputation that Chris Benoit earned after the double-murder and suicide. That is a well-researched, well-documented case of public opinion forming about a wrestler. Not only were his actions covered in his article, but the perception of Benoit as a wrestler post-death (and history scrubbing by WWE) and other topics were well worth their own article. The perception of John Cena's decade-long tenure atop the industry could be well more documented than it is in his article. One seriously lacking on Wikipedia is Triple H's rise from wrestler to CEO within WWE. It could be well more covered considering he married into the McMahon family and literally sits at the helm of the largest professional wrestling promotion now. Considering all of that and reading this article, I don't see anything special about Roman Reigns. All it amounts to, to me, is a bunch of fans and marks are upset he is winning matches or titles. It's just un-encyclopedic to me. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 17:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah exactly, guys like Bret Hart, Shawn Michaels, Ric Flair and Hulk Hogan who had careers spanning decades and are very controversial could earn something like that. There's a lot more to being said about those guys than week to week updates on internet fan stuff. (I also super agree that HHH's article should be expanded).★Trekker (talk) 21:35, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because this is a major event in Wrestling history that has received a lot of publicity. It is a very notable part of Roman Reign's career and it's worthy of being listed. It deals with his criticisms and the WWE's censorship of them. Future WWE Champion, DrewieStewie (talk) 01:13, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A criticism of his career is notable, but it doesn't require the level of coverage that has been given in this article. WP:WEIGHT here is an issue. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 16:35, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep of course the new editors are salty enough to nominate this for deletion. We've already reached consensus at Talk:Roman_Reigns#Request_for_Comment_on_Proposed_Merge, because this is way too big to be fit in the Roman Reigns article. Nickag989^talk 12:57, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It arguably be fit into a paragraph worth of text, like it already has been on the main article. I could write a whole bunch of text to make it "too long" for any article, but does the topic actually worth covering independently? In this case it simply isn't. His career isn't any more notable than any other wrestlers. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 16:35, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've reverted two closures by Jdcomix, one for keep and another for merge. I find unsatisfactory that Jdcomix did not give any rational for either disclosure despite the healthy debate on both sides and I'm sure merge supporters will agree with that. An admin should be responsible for closing in this case. They also need to take into account that within the past four months this article has survived an RfC and merge proposal regarding merging this content.LM2000 (talk) 02:52, 24 August 2017 (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. decltype (talk) 09:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pooja Jain

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

Unremarkable YouTube singer/personality. Sources include tabloid-like coverage and are not suitable for notability. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. Previously deleted thee times under the name "Dhinchak Pooja". Razer(talk) 06:14, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Amongst sources used in the article are stories from Times of India, Indian Express, Daily News and Analysis, BBC, Mid Day, The Express Tribune, india.com, NDTV, CNN-News18, Hindustan Times etc., these sources are not "tabloid-like" and thus very much suited to show notability. GNG is established many times over. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:45, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Surprising article on this subject with another title was deleted. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:46, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Her Dilon Ka Shooter featured on Tommy Sandhu's programme Tommy Sandhu's Best Bits, on BBC Radio's Asian Network, in an episode titled: "Dhinchak Pooja and Nakash Aziz", he called Jain as a "hot new talent, straight out of India", and has noted that the video received 3.7 million in three days or so, it was the "Song that had everyone singing around the world... even Tommy".[39][40] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:39, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:39, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Clearly notable subject as indicated by coverage in plethora of reliable sources, in a time span of a year. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:51, 2 August 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Yogesh Khandke (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

Comment: Before I add my vote I would like to ask the author to disclose if he has any COI here. The article was deleted thrice per A7 which included almost the same contents and sources, the most recent edit regarding this topic was this request for undeletion at WP:RfU which was declined by Anachronist due to notability issues and then recreating article under different title is very suspicious. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say a user with over 14,000 edits in a wide variety of topics over 18 different Wikimedia projects spanning more than 10 years is a well-established editor who is unlikely to have a COI in this case. The deleted article whose restoration I declined in RFU was created by a different user, User:Wazzaaayush, who also requested its deletion, and it's a very different article than the one under review here. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:38, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I author declare that I have no COI, the present title is not "another name" it is the subject's own name, also I'm surprised that article was speedy deleted, subject's notability is beyond any reasonable doubt to the best of my understanding of Wikipedia. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:49, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:40, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:04, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:04, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 02:33, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- I created the article Dhinchak Pooja unaware of this article. Actually she is known as Dhinchak Pooja than her real name, just like others are known for their stage name or screen name. As per WP:COMMONNAME the article should be Dhinchak Pooja not Pooja Jain.Marvellous Spider-Man 16:48, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The subject meets WP:BASIC, and continues to receive ongoing coverage in reliable sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:38, 21 August 2017 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:44, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MightyBox

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

Does not appear to be a notable software product; no significant coverage in reliable sources could be found, while a search for "MightyBox" resulted almost entirely in false positives about completely unrelated products and services. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:58, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks notability and any coverage in reliable sources. Also, page's creator attempted to remove AfD tag. Meatsgains (talk) 02:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. According to what appears to be the software's web page, http://www.mightyboxapp.com/, it has been downloaded a grand total of 473 times as of 15 August 2017. If the page's author is correct that the software was created in Q3 of FY16, it's been out nearly a year now. Coupled with the almost total lack of anything related to MightyBox on the web (I also found that most references were actually about other software), this looks to be clearly non-notable. Cthomas3 (talk) 04:07, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Henrik Steffens#Legacy. The remaining redirect will be cheap. bd2412 T 03:36, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Henrik Steffens Professor

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

This named professorship does not satisfy the general notability guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia. Searches do not turn up significant independent discussion or coverage of the professorship. Furthermore, I do not think a merge or redirect to Henrik Steffens is appropriate since the chair is simply named after the man and is not likely to be a valid search term. (Note also that this article does not qualify for speedy deletion since it makes claims of importance through the appointed professors). Malinaccier (talk) 01:45, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The claim that he is a named chair of the Humboldt University of Berlin is a claim to meet WP:PROF#5 (I think?), but as I can't read German, cannot verify this for sure. Adam9007 (talk) 02:29, 16 August 2017 (UTC) Ignore - I'm an idiot. Adam9007 (talk) 02:41, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, you are at least the fifth person to think that this is a person and not just a position named after a person :). Malinaccier (talk) 05:13, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Upgrading to Speedy delete per WP:G11 — no other evidence of notability exists, even when trying a simple Google search. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 02:35, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will add to my own comment that I have to agree with both Jytdog and Tarage below. I wasn't able to tell firsthand, but indeed I can see this as an outright WP:PROMO. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 18:19, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a "named chair" like those in Oxford, but a guest professorship programme. I think delete for failing WP:GNG is ok, but the Chair should be mentioned in relevant articles if we have them (I don't think we have one about the Scandinavian studies institute of HU Berlin or Norwegian-German cultural relations; in the article Henrik Steffens, the existence of this chair could be mentioned, but none of the content from here could go there). The article history makes for sad reading: the article was incorrectly tagged for speedy as a duplicate of Henrik Steffens. The author removed the tag (which was bad form, but I would have done the same for such an obviously wrong speedy tag). Multiple other editors edit warred with the article creator to keep the wrong CSD tag on the article even though the author explained (on their talk page) that the article obviously does not satisfy WP:CSD#A10, as it is about a different topic. The original author is currently blocked and unable to participate in this discussion. Please do not close this discussion until the page creator has been able to respond. —Kusma (t·c) 05:17, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete PROMO and aggressively protected PROMO at that. Jytdog (talk) 07:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete PROMO --Tarage (talk) 18:16, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Henrik Steffens to match the article in Norwegian Wikipedia.[41] Roberttherambler (talk) 18:43, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:45, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I do not think a merge is appropriate. Having something named after a person over one hundred years after their death is not particularly relevant to that person. I suppose under a more broad "cultural legacy" or some such. Malinaccier (talk) 21:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:45, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

James Watt, Alessandro Volta, André-Marie Ampère, James Prescott Joule. Roberttherambler (talk) 22:12, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Henrik Steffens#Legacy. I have to agree with Roberttherambler here that there is sufficient precedent to include such honors, even after death, in a legacy section of the person's article. Regards So Why 08:45, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Henrik Steffens#Legacy. I agree with SoWhy and Roberttherambler that there is a reason to include this in the legacy section of Henrick Steffens' article. Elliot321 (talk) 15:40, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested above, since the chair doesn't meet GNG on its own (unless there are Norwegian and/or German sources we're missing); mention in the article about the hosting university also seems appropriate. I don't see any basis for invoking WP:PROMO unless the argument is that Kjelltyrid (the article creator) is the same person as (or affiliated with) Janke Klok... there's only one sentence in the article as it stands that's arguably anything but dryly descriptive, and half of that is a cited quotation. I'll add that I think it's a shame that Kjelltyrid seems to have been chased off en.wikipedia by the circumstances surrounding this doomed article. We can do better. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 02:10, 25 August 2017 (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. Alex Shih ^Talk 03:32, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Music of Cambridge

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

Seems to be largely a page about music acts that have a vague link to Cambridge, advertising for events in Cambridge, and a few bits about locations in Cambridge which already have their own article. Very few reliable sources indicating the notability of any of the content. Marianna251TALK 14:59, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:07, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:07, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or List-ify. A few of these are arbitrary trivia, the rest are better served with stand-alone articles. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:41, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I created the page. The point of it is to tie together the history of music in Cambridge and include a wide range of different acts and artists. Bearing in mind I was born and have lived in the city for decades, I know what I am talking about. Certainly, some of the acts became famous outside Cambridge but all inclusions grew up or developed/performed musically in Cambridge. Others have always lived here or for most of their adult lives. After criticism from a Wikipedia moderator, I included dozens of citations and fleshed out most of the articles so they are grammatically complete and the content makes sense. Actually, the piece went live without my permission, hence it needed speedily updating to make it presentable. But you guys seem intent on moaning and not-picking, without allowing the updates, in response to your criticisms, to go through. So, please 'approve' then and work positively towards a completed page rather than negatively talking about deleting the whole thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.74.28 (talk) 07:55, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cambridge#Music. It doesn't really hang together as an article. Some of the (sourced/sourceable) content may be appropriately merged to the Cambridge article, which already duplicates some of this. --Michig (talk) 12:47, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That depends what you mean by 'hang together as an article'. Since the remit is, music of or in Cambridge, it sets out to list all notable musicians and the venues in which they have played, since the two's history Is inseparable. Obviously, it might cross over with an article on Cambridge, or indeed individual acts and venues - this article gives a sense of the city's cultural life - something which is largely overlooked, and which deserves chronicling, beyond the obvious inclusions like Pink Floyd. The article on the rave scene is particularly notable, since the city saw a high degree of activity in that area, during the late 80s and early 90s.

IT is definitely not intended to be advertising - most of this is historical - but if description of venues and the type of music they host, comes across as advertising to some eyes, so be it.

The process being employed by wikipedia to deal with this article is not satisfactory. This person - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Marianna251 - is apparently in charge of overseeing the page, but openly admits she is a part-time member of wikipedia and if doesn't reply with 2/3 days, may have 'disappeared'. So I need to know who I can reliably speak to, to get the updates published and the article completed - you are then welcome to 'judge' it. The fact is, it went live without my permission, so your criticisms need to take into account that context. The most constructive thing, is to press ahead now, with updating it and creating a substantial and informative article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.74.28 (talk) 13:51, 24 July 2017‎

Okay, I'm signed in now. It looks like the title of the article was changed, as far as I know, without my permission, from 'The music scene of Cambridge' to 'The music of Cambridge' - hence the inelegant.name.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickstibbs (talk • contribs) 13:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

General info for Nickstibbs, not part of main discussion. Marianna251TALK 20:52, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you've had a few misconceptions about what's going on here and why, so I'll try to give you a quick explanation:

Nobody is in charge of overseeing any Wikipedia article, just like nobody owns any Wikipedia article. I'm not "in charge of overseeing the page". Nobody is. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, which means that I have no more authority over any article than you do, regardless of who created it or who has made the most contributions to it. Similarly, this AfD discussion will not be closed by you or me, but by an uninvolved user, usually an administrator.
I nominated the article for deletion because a) I don't think it meets the notability criteria and b) I'm doubtful about whether it might actually be original research. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, which means that it exists to summarise existing bodies of knowledge. It's not here to publish original thought, regardless of their value or veracity.
You are welcome to keep making edits to the article. I took a quick look at the history, and it looks like an automated bot reverted your edits because you added links to Youtube, which triggered the spam filter. Bots and some users can use rollback, which means that they can revert all edits a user has made in sequence to a page. The bot exists to combat vandalism and spamming on Wikipedia, so it doesn't differentiate between edits that triggered its filter and ones that didn't. If you believe this was a mistake, you can go to the history of the page and click the "Undo" button next to the bot's revert, leaving an edit summary to explain why you've undone the bot. Just be careful not to get into an edit war with anyone.

I strongly recommend that you read verifiability policy, the no original research policy, the notability guideline, what Wikipedia is not and the deletion policy. These will help you understand why I nominated your article for deletion, and give you some guidance on what you'd need to do to make the page meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. You can also read WP:AFD to understand what's going on with this deletion discussion and what will happen next.

If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page and I'll do my best to help. Hope that helps. (And please remember to sign your talk page comments with ~~~~.) Marianna251TALK 13:33, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've just re-read my comment and realised that I wasn't clear about something - me nominating your article for deletion has nothing to do with the quality of its content in itself. Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason is one of the most influential texts in western philosophy and is an undeniable work of genius, but if Wikipedia had been around in the 1700s and he'd first published it here, I would still have nominated it for deletion because it doesn't belong on Wikipedia.

If you have more questions but you're not comfortable asking me, you can make a post at the Teahouse and another editor will do their best to help. Marianna251TALK 13:51, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 12:53, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:59, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 01:39, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete largely per nom. If there's anything definitively not elsewhere, a partial merger would make sense, but this isn't keepable in and of itself. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Well, I suppose we could award points for originality, but therein lies the problem: this is not a major locus of the music world, nor a spot studied by students of popular culture. It is, ultimately, trivia and original research. Which is fine — write a book about it, that might actually make it WP notable. But as things stand now, it is not. Carrite (talk) 02:29, 18 August 2017 (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. Alex Shih ^Talk 03:26, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wheezy (record producer)

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

Some sources have been added to this article. I note that there are links to this article.
I also note that there are mentions of "Wheezy" - presumably the same musician - as a producer in these articles:

That said, it would still appear that the article about this musician and producer fails the WP:ANYBIO and Wikipedia:GNG tests for inclusion as a Wikipedia article. As always, please do prove me wrong. Shirt58 (talk) 10:52, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:37, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:38, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of verifying independent, third party notability. The only two references provided are 1) an interview, and 2) content from Hothiphotnews, which is frequently cited as a reliable source, and yet the majority of its content are self-promotional posts from site members (see their guidelines here: http://www.hotnewhiphop.com/about.html). That appears to be the case here. ShelbyMarion (talk) 12:44, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to meet WP:BASIC with a number of short but still significant mentions in RS, like [42] [43] (which includes a bit of non-interview facts at the beginning) [44] [45] (also includes a bit of non-interview facts at the beginning) [46] [47] (and that's just from page 1 of the 500+ GNews hits). I think this is one of the reasons why WP:BASIC says "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". Wheezy appears to be, at least from the POV of someone completely outside the hip-hop scene, a notable enough producer for inclusion in Wikipedia, even if no one dedicated a full article just to him. Regards So Why 13:20, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 09:22, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 01:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per SoWhy. I'm finding a pretty big number of mentions of Wheezy online in news searches, and several substantive references (most of them listed above, but also [48], as an example). He certainly seems notable enough to me. Cthomas3 (talk) 04:43, 16 August 2017 (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 Kirby characters#Tiff and Tuff. (non-admin closure) _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:13, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tuff (character)

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

Redirect to Kirby: Right Back at Ya!. Character is already described there, and that can be expanded if deemed necessary. On its own, this character is not WP notable, and there is no outside coverage of his significance. Further, only the lead is not written in-universe ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 01:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:58, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:58, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:29, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List_of_Kirby_characters#Tiff_and_Tuff and add hatnote to T.U.F.F. Puppy show which has a number of T.U.F.F. characters. Alternatively, redirect to Tuff (disambiguation) which also lists wigglytuff as having a Tuff nickname. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The content for characters present in only a single work should probably live at the work's page, rather than the series's character page. --Izno (talk) 19:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the List of Kirby characters should have characters from a single work is a different discussion. Tuff (Kirby) and Tuff (Kirby series character) should redirect to the same list whether it be the television page or the general list. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. --Izno (talk) 03:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason a redirect was not first attempted? --Izno (talk) 19:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be easier to take your advice if you just said "Hey fellow Wikipedian, did you know about..." instead of asking a rhetorical question, which can come off rather rudely. I didn't attempt a redirect because I didn't want to blank an article without consensus. If that was wrong I apologize. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 20:01, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - The question was rhetorical? :) Better to be bold in an attempt to preserve the material in some form than to ship it to WP:AFD to start, not least because the term is a reasonable search term. --Izno (talk) 03:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - El cid, el campeador Technically, either approach is fine. Some editors prefer attempting to redirect noncontroversial, non-notable articles, as to not bog down WP:AFD. Others get irritated if one redirects it without an AFD. You can't win, depending on who you run into. But both are just ideologies, not a hard rules - you're free to bring it to AFD as you did. Sergecross73 msg me 13:11, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - fictional character without any stand-alone notability. Wouldn't be opposed to deletion, considering I'm not sure how plausible it is for someone to type in "Tuff (character)" into a search bar, but defaulting to redirect since the subject is covered at the redirect target proposed above. Sergecross73 msg me 13:11, 22 August 2017 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:44, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Hall (basketball)

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

Delete: non-notable sportsperson turned lawyer; promotional cruft. Quis separabit? 01:14, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was the creator of this page when I had a different feeling about what constituted notability.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:43, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:43, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't meet WP:GNG. Rikster2 (talk) 16:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't provide citations or sources and doesn't meet notability Pupsbunch (talk) 19:19, 22 August 2017 (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. Many of the comments in this discussion are not based upon Wikipedia policy; they are merely a reflection of trying to be “fair” or trying to delete an article about a term that the editor finds politically disagreeable. Wikipedia is not “fair,” it is netural, and articles are not kept or deleted because editors like or dislike a subject. The comments made without a rationale based in policy have been discounted.

The remaining comments have focused on whether the term should be deleted as unencyclopedic per the policy regarding neologisms--I address those here. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and should not serve as a platform for new terms that have not received notice. Many editors have made this point clearly in their comments. On the other hand, some neologisms can be considered a valid encyclopedic subject if the word or phrase has been “the subject of verifiable coverage by reliable sources.” This point has been made by the opposition. Simple Google searches reveal that the phrase is covered by significant, independent sources, qualifying the term as valid for inclusion in Wikipedia per our general notability guidelines. Those invoking the policy on neologism have tended to ignore these qualifiers in the policy; however, they raise a good point that this coverage may be reflecting mere sensation. On this, only time will tell.

But, my understanding of policy does not determine what the consensus is. Our guideline for determining consensus reads: “Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but neither is it determined by the closer's own views about what is the most appropriate policy. The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue…” Consensus reflects general agreement on the issue at hand. It is clear to me that those commenting on this discussion have not convinced either side or come to an agreement. I conclude that this discussion has not resulted in a consensus, and the article will be kept by default. Malinaccier (talk) 00:56, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alt-left

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

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

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

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

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

There is no such thing as the "alt-left", it is a trendy pejorative in right-wing circles. The scant mention in actual media does not cover it as an actual political movement or ideology but rather are either done derisively/dismissively, or to discuss the non-existence. The sources may be enough to support some sort of Alt-left (neologism), if the coverage of its lack of credibility are deemed sufficient, but that would be another discussion for that eventual/possible article. There is not sufficient reliability or notability for alt-left as an actual thing. TheValeyard (talk) 00:40, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TROUT Nom for utterly failing to do even the most cursory WP:BEFORE search, and, therefore, making assertions that are not supported by even the most elementary good-faith googling.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:56, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is this really necessary? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Could you elaborate on why this is is a problematic delete request rather than using unnecessary ad hominem attacks? Please explain the reason for why is is fundamentally flawed rather than simply stating that the editor has "utterly failed" at "elementary" level tasks. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 20:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's just another comment by Gregory aiming to belittle a nom he disagrees with and undermine a legitimate rationale. Ignore it and perhaps move it in chronological order. I do not see why it is appropriate to bypass all the other comments and !votes just to include an unwarranted WP:TROUT.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nom failed to look, or he would have easily found WP:SIGCOV of this concept, such as a heavily sourced of the origins of this term that in 2016 in the Washington Post, or the in-depth coverage of the concept by, among others, journalist James Wolcott, historian Gil Troy, and literature professor Seth Abramson, all writing months ago. It is irresponsible to start an AfD without at least googling and reading whet you find. I do understand that tempers are running high post-Charlottesville and because Trump, but this does not excuse Nom.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:49, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mhmm, and it also does not excuse WP:BLUDGEONing the AfD process yet again but that has not stopped you.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, somehow I missed this initial trolling by EM Gregory, I must have been distracted by his berating several deletion voters below. Greg, I evaluated the citations present in the article and several via google search; the term is a bright, shiny, neologism, a new toy created by one ideological set of warriors to taunt the other. It isn't real, but could possibly support an article on alt-right-as-a-slur, as I noted in the nomination. Your personal attacks are an embarrassing spotlight on your own lack of decorum, and I strongly suggest a bit of self-reflection. TheValeyard (talk) 22:19, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEY Article has had a WP:HEYMANN upgrade.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned below (but since you chose to highlight it here), my feeling is that your revisions not only failed to show that it's sustainable, they showed the exact opposite, basically validating the argument that a reasonable article for this topic isn't sustainable at the moment - reducing the sources to only the usable ones resulted in an article that is almost entirely about a single usage of the term by the President, comparable to eg. his coining of Covfefe. A neologism worth covering should have more sources showing broad usage, rather than having nearly all the sources focusing on a single event; "here's a neologism the president used once, which otherwise has almost no coverage" isn't a viable article. --Aquillion (talk) 02:38, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete (or, if kept, ~~weak~~ strong merge) (!vote has been changed twice since first added) as a neologism with no notability.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:43, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Full opinion _{(Collapsed for the sake of space and ease of reading for others)} --Mark Miller (talk) 05:19, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I feel obliged to elaborate on my opinion. A recent comment by one of the IP users on the article talk page made me have a slightly better understanding of what might be happening here. It was brought to my attention by User talk:98.247.224.9 that the article is supposed to be about different definitions of the word. What also strikes me with much of the support including that of the IP is the constant discussion of Conservatives, Liberals, Democrats and Republicans. Another stand out is that this term, even when it is agreed upon to be the same term used by Hannity and Trump still has no clear agreement or consensus of editors...as to what that defined as, what groups this attaches to and how it is generally used properly if there be any proper way to use the phrase.

There seems to be a great deal being written about in this article about individuals, political and protest groups as well as political parties. That is a concern for our BLP policy. While the talk page shows that at least two editors have shown doubt that political parties are covered by the WP:BLPGROUP policy, it really only says; "The extent to which the BLP policy applies to edits about groups is complex and must be judged on a case-by-case basis. A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group; and when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group. When in doubt, make sure you are using high-quality sources.". But the BLP policy for multiple strong sources also applies when writing about accusations of one political party about anthor political party as well as claims by "conservatives against liberals" not to mention the claims about individual living persons.
It seems clear, at least to me, that the subject is not at all unambiguous. In fact, some feel strongly that this is not about a single subject at all. Our General guideline for notability have a few ways to determine notability for Wikipedia, one of those is; "Significant coverage". It is clear that there is support stating that there is "Significant coverage". But is there? If one looks it is clear that all of the sources right now are strictly online newspapers articles that are no older that a year or so. There are no scholarly papers or book sources. These are strictly sources from the media as news stories or opinion pieces. our guideline states; "Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability." While many articles have started from just news stories....many others were deleted as "Wikipedia is not a newspaper". Is this better off being merged (note the change in my !vote from delete to delete or merge) into other articles (there are many) and create a Wikipedia:Disambiguation. Under the notability guidelines it states; "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.[5]" ...which I think this falls under. WP:NEO; "Articles on neologisms that have little or no usage in reliable sources are commonly deleted, as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term." I believe this truly has little coverage in reliable sources as there are no other sources at this time other than online media and there does seem to be something of a promotional aspect of attempting to use Wikipedia to increase usage.
Wikipedia:Broad-concept article (an article that addresses a concept that may be difficult to write about because it is abstract, or because it covers the sometimes-amorphous relationship between a wide range of related concepts) states, "and a substantial portion of the links asserted to be ambiguous are instances or examples of that concept or type, then the page located at that title should be an article describing it". There is not a substantial portion of the links asserted to be ambiguous which are instances or examples of the concept. A majority of the sources state there is no such thing and are not actually examples of the concept. Sources that attempt to show examples conclude they are unrelated and for the most part just name calling with no self identification....which loops back to the BLP issue.
Reasons this could be deleted include the fact it could have been speedy deleted if not for this long discussion (and had I not edit conflicted with this nomination...oh well) because it was created by a blocked user and might even have qualified under another speedy criteria. The article may not be in good enough shape to keep it's current form even as a merge as many issues exist. On top of that, it does seem to be using Wikipedia as a platform to increase it's usage on the very day Trump created some controversy over his use of the term. The creation, content and lack of consensus on what the term or phrase actually is (not just Wikipedia editors, but academia) seems to demonstrate that this may not necessarily be about encyclopedic content. At any rate...that's my ten cents worth.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:55, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, this article only showed up over what Trump had to say today. Home Lander (talk) 00:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now that some time has passed, this rationale that its recent interest is a byproduct of the recent presidential press conference honestly seems accurate as coverage of the "alt-left" seems to have already dropped off of the news cycle. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 11:47, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Remove vote by now blocked sock-puppet ~Awilley (talk) 03:23, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Keep The word has significant notability, and has been used in thousands of mainstream articles. MaineK (talk) 00:48, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Admin, note: The above user is the article creator, and has only edited this article and Unite the Right rally since account creation, which was all of 90 minutes ago. (If I am reading time stamps right, these are tricky) TheValeyard (talk) 00:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: They have been blocked for sockpuppetry. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Antifa (United States). I think this debate ended today. Personally I've edited more than a thousand pages over the course of more than a decade, and no edit of mine has ever been reverted legitimately (that is, persistently, after review). So I'm not just spouting off. 98.247.224.9 (talk) 00:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I question how an editor, with only 16 previous edits claims a 10-year edit history, with 1,000 edits. @98.247.224.9: why does your edit history not match your claim. What were your previous monitoring names/IPs Nfitz (talk) 05:48, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Post count, both small and large, is not an argument. Furthermore, it is not a substitute or excuse for an argument. That being said, even if that were to be dismissed and your edit history was to be significant, your claim simply does not match what can be found about your account. However, even if it did, per the reasons already stated, your post should be dismissed as it lacked a reason to substantiate your keep !vote. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 05:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Post count of course isn't an argument. Except of course when the poster uses it first. Nfitz (talk) 09:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe y'all didn't read my current talk page before YOU spouted off? And those earlier IPs represent only a couple of years of activity. Before that, my ISP was changing my IP address every week or two, and it wasn't practical to show enough of that earlier history to make any difference. Anyway, I was just trying to head off the kind of ad-hominem attacks that are commonly aimed at new and IP users. Like the one that TheValeyard aimed at MaineK (who is not me!) in the previous bullet. But to the discussion at hand, and as I wrote in more detail below, I think maybe the right answer here is to merge this article with Antifa (United States), and I've changed my vote (above) accordingly. If "Merge" isn't something the robots can interpret in this context, I apologize. 98.247.224.9 (talk) 07:19, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good sir, I ask you to remain civil; I merely questioned, and you answered quite well. That doesn't tackle the issue, that no one outside the extreme right-wing has until the last few hours, heard of the term, the "alt-left" - especially the "alt-left". If it mirrors the alt-right; our alt-right article notes that White supremacist[6] Richard Spencer coined the term in 2010 in reference to a movement centered on white nationalism, and has been accused by some media publications of doing so to excuse overt racism, white supremacism, and neo-Nazism.. So are looking for radical communist/Marxist/Trotskyist/Leninist, anti-capitalist organizations, acting in some capacity of terror. Basically the members of Category:Far-left politics in the United States; i.e. the Black Panthers, Weather Underground, or something. The problems with groups like this, is they pretty much don't exist. Antifa seems to be some non-group that includes at various time simply those that oppose fascism, and others anarchical groups such as the Black bloc, who don't so much have a political stake, but are simply there to take advantage in the break down of law and order, to reak havoc; in a less politically-charged environment, such as the 2010 Toronto G20 riots these foreign-lead anarchists were condemned by right, left, and centre. So who IS the alt-left - and if the alt-left doesn't know they are the alt-left, then do they exist? Today - the day the word was effectively given birth, other than in the very fringes of society, the answer is there is no alt-left. Perhaps one day, the word will catch on, and we will need an article; but today is not that day. We can't create articles for phrases the day the come out of the president's mouth - it takes time; to this day I am not a crook is a redirect. I'm surprised that We begin bombing in five minutes actually exists, but the Soviets did kind of have a hand there in immortalizing it - but it still takes years. Will this one last forever, or be forgotten in 15 minutes. The sun is yet to rise, and it's already drifting off the news feeds. Nfitz (talk) 09:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What an eloquent apology you offer for having made no effort whatsoever to LEARN my history here before making false statements about it. Anyway, apology accepted. Now, as to the facts. It is a fact, as supported by multiple sources referenced in the article, that liberals have written about as many articles staking out definitions for the "alt-left" as conservatives have written. Some of those references were in the article before you made your statement to the contrary above, which means it is another careless falsehood. Similar false statements are made throughout the comments below as well; clearly those people are also being careless, commenting on whether the article should be kept without actually having read it. It is also a fact that the way the term is being used today (as opposed to the way it was used in some of those older articles), it does indeed refer to something real, which is basically the Antifa movement in the United States: extreme left-wing activists who are using violence to interfere with speech and actions they don't like and to destroy property owned by people they don't like. I think it's right and proper to title the Antifa article using the term they, themselves, prefer to use, but it seems necessary for that article to explain that their opponents have given them another name which is now being used by multiple notable, reliable mainstream media outlets for the simple reason that essentially overnight, the term "alt-left" has become far better known than the term "antifa." Which is also a fact. That's my position, anyway. 98.247.224.9 (talk) 01:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do confess, I hadn't realised that not all of the references (as they existed when I reviewed the article) were brand new; as for some reason someone had highlighted the date accessed, but not the more important date of writing! The older one though made it quite clear there was no alt-left. The one that seems to be just a few hours old that the utterance - in Jacobin - and to tell the truth, I don't fully see where the article is going. From that source, it seems clear, if the term does exist, it's not clear what it means ... centrist, left-wing, extreme-left wing. And this seems common in some of the other sources added. However, you are arguing merge, not delete - which is essentially a redirect. I think we have to be go back to our fairly clear policy in WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary where WP:Neologism tells us that that articles on neologisms that have little or no usage in reliable sources are commonly deleted but noting that To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, which I don't see - what I see are news articles. Where are the academic papers? The books? The dissertations? Well, it's too soon maybe ... that's the point. It's too soon. Which is why WP:NEO goes on clearly to say Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. The term does not need to be in Wikipedia in order to be a "true" term, and when secondary sources become available, it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic, or use the term within other articles.. Basically, it's WP:TOOSOON. If anything, the term exists, only because of alt-right - if there were to be a redirect (and I don't see that there should), it should be to alt-right. Nfitz (talk) 06:18, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia." Yes, that's right. Which is why some of us have made a special effort to include multiple references to multiple reliable secondary sources that describe the origins and meanings of the term "alt-left." So this sentence is irrelevant, and the repeated plaintive calls to justify deleting the article on this basis are just incompetent WP:WL. Please stop, and refocus yourself on legitimate arguments instead. 98.247.224.9 (talk) 07:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But what are these secondary sources? The policy says it is looking for books and papers; not news and magazines. And how can you violate WP:5P be using a term like incompetent? But let's assume then, that a redirect is okay. The definitions on "Alt-Left" are all over the place - clearly when alt-right is being used for Neo-Nazis, the KKK, and heavily-armed extremist militias and their sympathizers, then alt-left is going to be some pretty far left groups along the lines of Sandanistas, Frelimo, various ELNs, M26-7, etc. But we see nothing like this. Instead the term seems to be all other the place, and applied to anything that's further left than the current GOP, which is further right than it often is. It's even being applied to centrists such as liberals. I don't think redirecting it to any particular thing is appropriate, at least until (if it happens) the usage coalesces around a clearer meaning. So how is redirecting to your suggestion better than simply Alt-Right#Alt-Left? Nfitz (talk) 08:50, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no proof this exists. Just because Donald Trump says something doesn't make it true (quite the opposite, in fact!). Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 01:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NEO. "Protologism is a term invented in the early 2000s by Mikhail Epstein, an American literary theorist, to refer to a new word which has not gained wide acceptance in the language. The word protologism describes one stage in the development of neologisms, at which a word is proposed, extremely new, or not established outside a very limited group of people. A protologism is coined to fill a gap in the language, with the hope of it becoming an accepted word." The word "Alt-left" falls under this category and Wikipedia isn't a platform for that. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:12, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The RS in the article which mention the term itself, rather than putting it in quotes, say that such a grouping does not exist. If this article isn't deleted, it might have to be structured like Fascist (insult). Rigley (talk) 01:34, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:SYNTH. I understand that when Alt-right article was first started many of the same issues where present with original research and synthesis but there is also more coverage on that phenomenon than this one. Also Wikipedia isn't here to Right the wrongs and the fact that there is an Alternative right ariticle doesn't mean that there necessarily has to an article on the opposite side. Inter&anthro (talk) 01:40, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't enough consensus on what "alt-left" means to even say that it is "opposite" to alt-right. James Wolcott's definition (c.f. Dirtbag Left) implies that alt-right and alt-left are similar to each other in that they both reject identity politics. But then you have some sources saying that alt-left is characterized by identity politics.
I advocated for "delete" on alt-right when it was on AfD one year ago for similar reasons. But a major difference here, is that alt-right started as a self-descriptor, so people who call themselves "alt-right" who did things IRL that got reported on by media, created notability. I can't see a similar thing happening for AL. Rigley (talk) 01:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - Rigley made an important point that the "alt-right" became a term because people used it to refer to themselves and thus gave it an actual meaning. However, in the case of the proto-term "alt-left" there seems to be an active effort to "make it a thing" without anyone politically identifying as "alt-left." It wouldn't be politicizing this to say that this "left" term was invented by the right. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 06:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Except I think this claim was invented by the left because the term has been used in all seriousness by at least five notable liberal outlets and individual commentators well before Trump discovered it. The real problem with the term over the last year is that it really hasn't been used consistently... but over time, there seems to be a consensus emerging that defines "alt-left" as a blanket term for left-wing activists who are willing to use violence instead of using what they consider to be the ineffective traditional political processes. This is also a practical definition of the antifa activists who have begun, relatively recently, bringing anti-personnel weapons to protests. There's no doubt in my mind that there are fewer people in these groups than in the self-identified alt-right, and that plus the fact that few self-identified members of the alt-right are known for personally endorsing violent activism, never mind being violent themselves, show that the alt-left isn't just a leftist equivalent of the alt-right. But that doesn't mean the newer term is illegitimate or unworthy of coverage in Wikipedia. I'm just starting to think that maybe the best answer is to fold Wikipedia's coverage of the alt-left into the Antifa (United States) article, at least until a narrower or otherwise differentiated definition emerges in practical usage. 98.247.224.9 (talk) 07:19, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per WP:NEO. Tegeril (talk) 01:55, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or at "best" Redirect to List of alternative media (U.S. political left).--T. Anthony (talk) 02:12, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - neologism. GaidinBDJ (talk) 02:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no such thing. Fake news from the fake news master. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:23, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NEO. Minimax Regret (talk) 03:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NEO, especially since as far as I can tell it just means "leftist politics that I don't like" Laurel Wreath of Victors ‖ Speak 💬 ‖ 03:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Why do we need a word that isn't defined or isn't used? The article as written implies "Delete me". If the alt-right can get a meaning to catch on, that would be different, a case of descriptive usage. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:03, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The links in the footnotes haveen very useful to me ; the stub has fastened my research. Der Spiegel-Washington Correspondant used the stub in his article today: ist ein Kunstwort, das Trump erfunden hat und hier erstmals nutzt. Ein entsprechender, allererster Wikipedia-Eintrag stammt von Dienstagabend und nennt als einzige Quelle Trumps Pressekonferenz.
(translated: is a made-up word coined by Trump and used there for the first time. A Wikipedia stub was created Tuesday evening; the only source it names is Trumps press conference) --Neun-x (talk) 05:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- So--because a publication says Trump made up the word and it appeared on Wikipedia it should stay on Wikipedia? Drmies (talk) 02:10, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Redirect - At this point, an actual definition of "alt-left" cannot be established and the article is plagued by WP:SYNTH.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:28, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neologism. Definition can't be established. Extreme WP:SYNTH. Quinton Feldberg (talk) 05:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not really a real thing. May as well close per WP:SNOW. AusLondonder (talk) 05:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I started reading the references - which seem to point to this word not being real. It's clearly a neologism, and doesn't have reliable long-term usage. Also, I note the objectors to removal here, is one IP only 16 previous edits, who claims to have edited over 1,000 articles. One is the article creator, whose account was created shortly before creating the article. And the final keep vote's, case to keep, is because they find the "links in the footnotes" useful - which has no basis in policy. As such, with 18 calls to delete the article in only a few hours, that WP:SNOW be applied Nfitz (talk) 05:45, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This violates WP:NEO - and it's SNOWing. As Quinton Feldberg said, this is also a very clear example of WP:SYNTH. BrendonTheWizard (talk) (Update on 21st August: I would not be opposed to redirecting into Alt-Right#Alt-left, renaming to Campaign for the neologism "alt left", or Alt-left (neologism). Rationale for this as well as opposition to keep is further elaborated in other posts. That being said, I have not necessarily changed my !vote away from delete.) 05:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Keep Everyone let's take a deep breath. Please google the term. The New York Times, USA Today, The Washington Post and CBS news all currently have an article about the alt-left. It makes sense to at least consider having an entry on this term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.197.81.245 (talk) 06:11, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you mentioned have articles about how it quote "isn't a group." To just say "google it" is not a counterargument to it being a neologism and a pejorative, especially when that's exactly what is found by googling it. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 06:26, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This user has made little to no edits outside of this page. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:00, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, too much media coverage to ignore it. It is too notable and influential. We have a responsibility to clarify what facts exist about the concept. For one: Trump didn't create it, people writing at least in 2016 about it. ScratchMarshall (talk) 06:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is the context of this media coverage? There is no established consensus on what the term means. Most media coverage is referring to it as as a neologism, which is one of the primary arguments for deletions. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 06:32, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

right on!! ScratchMarshall Let us eat lettuce (talk) 04:50, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as classic WP:NEO. If you'd term is still used in a month, I'd reconsider. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its obvious Wikipedia is becoming a very charged atmosphere. Whether you like or don't like the phrase shouldn't matter - there are extensive reliable sources writing about it as we speak. Yes it may viewed as a perjorative, but we have an article on Politiclal Correctness which is also a perjorative. And not every source is saying it "doesn't exist". Most of them are actually making an attempt to define it. I honestly don't see what the big deal is. Why such controversy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.242.67.118 (talk) 06:42, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Alt-right" started as nothing, and quickly became a thing people write (or "blog" or "tweet") about. Since that ice has already broken and since we're further into the future, this should reasonably accelerate quicker. That's not to say it should ever become bigger than the original, but it'll sooner pass the bar in common usage by the other half of the dichotomy. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:00, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but the website "Alternative Right" looks to go back to 2010. And it's not really clear yet that the "Alt-left" is describing anything people would self-describe as or that it's different than "Far-left politics in the United States." (Granted that's currently a redirect.) Also I'm not sure deletions has to mean recreation is impossible if an "alt left" actually develops as I think it maybe could.--T. Anthony (talk) 07:14, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The time between 2010 and 2017 is equal to the time between now and August 21, by my (admittedly lunatic) reckoning of the gravitational singularity. Something is spreading social acceptance of stupid words faster than ever before, though, and mocks fuddy-duddies and Grammar Nazis ever more ruthlessly. Just now, I saw it imply Oxfordians and Wikipedians are baby lions. I don't want an entire nation thinking I'm a baby lion, man! InedibleHulk (talk) 08:29, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't get anything on your like. For the record I'd be for Far-left politics in the United States being its own article rather than a redirect.--T. Anthony (talk) 23:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is reality, not the fantasy world of Trump. In reality there is no such word. --Jensbest (talk) 08:15, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 08:20, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 08:20, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NEO. We don't have articles for similar terms such as 'libtard'. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have cuckservative, regressive left, mama grizzly, retarded time and moonbat. At least one of those is similar. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from retarded time (which is decisively not related to any of these), I don't think these belong on Wikipedia either. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:48, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those are also non-notable neologisms that don't merit articles. — Red XIV ^(talk) 20:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note, just for comparison, here: [49] is how our article Alt-Right looked the day it was kept in May 2016.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - no one calls themselves the alt-left - it is just a term used by others to describe the far left. Therefore, it should redirect to far left or another similar page, and it can be discussed as a term there. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 10:30, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the fact that a name is created for you rather than by you in no way disqualifies that name from being notable. A classic example is the Philistines.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This morning's mainstream U.S. media are bursting with analysis of "alt-left." WP:RS material is now out there on what the term means, and who uses it and to what purpose. Moreover, reliable sourcing using and defining this term goes back at least as far as the December 2016 article by historian Gil Troy cited in article. WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT is not a reason for deletion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:12, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that specifically this morning is mentioning it as this is the first time the morning news segments have a chance to cover "what is the 'alt left' mentioned by the president?" These articles so often focus more on non-agreed-upon attempts to define it. Some people say that anything far left, whether far auth left or far lib left, is synonymous with "alt left." Others define it as necessitating the use of violence. Others say it can refer to antifascism and simply the inverse of the alt right. Others say that its defining characteristic is its opposition to the alt right. This is a neologism and simply dismissing all delete !votes as examples of "just don't like it" (especially without substantiation for such a sweeping allegation) isn't a sufficient counter. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 11:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brendon, well-sourced, variation in the use/definition of a term can certainly be included in an article on that term.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:41, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The thorough variation in what defines it which presently fails to constitute a single meaning is precisely why this term still remains a young neologism and is not yet ready for an article. At best, its notability can only associate it with pejorative term articles, not as an article on an entire subsection of party politics. That being said, it has yet to fully establish itself as a pejorative either. I'm willing to reconsider my !vote in the future if this changes, though. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 12:10, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but terms like liberal, Progressivism, metamodernism never do settle down, they evolve. Even fascist, which many thought had been buried in the Führerbunker, has been reincarnated and acquired new meanings. If we waited for descriptors of political ideologies to "to constitute a single meaning," as you suggest, we would have no articles on political descriptors.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:33, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an example of a political term evolving, we are discussing a political term being invented as a pejorative where now we must think of a vague definition. Fascists today hold the same values that they did in the 40s; the idea that it was "buried in the Führerbunker" does not relate to its definition, only its popularity. Furthermore, even if your argument was to be humored by considering "alt-left" to be an evolving term, let us remember that liberal, progressive, etc are all political positions with concrete definition today. While fascism's positions, values, and definition today remain entirely unchanged from its conception, one could argue that "liberalism" today does not mean what it once did due to the divide between neo/classical liberalism and how today the term often refers to traditionally leftist or near-centrist ideas rather than right-leaning ones. However, the definition is unchanged and fits perfectly with both classical liberals and what many refer to as liberals today. A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority. Your argument was objectively incorrect. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 20:16, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The term "Alt-Left" is now being used to describe the alternative to the "Alt-Right" and should stay in Wikipedia. The article needs to be properly cited. The term alt-left is now defined in Wiktionary: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/alt-left IQ125 (talk) 11:15, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, that is not a valid rationale for something to exist. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 13:20, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neologism. This might be useful at Wikidictionary or as part of some kind of index or list article, but it doesn't justify a stand-alone encyclopedia article. Nick-D (talk) 11:28, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NEO: "When secondary sources become available, it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic.".E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please quote the whole paragraph here: "Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. The term does not need to be in Wikipedia in order to be a "true" term, and when secondary sources become available, it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic, or use the term within other articles." There is no evidence that this coined term is widely used. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Knowledgekid87, I urge you to revisit this one, because the sourcing is there. As to "widely used," a heavily sourced, reported, December 2016 history of this neologism in the Washington Post calls this term a "mainstay" of the political conversation. and a gNews search gets ~250,000 hits.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:30, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Citing the amount of hits on Google News is in direct violation of WP:GHITS. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 20:26, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the phrase is widely used, and as the article says, it is used by right-wing propaganda to draw a false equivalence between racists and liberals, as if both were equally irrational and violent, which is clearly not the case. If the article is deleted, that important information will be deleted. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not a specific movement with which anyone has been said to identify; it's a WP:NEO created in an attempt to establish moral equivalence in a belief that if there are extremists on one side then there must also be extremists on the other side. - Brian Kendig (talk) 13:45, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please speak to sourcing, not to assertions about motivation of article or neologism creator. Note that the fact that a name is created for rather than by a group in no way disqualifies that name from being notable. A classic example is the Philistines. E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:00, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then, more specifically: I don't see any sources discussing who represents the alt-left or what the alt-left has done or what the alt-left's goals are, specific to it as a group. Instead, I only see the term "alt-left" used as a counterbalance to "alt-right": people say such-and-such about the alt-right, but consider the alt-left! If you'd like to make the article stronger and more likely to survive this AfD, please add sources which discuss it independently of a comparison with the alt-right. - Brian Kendig (talk) 14:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis are you requiring that article about the alt-left not discuss it in the context of alt-right? The point is that WP:SIGCOV of this neologism exists and has existed for almost a year.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the basis that there's a difference between a label defined in terms of its opposite (the radical fringe, just on the left instead of the right) and an actual group of people whose members, activities, and goals can be discussed. I haven't seen the latter. - Brian Kendig (talk) 16:20, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEY, Instead of making assertions, I did a modest expand, source of the article. Article now contains material from a heavily-sourced, December 2016 Washington Post history of this neologism. In addition to extensive discussions of the context and use of this term by journalist James Wolcott, historian Gil Troy, literature professor Seth Abramson and others. I think that a great many comments, including the comment by Nom, were written in the heat of the moment and under the influence of understandable outrage over Trump's appalling response to the violence in Charlottesville. But it's time to cool down and look at the sources and WP:SIGCOV of this term.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot see how these changes would affect anyone's vote already cast, the sources discuss why the "alt-left" does not exist. At best, these edits would be suitable for a different article on alt-left-as-a-slur. ValarianB (talk) 16:00, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The sourcing actually looks much worse now. Nearly every source refers to a single event (Trump's usage of the term in a recent speech), which makes this article look like both WP:RECENTISM and as an attempt to take something that clearly lacks the breadth of sourcing necessary to support an article and prop it up by finding a dozen slightly-different news articles all saying the same thing about the same event. We don't have an independent page about Covfefe; your revised list of sources makes this look even less notable than that - the bulk of the article and the coverage treats it as another flash-in-the-pan bit of linguistic oddity from a President whose struggles with language are infamous, but one with significantly less coverage than the infamous Covfefe. I've updated my position to "strong delete" accordingly. --Aquillion (talk) 02:35, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing got worse, but it was better before. I strongly disagree with you that there is not enough RSs for this article to remain an independent article. A better alternative to deleting this article is improving it, adding better sources (such as the sizable amount that existed prior to Trump saying the term). WP:UGLY comes to mind. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:13, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per much of the earlier arguments, particularly because reliable sources that cover the term do so in a dismissive manner, not because the "alt left" actually exists. The alt-right is a label chosen by and marketed by the actual alt-right people, while the "alt left" is a slur created by the right to target those on the left. If the sources can be used to justify an article called "Alt-left slur", then that should be created independent of this attempt. ValarianB (talk) 16:00, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Like it or not, it is now a term being used. The fact that the president of the United States used the term makes its notable.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:40, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You mean to say "Like it or not, this term is being used in this news cycle. This is a pure neologism, invented this week by the far right (which includes the President of the United States) to divert attention from the fascist terrorism in Virginia. It has zero coverage in the scholarly literature. Zero. Carrite (talk) 02:40, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge: While it is steadily coming into use because of Trump's use of the term, it should be included in some form on the site. If is isn't retained as a separate article, it should be merged into Alt-right. Shortly before I discovered that an article now exists about the alt-left neologism, I added a section to the bottom of the alt-right article that makes note of the "alt-left" term's origins, which started in 2016 as a disparagement by centrist and center-right members of the Democratic Party aimed at progressives that some conservatives later adopted for similar reasons. That info could be integrated into the existing "alt-left" article to shore up the definition and the article's notability. TVTonightOKC 16:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Also, both parties have used the term to disparage liberals. Leftists to the ideological center or right-of-center disparage fellow members of the political left who believe in progressive ideologies by identifying them as the so-called "alt-left". This isn't the only derogatory neologism/term to be included on Wikipedia, and many factors from notability to the extent of its usage play a factor in the article's long-term/permanent inclusion. TVTonightOKC 18:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Keep per above. Widespread and sustained coverage in reliable sources, even before Trump's comments yesterday. CJK09 (talk) 17:19, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The focus should be on how the sources are discussing the coined term, there is also WP:GHITS to consider as well. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:23, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no such thing as the "alt-left". Wikipedia is not a platform for promoting WP:MADEUP neologisms, or for manufacturing false equivalency.- Mr X 17:28, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Alt-left" is not "something that one or one's friends simply made up". Whether or not the term is a false equivalency is immaterial to whether the term has received sufficient coverage to merit inclusion, which by any reasonable standard it has. Should the article on White pride be deleted simply because it's a ridiculous concept? Certainly not, and this seems to be the same grounds upon which you are advocating deletion of this article. Furthermore, as others have said above, "alt-left" as used by Trump is not its only usage - it's been used for around a year now by centrist Democrats as a term used to criticize left-wing Democrats. CJK09 (talk) 17:35, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not it is a false equivalency is quite important, actually. The premise here is, if the "alt left" is an actual "thing". Is there an identifiable political movement that is known by this name, i.e. if it is comparable to alt right. Or, is it a label used by a fringe political people to attack others of an opposing ideology, such as libtard. It is pretty clear from how the sources describe the term that it is far closer to being a slur than it is a genuine political faction or movement, as the alt right is. The question here is whether it is notable or not as a slur. ValarianB (talk) 19:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

re your "is there an identifiable political movement that is known by this name" objection, self identification is not a requirement. If someone said they did not shoot person A but we have on film they shot person A, we still say they shot them. Do you think there are people self a identifying as lugenpresse or that every white supremist identifies as a white supremist? The concept being notable is reason enough. ScratchMarshall (talk) 03:57, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unlike the Alt-right, a self-coined, loosely organized hate group founded by Richard B. Spencer, "alt-left" is a non-existent group of people and is a phrase only recently asserted by conservative groups to create a false equivalency. It is meant to counter and deflect the spotlight away from Donald Trump's tacit support of racist, white nationalist organizations. No such group exists. ^[1] sunkorg (talk) 17:33, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Is There Such A Thing As An Alt-Left?

Once again, whether or not the use of the term is valid is irrelevant to whether the article merits inclusion. CJK09 (talk) 17:41, 16 August 2017 (UTC

The qualifications or lack thereof are relevant when WP:GHITS compliance is required. This new term doesn't pass the sniff test under those guidelines (i.e. it's WP:MADEUP). sunkorg (talk) 17:48, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From the text of WP:MADEUP: Wikipedia is not for things that you and/or your friends made up. If you have invented something in school, the lab, your garage, or the pub, and it has not yet been featured in reliable sources, do not write about it on Wikipedia. Write about it on your own website or blog instead. The relevant part here is and it has not yet been featured in reliable sources. The term has been extensively featured in reliable sources, even before Trump's comments yesterday. CJK09 (talk) 17:55, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing key facts under WP:GHITS, including: Wikipedia is not a news service—articles will not simply be kept because they are of timely importance. Once it's "timely importance" is exhausted, it will no longer be relevant, because no such organized group exists. (talk) 18:16, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In general, please everyone assume good faith here. Lets not accuse editors of having a political motive behind their opinions. I feel that WP:ARBAPDS would apply here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The page was obviously created to promote belief in the existence of such a group. The same goes for the August 16 changes by user Tvtonightokc to the Alt-right article.173.186.192.134 (talk) 18:02, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this user has made no edits outside of this discussion. CJK09 (talk) 01:12, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete (or merge / redirect into Alt-Right; no usage or meaning independent from that term. Almost all the sources on this article are just discussing it as a spin on the term 'Alt-Right' rather than as a neologism with common usage or solid meaning in its own right. --Aquillion (talk) 18:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nor hath "leftist" any meaning independent of "rightist; nor "day" independent of "night." Nor doth the snowflake generation call itself by this term of scorn. What, pray, is the basis of thy argument? Have we some hitherto unheard of policy stating that we must delete Left-wing politics because, it has little "solid meaning in its own right" independent, that is, of Right-wing politics? A truism since 1789. And yet, no WP guideline supporteth such an argument.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:40, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Insulting or dismissing editors as part of the "snowflake generation" is not a substitute for an argument. Please keep discussion civil and disregard any political agenda. Do not use ad hominem attacks in accordance with Wikipedia's policy on personal attacks. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 21:28, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The articles on those subjects have sources that describe and use the term independently, including (in most cases) academic papers tracing their history and usage. This page, on the other hand, is sourced mainly to blogs and coverage of quotes that have used the term as a one-off, often in reference to different things; and virtually all of them treat it as a spin-off to alt-right, or as something to say in response to it. In other words, it is noteworthy only in the context of that term, and doesn't have the independent significance necessary to spin it off into its own article like this. This is a relatively minor subtopic of Alt-right and should be covered on that article, not here. --Aquillion (talk) 18:42, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article is about a notable epithet. It doesn't get more notable than to have the President of the United States say it and major new organization repeat it. This makes the article just as valid as the article Democrat Party (epithet). Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 19:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I should also mention that there seems to already be a consensus at the Donald Trump article that not everything he tweets or says that is repeated by the media needs an article or a mention in his article. Notability as a Wikipedia standard is much higher than that.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:45, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:N (the very first sentence) "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.". Like it or not, that's the Wikipedia standard for notability. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 20:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After August 15, the term will be included in all dictionaries, whatever we think of it, or him.Axxxion (talk) 20:03, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis can you make the claim that it will be included in all dictionaries? I'm assuming that your use of "or him" was referring to President Trump; if your argument is that this page has achieved noteworthiness because the president popularized a new term, that is logically equal to saying we shouldn't have deleted Covfefe in favor of a redirect. That's not to say that one can't argue that the term "alt left" is in any way equal equal to a memed typo, but that argument is similar to the arguments that supported a covfefe article, notably that the president had popularized a new term and achieved viral coverage regardless of what people thought of the president.BrendonTheWizard (talk) 20:40, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That was my opinion based on the fact that the U.S. president is the most watched&followed person on earth, just like Hitler is the best-known person in human history... All else are emotions.Axxxion (talk) 21:04, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but - what??? That genuinely did not make sense. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 21:13, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What indeed. Axxxion are you trolling or just being daft? Regardless, please provide a source regarding dictionaries. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:16, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I may be daft, but am saying precisely what i am saying: the term will be included (future tense used). My impression from reading many threads on this topic is that some anti-Trump folks (forgive my being blunt) are so het-up about Trump (ditto), that they plain fail to see a text being discussed, very often. Loss of concentration as a result of overheated brain cells, apparently. Which i find quite amusing, for if one believes that his nemesis is wrong/evil/stupid, the best way to expose him is by accurately quoting precisely what he says, instead of spouting mounds of heat-of-the-moment gratuitous/partisan interpretations. That said, the term is already in at least two online dictionaries, incl Wiktionary (the entry was created in February this year).Axxxion (talk) 22:17, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please remain civil when editing and rely on objective, encyclopedic research as opposed to dismissing the opposing sides as "partisans" whose arguments come from "overheated brain cells" motivated to "expose" their "evil nemesis." Wikipedia is a collegian environment. With that aside, as for your comment in the future tense I direct you to WP:CRYSTALBALL: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Editors often protest the deletion of their articles on the grounds that their new idea is bound to take off and become popular soon, so why not have an article on it now? Sometimes they might be right, but other times they might not be, and once again there is no way for the reader to verify that their idea is going to be the next big thing. Wikipedia deals with subjects which are already notable and written about. It doesn't speculate on what might become well known in the future. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 23:35, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - neologism that hasn't been sufficiently established to deserve an article. It's clear from the article that although this word has been used a few times, it hasn't yet fixed on a particular meaning. Most appropriate solution would be to redirect to Alt-right, which has a small section on the idea of the 'alt-left'; that's all that's needed at present. Robofish (talk) 20:34, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Obviously passes WP:GNG. — JFG ^talk 20:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article necessitates more than simply notability unless it undergoes a merge or name modification. Rather than an article about merely a notable term, this is intended to be a high-importance article on an entire subsection of party politics when it's currently only a neologism which lacks definition, followers/self-identifiers, or affiliated parties. If the term's only use is by its opponents as a pejorative, it could qualify as a pejorative article, but it has no place on Wikipedia as a subsection of party politics. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 21:01, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No group identifies as "alt-left", and merely being spoken by a famous person does not make a neologism notable enough to merit an article. — Red XIV ^(talk) 20:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please cite the policy whereby we delete well-sourced WP:WORDISSUBJECT on the grounds that "No group identifies" itself by the word? E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:03, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The word is non-notable. It doesn't actually describe anything. Having recently been used by a celebrity is not sufficient to establish notability, even if that celebrity is the President of the United States. "alt-left" no more merits and article than does "covfefe" (which is a redirect). The alt-right article already has a section about the term, specifically noting that it's an attempt to invent a "liberal equivalent" to the alt-right where none actually exists. A separate article is not merited. — Red XIV ^(talk) 02:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that a predominate argument has been that we must delete this article because no person or group self-identifies as a member of the "alt-left." by this argument we would have to delete all articles in Category:Ethnic and religious slurs, and most of the article in List of religious slurs. I urge editors to look at the sourcing on the page before opining. page shows indepth coverage of WP:WORDISSUBJECT. Page also shows serious coverage of alt-left dating to autumn 2016; denial of the existence of which has been the other leading argument for deletion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:11, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Counter Note Such an argument would merit this as article as a pejorative slur equivalent to cuckservative, not as an article grouped with established subsections of party politics. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 21:18, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I dispute your contention as a matter of formal logic. Nevertheless, I refer you to Category:Pejoratives. But suppose I take your point. Cuckservative was kept after FOUR highly contested deletion debates. Terms of this sort attract WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT arguments, either from Angry white male (FOUR AfDs; 1 no consensus close; THREE that closed as KEEP) or from Social justice warriors (only 1 MERGE debate, and 1 AfD but, hey, we skew left.) Now, can you cite a policy to support your argument above that "This article necessitates more than simply notability"?E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I direct your attention to the policy that has been cited several times throughout this discussion: WP:NEO. Rather than an article describing a genuine branch of politics, of which people and their political parties would identify such as the center-right, far-left, etc., this term is a neologism created not as a new political path but one coined with the intent of being a pejorative to refer to one's political opponents. If it has established itself as a term notable enough for Wikipedia then it would be an article on the campaign for a neologism, as said by Mark Miller. This article has no place in the template on party politics. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 21:51, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know. I cited it myself, above, more than once. Please read it, and explain in what sense this fails WP:NEO.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:16, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I've already responded to that post; your supporting evidence for the counter to WP:NEO was citing Google hits, which is against Wikipedia policy. Additionally, your quote from WP:NEO was missing important information: what precisely are we to consider the valid secondary source documents, and what are their primary source documents to legitimize them? My previous post still stands: if it has established itself as a term notable enough for Wikipedia then it would be an article on the campaign for a neologism, as said by Mark Miller. This article has no place in the template on party politics. The context of this article's current form is important and relevant to this discussion: this article, which openly and explicitly refers to itself as a neologism, is currently being displayed in a template as a legitimized subsection of party politics, which per the reasons already stated is very problematic. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 22:32, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, you didn't even read my post before responding. Separately, the issue of whether ot include the article in a specific tamplate can be discussed on the article's talk page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:02, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stating that a someone didn't read your post is not a clarification of why they missed/misinterpreted its point, nor is it answer to my question regarding why you believe this term has been well-documented enough to deserve a standalone article despite its status as a neologism rather than deleting, merging, or renaming it. As it has been stated myriad times, much of the media coverage (including the references cited in the article itself) refer to it as a non-existent group, a pejorative, etc. Those that do try to define it do not provide definitions comparable to those that can be found in similar articles on the same topic. What is the primary and secondary source to support this article? I'm willing to support a rename if this subject is undoubtedly proven worthy of a standalone article rather than a footnote in the Alt Right article. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 23:18, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the better analogy would be something overtly made-up for political/antagonizing purposes such as White History Month, which i see here is just a redirect and not a standalone article, thankfully. Cover the attempt to legitimize it, sure, somewhere as part of another article. But don't treat it like it is a genuine subject. TheValeyard (talk) 21:58, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would say this article is akin to Campaign for the neologism "santorum" and might need a change in article title if is remains. Just a thought.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Citing WP:NEO as grounds for deletion is ridiculous, as the term is now widely used on the US national and international media, whether you like it or not. כארומיל (talk) 22:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This user has made little to no edits outside of this page.[50] BrendonTheWizard (talk) 23:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per MrX reasoning. Neologism that can't be applied to a specific group. Classicwiki (talk) (ping me please) 23:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you cite the policy you are applying to this WP:WORDISSUBJECT topic? But do note that sources on page do identify and define the alt-left, in this, the article is not dissimilar to such neologisms as Bernie Bros, Generation Snowflake, Soccer Mom, trems, that is, coined and used by non-members of the groups labeled. If you meant that there is no formal group called "Alt-left," please familiarize yourself with the rules of Wikipedia.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:11, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey,E.M.Gregory. Decently familiar with the rules of Wikipedia, but I keep learning every day as they are endless. I know there is no formal notable group called "Alt-Left." Soccer Mom is pretty legitimate slang term that has been adapted by a wide variety of sources and publications (look it even has a film after the term: Soccer Mom (film)!). Bernie Bros hopefully won't exist five to ten years from now and will be merged with Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, 2016. Probably the same with Generation Snowflake and Snowflake (slang as they are both just pejoratives used by people if they come to a disagreement. But I guess we are not here to get into the full merits of those terms. I kinda see this as the same debate as Covfefe debacle. Not every word President Trump says should have its own Wikipedia page. At the end of the day my vote is weak delete, but delete for now. Please ping me if you want to keep talking about it, as I don't really watch pages. Classicwiki (talk) (ping me please) 02:18, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and embellish. The creation/development of this wiki is a truly wonderful development. I am glad to have been a part of its initiation. Let us eat lettuce (talk) 23:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Alt-left, or Alternative Left is a term used by President Donald Trump in reference to the radicalized counter protesters that erupted into violence during a permitted protest rally in Charlottesville, Virginia on August 12, 2017.[51]. Speaking at Trump Tower in Manhattan, Trump questioned "What about the alt-left that came charging at, as you say, the alt-right?"

Members of the alt-left typically do not support First Amendment guaranteed free speech and engage in premeditated rioting, fighting and demonstrating against persons with opinions that differ from theirs. The alt-left is a hate group that openly participates in violence and bigotry while claiming the moral high ground. Let us eat lettuce (talk) 23:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those statements were included in the cited source, nor related paraphrases. As a side note, please avoid soapboxing; your description of the "alt left" wasn't included in your source, leaving it to be an assumed opinion piece. Each edit to your original statement is becoming more politically charged and less neutral. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 00:17, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

you're right. I was indicating things I have heard on Hannity. Currently, not sure about a citation for it. Let us eat lettuce (talk) 00:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

::::*User:Let us eat lettuce, I see that you are newish here. Welcome. Just fyi, Articles for Deletion (AfD) is a place where we discuss whether or not a specific topic passes the WP:GNG. Bringing a source, as you did, is a way to meet part of that Guideline. But we really do try to confine discussions here to notability, as laid out at WP:GNG and related guideline pages. It's not a place for discussion of question such as what the alt-left supports, or does.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC) [reply]

In other words, you have articulated no actual reason to delete. Just expressing feelings about liking it and the Wikipedia, followed by some Hannity-fed propaganda. TheValeyard (talk) 00:31, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eat lettuce did bring a source, which is a step beyond mere opinion. And a good start to learning the arcane ropes of AfD discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a really good source defining alt-left... <Victor Davis Hanson, What is the “Alt” Left? https://amgreatness.com/2017/04/02/what-is-the-alt-left/ , April 2, 2017> The Alt-Left largely dismisses the old liberal idea of 1960s Civil Rights. Preference, diversity, and segregated safe spaces have become the new agendas. The purpose of safe spaces and trigger warnings is to provide purported “victims” their deserved extra-constitutional protections. The Alt-Left does not believe in free speech. A chief assertion of Alt-Left is the moral superiority of the Left. The Alt-Left’s idea of the nullification of law holds that local laws override federal legislation, and thus entitle sanctuary cities to shield illegal aliens. Let us eat lettuce (talk) 01:10, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a "really good source", it is an awfulsource, low-quality blog which the Wikipedia does not consider a reliable source, so it would not be usable in the article. As for Gregory, the Hollywood Reporter tabloid is not much better. I realize this discussion may not be going the way you'd like, given the brow-beating you've been leveling at nearly every editor who thinks it should be deleted, but tabloids and blog-citing editors aren't helping your case any. TheValeyard (talk) 01:48, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of a group blog on which a notable scholar, such as Victor Davis Hanson, writes a post, his article in American Greatness can be cited for his opinion. Even, in the case of a well-known scholar, a fact in his specific scholarly field can be cited to his blog comment - with caution, I have seen this done and defended only on narrow points of scholarship Stuff like the decipherable of a bit of ancient epigraphy. And opinion, however, can be cited to the notable individual writing on a blog, at the same level of reliability as an op-ed. (In certain scholarly fields, this is done quite widely.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:17, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Really!? Just trying to define the Alt-left and display the term is being used by others.. Let us eat lettuce (talk) 01:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Let us eat lettuce, amgreatness.com is a strictly partisan website with an intended bias. Wikipedia necessitates that all information must be encyclopedic, verifiable, and neutral. Regardless of whether a source is strictly left or strictly right, it cannot be used as a reliable source on Wikipedia. Additionally, although Wikipedia does not go based off of raw vote counts, please state your !vote only once. I've crossed out the "Keep" from your latest reply (don't worry, I too have put "keep"/"delete" in all of my replies on past articles for deletion where my extra !votes were struck through) BrendonTheWizard (talk) 02:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, group blogs like American Greatness can be cited for the opinion of the individual authors. This is Standard Operating procedure.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:37, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the context you described yes, it would be fair to cite an author and reference their opinion. However, in this context there was an attempt to cite it for the purpose of definition where the mentioned definition is loaded with POV. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 11:37, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

VG! btw, this subject is really sparking a good debate. didn't realize what I started yesterday, on the talk page of Alt-right... Let us eat lettuce (talk) 02:35, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - for now - I think it's got enough to be due a mention, wait a month or so and revisit if the usage is becoming more popular or was a brief flash. Seems a fairly obvious political label for the extremist or violent part of the left. Seems similar to Hard left in the UK, and perhaps containing the Anti-fa and Black bloc movements. Term seems)reflecting the opposite of the more common Alt-right, along with ALt- usages Alt-lite and Alt-fact of political speech in America. I see some media coverage(Washington Post "What is the Alt-left", CBSnews.com "What is the alt-left") outside of the higher profile today over "Trump lashes out at alt-left", so again -- revisit in a few weeks whether the term is now in ocmmon use. Markbassett (talk) 00:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- "Keep for now" isn't how AfD works. Either it's notable or it isn't. And since it's a WP:NEO with no real meaning, it isn't. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and ~~Soft Delete~~ Delete "big time" - I thinks this term is pretty unorganized from start but somehow used by Centre-right Democrats via 'Clinton-wing' and Right-wing circles to supposedly criticized people to originally Bernie Supporters and their Democratic Socialist/Progressive beliefs but now Trump used it to refer to all Left-wing specturm to presume violent. But set side, It's needs to be deleted until more people used it. Chad The Goatman (talk) 20:33, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of the term ever having been used by Democrats to refer to Sanders supporters. That's merely assertion made without citation in the alt-right article. — Red XIV ^(talk) 02:31, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, Several people in Democratic Party like Joy-Ann Reid used term only refer to Bernie follower and it's ideology as dumb slur before Trump hijacked it to refering all left-wing specturm as "violent". And also found something that Vice and Vanity Fair point it out. Chad The Goatman (talk) 22:04, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Homeopathy and Flying Spaghetti Monster both have articles despite the fact that neither is a real thing. The term is being used by prominent members of the far-right in the US (including the president) and the term is getting coverage in secondary sources, so it seems sensible to have an article here covering it. If the term falls out of favor at a later date, the article can be deleted/merged/redirected. --ChiveFungi (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say that pseudo-medicinal practices or satire religions are fitting examples to compare a political neologism to. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 02:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Delete coatrack repeated BLP violations mess. There is section in another article that covers it. See Alt-right#Alt-left. QuackGuru (talk) 03:12, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete See above. We aren't a dictionary of neologisms. Worth a sentence in a related article. A user above just said, Keep for now - I think it's got enough to be due a mention, wait a month or so and revisit if the usage is becoming more popular or was a brief flash. I can't think of a better argument for deleting it. wp:not news wp:coat rack wp:dictionary Edaham (talk) 05:49, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

your bias is exposed. Let us eat lettuce (talk) 05:04, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How embarrassing. remind me to look twice before I come back from the bathroom Edaham (talk) 05:49, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How does pointing out Wikipedia policy violations/concerns count as or "expose" "bias?" Attack arguments, not editors. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 05:38, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge with Alt-right or Unite the Right rally. Not everything the President says is notable enough for its own article. We had unnecessary and quite frankly ridiculous articles for "covfefe" and "last night in Sweden" and thankfully those were merged with their appropriate topics. Some other commentators and sites have talked about alt-left besides Donald Trump but not widely discussed by reliable sources. I say this would fit nicely as a section in Alt-right (since the new term is basically just derived from that) or Unite the Right rally, the context in which Donald brought up the term. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 05:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The current !vote is roughly 33 delete, 20 keep, 5 redirect/merge. It remains to be seen whether this will become a commonly used term to refer to Antifa, or a term used mainly by the alt-right, or if it will fade into obscurity entirely. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:37, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in the end of the day, AfDs are resolved through consensus and not votes, so it'll be up to the editor who closes this discussion to see all the arguments and decide. I think it'll mainly be used by the alt-right, but we don't know yet. I think it's too early to know. Whatever the outcome of this AfD is, it would be good to revisit this discussion in six months or a year and see how well the term aged. 179.228.12.242 (talk) 05:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, forgot to log in. That is my IP, by the way. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 05:46, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's too early to know... I concur! Let us eat lettuce (talk) 06:33, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In the end it will be up to the administrator that closes this to weigh the arguments and determine the consensus, though I add that if it genuinely is too early to know if this term will become a mainstay of politics, or if it is expected to some day be found in dictionaries, or if it'll simply be a frequent "trumpsim" used during the president's speeches, then we should discuss the creation of the standalone article in the future if/when it proves to be more than a neologism popularized by celebrity use. WP:CRYSTALBALL for now. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 11:32, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's now a real-term covered in RS's and bound to be repeated by Trump as much a Fake News. It' the inclusive term used to describe the left leaning people that attend alt-right assemblies. It's broader than the violent anarchists of antifa. --DHeyward (talk) 10:24, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"bound to be"? Lets keep things in the here and now, the sources that talk about the "alt-left" discuss why it doesn't exist. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:29, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some do, but others (Washington Post 2016 article) trace the history of its origin, use, and definition, while still other sources were exploring the terms' meaning, significance and context in the political conversation long before Charlottesville/Trump. (see this: [52] old, pre-edit-warring version of article) Even most of the sources that assert that the "alt-left" doesn't exist, or that the term should not be used, go on to discuss and define the term itself and the groups of activist that it is said to describe. An altogether normal conversation to swirl around a political neologism, and very like the conversation about "alt-right" in the year's before what's-his-name stood up and asserted that he and his publication were "alt-right."E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen this source pop up in the discussion but even if I were to give you that one it doesn't show in depth usage of the term. If we want to define the term then there is Wiktionary. Even if this page is deleted there is still a mention over at Alt-right#Alt-left (WP:TOOSOON). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:47, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The 2016 WaPo history of the term is in-depth, RS, secondary coverage, as are the essays - dating back many months - devoted to exploring the alt-left by journalists James Wolcott, historian Gil Troy, literature professor Seth Abramson and others. Serious, WP:SIGCOV more than adequate to pass WP:NEO exists. WP:WORDISSUBJECT.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:12, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Term has been used way before Trump did and I'm not sure the term was even started by conservatives. Lot of center-left democrats used that term last year to describe Bernie Bros.[53][54][55]

Delete It's a neologism. Can be redirected to Antifa. Wait a while, if it's still used in 6 months, there's no problem with recreating the page. LK (talk) 16:57, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Alt-left includes multiple groups not just Antifa, so your suggestion will not work. IQ125 (talk) 17:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IQ125, I agree that redirecting to Antifa is not the best decision, though because that definitions of "Alt-left" vary. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 18:49, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Today, a new, in-depth, exploration of the origin of the therm "alt-left" in the Washington Post. The alt-right didn’t invent ‘alt-left.’ Liberals did., here: [56]. Just the latest in a mountain of WP:SIGCOV, WP:WORDISSUBJECT. Unlike the 2016 reported article, this one is an op-ed. WaPo publishes ~10,000 op-eds per day online. They are as reliable as their authors. E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not new information and it serves no purpose to post it here. We know that neoliberals used it against progressives associated with the "Sanders wing" of the Democratic Party during the primaries. What is your point supposed to be? Even had this been relevant to post here, claims on the main article that it was popularized by Trump are not falsehoods, and even had they been as well, this is still a neologism. I fail to see the relevance of posting this on the article for deletion. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 18:46, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This opinion article doesn't present any evidence that Clinton voters invented the term during the primaries. Rather it talks about how the term "Bernie Bro" transformed into "alt-left" by February 2017. Anyways, opinion articles aren't accepted as reliable sources for anything except one's opinion. ^Falling_Gravity 20:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The point was that the conversation about this WP:WORDISSUBJECT continues; that men in really good Stetsons are weighing in, like David Clarke (sheriff), today, Trump is right: The alt-left exists and the media ignores it here: [57]; and that the cumulative weight of so much ink adds up to notability. Even if I personally cannot admire the motivations of many, perhaps most, of the people pushing this term.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:37, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per E.M.Gregory. Even if this is a neologism, it is still a significant one. Even if it isn't a thing, the term is still notable. Even since the nomination has been made there has been enough significant coverage in reliable sources to justify an article. St Anselm (talk) 19:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a liberal i support the creation of this article it would be nice if we could have a ideology for the alt left because it's annoying when people call liberals crazy racists when it's actually the alt-left. Hillary popularised the term alt right why can't popularise alt left comment made by User:Jack1234567891011121314151617, editor who joined us less than a month and ~ 50 edits ago. And who has an, er... unusual pattern of editing for a newbie.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How unbiased and neutrally phrased.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note to editors - Just a quick note to mention that the editor that created the article, User:MaineK was blocked indefinitely as a confirmed sock puppet of User:PerfectlyIrrational.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:15, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So would this qualify for Speedy Deletion per WP:G5? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:55, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should ping an admin.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) ~~Pinging~~ (had pinged Drmies, but no need). My guess is probably no at this point but one can always ask.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:07, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:G5: "To qualify, the edit or article must have been made while the user was actually banned or blocked. ".E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:04, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and PerfectlyIrrational was already blocked and created the article as the sock puppet MainK.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

However, it looks as though he was not blocked until today under this identity [58], unless the rule applies to the earlier identity under which he was banned?E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:10, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is not how it works but nice try. Frankly at this point there may be too many people editing the page for an admin to speedy delete even if it is only a handful of contributors.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:15, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You know, you could WP:AGF, instead of spewing snark.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:18, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now you're just being uncivil by attempting to make my comment out to be an assumption of bad faith and calling it snark.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:49, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mark Miller: This and the above remarks about the nominator are a bad trend by Gregory whom I have tried to help out by saying not to become overly involved in AfDs. Not every comment here needs a reply, comments should be about the article and not about the editor. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:41, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And this isn't even the worst of it: Gregory does this on a regular basis at political or criminal AfDs. I have extended a lot of rope for him but I'm thinking a tban proposal from AfD and page move discussions will soon be necessary. He has received enough warnings.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I must say, it seems like a waste of everyone's time to have a do-over.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:11, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G5 block by PerfectlyIrrational --38.96.9.224 (talk) 22:37, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe it can be speedy deleted under G5 at this point as the guideline is clear; "[C]reated by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and that have no substantial edits by others".--Mark Miller (talk) 23:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It still might be eligible for speedy delete under G10 as pages that disparage, threaten, intimidate, or harass their subject or some other entity and/or G11 as serving no purpose but unambiguous advertising or promotion of the term for political reasons.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mark Miller: Likely a G11 can speedy this --209.249.5.130 (talk) 23:43, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More info The alt-right, or conservative news media didn’t invent ‘alt-left.’ Liberals did. The 2016 Democratic primary exposed a long-brewing schism in the liberal dis-order. Bernie Bro, the Clintonites caricature of a childish "deplorable" white man who just can’t bear the thought of a female president. The “Bernie bros” were exactly the people center-left Democrats were describing when they first said “alt-left.” It was meant to cast Bernie Sanders supporters as not just unreasonably radical but also a bit sexist and racist. They didn’t just mean the “antifa,” or anti-fascists but more an alt-left of center-based Liberalism.^[1] Let us eat lettuce (talk) 00:35, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Molly Roberts | Washington Post, The alt-right didn’t invent ‘alt-left.’ Liberals did. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2017/08/17/the-alt-right-didnt-invent-alt-left-liberals-did/?utm_term=.3c6bb74f5a36 , August 17, 2017

- While it is true that some anti-Sanders writers invoked the term "alt-left" during the presidential primaries, I wouldn't say they necessarily created the term either. The moment that the term "alt-right" become a familiar term (and likely before then), there were certainly people who started using the term alt-left. It's who used the term and how high profile those people were/are that matters most. Most of the mentions of the term at this point revolve around this nebulous polar opposite of the alt-right. Master of Time (talk) 01:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Interesting because Snopes says it was invented by the alt-right. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: The term "alt-left" is now a term notable enough for it to have its own article. Numerous sources talk about it, and even the President of the United States mentioned it. Now, I am not going to go into any arguments into whether there is an actual alt-left in the United States or the world -- whether a thing actually exists is not a criteria for whether we can or cannot have an article on the topic. We have articles on all sorts of things that don't exist: Bigfoot, Loch Ness Monster, Moon landing conspiracy theories, Holocaust denial, to name some extreme examples. This article discusses the term, and the term is notable enough to have its own article, whether or not the article topic actually exists. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:09, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the term, even if it is just used as an epithet, is notable enough to have an article for it. It has received a lot of media coverage, as the sources in the article show (quite a few of the cited sources came long before Trump recently mentioned the term, so this term is independent of Trump and the Charlottesville violence). --1990'sguy (talk) 02:16, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the term is used to attack the Left is also an invalid argument to use for deleting this article. We have articles on Democrat Party (epithet) and Bernie Bro -- because the terms received a lot of coverage and notability just like this one.--1990'sguy (talk) 02:19, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If media-usage of the term since this weekend's terror attack is an indicator of whether we have an article, then you are correct. However, that is not the criteria here - I think you may have mistaken this project with Wikinews or Wikitionary. There's a very, very clear Wikipedia policy on neologisms, which tells us that that articles on neologisms that have little or no usage in reliable sources are commonly deleted. It further notes that To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers. So tell me - where are these? All I see are news articles. Where are the academic papers? The books? The dissertations? Well, it's too soon maybe ... that's the point. It's too soon. Which is why WP:NEO goes on clearly to say Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. The term does not need to be in Wikipedia in order to be a "true" term, and when secondary sources become available, it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic, or use the term within other articles..

Tell me, if you think this is even a marginal keep (let alone strong), how do we allow this article without violating WP:Neologism? Nfitz (talk) 06:35, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Admin's note on G5: no admin in their right mind is going to delete something speedily if it has an AfD that's 90k big. Drmies (talk)

What about one who's in a left mind? Sorry ... couldn't resist ... I'll get my coat. Nfitz (talk) 06:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - For fuck's sake, Wikipedia is NOTURBANDICTIONARY. There is no such thing as "Alt Left" — the "Alt Right" is a name the American fascist movement has bestowed upon itself; this is an attempt by the Lunatic In Chief and his accomplices to slander the left. Period. Start an article called Lunacies of Donald J. Trump and redirect to that. Carrite (talk) 02:36, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Carrite I fully understand your frustration. This debate derides the spirit of wikipedia. It's a definitive example of people trying to use the project to change the world rather than report on it. Edaham (talk) 05:53, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned just above, just because a term may not exist in real life does not mean it cannot have an article. This term has received a lot of media attention, even before President Trump mentioned it. There is no comparing this term, which has received a lot of objective coverage making it notable, to you POV "Lunacies of Donald J. Trump" article you proposed. If "Lunacies of Donald J. Trump" were a notable term for whatever reason, it would be appropriate to add as an article, assuming it would not exist as an attack page, but rather to describe the term itself. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:45, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I mention in response to your mention just above (see just below), it's almost as if WP:Neologism was written specifically so that this article could not be created at this time. As for Currite's comment - crude, but accurate. Very frustrating, given that "Alt Right" seems to be more a term created by a PR expert to white-wash the neo-nazi movement - and this has been reported directly by neonazis in mainstream publications. Nfitz (talk) 06:35, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Alt-right#Alt-left ~Awilley (talk) 03:27, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The highest government official in the United States - Donald J. Trump - used the term alt-left. And the mainstream media widely covered his use of the term alt-left. Snope.com says: "Use of the term “alt-left” gained ground quickly online (according to Google Trends charts) when conservative Fox News host Sean Hannity used the term in a debate with BuzzFeed writer Rosie Gray over media coverage of the so-called “alt-right“. Searches for the term spiked again directly after Trump used it in his 14 August 2017 press conference:"[59]Knox490 (talk) 07:02, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The world is not US, even less is it Fox or Hannity (who he?). The ravings of any of the three don't automatically acquire significance on WP, sorry to break it to you. Pincrete (talk) 10:42, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale of "the highest government official used it" is very flawed. Not every bushism or trumpism warrants a standalone article. Wikipedians agreed on that when deleting Covfefe word in favor of a redirect. Not even Nixon's infamous I am not a crook statement was found worthy of an article. At best this article could in the future be made under a modified name to clarify that the title is a pejorative, or perhaps we can do as another user suggested and name the title Campaign for the neologism "alt-left" to have a name similar to other attempts to invent new political terms for political opponents such as Campaign for the neologism "santorum". This term's use is limited to the Democratic Party referring to the "Sanders wing" and the Republican Party referring to (more or less) anything associated with the left that they disapproved of, whether it be antifa or progressives, etc. In short, the president using it is not sufficient reason to create an article about it. Furthermore, citing Google Trends goes against the Wikipedia policy on google hits See WP:LOTSOFGHITS. I acknowledge that when Google Trend represents a consistent trend of interest, it isn't violating any policy to cite it, but both in the long term and short term, there is no trend of significant interest in "alt-left" so citing the recent spike in "alt left" (especially contrasted to other recent search terms) would be a clear GHITS violation. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 12:15, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The term existed long before Trump mentioned it (as several cited sources here show) -- Trump using the term is not the sole reason for the term to have its own article, and the term is notable enough for us to keep it (the level of activity on the AfD page is more evidence of this). --1990'sguy (talk) 20:01, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Partial merge and redirect. The content here is not entirely useless. Overblown? Probably, but I actually learned something. I had assumed that it was a term that Donald Trump just made up, on the spot, in front of the cameras, a few days ago. Finding out that it dates back to the antediluvian past of 2016 was interesting and worth knowing. The problem is that what we have here is an article on a subject that says "Subject is not a real subject." which might be fair enough in the case of some(non)thing like the Luminiferous aether which represents a coherent, if incorrect, idea which was widely believed in for a long time by many people. For this, I don't see it. It is the neo in neologism (yes, even if it is not quite as new as I expected) and the lack of mainstream use (except in the recent "What is Trump blahering on about now?" coverage) that seem to doom it as an article subject. It is just a made up name with little wide acceptance. What it refers to is a subject we already have articles about. So, it is absolutely vital that anybody typing "alt-left" into the search box gets redirected somewhere where they can find out what on earth is being spoken about but also that we don't make this look more like a real thing/name than it is. I'm not sure about the best target for the suggested merge. There are some reasonable suggestions above and I'm not sure which is best. Probably not something directly Trump related if he did not invent it himself. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, phenomenon doesn't exist, is not sufficiently established as a pejorative to be able to define it, term has been notably used once, what is there to defend? Deserves a brief mention in "alt-right" or possibly a D Trump article at most. Pincrete (talk) 10:57, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – This is just another abuse of authoritative speech that the media is forced to consider. Debouch (talk) 11:25, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the concept doesn't exist and nobody actually identifies as 'Alt-Left'.Wadaad (talk) 07:04, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:NEO. This Wikipedia page has blantantly been created to promote this newly coined satirical and derogatory phrase. This article even states that this phrase is a neologism and that there aren't any subscribers to such a movement because no such movement exists. Wikipedia is an encyclopeadia, derogatory neologisms for non-existant movements belong on Urban Dictionary. 82.7.159.235 (talk) 14:45, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As a socialist accused of being part of the alt-left I would like there to be a page discussing the inflamatory history of the term as well as reasons why some of us are embracing it. It fits in with the various alt* accounts on social media, e.g. the AltYellowstone twitter account. It distinguishes us from neoliberals, giving clear indication to people out there who don't like the right that there is a movement within the left that is not neoliberalism that the neoliberals won't hijack, etc. I do not like the conditions under which the term came about but on the other hand, it is a gift of sorts, because we can embrace the term despite the inflamatory history to provide people with a clear alternative to mainstream left politics, making it clear that lesser of two evils isn't the only option. 2600:1010:B01F:8DEC:227:10FF:FE1C:D13C (talk) 15:23, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This user has no edits outside of this page. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 19:44, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: That would be because other than occasional obvious non-controversial typo corrections, I do not make contributions to WikiPedia. Too much drama in that process, so a formal account is not needed. The IPv6 is a Verizon wireless, they are not static. 2600:1010:B01F:8DEC:227:10FF:FE1C:D13C (talk) 00:15, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Off topic. --Mark Miller (talk) 05:03, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

As discussed on radio/television media some "Groups" that were named as part of the alt-left include: Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter, Social Justice Warriors, white guilt crusaders, Bernie Bros, Never Trumpers and Antifa or Anti-fascists. Let us eat lettuce (talk) 22:18, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which radio/television media did you discuss this? Hmm, one of those links is broken, two seem to be a stereotype, not a group; one if a Republican group - how is that even left? Anothers leads to a disambiguation page. Neither BLM nor Occupy seem to be exlusively made up or one side or both of the centre. Nfitz (talk) 01:29, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hannity, Rush, Lou Dobbs = watch and listen... Who supports Trump??? He supports you!!!! He supports all Americans, and.. again, He supports you!!! come on' Join us! Let us eat lettuce (talk)

Are You Hung up? do you have a hang up??? Let us eat lettuce (talk) 03:37, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could you stop further disruption on this AFD please.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:06, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

yes, of course.. Let us eat lettuce (talk) 04:50, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This isn't even close. The topic has received widespread coverage in numerous reliable sources. Arguments in favor of deletion seem to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If this wasn't a politically charged topic, this never would have been nominated for deletion.

List of Reliable Sources Demonstrating That This Topic Meets The General Notability Guideline
NBC News Rolling Stone Magazine The Week The Guardian Washington Post Slate Seattle Patch Chicago Tribune Los Angeles Times Politico Wired Time Magazine

BTW, it only took a few minutes to find these sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:01, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources that discuss the non-existence of the "alt left" as an actual entity or movement, yes. We've discussed this, you're a bit late to the game. WP:NEO seems to have been written precisely for this sort of situation, for made-up buzzword slurs created out of a false sense of moral equivalence. TheValeyard (talk) 13:35, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware of WP:NEO and it doesn't say what you think it says. WP:NEO says articles about neologisms are commonly deleted if there are little or no reliable sources about the term. It also draws a distinction between sources that use a term and sources about a term. As demonstrated about, the term has received significant coverage by reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Try reading WP:NEO again. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:25, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is that really a lot of sources? I notice they are all news or opinion pieces. This is not an article about a group or organization but about a phrase used as name calling. The article Alt-right already has a number of BLP issues, the most blatant are photos identifying individuals and stating that they are the leaders of the alt-right in the captions with no reference or source. All claims in images must be sourced like everything else. I can imagine the disruption and controversy over images people will want to upload and claim to be the alt-left leaders when there is no actual group. So, this is an article about a slur with only a history of about a year and a half with only half the amount of news sources the alt-right shows on a google search with no additional RS of any kind. The Alt-right as a subject is about an actual entity and has both book sources and scholarly papers that could be used on top of the newspaper and magazine articles. The alt-left is simply a fringe concept. It's origins were always one side calling the other side this name to belittle them and their campaigns or political aspirations but never in a mass, organized manner. Sean Hannity and Donald Trump can claim the earth is flat but that does not elevate the theory to mainstream nor does it make the alt-left real or tangible.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:27, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's more than enough reliable sources and it only took me a few minutes to find them. I'm sure other people can find plenty more. Yes, news organizations are generally considered reliable sources. Please see WP:NEWSORG. The rest of your arguments are WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. The issue here is whether or not this topic has received significant coverage of reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 09:14, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not one of those sources meets the criteria of WP:NEO. These are all newspapers and magazines, and WP:NEO asks for books and papers for neologisms.It's easy to find neologisms in yesterday's paper - which is why that's not the criteria! Nfitz (talk)

WP:NEO says no such thing. You're misreading that guideline. That part to which you are referring is where WP:NEO distinguishes between sources which use that term and sources about a term. Try reading it again. It does not say only books and papers sources count.

In fact, if you continue reading WP:NEO, it says "a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject [if it] passes Wikipedia's notability criteria as the subject of verifiable coverage by reliable sources". WP:RS clearly states that news organisations are generally speaking reliable sources. See WP:NEWSORG. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:57, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the original post by A Quest For Knowledge, at this point there's far too many !votes to simply invoke WP:IDONTLIKEIT as a way to dismiss all of them at once under the assumption that any disagreement is rooted solely in dislike as opposed to Wikipedia policy & ambiguity regarding the longevity of its notability. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 12:33, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a right-winger, I think it's only fair that if there is an acknowledgement and article for a somewhat derogatory term for the right, there should be the same for the left. I feel that this falls under WP:NPOV. Cganuelas (talk) 20:17, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. "Tit for tat" is not a principle advocated in any any Wikipedia policy. The difference between the two is that there clearly is a significant set of groups that call themselves "Alt-right" so we have an article about that. "Alt-left" is just a name with nothing coherent behind it. There is no real equivalence. Also, "Alt-right" is not a derogatory name for the right. It is an extremist movement within the right. If you are right wing and reject the label Alt-right then that is in no way inconsistent. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:51, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's pretty apparent that sources exist to support an article. HampsteadLord (talk) 21:01, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not the sources required for a brand new neologism. Where are the books? The papers? Instead we have newspapers and magazine articles, which are more about the President's use o the tem, many nmoting that it's either a real movement, or a real word! Nfitz (talk) 08:09, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO. While the term does have usage in fringe sources it is almost completely absent from reliable sources. Mostly because no such thing exists.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:18, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
First, WP:NEO doesn't say that articles about topics that have received significant coverage by reliable sources should be deleted. Second, since when are the Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, The Guardian, Los Angeles Times, etc. fringe sources? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 08:41, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I just commented above, shortly before you posted, WP:NEO asks for books and papers for neologisms. Not newspapers and magazines! It's easy to find neologisms in yesterday's paper - which is why that's not the criteria! Nfitz (talk) 09:18, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NEO says no such thing. You're misreading that guideline. That part to which you are referring is where WP:NEO distinguishes between sources which use that term and sources about a term. Try reading it again. It does not say only books and papers sources count.

In fact, if you continue reading WP:NEO, it says "a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject [if it] passes Wikipedia's notability criteria as the subject of verifiable coverage by reliable sources". WP:RS clearly states that news organisations are generally speaking reliable sources. See WP:NEWSORG. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:57, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May <> Must, this is where editors have leeway to decide cases like this, where the media goes batty over a non-existent word that Trump says or tweets, e.g. covfefe. Everything about this stems from a single Trumpian utterance, one could not hope for a better example of a fly-by-neologism than this. Come back in 6 months if any leftists actually adopt the term in the way the alt-right did, ten you can get an article. TheValeyard (talk) 12:51, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Every word in every language in the history of time came from somebody's single utterance. The only issue that matters is whether or not the topic has received significant coverage by reliable sources independent of the subject. The answer to that is a resounding yes. Whether or not any leftists adopt the term is irrelevant. Please see WP:GNG and base your arguments on that. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:52, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A resounding no actually. Half the sources of the Alt-right with absolutely no book sources or scholarly papers.--Mark Miller (talk) 15:58, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no rule that says articles must be supported by books or scholarly papers. Your argument has no basis. Please read WP:RS. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:23, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will base my arguments on what I choose to, buddy, and leave it to the administrator who closes this to evaluate it. Not you. The GNG is all well and good but it is not the only criteria on which to judge article suitability. TheValeyard (talk) 18:03, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're making up rules that don't exist. If you want to cite WP:IAR, then just say it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:21, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's apparent the term has been in usage for past 2 years already and there are many sources to back the terminology. What really needs to happen is to differentiate conservative groups, liberal, communists, far-right, supremacist groups, nationalist groups and ethnic groups so that they are not bunched or lump in as one overwhelming group. When the media describes someone as alt-right they somehow misrepresent that person, as someone who is right of the center. I feel the same will happen if the media describes the alt-left as anything left of center. Candidates that should be included in the list are BAMN, Antifa (United States), Redneck Revolt.F2Milk (talk) 13:19, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can see what you are thinking with that list. If this term were to have a meaning then your list is probably in line with what most people would expect that meaning would be, but where do we have sources, never mind reliable ones, saying that these are part of something actually called "alt-left"? Without that it is just unreferenced speculation which groups are included or excluded. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:13, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per the arguments above. Wikipedia is certainly not a collection of neologisms, especially ones where the origin is uncertain and the subject is too broad to apply to. Even the WP:RS that could potentially be used in such a situation where this article manages to stay up acknowledge that it's an ambiguous, amorphous, made-up term about as relevant as "covfefe," which doesn't have an article. There are plenty of articles outlining the American Left, creating this does not serve an encyclopedic purpose. Buffaboy ^talk 15:47, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect After further review, I believe that the best course of action would be to just merge and redirect some of the key points into alt-right, while still mentioning that it is a neologism. If this doesn't suffice, then I still believe deletion is the ultimate solution. Buffaboy ^talk 01:32, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - Plenty of RS coverage. If I didn't know better I would probably say that the delete votes are politically motivated, but since that isn't civil I'm not gonna assume anything :). Jdcomix (talk) 16:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - You may note that this discussion was had before back on April 23, and the consensus was Delete. I hope the opinions of the editors who came before will be considered. 104.220.69.43 (talk) 17:17, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a ridiculous POV article. "Alt-right" is a term the Trumpian movement uses about itself. There is no movement calling itself "alt-left" or that is called so by any serious sources. The article claims that this supposed neologism is used by the extremist far-right to describe "groups or outlets or individuals who were perceived as being critical of President-elect Donald Trump." However, those "critical of [...] Trump" are the conservatives (every single of them as the word is understood in most of the world) and generally everyone who isn't a neo-Nazi, KKK supporter or some other form of white supremacist/far-right extremist. --Tataral (talk) 17:59, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I can clearly see that you dislike Trump with a burning passion. However, this isn't the place to discuss your politics. The question isn't whether or not the alleged "alt-left" self-identifies as such, the question is whether there are enough reliable sources covering the topic to warrant an article. Jdcomix (talk) 18:04, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. There is no movement called "alt-left" by reliable sources. Breitbart and similar extremist sources are not reliable sources. A supposed "movement" comprising everyone critical of Trump would by definition include everyone except the extremist far-right, from the conservatives to the political left. That is a nonsensical idea. --Tataral (talk) 18:09, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly WAPO, NYT, and NBC disagree with you regarding there being no RS coverage. Check the citations on the article. Jdcomix (talk) 18:14, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They don't cover this as a real phenomenon/movement, but only as an example of "extremist language," i.e. the language of the extremist far-right. The sources in question would be sufficient to mention in the article alt-right that they call their opponents "alt-left," not to invent a fictitious "movement". --Tataral (talk) 19:16, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These sources seldom refer to it as anything more than a neologism and those that do attempt to use it as any other term fail to agree on what the term even means. The fact that the article has "Antifa" (anti fascism) and "Left-wing fascism" (fascism) in the same See Also should show the demonstrable flaws with this article and its sources. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 22:29, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as NEO, and redirect to Alt-right#Alt-left. As Trump's usage shows, it is understood as, 'Alt-right, so there must be an alt-left', and the encyclopedic way to treat it now is in context -- "alt-right" created a language lacuna, which had to be filled. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - In the event that no general agreement is met: As I'm noticing a near-equal amount of !votes with reasonable argument; should this close as a No Consensus, I recommend either merging to Alt-right#Alt-left. or renaming to Campaign for the neologism "alt-left" or to Alt-left (neologism) rather than defaulting to keeping as-is in the event of a thoroughly split !vote. This is based on how both delete and keep !votes have commented on similar proposals. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 22:16, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have some sympathy for this proposal, but the connection to the alt-right is weak, a matter of analogy-by-symbol-manipulation at best. It would be more relevant to put this material into its proper context by merging it with one or both of the most commonly linked groups, Antifa (United States) and either Democratic socialism or Social democracy depending on how you interpret the reliable sources referenced in this article as it stands. Next-best would be to just make a section in the Left-wing politics article, which at least is undeniably relevant. Of course there should be a redirect from Alt-left to wherever this material ends up. 98.247.224.9 (talk) 02:03, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Understandable, though due to the lack of clear definition on when the pejorative "alt left" is or is not used it would be difficult to merge it into any one left-related article and social democracy is center-left progressivism while to my understanding or lack thereof this term is intended to refer to "far left" (that being said, you're right that people have used this term on the center-left and more or less on any example of leftism that one disagrees with). I wouldn't give it a section in Left-wing politics due to how it doesn't give actual positions their own sections, but even if it did this term is a neologism pejorative rather than a subsection of party politics. Perhaps a rename with redirect would alleviate the concerns regarding where a merge should occur. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 12:51, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete or merge to Antifa (United States) or Alt-right#Alt-left. We are so vulnerable to this proliferation of RECENTIST, politically-driven neologism. We are NOTNEWS and not part of the blogosphere. Jytdog (talk) 03:35, 21 August 2017 (UTC) (update to include alt merge target. this one is ok by me too Jytdog (talk) 02:00, 22 August 2017 (UTC))[reply]
Keep - I feel that this falls under "when a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject." The fact that the thing that the phrase describes is not real doesn't mean Wikipedia shouldn't cover the phrase itself if enough usage and discussion exists that it would be beneficial to human knowledge to be able to look up where the phrase comes from and whether or not it refers to a real thing. For example, I got here by virtue of checking that myself. —CrazyDreamer (talk) 03:39, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Obviously this might require a rename or similar. I have no objections to move/merge suggestions that wouldn't imply that it's an actual name for a group on whose page it appeared. —CrazyDreamer (talk) 03:42, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per NEO and Nick-D - FlightTime (open channel) 03:44, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - and redirect into Alt-right seems to be a better solution. @A Quest For Knowledge: do you still need further ? - FlightTime (open channel) 05:22, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain your vote? What part of WP:NEO leads you to believe that this article should be deleted? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:39, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ -- the article is about the term not about any organisation, movement or coalition. As it should be. The term is notable, as evidenced by 3rd party coverage, and an encyclopedia article is appropriate. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:50, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking a term is not an encyclopaedic subject. I'm not saying that it never is but WP:NOTDICT seems to point us away from this. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:50, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep articles exist on things that don't actually exist or on terms that are used as slurs ("when a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject."). This term exists and is clearly notable, completely aside from any concerns about there being any actual group (which there is: Antifa). The extreme left also clearly exists as well (i.e. communism). — InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{(or here)} 05:40, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There's a neologism with a bunch of google hits. As Wikipedia is not a dictionary, usage of a word doesn't mean we should have an article. Sometimes we have articles on neologisms, but here the term has no clear meaning. It's used in relation to or in reaction to the alt-right, which despite widespread use was likewise not a notable term until it was the subject of several in-depth articles trying to define it. We don't have that sufficiently yet for this term. I see it being used synonymously with other terms and groups we already cover, for various groupings of activists, and with no clear meaning at all. Usage != article in an encyclopedia. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:20, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To add to your argument, the Google hits of this term are highly overstated as it's near irrelevance and the recent media coverage only shows an increase in interest in the alt-right while the alt-left barely increased in notability at all. Keep !votes that try to cite the amount of GHITS are in clear violation of WP:LOTSOFGHITS (though ironically there's not lots of GHITS which only further demonstrates the lack of interest contrary to what has been said). BrendonTheWizard (talk) 15:19, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neologisms can be notable too, and while a 'bunch of google hits' doesn't make a notable neologism, articles in reliable sources about that neologism do make it notable (a Quick google news search will reveal plenty). Yes, even if those sources conclude that there is no such thing (and not all of them do). — InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{(or here)} 19:24, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and re-tone as per non-news sources like James W. Ceaser; Andrew E. Busch; John J. Pitney Jr. (2017). Defying the Odds: The 2016 Elections and American Politics. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 23. ISBN 978-1-4422-7348-1. ....and as per the essay Wikipedia:Does deletion help? "Whatever your strategy, don't leave our readers without any information on subjects of notability...."..--Moxy (talk) 19:52, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete There is no such thing as an "alt-left." Nobody uses this term to describe themselves (unlike the term "alt-right", which was initially coined by the members of the that group and continues to be used by them). Furthermore, over half the sources cited in the article are sources explaining that the "alt-left" does not really exist. At least one of the sources is literally an article entitled "There is no alt-left." --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whether they exist or not is not really relevant much. Unicorns don't exist, but we have an article because the sources exist for it. HampsteadLord (talk) 21:13, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies if this sounds too harsh but that's a very, very poor comparison. It shouldn't need to be said why the concept of "unicorns" has its place on Wikipedia due to the long-lasting cultural relevance due to its depiction both in media of the distant past and the present, as well as even being the official state-recognized national animal of Scotland. This, however, is a recently invented pejorative that doesn't refer to anything and may be loosely used by certain neoliberal factions of the Democratic Party of the United States and/or conservatives that use it on any left-wingers that they disagree with whether they're as centrist as social democrats or as radical as anarchist, whether they're peaceful hippies that endorse the lib-left or violent antifascists that endorse the auth-left. It's too early to determine if this term will stick and to say that it's going to would be a clear instance of WP:CRYSTAL. The overwhelming majority of its online interest came after its mention in the American president's response to a single press conference question. It's less comparable to the concept of a unicorn and more comparable to the insult "cuckservative." BrendonTheWizard (talk) 21:35, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - To prevent any more citing of the Google hits as an example of how the term "alt-left" has sufficiently reached notability, here's a few noteworthy comparisons that demonstrate how little interest there actually is in the term. Here is one contrasting alt-left to the nonexistent country San Escobar which only survived deletion because it proved its notability based on the standard for other nonexistent country articles. A more telling contrast is comparing the spike in alt-left to that of the alt-right to that of the former Confederacy. Let us not quickly assume the conclusion that this term's notability is established as anything more than a product of the Unite the Right rally. This is further demonstrated to how | interest in the alt-left is equal to that of the rally itself, while "fascism" shows a greater interest. Note that this comment is not a counterargument to keep votes in general, but I've seen both keep and delete posts frequently mention that it has "a bunch of hits" when that isn't true in either context. I also acknowledge that if I were to cite this as the sole reason to not keep it then this would by a GHITS violation on my part as well; I've already made several other counterarguments throughout this AoD. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 21:53, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BrendonTheWizard: your confederate states comparison, uses two search terms, and one topic, creating the warning "This comparison contains both Search terms and Topics, which are measured differently". Though replacing it with a much more interesting search term like "Kate Perry" or "covfefe" does put the whole thing in perspective. Nfitz (talk) 00:04, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nfitz: I had a feeling one would mention that. The response is simple: take out the Confederate States entirely despite the spike. One could just compare the recent trend in "Alt Left" to "Alt Right." Everything mentioned still stands. (Update - I tried what you said. You're right about how it puts it in perspective to add "covfefe" and "katy perry". Even with just "alt left" vs "covfefe" it's very telling about notability guidelines.) BrendonTheWizard (talk) 11:32, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ to Alt-right#Alt-left -- appears to be notable only due to its use by the "alt-right" personalities, so a discussion of the term in the context of the target article makes sense. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:03, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, that is a viable way to close this. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 22:43, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Alt-right#Alt-left, actually, as this section already exists in the target article and is sufficient. If there's anything else that needs to be added, it can be picked up from the article history. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:27, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes it maybe neologism but is notable one as its easily passes WP:GNG I didn't see policy reason given by delete votes expect WP:IDONTLIKEIT

This clearly doesn't reach notability for a standalone article; it's a mere example of WP:RECENTISM where its interest is coupled with a greater recent interest in the alt-right and an equal interest in the Unite the Right rally as demonstrated the previous comment responding to certain keep !votes that cited google hits as supporting evidence for this article's alleged interest. WP:NEO still applies. I request that you offer a counterargument with more than a sweeping dismissal of all disagreeing !votes as an example of "I just don't like it" and instead elaborate on why you believe that the arguments against a keep !vote (such as delete, merge, redirect, rename) are insufficient and/or not compatible with Wikipedia's policies. I have yet to see refutation to how assumptions that this article's relevance will last violate WP:CRYSTAL. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 14:04, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In order to judge recentism, the passage of time is required to make that judgement. It's premature to conclude what the future holds. WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply because it's about unverifiable speculation. There are plenty of verifiable reliable sources about this topic. As for WP:NEO, what part of WP:NEO leads you to believe that this article should be deleted? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:10, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Except WP:CRYSTAL applies entirely. Many of the arguments to keep this were framed in the future tense and they used the words future tense. I've even seen arguments here that asserted that after the press conference the term "alt left" will be found in every dictionary. The assertion that it will become more relevant in the future is based on nothing more than unverifiable speculation Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Editors often protest the deletion of their articles on the grounds that their new idea is bound to take off and become popular soon, so why not have an article on it now? Sometimes they might be right, but other times they might not be, and once again there is no way for the reader to verify that their idea is going to be the next big thing. Wikipedia deals with subjects which are already notable and written about. It doesn't speculate on what might become well known in the future. In other arguments it's been outlined how this topic as-is lacks sufficient notability as even after the press-conference spike the term never reached the interest of covfefe which was deleted and redirected. Any assertion that it's interest and notability will be greater in the future would be an example of WP:CRYSTAL and if it genuinely is too early to assess whether or not this article would be an example of WP:RECENTISM then it's too early to have the article in the first place. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 11:58, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge due to WP:NOTNEO and WP:RECENTISM. There is no evidence this word will be in use in a few weeks. No-one self-identifies with it and it's just a slur. // Liftarn (talk) 12:46, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What part of WP:NEO leads you to believe that this article should be deleted? ~~WP:RECENTISM is about unverifiable information, so that doesn't apply since~~ we have a ton of verifiable reliable sources about this topic. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:51, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RECENTISM is about unverifiable information Yes, that's why the word "verify" or any version thereof appear exactly zero times in the entire essay. Reading is good. TimothyJosephWood 22:24, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your snarky response aside, I must have accidentally went to the wrong policy or guideline. Nevertheless, you did not answer my first question: What part of WP:NEO leads you to believe that this article should be deleted? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:14, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Snarky? I'd probably prefer "sarcastic but direct rebuttal of most of your argument". As to NEO, I personally would agree that most people have been interpreting that pretty objectively wrongly, but I've yet to see any rebuttal against SUSTAINED whatsoever, and more so, basically everyone arguing GNG flatly ignoring it. TimothyJosephWood 23:57, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Alt-right#Alt-left as others have suggested. I'm not sure WP:NEO applies (at least if it does, this one is a bit of a stretch compared to more run-of-the-mill cases), but WP:SUSTAINED certainly seems to: Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability. The term only seems to have gained wide spread popular usage (thus not NEO) following the events in Charlottesville, and, since there seem to be not actual self-identifying adherents, there doesn't seem to be any obvious reason to believe it will take on a more substantial meaning or remain in popular usage in several months, much less years. TimothyJosephWood 14:04, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG easily, with even more coverage daily. Since there are many reliable sources for the subject NEO does not really apply. PackMecEng (talk) 14:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IP blogspam

there are actual self identifying adherents of the alt left dating back to late 2015 earliest use https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/proposal-for-an-alternative-left/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AlternativeLeft/ https://altleft.com/ https://www.facebook.com/alternativeleft/ https://altleftjournal.wordpress.com/ http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.co.il/2016/09/a-proposal-for-alt-left-political.html https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2016/10/26/liberal-race-realism-precursor-to-the-alt-left/ http://altleft.com/2015/11/14/a-clockwork-greenshirt-introducing-the-alt-left/ https://web.archive.org/web/20151119073815/http://altleft.com 2001:8003:117E:6D00:A0C4:8FED:ECAD:1157 (talk) 15:09, 22 August 2017 (UTC)— 2001:8003:117E:6D00:A0C4:8FED:ECAD:1157 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 2001:8003:117E:6D00:A0C4:8FED:ECAD:1157 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

Note. The person behind the IP address above has spammed these blog links to many editors and other places like the Teahouse (whatever that is. Wikipedia has cozy chatrooms?) and a Wiki Project page. See contributions. TheValeyard (talk) 22:04, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant, in-depth coverage of word as a concept independent of alt-right. Maybe a brief mention at alt-right would be called for, but there is no reason why every term of abuse gets its own article. Neutrality^talk 22:28, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Strong keep The sheer fact that there is so much controversy over this term in the press warrants its existence as an article about the term, if not about the subject the word refers to. This term is a neologism, yes, but it has long passed NEO standards. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 23:33, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UMD? Are we trying to break a record for how many people can misinterpret policy and/or cite policy that has flatly nothing to do with deletion? If so, bravo. Strong Keep - This AfD discussion is long AF I'd also note the hat note there to Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, which is where most terms as terms in-and-of-themselves rightly belong, and happens to actually have something to do with whether or not we keep an article. TimothyJosephWood 00:04, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not necessarily a reason to make articles. Media tumult can die down, etc. Still I think there is some history for the phrase "alternative left" and there is a party in Switzerland with the name Alternative Left. So maybe?--T. Anthony (talk) 02:03, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. See [60]. A simple Google search returns hundreds of news articles with the term "alt-left" in it. Either this or merge/redirect with the Antifa article, assuming "alt-left" refers to groups such as Antifa. It is a notable enough term to at least have a redirect. CatcherStorm ^talk 04:39, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly this is a new label - but so was alt-right. The term has gained wide-spread acceptance (or at least recognition that it is a term used by others - and repudiated). The article should stay - the exact meaning, tone, reliability, etc. - probably will change. But so has alt-right.Icewhiz (talk) 08:31, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This term is a reactionary creation of the alt-right to try to balance out criticism they received for being the "extremists of the right." Data shows that it spiked with the Charlottesville attack and subsequent responsibility deflection. — nihlus kryik (talk) 10:34, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The etymology of a term is not a valid reason for deletion. The key issue is whether or not this topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:28, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right... I am saying that it is not a term used by reliable sources in the scope that alt-right as they are the ones trying to push it into the American lexicon. — nihlus kryik (talk) 13:47, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. If they succeed in that then we almost certainly will have to have an article on it at some point but they have not won that battle yet and it is not our job to assist them in their efforts. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:37, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We'll need an article on it if this is put into American Lexicon in the future? Perhaps, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball so that's another discussion for another time. You're right though, it's not our job to assist them in their efforts. Wikipedia is not a platform to popularize neologisms, and any articles covering them should be over ones that already have proven their notability over time. The information known about this subject can sufficiently be covered in Alt-right#Alt-left as-is. If it gets into the dictionaries, perhaps we can have a real discussion about the need for an article on this subject, | but evidently, well-respected dictionaries have no intention of adding this neologism. Data still shows that this term hasn't even reached the interest of covfefe which was ultimately deleted and redirected to another article; we can do the same with "alt-left" by redirecting to its subsection on the alt right article which already exists. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 20:32, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – per the policy and guideline based arguments of Brian Kendig, MrX, and Carrite. Mojoworker (talk) 19:37, 23 August 2017 (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. Sandstein 09:33, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of busiest railway stations in Europe

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

An indiscriminate collection of original research. Aside from the figures suffering from linkrot, making verification difficult, there's no easy way of proving this list is correct. Indeed, I note that several figures for the Swiss stations have been challenged as failing verification, and the London stations don't seem to match up either, which throws the whole list into question.

If an individual source summarising this list exists (I can see the Gare du Nord is mentioned as the busiest in numerous places, but nothing else), then we can probably resolve this, but I can't find one. If we can't find anything, the whole thing needs blowing up and starting over. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:43, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:02, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:02, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Do you think List of the busiest airports in Europe should be deleted too? That also is sourced from various national statistics --Pontificalibus (talk) 16:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ritchie333, I have problems to understand your objections – besides the huge problem of listing rankings with different sources, i.e. without a coordinating body/organization normalizing the different approaches of statistics and the different approaches of collecting figures. But there are a huge number of such questionable lists on WP!! – Regarding the Swiss figures: the given figures are hardly easier to verify; the given reference is working and therefore easily verifable. What exactely is your problem with it? -- ZH8000 (talk) 20:53, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially the problem is described in Notability of standalone lists - "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources ... The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been". I have not found a source that shows the list itself is notable, and hence the article would seem to be original research. This explains why trying to improve it is a complete pain, as with these lists you can normally start with a source like that, which will get you most of the way there. This list doesn't. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:36, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:27, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nomination invokes essay wp:TNT, which for reasons listed at essay wp:TNTTNT is invalid. Including that the TNT argument acknowledges the validity of the topic for a Wikipedia article. --do ncr am 16:15, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:08, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:26, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The fundamental problem with this list is that we have no source saying that these are indeed the 71 busiest stations in Europe. We have figures for the stations listed but not for the stations not listed, and I find it difficult to believe that there is no station in the former Eastern Bloc (apart from Germany) with over 30 million passenger movements per year. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 11:43, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have been unable to find any references or surveys of busiest railway stations in entire Europe. Without such a survey, this list is a collection of statistics from various sources and it not accurate. I agree with Ritchie333 that it is original research and it can be deleted.--DreamLinker (talk) 12:53, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If something like this [61] can be found, this article may be salvageable. Otherwise, I think it is better to keep country level lists for which proper data is available.--DreamLinker (talk) 12:55, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 01:58, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep According to my comment above, I can not follow the initiator's claims. All figures are sourced and most sources are valid. -- ZH8000 (talk) 11:27, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The figures may well be accurate but they are only figures for particular stations in particular countries. We don't know whether there are other stations that may be in other countries with higher passenger numbers than those on the list. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete perDreamLinker and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. — fortunavelut luna 13:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Actually, I think this could be a useful article, but it needs a lot of work. Move it into the draft namespace for a while, until it is significantly improved. Elliot321 (talk) 15:43, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see this as a valid topic with reliable sources, even if they are getting old. This is not OR, and plenty of excellent lists bring listings from a variety of sources - a single external list is not necessary. Concerns about missing any could be allayed by removing the numeric rankings. Should have see also links to List of busiest railway stations in Germany, List of busiest railway stations in Italy, etc. Reywas92^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 delete for lack of encyclopedic notability. bd2412 T 21:03, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wavedash Games

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:CORPDEPTH Kleuske (talk) 12:25, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:54, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:54, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:56, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's a pretty poorly written article, but Redbull Games and Games Industry Biz both have pretty in-depth articles about the company, (And have a consensus for being reliable per WP:VG/S) so I'm not so sure I agree with the vague assertion that it fails the WP:GNG... Sergecross73 msg me 16:20, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- WP:PROMO with a good doze of WP:TNT. A company with a small round of funding; article likely created for promotional purposes. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:15, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Article was not written for promotional purposes. I'm a beginner to Wikipedia and thought I'd try my hand at starting a page. I heard about the company because I used to live in the Bay Area and have a friend in that area who follows gaming and she happened to mention that. I've never written one before. I know I made mistakes and not up to snuff for the advanced Wiki people. But I won't allow you to say that it was for promotional purposes. It wasn't. It was a beginner taking a shot at making a page. PS. Does it seem logical that a company that specializes in design and writing code on computers would create a "promotional" Wiki page that numerous users have disparaged as poorly sourced and/or poorly written? What's the logic? Falconcannothearthefalconer (talk) 10:55, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - People aren't accusing you of being promotional, they are just assuming it. Please assume good faith. Anyway, WP:ITEXISTS is not a reason that an article should be on Wikipedia. Any companies must satisfy the guidelines at WP:CORP If you can come up with several significant references for it to satisfy notability guidelines then you are free to do so in order to prevent its deletion, otherwise you should consider those guidelines when next creating an article. To clarify, most of the current refs are from primary sources or unreliable ones._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking WP:SUSTAINED coverage. --Izno (talk) 14:14, 19 August 2017 (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.

[Forbes:_Is_there_such_a_thing_as_an_Alt-left-1] Is There Such A Thing As An Alt-Left?

[2] Molly Roberts | Washington Post, The alt-right didn’t invent ‘alt-left.’ Liberals did. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2017/08/17/the-alt-right-didnt-invent-alt-left-liberals-did/?utm_term=.3c6bb74f5a36 , August 17, 2017

[1]

[1]