Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 September 12

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 11 September	13 September >

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. --MelanieN (talk) 00:30, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme Violences

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

This was originally tagged for CSD with the rationale "Essay-like and fails WP:NOT" (which I agree with). However, these aren't speedy criterion, so I changed it to a PROD. The author posted a message on the talk page contesting the speedy deletion, but as it was posted after the PROD (with the same rationale), I am assuming he's contesting that too. Adam9007 (talk) 23:40, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Essay. Very subjective on what the definition of "extreme violence". Article entirely based on one source. Bgwhite (talk) 01:21, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a personal blog. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:28, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - essay-like Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 02:34, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as its current state is unacceptable and, if something better can happen here, it's a WP:TNT. SwisterTwister talk 04:15, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: in addition to what others have said, this smells like original research. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 17:41, 16 September 2015 (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, then redirect to Sacred Way. --MelanieN (talk) 00:33, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sacred way

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

Unsourced essay, flagged as nn and unsourced for five years. No one has rehabbed/rescued it yet. If anyone wants to step up now to fix it, that's fine, but otherwise I think we should ditch this as nn promotion. - CorbieV^☊☼ 23:35, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, then create a redirect to the unrelated article Sacred Way as a plausible search string. My good faith search for sources about the subject described in the article came up empty. VQuakr (talk) 00:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is an open-and-shut case of something that really should be removed. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:01, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I'm simply seeing no better improvement and the current state is unacceptable and would likely need WP:TNT to become better. SwisterTwister talk 04:25, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not appear to be a term of art as described in the article. Otherwise, it is just an idiosyncratic expression of standard pantheism. --Bejnar (talk) 21:17, 16 September 2015 (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. Because the article has been rewritten by a non-COI editor, and all opinions expressed since then have been in favor of keeping the article, I must consider that the concerns about promotionalism and COI expressed in the first half of the discussion have been addressed, at least as concerns this article. Sandstein 08:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Comm

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

He's probably notable, but this is part of a promotional closed ring of articles written primarily by a SPA, with help from sockpuppets and known paid editors. When an article is contaminated to this extent, we need to remove it.

Borderline notability is not the only reason for deletion. Even for a notable article, having been written and maintained with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason--or even better. Variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encycopedia. We're going to need drastic measures to deal with this, and removing the articles is a first step. The second will be figuring out ways to keep getting additional ones submitted. DGG ( talk ) 23:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion is not cleanup and Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required. Cunard (talk) 01:26, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Strauss, Steve (2014-07-06). "Ask an Expert: Celebrating entrepreneurs". USA Today. Archived from the original on 2015-09-13. Retrieved 2015-09-13.
  The article notes:
  
  One person who knows the answer is the great Joel Comm. I say great because it is an apt description of the pioneering Internet entrepreneur (he created his first website, WorldVillage, in 1995, one of the first 18,000 sites ever on the web). Over the past 20 years, Joel has created businesses and products that have dominated more than a few mediums:
  • The Internet: In 1997, Yahoo! bought his site ClassicGames.com and turned it into one of the world first and largest multi-player gaming sites. In fact, Joel became an icon on the site, one I remember choosing back in the day
  • Writing and publishing: with the New York Times bestseller The AdSense Code
  • Social media, 80,000 followers and counting, and the world's best-selling book on Twitter for business, Twitter Power
  • Mobile apps: Five years ago, Joel created one of the most infamous, and best-selling, apps in the iTunes Store, iFart.
2. Johnson, Kimberly S. (2007-07-30). "Who wants to be an internet millionaire?". The Denver Post. Archived from the original on 2015-07-17. Retrieved 2015-07-17.
  The article notes:
  
  A Loveland entrepreneur who has reportedly made millions with his online ventures is trying to do the same for others - with a reality-TV twist.
  Joel Comm, who sold his first business to Yahoo Inc. in 1997, is the co-creator and host of "The Next Internet Millionaire," an "Apprentice"- type reality show being filmed in Loveland. The show will be aired exclusively online beginning Aug. 15.
  Comm moved to Colorado this year and came up with the show idea with co-creator and Fort Collins resident Eric Holmlund.
  "Reality TV is huge, and online video is gaining momentum," said Comm, 43. "My goal is to prove that Internet (video) is ready for prime time."
  ...
  However, Comm, who wrote a book on using Google's ad server to maximize business, said that viewers not only will see a reality show but will learn how to use and apply some of his techniques to their own businesses.
  "It seems like (Comm) is trying to be the Donald Trump of the Internet," [Richard] Ayoub said. "It's a way to showcase him as a leader in the Internet. It's a big PR stunt."
3. Middleton, Diana (2007-06-23). "The next Internet millionaire?: Local businesswoman in the running to win big through an online reality show". The Florida Times-Union. Archived from the original on 2015-07-17. Retrieved 2015-07-17.
  The article notes:
  
  Show creator Comm, an Internet marketer, claims to have all the tools to squeeze profitability from Internet ventures. He owns several domains ranging from online coupons to a personal blog. However, one of Comm's more notable Web sites, the family-friendly World Village, has seen rapidly declining traffic, with the number of global Internet users visiting the site dropping 37 percent within 3 months, according to Alexa, a Web tracking company.
  Comm sells online know-how
  Comm has written several books detailing how to utilize "search engine optimization," a method to make search engines rank your site above others - and he's aggressive about nabbing buyers for his online video tutorials and e-books. In order to view the show's audition videos, viewers must sign in with a name and e-mail address. Then, they see a splash page touting Comm's books for "a short-cut to online wealth."
4. Stafford, Jim (2003-12-20). "Consumers overcoming online fears". The Oklahoman. Archived from the original on 2015-09-13. Retrieved 2015-09-13.
  The article notes:
  
  Edmond resident Joel Comm operates an online business that attempts to match bargain hunters with retailers offering discounts. DealofDay.com lists hundreds of discounts at any one time, providing consumers with special codes that generate the discounts.
  Retailers pay Comm a percentage of each sale that began with a link on his site. Dealofday.com has been linking users to discounted merchandise since 1999. Dealofday and its sister site, Worldvillage.com, are part of an active community operated by Comm that has 130,000 registered users who share shopping secrets with each other.
  "Sometimes the members are the best resource for deals," Comm said, although he has on occasion been asked by a retailer to remove a discount code that is meant only for "family and friends."
  Comm offers several holiday shopping suggestions for online bargain hunters that include looking for the opportunity to use discounts online that are clipped from printed ads found in a newspapers or magazines.
5. Kincaid, Jason (2010-06-01). "Former App Store King iFart Gets Blocked From The iPad". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 2015-09-13. Retrieved 2015-09-13.
  The article notes:
  
  Joel Comm, CEO of iFart’s developer InfoMedia, says that it took a month of waiting before he got ahold of an Apple representative, who told Comm that he’d have to add quite a lot of functionality to the application to have it approved for the iPad — sound boards, even well-known ones, don’t cut it.
  Comm has been through this before. When the App Store first launched Apple was routinely blocking applications like iFart and Pull My Finger, until it finally opened the floodgates to these ‘joke’ applications in December 2008. This time though, the application isn’t being blocked on the grounds of profanity or crudeness. Rather, it’s a lack of functionality, which is harder to change. The only consolation is that Comm can add a landscape mode to the existing iPhone app, but it wouldn’t be a native HD version.
6. Elliott, Christopher (2009-02-10). "Changing travel one tweet at a time". CNN. Tribune Media Services. Archived from the original on 2015-09-13. Retrieved 2015-09-13.
  The article calls Comm a "social media expert".
7. "What Can You Learn From A Digital Superstar?". Radio Ink. 2015-05-20. Archived from the original on 2015-09-13. Retrieved 2015-09-13.
  The article notes:
  
  Joel Comm started out in radio. It was during a time when computers were coming on strong and the Web was still known as the "World Wide Web." And it didn't take Comm long to figure out he could probably make a lot more money with new and emerging media than he could spinning records and reading the weather. Plus, he was getting frustrated with the sameness of radio and the slide away from creative announcing.
  Comm left radio, and, after a productive career as a mobile DJ, headed to the Internet and created a website in the early '90s, soon becoming a pioneer in generating digital revenue. And when he learned how using Google AdSense could generate serious income from a website populated with strong content, he was making hundreds of dollars every day. Comm is a keynote speaker at Radio Ink's Convergence Conference May 27 and 28 in San Jose. He's also on the cover of the current issue of Radio Ink magazine. Here's a portion of our interview with Joel and part of what you'll miss if you are not in San Jose next week.
  Joel Comm knew how to generate income so well he wrote a book about it that became a New York Times best-seller. He's now authored a dozen books, including The AdSense Code, Click Here to Order: Stories From the World’s Most Successful Entrepreneurs, KaChing: How to Run an Online Business That Pays and Pays, and Twitter Power 2.0. He has also written over 40 e-books, appeared in the New York Times and on Jon Stewart's The Daily Show, and on CNN.com, Fox News, and many other outlets. Joel Comm went from having only 87 cents in his bank account to creating multiple successful businesses. We asked Comm how radio can improve its position in the digital world.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Joel Comm to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 01:26, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My argument was not lack of notability. My argument was being part of a promotional campaign. We are not obliged to keep every article that passes the GNG. - Rather , we e can and should delete whatever we think should not be in WP DGG ( talk ) 01:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is your personal opinion that Wikipedia should exclude an article on a notable topic that does not meet a speedy deletion criterion at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. I decided whether articles should be kept by following Wikipedia:Notability, which says:

A topic is presumed to merit an article if:
1. It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and
2. It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.

Since this topic meets Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and is not excluded under Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, I believe it should be kept.

Cunard (talk) 02:20, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is my personal opinion that WP should not keep articles that are part of a promotional campaign. The policy is WP:Deletion policy, section 1, pt 14. " Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia" . Some of the cases are defined by WP:NOT. Other cases exist also, if the community agrees on any specific instance. The consensus will decide. To make things clearer and more consistent than individual decisions, I shall be proposing additions to NOT. Anyone who does not realize my motivation why should examine the edit history, and then read Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Orangemoody and realize that it is just one of the many cases being investigated. DGG ( talk ) 05:22, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is unrelated to Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Orangemoody. It is not listed at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Orangemoody/Articles. Cunard (talk) 05:30, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard that's not a good argument... Do you have evidence for that claim? Not being listing on the latter is no logical argument. Widefox; talk 13:31, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it was connected; my point was that the multiple cases of this sort, of which this is only one representative, give the reason for being particularly concerned about promotionalism. DGG ( talk ) 14:47, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At least one account overlaps Orangemoody on one article. Don't know more details at this point. Widefox; talk 17:11, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Purely promotional and obviously so due the the subject's professional activity. Whether it is part of the Orangemoody paid spamming campaign or not, DGG has said all that needs to be said already. Wikipedia cannot be allowed to be used for profit in this way at the abuse of the voluntary unpaid time that dedicated users spend building this encyclopedia which in spite of some biographies and articles about some companies, was never intended to be an additional business networking platform.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:11, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cautious Delete yes delete per Kudpung, DGG. This is about what WP is not for the future. A web of self-promoting articles and editors is NOT. But to be clear - no prejudice. Widefox; talk 13:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently working on rewriting Joel Comm. Cunard (talk) 17:55, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- As you know, this may be deleted at any time, and G11 has been floated at ANI for all articles by one of these editors. As said, I believe this BOGOF editing is detrimental to the project. Widefox; talk 18:42, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Provisional~~ Keep If a member of the community chooses to write a NPOV article about someone who is otherwise notable, I don't believe a prior paid editing version should prevent us from having a well article on the topic. Keep providing Cunard completes the rewrite (already see enough sourcing for notability). -- GreenC 20:40, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Green Cardamom (talk · contribs), I have rewritten the article. Would you take a look and see if it satisfies your concerns? Thank you, Cunard (talk) 22:43, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard, good work. I left a notice on the article talk page that Joel Comm has been recommending ResultSource to his clients. ResultSource manipulates best-seller lists for a fee through bulk-buying and other methods. Given the paid editing at Wikipedia, and now ResultSource, I harbor doubts that his books were really best-sellers and hope future editors might be able to provide additional information that we can use to fill in the article. That of course would not be possible if the article were deleted. -- GreenC 23:30, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewritten the article. Cunard (talk) 22:43, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He passes WP:GNG. period.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:33, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I left a !vote on The Next Internet Millionaire but will abstain here. What I find disturbing is this comment "We are not obliged to keep every article that passes the GNG. - Rather , we e can and should delete whatever we think should not be in WP." If that's the case, then why the f**k are we discussing the article in a deletion discussion? --TTTommy111 (talk) 20:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTE is a Guideline not a red line policy; if there is a consensus notable articles can be deleted. But by tradition NOTE has strong support in the community and thus AfD is usually about NOTE, but technically doesn't have to be. -- GreenC 21:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uh... no. WP:N is absolutely a policy, per the language at WP:V, and I quoth: "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." The wiki-culture in 2005 was that, if something obviously nonsensical was uncited, it was okay to put ^{[citation needed]} after the sentence. The wiki-culture as of 2010 was that, if something borderline was uncited, just go ahead and delete it, because that's not rudeness personified, that's WP:BRD aka a friendly invitation to have a friendly conversation on the talkpage. The wiki-culture as of 2015 is, which we are living in right this very second I'll point out, that EVERYTHING is gonna be challenged, so WP:N and WP:PROVEIT are de facto mandatory wiki-policies, albeit not yet de jure, and anybody who doesn't follow the letter of the wiki-laws is guilty until proven innocent of being an evil wiki-criminal, block first and ask questions later.

Don't kid yourself GreenC -- wiki-notability is a bright red hardline policy, enforced whenever anybody feels like enforcing it, and more and more people would rather enforce guidelines as policy, and make up whole new policies out of whole new cloth, than go back to a more friendly wiki-culture. There is an ever-stronger push to re-write the meaning of wiki-reliable, so that sources that are WP:IDONTLIKEIT can be deleted, and to rewrite wiki-notability, so that articles which are WP:IDONTLIKEIT can be deleted. Wikipedia is in trouble, and these are but symptoms of that larger trouble. But pretending that WP:42 is 'just a guideline' definitely cannot be sustained. Not only is it the wiki-law in practice, plenty of people treat it as speed-limit-law, which is to say, they only enforce it when they feel like it. Terrible for wikipedia to have inconsistently enforced wiki-laws, and a wiki-culture that sees inconsistent enforcement as "okay" and perfectly "fair" ... because enforcing the letter of the wiki-law is 'more fun' than doing the hard work. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 19:14, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

COI Comment User:Green Cardamom User:Cunard User:DGG This article has been rewritten despite awareness of previous undisclosed COI / promo and/or paid editor activity. The COI tag is used here (at least during the AfD) to indicate not that the previous COI issue are obviously still present in the text (although a double-check would be useful), but that ultimately the COI issue may hang-over possibly only in its continued existence (per our guideline that COI editors should wait for it to be created. It does not say but if you have a COI, someone will come along and save it anyway). The process of a volunteer knowingly saving a paid editor created article is a phenomenon I'm calling BOGOF. (note I have no knowledge if the creator of this article was paid, just that the account's SPA activity indicates a COI and there are also disclosed paid editors - one of which is blocked). Editors should be aware that notability alone is no guarantee that it will be kept. I remain neutral as to whether BOGOF is damaging in the long-run - it needs more analysis. I do think this phenomenon needs clear transparency, hence the tag. I will write this as an essay to help. Widefox; talk 01:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should be cautious about maligning editors who are working in good faith to improve Wikipedia. There is nothing wrong with editing an article created by a paid account. The COI tag doesn't indefinitely "hang over" an article, it's not a "badge of shame" per the template documentation. Rather the {{connected contributor}} tag is used to document COI editors on the talk page. -- GreenC 03:19, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with doing it, provided you like doing work for which others are being paid. If a garage tried to fix your car, and did it incompetently, would you expect the guy who redoes it right to do it for free? Personally, I prefer to help the volunteers. We need more new volunteers, and they deserve all the help they can get. DGG ( talk ) 05:15, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It's unfortunate undisclosed paid editing has created division among volunteers. It wastes our energies in debates like this. I wish we had a larger consensus because it's a perennial problem. -- GreenC 12:54, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:DGG, methinks you have gone off the rails here. Consider GE Ventures, which was created by an undisclosed paid editor (since disclosed methinks), and then re-done right by myself. If you want to help volunteers, am I included in that set? Because I see the stub-creation of GE Ventures as Improving The Encyclopedia, no matter who did it. Along the same lines, your argument about the mechanic is also wrong -- which I've actually seen, in real life, at least two cases where a paid but incompetent garage-mechanic screwed up somebody's engine and then a volunteer buddy fixed the damage later in beneath the shade-tree gratis. Consider a case where I create an article from scratch, such as Jack Flanagan (New Hampshire politician). Guess what? When I cited WaPo and BostonGlobe in order to write neutral summaries from scratch all by myself I was doing work journalists get paid to do. Should we delete all cites to the NYT, since somebody was paid to write those NYT articles? Should we delete all cites to Physical Review A, since the professors that did the research are getting paid? Money is not the root of all evil. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:14, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Green Cardamom what maligning would that be exactly? "...but admire Cunard's work" [1] . Nobody has suggested indef. Straw man argument. An attempt at rational evaluation of the driving forces does not involve any drama. Transparency =/= biasing, rewrite =/= no COI here, discussion =/= disrespect. I haven't even mentioned Cunard's use of HTML that fails XML parsing and messes up my editor :) Widefox; talk 19:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"This article has been rewritten despite awareness of previous undisclosed COI..." That phrasing suggests the wrong thing, under some interpretations of 'despite'. That said, the "admire Cunard's work" bit seems to point at a mis-phrasing mis-hap, rather than intent to malign. Agree that perma-tagging the mainspace article is a badge-of-shame behavior. We *already* put the badge-of-shame onto the article-talkpage, right? That's more than enough. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 19:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:75.108.94.227 Perma-tagging is a straw man argument (see above). Repeating it despite being pointed out doesn't make it true, but indicates something else. Are you aware of WP:AGF? Second guessing motivations and behavior when the above is an attempt to reason the technically incorrect use of a tag (as we have no correct one for this) ...i.e. just clearly disclosing a massive sock/COI issue with this and other articles is not about anything other than that. Widefox; talk 20:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot bring myself to bangvote in favor of the BLP-article about the BLP-human infamous as the creator the iFart. But I will comment, that "He's probably notable" is not the strongest way to open an AfD nom. In fact, if that is your argument, then you should probably be over at the WT:GNG page, and not here, eh? Put new policy of salting contributions tainted by the sin of financial gain actually into the wiki-policies before you implement said hypothetical wiki-rule. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:43, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did it that way deliberately--we need to remove the apparently widespread impression that notability is the only reason for deletion. Promotionalism is in my view even more important. But you are right; I should have worded it a little more subtly. And, FWIW, we are stuck with the article on iFart. DGG ( talk ) 21:58, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The question is what effect the rapid rewrite of an article in good faith by a volunteer immediately after/during promo cleanup does for the project. I don't have the answer, yet. Widefox; talk 20:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources provided by Cunard. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this one, but delete all the other articles about him, The Next Internet Millionaire, Twitter Power, etc. It seems that this proliferation of articles all about the same marginally notable topic should be gathered into one article written by someone other than Cunard, who, no matter how independent he or she may be, still seems to have a tough time writing an NPOV article that complies with Wikipedia guidelines on promotionalism and reliability. See comments throughout. --Bejnar (talk) 00:12, 17 September 2015 (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. The outcome is the same as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Circle (company). I suggest that the question of whether to systematically delete articles that appear to have been created for promotional purposes should be discussed at the policy level, because opinions in today's AfDs about such topics are divided, at least where the topics would otherwise be notable. Sandstein 08:41, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter Power

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

Closed as keep in 2009. I would have !voted keep then also, but I think we understand much better now the dangers of promotionalism. This is part of a promotional ring of articles created by a SPA. That's as good a reason for deletion as lack of notability--or perhaps even better. See the adjacent afds also. DGG ( talk ) 23:20, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion is not cleanup and Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required. Cunard (talk) 04:20, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Dill, Margo L. (2010-01-10). "The Power of Twitter". The News-Gazette. Archived from the original on 2015-09-13. Retrieved 2015-09-13.
  The article notes:
  
  Joel Comm's book, "Twitter Power," explains how and why Twitter has grown as popular as it has. But more importantly, he provides simple steps to help you sign up for a Twitter account and create your profile. For people already using Twitter, this book is also useful as Comm reveals how you should be tweeting and building your following.
  "Twitter Power" is most beneficial for people who are tweeting for business, whether it's to sell a product or drive people to a Web site. If you're on Twitter to follow your favorite celebrities, catch up with your friends and discover an interesting blog or two, this book will go beyond where you need to go. You would be better off reading a few online articles about how to use it.
  One of the best chapters in the book for beginning and advanced Tweeters is "The Art of the Tweet." ...
  ...
  "Twitter Power" is an easy read for a book about technology and social marketing. Comm is personable, and he is writing from experience. If you purchase a copy of this book, it may come with a free ticket to his four-week, online social media workshop and 10 percent of his proceeds go to the charity, Water is Life. Since Twitter is always evolving, a second edition of this book is due out in April, according to the publisher.
2. Werling, Mike (2009-02-10). "Twitter Gets Its Own Book". Entrepreneur. Archived from the original on 2015-09-13. Retrieved 2015-09-13.
  The article notes:
  
  I know business owners out there are being told about Twitter's capabilities and its relevance to their hoped-for customers. And as I'm thinking about the real value for our time-strapped readers, what should land on my desk but Twitter Power: How to Dominate Your Market One Tweet at a Time, Joel Comm's ode to the haiku of blogging.
  Comm says business owners are missing out on huge opportunities by not taking advantage of the marketing possibilities Twitter offers. After all, Starbucks, Apple, Whole Foods and other large companies are implementing tweet strategies--why wouldn't you? Well, lack of knowledge on the topic is probably a common answer. Which is likely why Comm dedicated 232 pages to a medium that allows 140 characters.
  He lays out the basics of social networking and Twitter and how to build a following on Twitter and using Twitter for team communication. Chapter 5 is "The Art of the Tweet," which lays out etiquette, how to be interesting on Twitter and how to join a conversation, among other things. "Good content on Twitter needs to be entertaining. It needs to be informative. It needs to be valuable. And it needs to be short." So reads a passage from "The Art of the Tweet" chapter.
3. Richards, Linda L. (2009-03-18). "Non-Fiction: Twitter Power by Joel Comm". January Magazine. Archived from the original on 2015-09-13. Retrieved 2015-09-13.
4. Jones, Alistair (2009-06-20). "Twitter the new avenue of choice for business". The Australian. Archived from the original on 2015-09-13. Retrieved 2015-09-13.
  The article notes:
  
  In his new book Twitter Power, American online marketing expert Joel Comm describes social media as "content that has been created by its audience" and likens Twitter to a giant virtual water cooler, "where people come to get to know each other, to make friends, to network and, most importantly, to converse".
  Such chatter can be used. As Comm notes, "Plenty of smart companies are using [Twitter to build a brand, turn their customers into a community and cement the name of their products in the minds of their market." The subtitle of Comm's book is How to Dominate Your Market One Tweet at a Time.
5. Freehling, Bill (2009-05-03). "How tweets can tweak business". The Free Lance–Star. Archived from the original on 2015-09-13. Retrieved 2015-09-13.
  The article notes:
  
  Curious to learn more, I recently picked up Joel Comm's new book, "Twitter Power: How to Dominate Your Market One Tweet at a Time." Comm is a self-described "social media expert." And his book, as you might guess, teaches you how to use Twitter to market a business.
  Twitter allows you to write updates about yourself of no more than 140 characters. These "tweets" go out to everyone who is following you on the site. In turn, you see the tweets of everyone you're following. You can read these tweets either at twitter.com or on a mobile phone.
  Many people on Twitter just follow a few close friends so they can keep one another up to date on their lives. But Comm shows how you can use the site to connect with potential customers. Among the topics he covers are designing an effective Twitter site, how to increase the number of followers you have and how to best tweet.
6. White, Barbara Jo (2009-08-13). "Book details how Twitter can help businesses". Asheville Citizen-Times. Archived from the original on 2015-09-13. Retrieved 2015-09-13.
  Barbara Jo is an assistant professor at Western Carolina University's College of Business. In addition to being published on Western Carolina University's College of Business website, this article was published on the Asheville Citizen-Times's website: http://www.citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090816/BUSINESS/908160305/1044/COLUMNISTS^WebCite.
7. Cooper, Charles (2009-02-13). "Twitter power? For real?". CNET. Archived from the original on 2015-09-13. Retrieved 2015-09-13.
8. Vadukut, Sidin (2009-06-11). "Shift control, and twitter". Mint. Archived from the original on 2015-09-13. Retrieved 2015-09-13.
  The article notes:
  
  Joel Comm’s Twitter Power— How to Dominate Your Market One Tweet at a Time, thankfully, is a much better read on cyberspace that somewhat helped overcome Cyburbia.
  Comm’s book is a comprehensive guide for beginners to that thing everyone is talking about: Twitter. The book’s tag line might lead you to think it is targeted at marketing types looking to push their brands. In fact, it is a very accessible guide to personal Twitter usage as well.
  Skip Comm’s musings on social media and go straight to Chapter 3: “Getting Started the Right Way on Twitter”. The three following chapters concisely outline everything a novice needs to know to sign up on the micro-blogging service, build an attractive profile and then nurture a set of followers. Comm’s advice is free of jargon and effective. And best of all, he writes with a jocular simplicity that makes you want to play along. The remainder of the book is targeted at corporate users, but still stays simple and jargon-free.
9. Ah-young, Chung (2009-05-08). "Recent Books: Twitter Power". The Korea Times. Retrieved 2015-09-13.
  The article notes:
  
  Twitter Power: How to Dominate Your Market One Tweet at a Time written by Joel Comm is the first book devoted exclusively to harnessing the power of Twitter, the online micro-blog that allows users to broadcast their status to followers in 140 characters or less, for business.
  This book is designed to help businesses make instant benefits from leveraging this social media phenomenon to reach consumers directly, build a brand, and increase sales.
  The author teaches marketers how to integrate Twitter into existing marketing strategies to build a loyal following among Twitter members, expand awareness for their product or service, and even handle negative publicity due to angry or disappointed consumers.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Twitter Power to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 04:20, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The book has received reviews in the American publications CNET, January Magazine, The News-Gazette, Asheville Citizen-Times, and Entrepreneur. It has received reviews in the Indian newspaper Mint and the Korean newspaper The Korea Times. It clearly passes Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria, which says:
A book is notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews.
Cunard (talk) 04:20, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewritten the article with the sources I have listed here. Special thanks to ThaddeusB (talk · contribs) who provided multiple strong sources about the book at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twitter Power. Cunard (talk) 06:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom / those same arguments at the related AfD. Widefox; talk 13:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, following thorough rewrite by User:Cunard. While notability should not trump avoidance of promotionalism to the point where blatantly promotional text and/or biased use of sources is allowed to remain around indefinitely just because there is no editor currently both willing and able to edit an article to an acceptable standard, the preferred outcome (at least where there is a willing volunteer) should always be to be left with a non-promotional article that meets Wikipedia's notability (and other) standards. Insisting on deletion rather than sufficient improvement either requires that no future article be created on the subject, no matter how notable, or simply postpones the problem - creation of a new article on the topic still requires a willing and competent volunteer and, unless the new creator is a known editor in good standing, must even then be open to an initial suspicion that the people responsible for the deleted article have just gone and acquired a more competent paid editor. No point in adding complications to a problem when, as in this case, we already have a solution. PWilkinson (talk) 17:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As detailed in the other AfDs, (I suspect) the long-term problem is with BOGOF editing. I don't have an complete solution, but time-limited salting deleted promo articles maybe. Widefox; talk 19:06, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Widefox, "BOGOF editing" isn't obvious to me what that means. Maybe you could write an essay :) -- GreenC 20:47, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'll put an essay up soon. Until then, see User talk:Cunard#AfDs (+ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Next Internet Millionaire (2nd nomination) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twitter Power (2nd nomination) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 September 12 [2] ). Widefox; talk 19:13, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per our current notability guidelines. I'm sympathetic to the nominator's concerns and would like to see flagellant cases of promotional activity like this handled somehow. Unclear AfD is the right tool. I have some ideas, others do also. Would like to see some things tried out. -- GreenC 21:01, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yet another article in the series of artspam for Joel Comm. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I have also read the discussion here, but in the end, the fact remains that this book seems notable. That it was started as a promotional paid-for article doesn't matter to me - focus on content, not the creator. And I will note that I do agree with User:DGG's and User:Kudpung's view that it is a waste of time / naivetee / helping the greedy spammers to improve such articles. Still, User:Cunard has done so, and on one level this is good (we have an entry on a notable topic). While it can be argued one could spend their time improving articles which are not helping spammers build a portfolio, this is mostly irrelevant. First, because if the topic is notable, it just is. Second, if someone is enjoying editing / rewriting such topics, it's their choice, it is a free wiki world, after all, and I do not feel we should judge the choices of others what to improve. Whatever I think of the topic here, I thank Cunard for improving this - case closed for me here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It seems that this proliferation of articles all about the same marginally notable topic should be gathered into one article written by someone other than Cunard, who, no matter how independent he or she may be, still seems to have a tough time writing an NPOV article that complies with Wikipedia guidelines on promotionalism. See comments in this and other Afds on this date. --Bejnar (talk) 00:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your accusation that I've written a promotional article and violated NPOV is vague but hurtful. I've striven for NPOV in Twitter Power by including all points of view from the reliable sources about the subject.
Here is the second paragraph of the lead:
Published by by John Wiley & Sons, the book generally received positive reviews for its simplicity and lack of jargon. It was criticized by a CNET reviewer for giving readers "a phony formula where you just paint by the numbers" to attempt to ensnare Twitter followers as customers.
I was able to find five reviews of the book. Four were positive; one was negative. I gave the negative review plenty of weight in the "Reception" section:
In CNET article titled "Twitter power? For real?", journalist Charles Cooper criticized the book for providing a "phony formula where you just paint by the numbers". He said the book is "devoted to doling out tips on how to game the system to reel in 'loyal customers and more sales overall'". Cooper found Twitter Power contradictory because it says that Twitter is "not a place where people come to sell—and pushing sales hard on Twitter just isn't going to work", but almost immediately after says that following people on Twitter could get them to become customers.
I believe this presentation is mostly compliant with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Balance though I erred on the side of giving more prominence and weight to the single negative review over the four positive reviews. Cunard (talk) 04:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep None the less, this book is pretty famous, so it is natural that you should keep it. I am currently doing some clean up work for the article, to remove any biased or non-neutral point of view text. FiendYT (talk) 05:58, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not appear to meet notability criteria. Initially I might have said WP:TOOSOON, but this book is almost 10 years old at this point. For a notable book there should be much more coverage after even 5 years, let alone almost 10. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:48, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says (my bolding):
A book is notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
The book has received reviews in the American publications CNET, January Magazine, The News-Gazette, Asheville Citizen-Times, and Entrepreneur. It has received reviews in the Indian newspaper Mint and the Korean newspaper The Korea Times.
The seven sources here far exceeds the "two sources" requirement in Wikipedia:Notability (books).
Cunard (talk) 17:50, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as promotional. I agree 100% with the BOGOF analysis above. However, we can also look at this in a different way. Wikipedia has, for a long time, understood the dangers of WP:Systemic bias. There exists some population, T, (forgive me if I lapse into techno-jargon here) of possible topics to write articles on. We've known for a long time that certain classes of topics are under-represented in the encyclopedia because information about them is not freely available on-line, or because the people who are interested in writing about those topics (for example, women) make up a minority of our editors, or because the sources for those topics are not written in languages which are understood by most of the editors (English). Now we have a new type of bias which has emerged - a bias towards topics which commercial interests wish to promote for their own gain. Sampling bias is pernicious. While I applaud the efforts of Cunard (and others) to research references, this is simply the wrong place to be directing those energies. Once the selection criteria is biased, no cleanup efforts can correct that bias. WP:PROMO trumps WP:N. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:25, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as promotional. – the rewritten article is not promotional. Please specifically point out where you believe it's promotional.
While I applaud the efforts of Cunard (and others) to research references, this is simply the wrong place to be directing those energies. – it is not your place to direct volunteer editors where to direct their energies.
Once the selection criteria is biased, no cleanup efforts can correct that bias. – this is wrong per Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required. I have corrected any Wikipedia:Neutral point of view issues here. It is false to say that once a non-neutral article has been created, its issues never can be remedied.
That you don't like the topic because of its origins is not a valid reason to delete a rewritten neutral article about a notable topic.
Cunard (talk) 02:30, 20 September 2015 (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. --MelanieN (talk) 00:48, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Koya Bhagat

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

Article about a supposed saint, only references provided have been a forum post and a blog site neither of which are reliable. Searches do not provide any further information on this saint. Therefore this fails WP:GNG and WP:RELPEOPLE. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 23:19, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 23:20, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as A7. Lacks a credible claim of significance. Gparyani (talk) 23:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being a saint is a significant claim.- McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 23:22, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would it cause a person to be notable? Doesn't seem so. Gparyani (talk) 23:23, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's enough to pass the lower threshold of A7, if indeed a saint there should be some sort of scripture or more coverage to prove it at least to the threshold of WP:RELPEOPLE.- McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 23:26, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 23:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 23:23, 12 September 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Comment: If the subject really was a saint, then he/she would presumably be notable; if he/she was not an (official) saint, this article should be deleted as a hoax per CSD G3. St Anselm (talk) 03:53, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tribhuvandas Luhar, who wrote a poem about him. A simple GBooks search indicates that "legendary poet" is the best descriptor for the subject. St Anselm (talk) 03:58, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment: He is mentioned at Adivasi#Adivasi sants (which clears up the whole "saint" idea). St Anselm (talk) 04:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. St Anselm (talk) 04:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an autobiography. This article was created by a user named Koyabhagat. With that being said, it's likely not a hoax.Gparyani (talk) 06:56, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, the subject is a 17th- or 18th-century figure, so no - not an autobiography. And no COI, any more than I have editing Saint Anselm. St Anselm (talk) 07:24, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as apparent hoax. Unacceptable as is anyway and if really a saint the article creator or someone else would/should have made a proper article of it. Quis separabit? 19:44, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there is no significant coverage in reliable sources, and hence he fails WP:Notability (people). "Bhagat" (devotee) seems to be a Hindu title for a saint. One line of Koya's writing is quoted at the beginning of Chapter 4 (page 130) in Narasinha Mehta of Gujarat: A Legacy of Bhakti in Songs and Stories (2014) by Neelima Shukla-Bhatt, giving as a source in the footnote on page 273, Motu Bhajan Bhandar. By which he may have meant the book Anal motun Bhajan bhandar which is written in Gujarati. Neelima Shukla-Bhatt confirms that Koya came from the Koli community and wrote in the 18th century. Unfortunately the Koya are also a tribe in Andhra Pradesh which makes searching more difficult. The Gujarati poet Tribhovandas Luhar 'Sunderam' (1908-1991) wrote a poem entitled "Koya Bhagatni Kadvi Vani" ("Saint Koya's Harsh Indictment") (It was the lead poem in his 1933 collection of the same name.). The book Gujarat by Hiralaxmi Navanitbhai Shah Dhanya Gurjari Kendra does not discuss Koya in the section on literature, nor in any other section. The book The Indian millennium, AD 1000-2000: The Most Comprehensive And Accessible Single-Volume Reference Guide Available To The Events And Personalities That Shaped India Over The Thousand Years From Ad 1000 To 2000 (Penguin, 2000) does not mention him. I found no evidence that Bhagat Koya was a poet, although he could have been. Aside from being the title persona of Sunderam's poem, and the brief mention of him by Neelima Shukla-Bhatt I found no other coverage in reliable sources. It is possible that there may be coverage of him in Anal motun Bhajan bhandar, but WorldCat did not list any libraries holding that title OCLC 59922162. --Bejnar (talk) 22:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bejnar. St Anselm (talk) 01:00, 17 September 2015 (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. --MelanieN (talk) 00:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Christians in Politics

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

No evidence that this is a notable organization. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 07:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 07:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 07:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability is not established. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply because I see nothing to suggest improvement (nothing here and my searches). SwisterTwister talk 04:49, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an umbrella organisation for British party Christian groups, I would have thought it was significant, but the article should not be expanded or give rise to a category. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:18, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no claim to notability stated in the lead or article. Almost all of the coverage is brief mentions (one sentence) of such things as the joint "ShowUp" campaign and most of those mentions are from a single publication, Christian Today, including articles by Mark Scott the events and communications manager for Christians in Politics. One blog mention at Alan in Belfast. Basically, no other coverage. The phrase "Christians in politics" is used generically quite a lot, which complicates searching. --Bejnar (talk) 23:52, 16 September 2015 (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. Regarding DGG's thoughtful point: since it is not clear how WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES can be applied in this case, we have to fall back on WP:GNG, at least for now. --MelanieN (talk) 00:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Darul Uloom New York

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

Fails GNG by lots of miles. I don't think there is even one single reliable source which can be found mentioning this. My last PROD was contested because I used the word "lol" while prodding, so I'll just say that this article passing the first patrol is a laughable incident. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 07:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 07:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 07:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article says this is a higher ed institution, but this is not a degree granting institution or a full service primary or secondary school. No coverage by reliable sources. Not listed at ed.gov. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as my searches found nothing good. I'm inviting DGG for comment. SwisterTwister talk 04:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have not previously discussed Islamic higher education institutions of this sort, but I consider them equivalent in purpose and function to college level education is Western society. See the article on Darul uloom. for an explanation For one that has renamed itself, and added a medical school, & gone to the trouble of getting Western accreditation, see Dar Al Uloom University. I would suppose they award a degree of some sort, though I need to check what it would be called. The Western system of education is not the only one, and it too was derived from ecclesiastical roots. We treat all religious similarly, and their institutions likewise. DGG ( talk ) 17:02, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:15, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG, for lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Yes, we have a number of articles about religious schools. This one just happens to fail the notability test. It is not a question of ecclesiastical roots. --Bejnar (talk) 23:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - New York has very strict laws on who may call themselves a college or university; Trump University was shut down for that. This is unaccredited and is not a real place of higher education. Bearian (talk) 21:56, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The general thrust of the discussion is the same as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twitter Power (2nd nomination). But unlike there, in this discussion the "delete" or "userfy" opinions outweigh the "keep" opinions by more than two to one. I am content to call this a consensus for deletion (with possible userfication if requested) because unlike perhaps some other related articles, the notability of this topic is argued to be borderline, and two of the three "keep" opinions don't really address that. Sandstein 08:48, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Next Internet Millionaire

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

Renominating in the hope of getting consensus. This is part of a promotional series of articles, for Joel Comm, some or all of them written by paid editors.

Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason. Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encycopedia .

I think we need to stop tolerating this sort of article. DGG ( talk ) 23:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes it's borderline N. Patience has run out for this self-promotion. It also isn't a) a film b) television or c) been broadcast. I've removed those three claims. Yes, I agree 100% with DGG. This is part of deciding where our boundaries are. It's basically WP:TOOSOON to see if this was something important in the evolution of video. Looking at the timescale, maybe it wasn't. Else it's NOTNEWS. Reading the sources - Wired wasn't sure to take this seriously. What standard do we want to be? Less than NEWS? Promotion is dilution of our only worth. Widefox; talk 23:48, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I rewrote the article during the last AfD and have no conflict of interest with the subject. The rewritten article is not promotional. DGG has failed in the last AfD and this AfD to explain precisely how the article's content is promotional. That an earlier draft of the article was written by a COI editor is a terrible deletion reason for the current revision written by a non-COI editor. Cunard (talk) 23:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(to summarise below big ref blob) No complete rewrite was done before (it may have been done now by both of us). There was several inaccuracies in the original parts (not done by you or I). Widefox; talk 01:19, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Excellent research from 23W (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Next Internet Millionaire.
1. Johnson, Kimberly S. (2007-07-30). "Who wants to be an internet millionaire?". The Denver Post. Archived from the original on 2015-07-17. Retrieved 2015-07-17.
  The article notes:
  
  A Loveland entrepreneur who has reportedly made millions with his online ventures is trying to do the same for others - with a reality-TV twist.
  Joel Comm, who sold his first business to Yahoo Inc. in 1997, is the co-creator and host of "The Next Internet Millionaire," an "Apprentice"- type reality show being filmed in Loveland. The show will be aired exclusively online beginning Aug. 15.
  ...
  Twelve contestants from the U.S., Canada, Costa Rica and England were chosen based on videos they submitted to the show. The videos also appeared on YouTube. Web users had a chance to weigh in on the final 12, but the choice was ultimately up to Comm.
  Hundreds of people submitted video entries. The six men and six women are competing for $25,000 and the chance to develop a joint venture with Comm.
  ...
  The show has several sponsors and a crew of 15, who are following the contestants as they complete their tasks. Comm wouldn't say how much he's spending to produce the show but said it totals more than the production budget of the independent film "Napoleon Dynamite," which according to Box officemojo.com. was $400,000.
  The show also brings in "teachers" or experts in various Web fields to help guide the contestants through their tasks. Dave Taylor, a Boulder-based blogging and Internet guru, is expected to make an appearance during taping this week.
2. Strange, Adario (2007-06-05). "The Next Internet Millionaire: Startup As Reality TV". Wired. Archived from the original on 2015-07-17. Retrieved 2015-07-17.
3. Strange, Adario (2007-08-20). "'The Next Internet Millionaire' Launches First Episode". Wired. Archived from the original on 2015-07-17. Retrieved 2015-07-17.
  The article notes:
  
  The new "Next Internet Millionaire" production is slicker, more professional, and easily something you might find on broadcast television. Whether that’s good or bad, you decide. The point is, this no longer looks like a fly-by-night hustle job. The show now has a host, legitimate sponsors from the technology space and, dare we say it, a couple of interesting moments. Although the reality show genre is pretty much DOA at this point, emerging online video show creators should note the way this show quickly ramped up the quality—this is your new competition.
4. Middleton, Diana (2007-07-27). "Reality no obstacle for these entrepreneurs: Despite rejection by reality shows, their businesses thrive; they plan to expand". The Florida Times-Union. Archived from the original on 2015-07-17. Retrieved 2015-07-17.
5. Middleton, Diana (2007-06-23). "The next Internet millionaire?: Local businesswoman in the running to win big through an online reality show". The Florida Times-Union. Archived from the original on 2015-07-17. Retrieved 2015-07-17.
  The article notes:
  
  So far, Chance has survived the first round of voting, which whittled 300 applicants to a pool of 50. The online voting, which will count for 30 percent of her second round score, ends Wednesday. Should Chance make it to the next round, she'll be in the running for a trip to Colorado, where 12 finalists will be filmed competing for the top prize: $25,000 and the chance to form a joint venture with the show's creator, Internet marketer Joel Comm. While competing for the top prize, contestants will be "taught" how to make more money online by a panel of "Internet marketing experts," many of whom sell their own lines of books based on their money-making tactics. They will also compete in challenges similar to those on television.
  Show creator Comm, an Internet marketer, claims to have all the tools to squeeze profitability from Internet ventures. He owns several domains ranging from online coupons to a personal blog. However, one of Comm's more notable Web sites, the family-friendly World Village, has seen rapidly declining traffic, with the number of global Internet users visiting the site dropping 37 percent within 3 months, according to Alexa, a Web tracking company.
6. Amos, James (2007-06-27). "Classes to focus on Internet opportunities". The Pueblo Chieftain. Archived from the original on 2015-07-17. Retrieved 2015-07-17 – via HighBeam Research. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help)
7. Zuckerberg, Randi (2008-11-18). "Online, Reality TV Gets Even More Absurd". The Daily Beast. Archived from the original on 2015-07-17. Retrieved 2015-07-17.
  The article notes:
  
  The Next Internet Millionaire
  This show aired in the fall of 2007 and pulled out all the stops: a high-drama entrance by host Joel Comm in a stretch Expedition limo, a panel of expert judges, and stunt-based tasks aimed at sending the contestants packing. The key fault in this otherwise slickly produced show about the oh-so-glamorous world of, um, internet marketing was the host, internet geek—I mean, web marketing guru (and shameless self-promoter)—Joel Comm. Canadian Jaime Luchuck was declared the winner, and Joel is surely proud: she too now hawks her book From Cubicle Slave to the Next Internet Millionaire online. (Even better, when you try to navigate away from her site, you get every annoying pop-up ad ever created, making you wish internet marketing never existed in the first place.) You can also tune in to Joel Comm’s new YouTube self-celebration, The Dot Comm Story.
8. Riley, Duncan (2007-10-04). "The Next Internet Millionaire: Inspired Programming Or Lame Sales Front". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 2015-09-13. Retrieved 2015-09-13.
9. "Ex-Reginan wins online game show". Leader-Post. Canwest. 2007-11-23. Archived from the original on 2015-09-13. Retrieved 2015-09-13.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Next Internet Millionaire to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 23:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- User:Cunard the parts you left (lede and cats) were wrong (my comment above is after your rewrite). The lede is still by the original COI and needs fixing. I put the COI back as the COI has relevance and (from my perspective) pertinent to the AfD. No prejudice about removing once above mentioned, AfD (and cleanup) done. Widefox; talk 00:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - The lead says:
    The Next Internet Millionaire is an online reality show hosted by Joel Comm and written and directed by Eric Holmlund. Billed as the world's first Internet reality show and based on the popular NBC show The Apprentice, the program was released entirely on the Internet in 2007.
    I've revised this to:
    The Next Internet Millionaire is an online reality show hosted by Joel Comm and written and directed by Eric Holmlund. Based on the NBC show The Apprentice, the program was released entirely on the Internet in 2007.
    The sole category is Category:Reality web series, which is accurate.
    I think this is accurate and neutral. Does this satisfy your concerns? If yes, please remove the {{COI}} tag. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:56, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Content wise, I'm not yet buying that it's completely OK - it hasn't been completely rewritten has it? Maybe at least 1. lede 2. Primary claim of it being the online Apprentice. I've given two other (painstakingly researched) reasons above. Although the COI edits are before the new TOU, the bigger picture is why I'm here. Appreciate you've fixed the content. How can these two tangential aspects be reconciled? Maybe leave it a week? Widefox; talk 01:03, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The lead says it is based on The Apprentice. This is supported by this article in The Florida Times-Union, which says:

The Next Internet Millionaire bills itself as an online version of shows like The Apprentice, which pit ambitious businesspeople against each other for a lucrative business deal for the winner.

Therefore, the lead is supported by the source. You wrote "the parts you left (lede and cats) were wrong".

Since you removed the category Category:American reality television series, the categorization now is accurate. Since I cleaned up the lead, the lead is now accurate. Do you have any outstanding concerns about the article's prose, which I completely rewrote?

Leaving the COI tag is unhelpful because the article has been rewritten by a non-COI editor. The cleanup is done. There is no reason to keep it up during the AfD because it wrongly indicates that the cleanup is not done and biases editors towards supporting deletion.

Cunard (talk) 01:15, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good. The content is finally rewritten. Do you agree it's worth being cautious about a big promo/sockfarm/COI mess. You know we're evaluating this as part of the biggest one this year/ever? I welcome further scrutiny considering, and that's why this COI tag ~~AfD~~ is here, indicating to AfD participants that aspect (which may, or may not be 100% solved content wise now - you agree it wasn't after your original rewrite, right?). Disclosure of the catalyst (from my perspective) for the AfD isn't about biasing. My two reasons to keep are not challenged. Widefox; talk 01:32, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I completely rewrote the body of the article. I did not touch the lead, which I now have done by removing an unsourced part. The inaccurate category is a very minor issue. I don't find the tag helpful since as you've admitted, "The content is finally rewritten." Since the article was rewritten, the tag now is obsolete. But in the interest of not edit warring with you, I'll remove it after the AfD is closed. Cunard (talk) 02:30, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment RS: The Daily Beast and Techcrunch: Can we either agree they're not RS, or they are exactly why we don't want this sort of content WP:NOTNEWS / promo. Widefox; talk 03:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 39#The Daily Beast as a source and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 110#TechCrunch and Engadget conclude that The Daily Beast and TechCrunch have the editorial oversight required to pass Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources.
These two are not the only sources. There is also significant coverage in major broadsheet newspapers like The Denver Post and The Florida Times-Union and in the reputable magazine Wired.
Cunard (talk) 03:11, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With the rules currently stated, we have the inverse of how voluntary organisations run: Volunteers with responsibilities, and staff (undisclosed paid editors) with none. Rewriting bad paid content with good volunteer content results in hiring a BOGOF editor. We're subsidising the market. This is not sustainable. Dare to say it, WP:IAR. Widefox; talk 03:56, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think WP:IAR is a good reason to delete my hard work on a notable topic. Cunard (talk) 04:21, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not fair, you chose to be in that BOGOF position. Your hard work results, in effect, of subsidising the (clandestine/illegal) market. WP/WM as an org should not set up people for failure, we need actual solutions to tackle the illegal market, and BOGOF does the opposite - incentivises it. You were fully aware it was a COI rescue (a BOGOF). You cannot afterwards complain. Short term - good work, long term - destructive market force. Of course, if you can promise to fix all COI / TOU articles yes no problem. How can you even ask others to join you? It's counterproductive (per DGG), it's wikt:give hostage to fortune. (see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Circle (company) )Widefox; talk 12:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this really turns the situation on its head. An editor attaching his good reputation to a tainted topic and asking that it be retained on that basis? Wow. I'm jumping in now with my !vote. — Brianhe (talk) 05:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - another piece to promote Joel Comm. Purely promotional and obviously a case of someone 'mistakenly' believing that Wikipedia is another LinkedIn, not understanding the difference between an Encyclopedia and a comercial networking site or the Yellow Pages. Whether it is part of the Orangemoody paid spamming campaign or not, DGG has said all that needs to be said already. Wikipedia cannot be allowed to be used for profit in this way at the abuse of the voluntary unpaid time that dedicated users spend building this encyclopedia which in spite of some biographies and articles about some companies, was never intended to be an additional business networking platform. Whether the text itself sounds promotional or not, the article is an advert and a plethora of sources has never been an automatic assumption of notability.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:42, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per the argument I have already made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twitter Power (2nd nomination). PWilkinson (talk) 18:03, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This looks like WP:POINT in my opinion. The topic is notable based on [3] and [4]. In fact, the Tech Crunch article information should be added to this article and that of the person founding the show. If no one likes the tone of the article, strip it down to a few sentences with the reliable sources and let it be. --TTTommy111 (talk) 20:26, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOTPOINTy - there's making a point, and there's disrupting to make a point. In the short term this could be seen as POINTY, long-term we need to decide what's best as BOGOF editing may be seen as POINTY. We're an encyclopaedia not a newspaper WP:NOTADVERTISING, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:10YT. If the subject is worthy we should include it, it could be argued that there's competing disruptive forces here, but let's be clear and agree one thing, WP is not a promo platform and there's no place for undisclosed COI / paid editing. That's the disruption. Mopping up after isn't (whichever form that may take). Widefox; talk 08:32, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Kudpung's emerging BOGO philosophy nicely articulated above, and DGG's "lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion" (my emphasis). WP articles shouldn't be a way to start a crummy PR fluff piece and have volunteers finish it in order to promote a company/book/person. — Brianhe (talk) 05:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unaware of anyone else coining the phrase before I did, but it was me that called it BOGOF. Widefox; talk 21:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It seems that this proliferation of articles all about the same marginally notable topic should be gathered into one article written by someone other than Cunard, who, no matter how independent he or she may be, still seems to have a tough time writing an NPOV article that complies with Wikipedia guidelines on promotionalism. See comments above. --Bejnar (talk) 00:07, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your accusation that I've written a promotional article and violated NPOV is vague but hurtful. I've striven for NPOV in The Next Internet Millionaire by including all points of view from the reliable sources about the subject.
Here is the "Reception" section of the article:
Wired reviewer Adario Strange said The Next Internet Millionaire was "slicker, more professional, and easily something you might find on broadcast television". Randi Zuckerberg criticized the show in The Daily Beast, writing, "The key fault in this otherwise slickly produced show about the oh-so-glamorous world of, um, internet marketing was the host, internet geek—I mean, web marketing guru (and shameless self-promoter)—Joel Comm."
Riley Duncan of TechCrunch said he was unsure about whether to praise or criticize the show, writing, "On the one hand it's slickly produced and some of the expert advice is worth watching, particularly if you're in the ebook ... sorry Internet Marketing business. Yet on the other hand you just know that the whole show is a front for Joel Comm Inc; a vehicle from which he can further expose himself to a broader audience and ultimately sell more ebooks and related products."
The Wired review is positive. The Daily Beast is negative, calling Joel Comm a "shameless self-promoter". TechCrunch has a mixed review, noting the show can be educational but that it is just "a front" for self-promoter Joel Comm. This presentation is compliant with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Balance.
Cunard (talk) 04:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is Cunard's right as an editor to rewrite, and that right should be defended. Widefox; talk 21:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~, appears to be primarily vehicle for self-promotion. — Cirt (talk) 16:37, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cirt (talk · contribs). I am the primary editor of the article's current version and have no conflict of interest with the subject. I don't intend for the article to be used for promoting the subject. I included mostly negative information about the show's reception since the sources were primary negative to comply with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Balance. What can I do to improve the article to convince you that I do not intend for it to be promotion? Thank you, Cunard (talk) 03:40, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I didn't intend to slight any personal individual Wikipedia editor themselves. I merely meant the tone itself came across as a bit promotional. I'll have to take another look to try to make more specific suggestions for improvement. Good luck to you, — Cirt (talk) 03:43, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Okay so the Reception sect appears to have only three sources or so with scant discussion in an in-depth nature. Perhaps you could first try expanding that particular sect with maybe at least three times as many sources and paraphrase (instead of quote) some of the discussion to see that way if it goes into greater depth. Just a suggestion, — Cirt (talk) 03:45, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, Cirt (talk · contribs). Thank you for your helpful suggestion for improvement. The quotes in the "Reception" section definitely can be shortened, which I've done. I've shortened the quotes to be just several words instead of several sentences.
I've reviewed the sources again, and I think only Wired, The Daily Beast, and TechCrunch comment about what they like and dislike about the show. The other two three, The Denver Post, Canwest, and The Florida Times-Union, don't comment about what they like and dislike about the show, so I was unable to include them in the "Reception" section.
Cunard (talk) 04:17, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cirt (talk · contribs), are there any other changes I can make to address your concerns about the tone being too promotional? I am unable to expand the "Reception" section because only three sources review it. I don't want my hours of work on this notable topic to be wasted by the article's deletion. Cunard (talk) 17:45, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - DGG says it best, "Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason." And I'm not even sure this reaches the classification of borderline notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:46, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason.
How is there "clear promotionalism"? Please point out specific instances of the article of promotionalism so I can fix them. I have no connection with the subject and rewrote the article because I found the subject notable.
There is no borderline notability. The subject is clearly notable for having received significant coverage in Wired, The Daily Beast, TechCrunch, The Denver Post, Canwest, and The Florida Times-Union.
Cunard (talk) 17:45, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy. I thank Cunard for the improvements taking my above comments into consideration. It's a shame more Reception wasn't able to be found, at least not yet. Perhaps userfy is the best option, for now, so further research can be done. Without prejudice to recreation in main article space at any point in time after that, with quality improvement beforehand, hopefully. — Cirt (talk) 17:59, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cirt (talk · contribs), I've searched very hard for sources on Google and in news databases. I don't think there are any sources other than Wired, The Daily Beast, TechCrunch, The Denver Post, Canwest, and The Florida Times-Union. These seven sources allow the subject to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
Userfication won't work because I cannot expand the article further without more sources. Do you have access to news databases that contain sources about The Next Internet Millionaire not mentioned here? If yes, I'll gladly incorporate them into the article. But if not, I'm not sure how I can expand the article without more sources. I think only these seven sources have covered The Next Internet Millionaire in detail.
Cunard (talk) 18:05, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I feel for ya, maybe try HighBeam Research, and also other archival online database resources that might be accessible via your local library like LexisNexis or NewsBank ? — Cirt (talk) 18:08, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've already tried HighBeam Research which returned two articles from The Florida Times-Union and one article from The Pueblo Chieftain (all three of which I have already listed above). NewsBank lists the same sources mentioned above. I do not have access to LexisNexis.

I think the article in its current state is acceptable since it's neutral and reliably sourced. Although I too would like to expand the "Reception" section, I am unable to because no other available sources discuss The Next Internet Millionaire. With seven sources, there is enough material to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, so would you consider supporting keeping the article?

Cunard (talk) 18:29, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You might try LexisNexis which you could access at your local library, or ask for help from the reference librarian. Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library might be able to help you out. — Cirt (talk) 18:48, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My local library does not have LexisNexis access and nor does Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library. If you have access to LexisNexis, would you please check for The Next Internet Millionaire articles for me? Cunard (talk) 19:50, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No city or other public library is likely to have even the Academic version of Lexis-Nexis (even NYPL does not): only major universities, and many do not make it available to outsiders. DGG ( talk ) 23:55, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. See my mini-essay elsewhere for details. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:29, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as promotional. – the rewritten article is not promotional. Please specifically point out where you believe it's promotional.
While I applaud the efforts of Cunard (and others) to research references, this is simply the wrong place to be directing those energies. – it is not your place to direct volunteer editors where to direct their energies.
Once the selection criteria is biased, no cleanup efforts can correct that bias. – this is wrong per Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required. I have corrected any Wikipedia:Neutral point of view issues here. It is false to say that once a non-neutral article has been created, its issues never can be remedied.
That you don't like the topic because of its origins is not a valid reason to delete a rewritten neutral article about a notable topic.
Cunard (talk) 02:31, 20 September 2015 (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 Oceana (non-profit group). (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 19:31, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ocean Heroes Award

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

I am sure all the individuals given awards are instrumental to marine conservation but the article itself lacks importance. This information is available through Oceana's website plus what is here is out-of-date. None of the people mentioned and none of their organizations have articles here at Wikipedia. The links to the organizations are all to their websites. Thank you. Rissa, Guild of Copy Editors (talk) 06:52, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 07:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 07:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 07:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / Redirect over to the Oceana (non-profit group) page CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:20, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as my searches found nothing outstanding aside from Books and browser results to suggest better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 04:23, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Oceana (non-profit group) - nothing to show enough notability for a standalone article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:37, 19 September 2015 (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. --MelanieN (talk) 04:21, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Boylan

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

Minimally sourced (one of the two sources is a raw table of election results and the other is a glancing namecheck of his existence in an article that isn't otherwise about him) WP:BLP of a person notable only as a non-winning fringe party candidate in federal and provincial elections and as a local radio host heard on a single radio station in a single media market. Neither of these is a claim of notability that gets a person into Wikipedia; WP:NPOL grants notability to officeholders, not candidates, and WP:NMEDIA grants notability to national radio personalities, not local ones. I just did a ProQuest Canadian Newsstand Major Dailies search, further, and found no strong evidence of refimprovability — every single hit he garnered in that database was either a raw table of election results or another glancing namecheck. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 06:58, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 07:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 07:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 07:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:13, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NPOL, unelected candidate of a micro-party Kraxler (talk) 00:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Frequent fringe candidate who in many provincial and national elections has never even gotten 1% of the vote (100-200 votes is typical). Nothing to show notability as a politician or anything else.Jakejr (talk) 15:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above editors. Nothing in searches turned up anything to show this meets WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:32, 19 September 2015 (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 per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 00:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Bernardino

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

I attempted to improve this and simply found no signs of meaningful improvement as there's no good sources and information and has an overall in-universe setting (granted, it seems from the 15th and 16th centuries but there's not even minimally good improvement). The best results my searches found here and here. Existing since November 2005 and sparsely edited since then, this certainly needs attention. Notifying Brendanconway and inviting Calamondin12. SwisterTwister talk 23:10, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:12, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:12, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:12, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:12, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:12, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or at least a redirect to Our Lady of Guadalupe. So many sources in books [5] AFD is not cleanup and shouldn't really be used that way.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 01:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Large number of sources found for the subject, including numerous books. A sampling:
- Our Lady of Guadalupe: The Origins and Sources of a Mexican National Symbol, by Stafford Poole
- Our Lady of Guadalupe and Saint Juan Diego: The Historical Evidence, by Eduardo Chávez
- Mexican Spirituality: Its Sources and Mission in the Earliest Guadalupan Sermons, by Francisco Schulte
- Encyclopedia of Sacred Places, by Norbert C. Brockman
- Hispanic/Latino Theology: Challenge and Promise, edited by Ada Maria Isasi-Diaz and Fernando Segovia

The subject is also discussed in a diverse array of other sources, including the Shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe in Wisconsin [6], the University of Dayton [7], the Philippine Daily Inquirer [8] and many more. Clearly, Juan Bernardino is a significant part of the background of Our Lady of Guadalupe. There are certainly possible improvements for the article, but in light of the large number of WP:RS for the subject, it meets WP:N and WP:V. Calamondin12 (talk) 02:11, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It merely sounds like someone needs to improve the article. St Anselm (talk) 04:14, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep? Little is known about this individual, but what little is known we should have in an article. Not all articles need to be long and detailed, provided they help readers identify a reference. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 21:15, 14 September 2015 (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. --MelanieN (talk) 04:23, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mustafa Abdel-Wadood

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

promotional article by paid editor, borderline notable at best, non notable, with no reliable sourcing for the claims made in the article. The Abraaj Group is probably notable (tho the present article is quite spammy), but that doesn't apply to individual member of its executive committee. Being a member of World Economic Forum or Global leaders is not by itself notability; winning an distinguished alumni award is never even significant; being on the board of various companies is not notability either. It's time we removed articles of this sort--and, in my opinion, time we removed the editors who are paid to write them. DGG ( talk ) 22:59, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There have been brief mentions of him in The New York Times and The Financial Times but I can't find any RS of he is the subject of the article as is required to meet WP:BIO. SmartSE (talk) 23:28, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per WP:PROMO.
Delete - Purely promotional and obviously a case of someone 'mistakenly' believing that Wikipedia is another LinkedIn, not understanding the difference between an Encyclopedia and a comercial networking site or the Yellow Pages.. Whether it is part of the Orangemoody paid spamming campaign or not, DGG has said all that needs to be said already. Wikipedia cannot be allowed to be used for profit in this way at the abuse of the voluntary unpaid time that dedicated users spend building this encyclopedia which in spite of some biographies and articles about some companies, was never intended to be an additional business networking platform. Whether the text itself sounds promotional or not, the article is an advert and a plethora of sources has never been an automatic assumption of notability.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:NCORP. If we can establish a consensus through AfD that non-notable and promotional articles will be speedily deleted it can only help the project. per WP:IAR Jbh ^Talk 18:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional article by a paid advocate. WP:COI and WP:OR apply. Richard Harvey (talk) 15:26, 14 September 2015 (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 - blatant spam. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FORUS Lighting Solutions

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

No evidence of notability per WP:ORGDEPTH. I would have nominated it for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A7, but the claim "It is one of the fastest growing electronics companies in India." could be construed as a credible claim of significance. - Mr X 21:58, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 21:58, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 21:58, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Obviously intended as a 'Yellow Pages' syle entry. Clearly promotional. The creator's user page has also been tagged for speedy deletion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:11, 12 September 2015 (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. --MelanieN (talk) 04:25, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Liyah Pebblerock

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

Does not appear to meet GNG. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:48, 12 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]
21:48, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found nothing even minimally good. WP:TNT and start anew when better. SwisterTwister talk 22:49, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails GNG; maybe too soon. Quis separabit? 01:03, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Searches did not reveal anything. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:30, 19 September 2015 (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. --MelanieN (talk) 04:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Financial Transaction eXchange

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

Article about what I assume is a proprietary implementation of XML. I am not able to find reliable sources that establish this to be a notable subject per WP:GNG. - Mr X 21:47, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am not able to turn up anything either. Maybe this project is at a very early stage and could become notable later. That said, I see notihing to show that the world is crying out for yet another EDI format or that this is the one it would cry for if it did. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:00, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as my searches found nothing to suggest better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 04:44, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Searches did not turn up anything to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:26, 19 September 2015 (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. --MelanieN (talk) 04:29, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beatrice International Models

Does not appear to meet GNG

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

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]
21:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete : I can't find any reliable sources. MirandaKeurr (talk) 22:10, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability is not established. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's not even minimally good coverage (my searches found nothing good). SwisterTwister talk 21:58, 13 September 2015 (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. --MelanieN (talk) 04:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Locations of College GameDay (football)

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

The good thing: Alabama is mentioned more often than Auburn on this page. The bad thing: this list is pure directory material. There is no conceivable reason to have this list--what do these locations matter? The show itself is highly notable, of course, but this list of locations, no: it's really fan cruft. Drmies (talk) 21:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:FANCRUFT — Jkudlick ^tc_s 01:04, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to add the LISTCRUFT points I feel this article fulfills: 1, 2, 3, 8, 12. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 05:08, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Jkudlick's comment above: WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:FANCRUFT. And I might add that the article lacks inline sources for a majority of the facts and statistics recited. Wikipedia is also not an advertising medium for ESPN. Dirtlawyer1 (talk)
Keep The page has been around and consistently edited since February 2009. There have been over 1,400 edits from over 500 distinct editors page info. The page has been viewed over 8,400 times in the past 30 days traffic stats. We've clearly moved beyond "cruft" here. The list is WP:DISCRIMINATE because it is specific to locations of GameDay. Including this list in the original article would most certainly be unwieldy and clumsy on that page, so keeping it here is a reasonable choice.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why is such a list necessary as a stand-alone article? Why couldn't it be kept as a set of collapsible wikitables in the main article? — Jkudlick ^tc_s 05:04, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First off, nothing is necessary on Wikipedia. But I think that consensus of editors will be to keep the information in some way. Even using collapsed tables on the primary page will lead to clumsy editing and being difficult to maintain. Plus, not all browsers will support collapsible wikitables. Maintaining a separate list article is an alternative that will work easily and a significant number of editors seem to support through their actions.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:33, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Dirtlawyer1 and Jkudlick. Pure WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:FANCRUFT, and mostly unsourced. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:21, 19 September 2015 (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. --MelanieN (talk) 04:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Theertha Artists Collective

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

Proposed for deletion by User:NawlinWiki, due to a lack of references or evidence of notability; the author removed the proposed deletion and expanded the article, but it's still unreferenced. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 20:32, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:53, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:53, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:53, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone can provide sources that meet WP:V. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:11, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now unless solid local notability can be established as my searches found results here, here and here but nothing to suggest meaningful improvement. SwisterTwister talk 04:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Might be WP:TOOSOON, but searches did not return enough to show notability criteria are currently met. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:19, 19 September 2015 (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. --MelanieN (talk) 04:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Christian Brown

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

Despite claims in the rather (self?)-promotional article, the refs provided and Gnews search results indicate he simply does not meet WP:BASIC or WP:CREATIVE at this time. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:32, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:35, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as there's simply no better actual third-party coverage and we'll simply wait for better to come (feel free to draft & userfy if needed). SwisterTwister talk 07:54, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is the second time this article has been recreated. Still lacks notability and reads like self promotion. Original deletion discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gabriel_Brown_(actor). HoarseHorsie (talk) 10:05, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above editors. Searches did not turn up anything to show they meet WP:GNG, WP:BASIC or WP:CREATIVE. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:15, 19 September 2015 (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. --MelanieN (talk) 04:41, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Preetha P V

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

One of two promotional articles created by same SPA (see related AFD). Most of the article content is unsourced and essentially a cut and paste of the subject's Facebook page. Note also that within a day of the wikipedia article creation, it was linked as the subject's website on that Facebook page strengthening the suspicion that this is another instance of COI/paid-editing rampant in this subject area. Other signs of this are the mention of parents' names not listed in any of the sources or (as far as I can see) even the Facebook page, and the publicity shot that is a higher resolution version of the image used on the Facebook page (I have deleted those as copyvio, as no authorship and licensing information has been provided).

None of the listed awards are notable or, at present, verifiable. Ditto for the career section, which reads like an attempt at establishing notability by association. The only independent, reliable source cited is this Hindu article, which is a trend piece about a cappella versions of Vande Mataram going viral (Vande Mataram is India's national song and there are literally thousands of cover versions; cf America the Beautiful). That is insufficient to establish notability under WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. A final example of promotional content and source padding: the claim that the song cover received "good response globally" is supported by a single tweet linking to the song. Abecedare (talk) 19:57, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abecedare (talk) 20:04, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Abecedare (talk) 20:04, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I reported the article (see related AFD) and due to some doubts about the article i asked about this with SpacemanSpiff. I believe that this is another sockpuppet of JithDominicJose04. Is there any methods to find the IP's used by JithDominicJose04 and Jdmlive be same or not? (Sorry, I am only a Page Patroller, so i don't know about these that's why I'm asking)

comment It is not a cut and copy of any data,for example if you are born to a father it wont change anywhere in the document he will be your father until your death so data will be same.Similarly the data wont change and the awards and recognitions will be valid till there s any issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.174.194.37 (talk) 02:24, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as although my searches found a few results at News and Books, there's nothing to suggest better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and above editors. Nothing in the search engines to show this person meets either WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:00, 19 September 2015 (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—Bagumba (talk) 04:37, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lima Express

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

Non notable. No sources Variation 25.2 (talk) 18:40, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The organization doesn't seem notable at all, really. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 21:29, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only independent coverage I could find was a routine piece on 419sports.com and more in depth articles on The Lima News website, both local news sources. I would be surprised if there's that much more coverage elsewhere. The MPBA is just another minor league, who have historically seen their teams receive very little coverage even when the CBA was a feeder league for the NBA, seems to be case here. --ArmstrongJulian (talk) 21:24, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to be a notable organization. The leauge maybe, this team, without sources, is a no. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 22:30, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as although my searches found some minor local coverage and such, there's nothing to suggest better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:00, 16 September 2015 (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. --MelanieN (talk) 04:47, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chandana Jayarathne

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

Subject of the article fails WP:ACADEMIC and WP:GNG. Professors are generally not considered notable and they don't get freebie encyclopedic article on Wikipedia for being a professor. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 18:04, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom - clearly non-notable. Dan arndt (talk) 23:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 23:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 05:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 05:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as although I appeared to have found some results here, here and here, there isn't anything to suggest better improvement so too soon and WP:TNT (or draft and userfy if needed) until better. SwisterTwister talk 04:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:13, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scaleen

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

There is no reason for notability. The page for the group who recorded the EP was also deleted for lack of notability. The page has no references. Knope7 (talk) 17:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Both the group itself and this album are not just un-notable but obscure enough that finding details about them is difficult. Open-and-shut case, in my opinion CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:59, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's simply no improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:17, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom and above editors. Searches did not turn up anything to show this meets WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:11, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Idea Informer

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

There is insufficient reliable third-party coverage to establish notability. sst^flyer 16:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. sst^flyer 17:57, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom.New Media Theorist (talk) 18:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Carax (talk) 18:34, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability just isn't established. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:41, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's simply no good coverage yet (my searches found nothing good) but feel free to draft and userfy if needed. SwisterTwister talk 05:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:18, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Given the consensus that we already have, this looks like a 'snow delete' situation. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps the AFD discussion template needs a "snowball" button.

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. Anybody can create (and anybody can then contest) a redirect to Serpico (band). Sandstein 08:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ipanema (band)

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

No reliable sources to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. Kelly ^hi! 15:31, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect / Merge over to Serpico (band) since the two groups are the same entity, with just a name change and slight line-up change (see here). CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 18:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as my searches found a few mentons at Books and browser but nothing to suggest better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:10, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:18, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:18, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable band, no independent sources in the article, no chart positions, no coverage, one notable member, not sure that "Ipanema band" is a plausible search item, anybody looking for this band probably will look for Ipanema, will get a link to Ipanema (disambiguation), and may see there that the band is mentioned at Darren Brown, in case of deleting this the entry will be edited accordingly. Kraxler (talk) 19:48, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EvoGames

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

Non-notable organization with no credible claim to significance. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. – czar 14:59, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NWEB, WP:NCORP. --The1337gamer (talk) 11:15, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's nothing to suggest improvement. SwisterTwister talk 21:28, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. --TL22 (talk) 00:58, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:36, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wanda Phipps

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

Largely autobiographical article with no third-party reliable sources to establish notability. Kelly ^hi! 13:07, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. sst^flyer 16:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now likely as although News and Highbeam found results and quite a few especially at Books, there's nothing to suggest immediate improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and above editors. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:10, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK #3, subject was a member of the Indian national legislature. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 02:24, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anup Kumar Saha

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

This page does not contain any valid reference or external link.Citation is not present at any part of the article.Politician, having no notable work mentioned here.Special Interest is a personal thing, Should not be included in Wikipedia.Language does not follow Encyclopedian Tone.A simply Biography.Article should be improved. ArnabKumarSaha (talk) 12:55, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree This article is fit for deletion KCVelaga _{☚╣✉╠☛} 13:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:25, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dyadic essays

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

Promotional, no evidence of notability, suspect references like blogs, no in-line citations so we don't know what facts are supported Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree completely. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:56, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Probably delete for now as although Books and browser appeared to have found results, there's nothing to suggest improvement and, if restarted, it'll need familiar attention and better sourcing. SwisterTwister talk 05:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:17, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - some minor mentions on books and scholar, but not enough to cross the WP:GNG or WP:BASIC thresholds. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:08, 19 September 2015 (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. – czar 16:29, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Goyat

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

Fails WP:GNG. Was rightly PRODed in 2013 but DGG reverted for reasons unknown. Sitush (talk) 12:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I simply found nothing to suggest better and it's worth noting this was included at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abusaria and was kept but, again, considering there are no sources there's nothing to suggest keeping. Notifying DGG and Fram. SwisterTwister talk 05:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment The prod notice said, in part, "All these articles were kept under the moniker that they would be eventually expanded, which clearly they did not." But there is no time liit on expansion. If they exist they can be sourced, though quite possibly not in English. I agree we need some evidence of real existence. DGG ( talk ) 17:08, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and SwisterTwister. Searches didn't turn up anything which meets WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:02, 19 September 2015 (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. --MelanieN (talk) 04:45, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Soumya Sanathanan

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

The references provided within the article can only find related with Acapella, during Page Curation, i added BLP sources and Reference imporve to the article and the creator removed those tags from the page without any comments. The references are not saying any importance of article on Wikipedia. Hope some of the editors will help for discussing with this article. Josu4u (talk) 11:54, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 12:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree KCVelaga _{☚╣✉╠☛} 13:38, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think the nomination needs translation into our usual terminology. As I understand it, it means: "The article is being nominated for deletion because the references do not show anything that amounts to notability." The actual question here, however, is whether the news references amount to substantial independent reliable sources. The Times of India is usually considered reliable, but it seems to have a tendency in the field of popular culture to reprint press releases, and the single paragraph here does certainly seem to be a straightforward press release. DGG ( talk ) 18:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree Both the articles are very relevant and complete there are many articles which doesn't even match the criteria,So please retain the pages Soumya Sanathanan as well as Preetha PV

Delete One of two promotional articles on non-notable subjects by the same user. As usual in such cases, the article is padded with content not supported by the sources, and gross extrapolation, for example ...which received appreciations from around the world. is supported by a single tweet that simply links to the video. The only "independent", reliable source is the TOI article DGG mentioned, which contains none of the biographical information in the wikipedia article. The latter comes from the subject's linked-in page, a perusal of which shows that the subject does not meet WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG standards of notability. Abecedare (talk) 19:35, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abecedare (talk) 19:35, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have nominated the related article Preetha P V or deletion too. See the AFD nomination for details of why I believe the subjects are not only non-notable but also that these are probable instance of COI/paid-editing creations as others have suspected. Abecedare (talk) 20:00, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is just puffery - part of a PR campaign, by the looks of it. The Times of India isn't the newspaper it used to be and if it carries on its current trend it will soon be no better than The Daily Mail (UK) as a source. - Sitush (talk) 20:57, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Each points are cleared with reference for soumya and link stands perfect I don't know why this happens...So please comment on this Vijesh Gopal and there are many which doesn't have any source and not a popular persons.So i recommend she should be in Wkipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.174.194.37 (talk) 02:13, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom and above editors. DGG's comment is also spot on. Nothing in the search engines to show this person meets either WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:56, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:36, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Chi

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

Non-notable personality. Its telling that the only references in the article is a personal website and something he wrote. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I see nothing to suggest improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lack of significant independent coverage.--RioHondo (talk) 02:31, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches on the engines returned nothing to show WP:GNG is met. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:47, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The concerns about insufficient sourcing, not convincingly addressed by those wanting to keep the article, add weight to the argument for deletion in light of WP:V. Sandstein 18:54, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Raja Allahdad Khan

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

Nothing in the article shows why he is notable. ~~Searches on The History of the Poonch Tribes - Muhammad Din Fawk (1934)~~ (don't know where that came from meant to write News, Newspaper), Scholar, Highbeam and JStor produced zero results. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

you are being biased, please go through reference mentioned and link https://books.google.com.pk/books/about/Raja_Allahdad_Khan.html?id=XzjTMgEACAAJ&redir_esc=y. Also the reference provided in the article states and I reproduce "Chib Rajputs of Lehri and Khoiratta were the major Jagirdars and most influentials in the royal courts of Maharajahs, after partition Rajah Allahdad Khan Jagirdar of Lehri was threatened by the mob of peasants who looted the family houses when Rajah Allahdad Khan and his family took refuge with the Royal Gujar family in Chalianwala, Gujrat for six months."(The History of the Poonch Tribes - Muhammad Din Fawk (1934)). yes I know it produced zero resuls because not every book is available on internet.Wikibaba1977 (talk) 17:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also go through the link for more detail please http://www.worldlibrary.org/articles/raja_allahdad_khan.Wikibaba1977 (talk) 18:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - okay, having looked at the history, I understand how that absurd comment was inserted in my nomination - Please do not edit other editor's comments. Your additional sources add nothing to the notability of this individual. You might also think twice about throwing terms like "biased" around without evidence. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The WorldLibrary article is unsourced, and crowd sourced. While the individual may have historical notability, it has not been established in the article. This is what must happen to keep it. It must be well sourced AND establish why this individual is notable. Without those things - at the very least - we can not keep it. I am willing to be patient in the hopes it gets improved, and hope that my mind can be changes. In the meantime, calling other editors biased will not serve your cause. Scr★pIron^IV 18:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Google book specified is nothing more than a collection of Wikipedia articles, and that also does not qualify as a reliable source Scr★pIron^IV 18:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: he seems significant enough for an article if what says about him in the article is true, but more sources are needed. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 20:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In relation to http://www.worldlibrary.org/articles/raja_allahdad_khan (Sourced from World Heritage Encyclopedia™). Please refer to clause of Reliability in specific contexts of Identifying reliable sources which states that Reputable tertiary sources, such as lower-level textbooks, almanacs, and encyclopedias, may be cited. Wikibaba1977 (talk) 11:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

please refer to clause of General notability guideline Notability

"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
"Sources"^[1] should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected.^[2] Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.

Also please refer to Responsibility for providing citations in Verifiability

consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step.^[3] When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that there may not be a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable.^[4]

please read these clauses carefuly.Wikibaba1977 (talk) 11:15, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, and academic journals. In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view, is credible and provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article.
^ Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. It is common for multiple newspapers or journals to publish the same story, sometimes with minor alterations or different headlines, but one story does not constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Similarly, a series of publications by the same author or in the same periodical is normally counted as one source.
^ It may be that the article contains so few citations that it is impractical to add specific citation needed tags, in which case consider tagging a section with {{unreferencedsection}}, or the article with {{refimprove}} or {{unreferenced}}. In the case of a disputed category or on a disambiguation page, consider asking for a citation on the talk page.
^ When tagging or removing such material, please keep in mind that such edits can be easily misunderstood. Some editors object to others making chronic, frequent, and large-scale deletions of unsourced information, especially if unaccompanied by other efforts to improve the material. Do not concentrate only on material of a particular POV, as that may result in accusations that you are in violation of WP:NPOV.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. .

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. .

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 08:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree This article is fit for deletion KCVelaga _{☚╣✉╠☛} 13:40, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DElete -- We have a stub that says that the person is the grandson of a person who might possibly be notable (no link). Sounds utterly NN to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The abovementioned both users didnt specify any reason for deletion . Remember its not a vote. Wikibaba1977 (talk) 06:19, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Another link for to establish the notability of person in question is ^[1]. I have already added it in the article.Wikibaba1977 (talk) 06:55, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is definitely lacking in terms of citation to reliable sources, but (1) he is verifiable and (2) given his status as a jagirdar (large feudal landowner under the raja), military commander, and status equivalent to a provincial legislator at the court of Jammu and Kashmir, it seems that he meets notability requirements. The problem of inadequate citations, by itself, is not a reason for deletion. I agree that "Muslim Rajputs", a paper for a Sociology class at The Lahore School of Economics is not a terribly reliable source. Also, while "Muslim Rajputs" does not cite to the 2010 version of this Wikipedia article, it does link to it; and there is no other reference citation provided for the paragraph about Allahdad Khan on page 18. Although it is interesting to note that only two prominent Chibs are discussed in that paper. As "Allahdad Khan" is not an uncommon name, it would help in locating sources to know his approximate dates. The partition mentioned in the single quote in the article, cannot be the Durand Line (its too early), and as the book was published in 1934 before the Pakistan-India partition, it can't be that one. However, it could refer to a partition of northern Rasput territory. Allahdad Khan must date from after his grandfather Raja Abu Faiz Talib Khan 1838/1870, and been born in the late 1800s. I will keep looking. --Bejnar (talk) 18:46, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - If that is indeed the case, I would say that it still does not meet the notability requirements, since he "held a seat". And since the sources are unreliable, not even that claim is proven. At best, userfy and put through the AfC process. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am unclear as to what you mean by "held a seat" doesn't meet WP:POL? On you other point, reliability is not black and white, there are shades. It may be the case that the sociology paper is more reliable than many music review sites. However, it does appear to be an undergraduate team paper. The book The History of the Poonch Tribes is likely to as reliable as early XXth century Indian sources go. The quotation provided in the article implies that Allahdad Khan is discussed earlier in the book. We will have to have the editors who have access to that volume speak to its other contents. --Bejnar (talk) 03:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - It is unclear whether the Punjab District Gazetteer of 1909, page 65 which refers to Allahdad Khan, son of Sultan Khan of Channi who died in 1889, is the same, but it is likely. --Bejnar (talk) 03:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Very short article with no substantial sources and no assertion of notability. There's only one link to this article (Chib), making this near-orphan status as well. Aerospeed (Talk) 13:57, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being a member of the Kashmiri court (council) seems to be an assertion of notability. See discussion above about WP:POL. --Bejnar (talk) 04:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:51, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph J. Allaire

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

No notability outside being the ceo of Altaiere, the company I've nominated for deletion at the adjacent CEO. (note that his brother Jeremy Allaire, is notable as the inventor of ColdFusion but that's his brother, not himself.--the only additional thing this individual did is devised one of the minor components of what became the MS toolbar. DGG ( talk ) 08:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete likely as I found nothing aside from some Books results to suggest improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:32, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then redirect to brother (Jeremy Allaire)'s article and add a note on the brother's page about Joseph's minor involvement in his brother's enterprise -- sibling rivalry!!! Quis separabit? 01:06, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Searches didn't turn up anything to suggest this person meets WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:34, 19 September 2015 (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. In terms of numbers, disapproval for what is assumed to be the promotional motive for the article's creation is matched by opinions noting that it meets the notability guideline. Neither argument compels deletion or retention according to our policies, so it's a draw. Sandstein 08:21, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Circle (company)

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

Not notable. & Promotional, There are references, but they are limited to information about the initial funding of the company and PR influenced articles about its possible future prospects. This do not show any RW significance, and, according to WP:N, we are not obliged to make articles about whatever might happen to just slide under the GNG subguideline . In deciding whether to make them, we cshould be influenced by the extent of promotionalism. As for that, look at the next to last paragraph. Furthermore, it's been written by a SPA with two articles to his credit: this, and an article on the firm's CEO. It's reasonable to assume an undeclared conflict of interest. DGG ( talk ) 08:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looks WP:TOOSOON per normal AfD
Speedy Delete per undisclosed paid editing. Cutting to a stub isn't the right measure this time. (stable door, horse, bolted) Widefox; talk 10:55, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

or Merge/Redirect to Jeremy Allaire#Circle (in current stub form) as doesn't add any more than the section there. Widefox; talk 22:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, maybe I'm missing something here, but with lengthy articles about the company in Wired, Boston Globe, New York Times and the WSJ over the past 18 months, this isn't an article I'd consider for deletion. Passes WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Sionk (talk) 23:10, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with you normally. Need to say that this is part of a promo cleanup - see the connected on the talk. Coming back to normal AfD, what do they do? Where's the beef? Widefox; talk 00:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not so sure about the value of the references mentioned: More and more I realize that even reputable media will print articles that are no better than press releases. We need to look carefully at what the article says. The wired article for example, is not about the company's accomplishments, which seem to be non-existent, but about the promise of it and what it acknowledges are "a slew of other technical startups" that are trying to do the same thing. In my opinion, articles about the initial financing of a company do not show suitability for an encycopedia. Rather than tinker with the concept of notability, this could best be handled by a new provision in WP:NOT, called perhaps NOT STARTUP. I intend to formally propose this in a week or so-- I'm trying to figure out the best wording. In the meantime we can accomplish the same thing by deleting the articles here -- we can and should delete whatever we think should not be in WP. DGG ( talk ) 01:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates for raising the bar:

WP:NOTNEWS
- Churnalism - to treat PR/primary sources as primary not secondary
WP:CORPDEPTH - adding to the existing
- "brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business"
- "announcements of funding rounds of the business" ? Widefox; talk 02:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree the Jeremy Allaire article is awful and I'm surprised nothing has been done about it. However, the articles cited in the Circle (company) are in major, respected publications and are substantial, not brief announcements. There are plenty of bloated articles about companies on Wikipedia that are cited to press releases, trade journals and blogs, but this isn't one of them. If we don't trust the NYT and WSJ then we might as well give up, or re-write Wikipedia's ground rules. Sionk (talk) 11:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hypothetically, removing all the funding round articles, this has WIRED and NYT which are articles with info we can use to write about the subject. It appears useful to raise the bar in this way and provides clarity for assessing notability (this one would be borderline unless more non-excluded sources are added). The proposal is at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Depth_of_coverage_--_funding_reports. Widefox; talk 00:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a clear, and easy to see, passing of WP:GNG and WP:CORP per the numerous significant writeups in independent and reliable sources. All discussion of changing policies should be done elsewhere. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 06:47, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kudpung's argument (and the nom) answer that. In guideline form, it's IAR for the improvement of WP plus the guidelines follow best practice, which is in this direction (I believe). Widefox; talk 13:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - and preferably speedily. Purely promotional and obviously a case of someone 'mistakenly' believing that Wikipedia is another LinkedIn, not understanding the difference between an Encyclopedia and a comercial networking site or the Yellow Pages.. Whether it is part of the Orangemoody paid spamming campaign or not, DGG has said all that needs to be said already. Wikipedia cannot be allowed to be used for profit in this way at the abuse of the voluntary unpaid time that dedicated users spend building this encyclopedia which in spite of some biographies and articles about some companies, was never intended to be an additional business networking platform. Whether the text itself sounds promotional or not, the article is an advert and a plethora of sources has never been an automatic assumption of notability. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:11, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. I share that sentiment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Next Internet Millionaire (2nd nomination). Widefox; talk 12:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It got financing, so what? Business as usual. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete preferably speedily, per Kudpung's emerging BOGO philosophy nicely articulated above, DGG's emerging NOT STARTUP philosophy, as well as his "lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion" stated elsewhere (my emphasis). WP articles shouldn't be a way for paid actors to start a crummy PR fluff piece and have volunteers finish it in order to promote a company and its execs. I've been over this ground many, many times at COIN and it just takes time away from adding WP content. As an independent and sufficient rationale, the article is three sentences long and shows little prospect for growing meaningfully – that is beyond mentioning money moving from one bank account to another – until and unless this startup actually produces something; therefore WP:TOOSOON. — Brianhe (talk) 05:15, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and please quit this stuff. Passes WP:GNG, no dern question about it. Attempts to redefine WP:GNG should be pursued in talkspace (WT and usertalk). AfD is not for cleanup, and if the article passes WP:GNG as presently written, then nominating for AfD is the wrong thing. AfD is also not for revenge on the eeevilll allegedly undisclosed paid editors, either, there is a tool for that, and both Kudpung and DGG possess said tool. Bangkeep rationale, using only the extant refs, just for kicks: WSJ Apr'15,[9] && Wired Apr'15,[10] plus Boston Globe Mar'14,[11] && NYT Mar'14.[12] make me strongly suspect that WP:GOOG might just hold a few more WP:SOURCES about the company. But even if it didn't, those four seem sufficient, to my wiki-eyes, to pass WP:GNG as currently written.

Now, to be fair, this one is straight republication of PR, and I've removed it from mainspace.[13] The others I mention ARE NOT regurgitated press releases, they are impeccably WP:RS, and if you don't like it, get WP:RS and/or WP:GNG redefined. But stop WP:IDONTLIKEIT here at AfD, please pretty please. Or at least, target something *worthy* of getting booted from wikipedia, like Hannah Montana and Justin Bieber, not corporate vehicles like Circle (company) where millions of dollars are involved... oh. Right. Uh... hmmm... maybe I better rethink my WP:IDONTLIKEIT about the teen-pop-stars, huh, if I think that millions of bucks tied up in Circle_(company) and the corresponding press-coverage is wiki-notable, then maybe Hannah Montana as the vehicle for Disney advertising is also wiki-notable? Could be a teachable moment here.... 75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Totally false analogy. Hannah Montana has a measurable effect on culture. Maybe pop culture, but culture nonetheless. Which is why we have Hannah Montana discography and other things. What would be the difference to the world if Circle had never been created? — Brianhe (talk) 21:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not false whatsoever: both are young creatures, being used by hypercorps, to generate ROI. Measurable impact: mainly, that Goldman Sachs would still be calling bitcoin 'not a safe store of value' rather than investing fifty million bucks? Whether this has an outright-revolutionary effect on society (business&consumer society but society nonetheless), over the next two decades, or "merely" an economic impact on the ecommerce business and globalization of finance, depends on WP:CRYSTAL, but that single sea-change event has legitimized bitcoin as a payment-transfer-system, if not necessarily as a currency. This isn't me blabbering, this is why the most recent coverage-burst made the LATimes/etc. See the nearest WP:GOOG, or the article-talkpage. Granted, it's not as big as walmart.com hypothetically saying they'll henceforth be accepting bitcoin, but it's a definitive shift from edgy, to edgy-but-mainstream. That said, as you know very well, this thread is ENTIRELY out of scope for AfD... where we decide whether WP:GNG has been demonstrated, not muse about 'true' cultural and societal impact. If the WP:42 fits, you must acquit. There's a very good reason that we use WP:GNG, rather than philosophical discussion amongst wikipedians about what is truly and really and measurably 'important' ... because WP:GNG is something we all can agree on, more or less. Hannah Montana does not belong in the encyclopedia, but she does pass WP:GNG, so I don't try deleting her -- nor her discography. Quid pro quo, is that people who dislike corporations, money, startups, business, bitcoin, investing, crytography, and whatever else seems to be the hang-up here at this AfD, should not be trying to delete *this* article, since it also so passes. WP:GNG is a long-standing compromise, and it shall not be successfully be redefined here at AfD, methinks, whether this one or another one. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 20:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would really like people to stop telling me what to talk about at AfD. As you yourself have noted elsewhere [14], IAR is on the table at debates. But more to the point, these debates create "Wiki case law" where precedents and parameters for valid arguments are established and reinforced. This isn't a trivial objection like "I don't like their circular logo"; this is a debate deeply grounded in interpretation of WP notability and the broader issue DGG raised that WP:GNG is a reason to delete, not always a reason to keep, in the case of promotional editing (apologies if I have misrepresented). — Brianhe (talk) 21:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

yes, that's what I say too. DGG ( talk ) 23:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, perfectly fair assessment. Truth be told, I suspect I'm annoyed at AfD being used as a way to re-define GNG, mostly because I believe many AfD regulars are deletionists. ;-) I am happy to stop telling you both what to do, and will do so immediately, apologies if anyone was put out. :-) But I'm also happy that you admit you are pulling out-of-process WP:IAR here, and not using AfD for the wiki-traditional function of determining whether WP:GNG (as presently written) has in fact been demonstrated. Circle actually has 42 sources, quite literally, which seems to be what the proposed neo-WP:42 definition we are discussing here would require for corp-articles henceforth... except that, you know, sources about fifty million in funding are not REALLY wiki-reliable sources, so we can delete those, and these other sources in the business section, no boring business news is ever REALLY wiki-notable so let us delete those sources.... You catch my drift. I hate it when people advocate deleting things as 'not encyclopedic' ... especially sources. Anyways, I'll keep my whining about this-is-not-the-place to myself. Because I too love WP:IAR, and I too would like to see some real solutions for the problems being (somewhat tangentially) discussed here. I just strongly disagree that it is any kind of 'solution' is to selectively redefine GNG and delete half a million articles. Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:05, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:75.108.94.227 Do you have any evidence for a "ROI"? Else that whole argument is WP:CRYSTAL and, in fact, underlines WP:TOOSOON. As for telling others what to do, you can add me to your list making three not two. It's a bit boomerang here, as it comes across WP:ILIKEIT (and don't like Hannah Montana), and if we delete this we must delete 1/2 million articles. WP:OTHERSTUFF applies. No kittens (or Hannah Montana articles) will be hurt by this AfD. The bigger the investment WP:NEWS is, the more likely there's something encyclopaedic going on sooner or later, but this isn't Yellow Pages, Linked-in or Techcrunch. We have no duty to list all funded startups. Don't get me wrong, GNG vs promo - two valid opinions to take here. I'm voicing my concern that this should be transparent and a free decision, at a point where the promo weeding needs doing and maybe replanting. Do we want to replant before the weeds are gone, including all their invisible roots?

Coming back to the point, the sources all look too shallow to build a useful encyclopaedic article on what they do. It's already covered in his article. Widefox; talk 09:06, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mainly because I found plenty more sources which show that coverage isn't restricted to the two rounds of funding that all the current RS present in the article stem from: e.g. Dec 14 Sep 14 Oct 13. If these aren't sufficient to meet WP:CORP then we need to delete hundreds of thousands of articles. While I understand the sentiment of the !deletes with regards to discouraging promotional editing, the article has been cleaned up and this isn't the place for argue for exceptions from well-established guidelines. Deleting articles purely because of them being the result of PE has never been policy and for good reason as we'd be spiting ourselves. There are plenty of good sources available which could be used to write a neutral and informative article. SmartSE (talk) 22:13, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"as we'd be spiting ourselves" Agreed, crucial point. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Smartse, the key sentence in the NYT story seems to be this: "another indication that leaders in the traditional financial services industry are now taking digital money seriously". WSJ: "Circle's offering isn't ground breaking". Forbes: "Circle's entry into the market adds another business with serious funding and experience attempting to take the 4-year-old Bitcoin into the mainstream". I can see where you're coming from, but I still see the sources saying not-yet-notable startup attempting to do something important. Maybe these sources should be added to the Bitcoin article, or to wire transfer instead? — Brianhe (talk) 14:52, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jeremy Allaire for now as although the article is better sourced now, in any case, it may be closer connected to him until the company establishes itself more. SwisterTwister talk 05:25, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - or redirect to Jeremy Allaire. The references right now are all due to their fundraising activities. Per WP:NOTNEWS, this is WP:TOOSOON, at least. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:40, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Alden, William (2014-03-26). "Start-Up Unveils Bitcoin Payments Product". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2015-09-19. Retrieved 2015-09-19.
  The article provides a detailed profile of Circle.
2. Vigna, Paul (2014-05-16). "Jeremy Allaire's Bitcoin Start-Up, Circle, Unveils First Product". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2015-09-19. Retrieved 2015-09-19.
3. Newton, Casey (2014-05-16). "Circle wants to be your friendly neighborhood bitcoin bank". The Verge. Archived from the original on 2015-09-19. Retrieved 2015-09-19.
4. Alba, Davey (2015-04-30). "This Digital Wallet Could Finally Get You Into Bitcoin". Wired. Archived from the original on 2015-09-19. Retrieved 2015-09-19.
  The article provides a detailed profile of Circle, adding a footnote about the funding in the second-to-last paragraph.
5. Shieber, Jonathan (2014-05-15). "Circle Emerges From Stealth To Bring Bitcoin To The Masses". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 2015-09-19. Retrieved 2015-09-19.
  This article provides a detailed profile Circle and is not about its receiving funding.
6. Cutler, Kim-Mai (2014-04-29). "Jeremy Allaire Opens His Long-Awaited Bitcoin Product Circle Up To The Public". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 2015-09-19. Retrieved 2015-09-19.
  This article provides a detailed profile Circle and is not about its receiving funding.
7. Kokalitcheva, Kia (2014-09-29). "Circle launches Bitcoin wallet for the average Joe — anywhere in the world". VentureBeat. Archived from the original on 2015-09-19. Retrieved 2015-09-19.
8. Leibel, Michael (2014-05-16). "Circle's new Bitcoin service is so easy your parents could use it". VentureBeat. Archived from the original on 2015-09-19. Retrieved 2015-09-19.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Circle to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 19:57, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. The sources discussed above by Cunard and others could be the basis of an article that actually describes the company and what it does. But what we have now appears to be purely a vehicle for investment promotion. Look what a good value this company is! Famous people poured money into it! Feh. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:34, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While the article certainly can be expanded, the article is neutrally written and reliably sourced. WP:TNT clearly does not apply. Cunard (talk) 02:32, 20 September 2015 (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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:23, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beers Family

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

Pursuant to the criteria for speedy deletion, under A7, this article does not contain enough information to be considered important, or useful.

I'd like to seek consensus on this deletion, to ensure that the community accepts of this proposition. Ex Parte ^talk^|^contribs 03:41, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ex Parte: the article says the group played at the Fox Hollow Festival, so it is definitely ineligible for deletion under speedy criterion A7 (no credible claim of significance). VQuakr (talk) 04:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have had a look for any independent, reliable sources about this group and have come up short. They obviously existed, and released an album, Seasons of Peace, that is on Amazon. @Berwickontweed: what are your thoughts here? Do you think the group meets any of the requirements listed in the notability guideline at WP:BAND? VQuakr (talk) 07:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a discography of three albums to the article. This group definitely deserves a place in Wikipedia, and I was surprised they were not listed already. The first album, Introducing the Beers Family, was on the Columbia Masterworks label, which was a prestigious label for classical music. The second album, Christmas with the Beers Family, was on the popular Columbia label. The group was very highly regarded in folk music circles in the 60s and 70s. Regarding the Fox Hollow Festival, it was run by Bob Beers, and held on the Beers' property, so the festival would not have existed without the family. Berwickontweed (talk) 11:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berwickontweed (talk • contribs) 10:47, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the New York Times ran an obituary of Bob Beers after he died in a car accident in 1972: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9B03E7DD153AE73ABC4F51DFB3668389669EDE Berwickontweed (talk) 13:48, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 12:07, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A more focused search for <"Beers Family" "Fox Hollow"> (see links above) produces some newspaper coverage as well as a number of apparent book sources, mostly shown only in snippets but here is one readable example. An 2009 obituary for Evelyne Beers is here, and Smithsonian Folkways has a 1960 Folkways release by Evelyne and Bob [15]. Cumulatively there's enough indication of notability here to warrant inclusion. It's possible that the brief content of Fox Hollow Festival could be merged into this article to provide better context.--Arxiloxos (talk) 19:10, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, Arxiloxos. I also found an article from The Daily Gazette, which is more about the festival in general than the family but mentions the family, too. I like the idea of merging, but that can occur post-AfD. VQuakr (talk) 00:28, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This along with the sources listed above seems to meet our notability criteria. VQuakr (talk) 00:28, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the references people have turned up here show the Beers Family were significant players in the US Folk Revival scene, and are certainly worthy of a WP reference Berwickontweed (talk) 04:57, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:29, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Culture Amp

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

Yet another .Announcement and press releases and no actual accomplishments except the usual rapidly growing, which is very easy when you start from zero. I'm getting tired; this is the last one I will nominate tonight--there will be another batch tomorrow. There is something to be said for doing all of these at once, rather than one at a time at AfD, but I've always been a supporter of giving every article from a chance) DGG ( talk ) 02:48, 12 September 2015 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 02:48, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not a notable organization. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 21:33, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:01, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:NCORP. If we can establish a consensus through AfD that non-notable and promotional articles will be speedily deleted it can only help the project. per WP:IAR Jbh ^Talk 15:26, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and preferably speedily. Purely promotional and obviously a case of someone 'mistakenly' believing that Wikipedia is another LinkedIn, not understanding the difference between an Encyclopedia and a comercial networking site or the Yellow Pages.. Whether it is part of the Orangemoody paid spamming campaign or not, DGG has said all that needs to be said already. Wikipedia cannot be allowed to be used for profit in this way at the abuse of the voluntary unpaid time that dedicated users spend building this encyclopedia which in spite of some biographies and articles about some companies, was never intended to be an additional business networking platform. Whether the text itself sounds promotional or not, the article is an advert and a plethora of sources has never been an automatic assumption of notability.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:01, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional article by a paid advocate. WP:COI and WP:OR apply. Richard Harvey (talk) 15:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as although this is neat and sourced, I found no better coverage thus less chances of better improvement. Feel free to draft and userfy if needed, SwisterTwister talk 05:34, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 21:58, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:30, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LD Products

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

Here's another non notable company with a promotional article by the same paid editor. An article where one of the 5 paragraphs is devoted to its headquarters meeting an high environmental standard obviously has nothing worth saying. Claiming to be "one of the largest" of anything without any actual evidence, let alone evidence from a third party source, is mere puffery. DGG ( talk ) 02:45, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:NCORP. If we can establish a consensus through AfD that non-notable and promotional articles will be speedily deleted it can only help the project. per WP:IAR Jbh ^Talk 15:24, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and preferably speedily. Purely promotional and obviously a case of someone 'mistakenly' believing that Wikipedia is another LinkedIn, not understanding the difference between an Encyclopedia and a comercial networking site or the Yellow Pages.. Whether it is part of the Orangemoody paid spamming campaign or not, DGG has said all that needs to be said already. Wikipedia cannot be allowed to be used for profit in this way at the abuse of the voluntary unpaid time that dedicated users spend building this encyclopedia which in spite of some biographies and articles about some companies, was never intended to be an additional business networking platform. Whether the text itself sounds promotional or not, the article is an advert and a plethora of sources has never been an automatic assumption of notability.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:59, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional article by a paid advocate. WP:COI and WP:OR apply. Richard Harvey (talk) 15:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as although it may be the largest of its field, I found no better coverage with the best results here and here (basically mostly PR). SwisterTwister talk 05:43, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above editors. Searches didn't turn up enough to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:30, 19 September 2015 (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:51, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nextiva

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

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}}.

Another article by a paid editor for a non notable company. The references may look impressive, but they are almost entirely notices and press releases, or awards that do not qualify for notability. The awards of for being a new company, which is what "fastest-growing" almost always means. In Wikipedia terms, the meaning of that is "not yet notable" "Best places to work" is a trivial award, and should not even be included in articles. An award from the communication company Polycom is an award from a business partner, and meaningless for notability. As a low point of absurdity, one of the references is for running Linux on one of its servers! As for promotionalism, the effort in the Awards section to show the importance of unimportant awards makes it clear enough.

Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason. Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encycopedia DGG ( talk ) 02:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:NCORP. If we can establish a consensus through AfD that non-notable and promotional articles will be quickly removed it can only help the project. per WP:IAR Jbh ^Talk 15:22, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional article. The only usable-ish sources are local, which is not enough to show notability. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 17:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and preferably speedily. Purely promotional and obviously a case of someone 'mistakenly' believing that Wikipedia is another LinkedIn, not understanding the difference between an Encyclopedia and a comercial networking site or the Yellow Pages.. Whether it is part of the Orangemoody paid spamming campaign or not, DGG has said all that needs to be said already. Wikipedia cannot be allowed to be used for profit in this way at the abuse of the voluntary unpaid time that dedicated users spend building this encyclopedia which in spite of some biographies and articles about some companies, was never intended to be an additional business networking platform. Whether the text itself sounds promotional or not, the article is an advert and a plethora of sources has never been an automatic assumption of notability.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

orangemoody is but an example of the problem. Best guess is that we have so far identified fewer than half the articles that ring is responsible for, but that would still just be about 1000. My estimate is that we have at least 50,000 articles of this sort on organizations, and at least an equal number on individuals associated with them. DGG ( talk ) 18:57, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. DGG and Kudpung said it all. Re Nextiva's "independent coverage", read http://www.nextiva.com/voip/the-power-of-the-press-release.html and then read`http://www.nextiva.com/company/news.html (Nextiva.com is blacklisted, hence no live links). Companies that hire expensive PR firms get even more of this bogus "coverage". See:

Felix Salmon (November 23, 2010). "Benjamin Wey and the Power of PR", Columbia Journalism Review

It should be required reading in assessing the notability of business-related articles. Voceditenore (talk) 13:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Do not Delete. I don't see anything wrong. Why delete this page I am sure they will make the right changes give them a chance. Look at what they are doing right. http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/blog/techflash/2015/06/how-nextiva-plans-toreinvent-businesses-phone.html please don't delete this page. "fastest-growing" was back then. Give them a chance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verbhg7 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 14 September 2015 (UTC) — Verbhg7 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. per WP:SOCKSTRIKE Kraxler (talk) 02:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yet another press release-based puff piece from the local business newspaper consisting of Nextiva's's CEO and VP touting their own company. Voceditenore (talk) 15:12, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Verbhg7: Please disclose per WP:AFDFORMAT whether you have a vested interest in the article, see WP:AVOIDCOI.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional article by a paid advocate. WP:COI and WP:OR apply. Richard Harvey (talk) 15:21, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Kudpung I have nothing to do with that page. I am just saying its worth to keep the page and not remove it. This page brings users useful information. And I am not affiliated with the company. Maybe some references need to change its not a big deal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verbhg7 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 14 September 2015 (UTC) per WP:SOCKSTRIKE Kraxler (talk) 02:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Verbhg7 has been indef blocked for abuse of multiple accounts. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*I would also agree with Verbhg7 to Keep this page alive. Just stumbled across the discussion. I am also not associated with the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingglass (talk • contribs) 20:11, 14 September 2015 — Kingglass (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. per WP:SOCKSTRIKE Kraxler (talk) 02:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Just stumbled...' Kingglass - Looks like you hit the ground running. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:58, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note Kingglass:has been indef blocked for abuse of multiple accounts. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:19, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome I would just like to welcome Verbng7 and Kingglass and congratulate them on their very first edits [16] [17]. I hope they become productive members of the Wikipedia community. It usually takes a couple hundred edits, minimum, for new users to start in at AfD so these guys are way ahead of the curve. Jbh ^Talk 20:19, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment What an amazing coincident that one registers as an editor 15 minutes after the other, with an identical style of writing. Richard Harvey (talk) 23:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete self-serving promotion has no place on Wikipedia. Just wanted to be on the record before it's SNOW closed. — Brianhe (talk) 06:07, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:36, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Richardson

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

I do not think this person is notable - he is only mentioned in passing by the source cited in the article, and that's as part of a lengthy list of people whose names appeared in the Venona cables. Basically all we know about him is his name, occupation, and that he was a "source" for Soviet Intelligence between 1943 and 1945. This is not in itself enough to make someone notable, especially absent any significant, in-depth coverage in reliable sources (all I've been able to find is brief, passing mentions). Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:40, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:40, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:40, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:40, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DElete -- I agree. He sounds a NN petty spy to me, at a period when USA and USSR were allies not opponents. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless the type of coverage required to satisfy WP:N can be found. Canadian Paul 18:49, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Here's what I can find about him. He was also vice president and general manager of World Wide Electronics, Inc. He ran his own company, Kenneth Richardson Laboratories, in Lynbrook, NY, and I think he went on to work at Bilnor where he was assigned some patents. VWOA (Veteran Wireless Operators Association) gave him an award in 1971 when he was there at Chief Electronics Engineer. He joined the Radio Club of America in 1974. He was retired by 1989 but still an IEEE member. Fences&Windows 22:03, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as non-notable individual. Quis separabit? 17:42, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches on the engines return quite a few hits, unfortunately, none seem to be about this particular person. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:26, 19 September 2015 (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. per WP:SNOW Bishonen | talk 18:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whale Path

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

Article by paid editor on totally non notable company. All the refs are simply notices of PR about it as a start up--it doesn't actually have any accomplishments as yet. That's what we call "not yet notable". We wouldn't make an article of a musician whose most important activity was raising money to make their first recording but had not yet done so, or an author who had gotten a grant to write their first book, but has not yet written it. Why should we do it for a company? DGG ( talk ) 02:27, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:NCORP. Sources are inadequate per WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Jbh ^Talk 15:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and preferably speedily. Purely promotional and obviously a case of someone 'mistakenly' believing that Wikipedia is another LinkedIn, not understanding the difference between an Encyclopedia and a comercial networking site or the Yellow Pages.. Whether it is part of the Orangemoody paid spamming campaign or not, DGG has said all that needs to be said already. Wikipedia cannot be allowed to be used for profit in this way at the abuse of the voluntary unpaid time that dedicated users spend building this encyclopedia which in spite of some biographies and articles about some companies, was never intended to be an additional business networking platform. Whether the text itself sounds promotional or not, the article is an advert and a plethora of sources has never been an automatic assumption of notability.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:45, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly not much for an article yet and there are no better sources thus no improvement. SwisterTwister talk 21:23, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advertising via a paid advocate. Richard Harvey (talk) 15:13, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NOT ADVERT. Also, undisclosed paid, blocked user wasting volunteers time. Widefox; talk 00:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete finally now, it should have been possible to speedy this back in May when I reported gross irregularities in this user's edits, or a few days later when I discovered and then reported this specific article with the prescient comment "This has the feel of a factory for paid editing with probable involvement of other accounts." This must now be deleted for the plainly sufficient WP integrity reasons enunciated by nominator DGG , Kudpung, and Widefox. Brianhe (talk) 07:04, 15 September 2015 (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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:44, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CoPatient

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

promotional article by paid editor on nonnotable company--" The company works directly with consumers by analyzing and negotiating their medical bills with hospitals in order to lower health care expenses" is a phrase that belongs in advertisement or their web page, not an encycopedia . All the references are brief notices of initial funding as a start up, which in practice means what we call "not yet notable". DGG ( talk ) 02:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looks WP:TOOSOON per normal AfD
Speedy Delete per undisclosed paid editing. If we don't delete them before they get paid, we are in effect complicit by shutting the door after the horse... Widefox; talk 03:17, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:NCORP. If we can establish a consensus through AfD that non-notable and promotional articles will be speedily deleted it can only help the project. per WP:IAR Jbh ^Talk 15:24, 13 September 2015 (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:22, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LogPoint

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

Article by paid editor; small company with no significant accomplishments -- refs though real are clearly PR DGG ( talk ) 02:19, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete refs are real, but not significant. New Media Theorist (talk) 02:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Purely promotional and obviously a case of someone 'mistakenly' believing that Wikipedia is another LinkedIn, not understanding the difference between an Encyclopedia and a comercial networking site or the Yellow Pages.. Whether it is part of the Orangemoody paid spamming campaign or not, DGG has said all that needs to be said already. Wikipedia cannot be allowed to be used for profit in this way at the abuse of the voluntary unpaid time that dedicated users spend building this encyclopedia which in spite of some biographies and articles about some companies, was never intended to be an additional business networking platform. Whether the text itself sounds promotional or not, the article is an advert and a plethora of sources has never been an automatic assumption of notability.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:NCORP. If we can establish a consensus through AfD that non-notable and promotional articles will be speedily deleted it can only help the project. per WP:IAR Jbh ^Talk 18:38, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional article by a paid advocate, making it effectively, advertising, Richard Harvey (talk) 15:10, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kudpung. BMK (talk) 23:34, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now until better coverage is available as although my searches found results here and here, there could be better. SwisterTwister talk 05:41, 16 September 2015 (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 speedily deleted by Mackensen per CSD G12 (unambiguous copyright infringement). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Crombie J.D. Garret

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

I do not think this person is notable - being "deputy chief clerk" of the Supreme Court certainly seems like an admirable achievement, but it does not seem to have earned this person substantial coverage in reliable sources. His name comes up on various google/database searches, but as far as I can tell these are all passing mentions of his name in court documents. No substantial coverage means that he fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:19, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:19, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:19, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:20, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom and stated reasons.New Media Theorist (talk) 02:22, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the nomination and the reasons stated above.TH1980 (talk) 18:23, 14 September 2015 (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:16, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guillermo Garcia (businessman)

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

I'm simply not sure if he actually existed and it's interesting thisthis has stayed the same since November 2005 (started by IP) and it's hardly been changed. There are also few details so it's no help to searches and I would've expected at least one good source despite its age (18th century) and it's worth noting I've even managed to improve other unsourced articles such as Menahem ben Moshe Bavli, K. P. K. Menon andGanesh Shankar Vidyarthi. Inviting Calamondin12. SwisterTwister talk 02:15, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Simple GBooks ("Guillermo Garcia" +business) search yields zero hits, and normal GSearch only has Wikipedia mirrors. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 07:57, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Carter 08:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This looks like a clear hoax. Not only are no sources found, as noted above, but the particulars of the article seem extremely implausible. "Countries such as Brazil and Chile" did not yet exist in the 18th century, nor were "oil and forestry markets" developed in those locations. (As noted at History of the petroleum industry and elsewhere, a large-scale petroleum market did not exist until the late 19th century, spurred by the development of the internal combustion engine). Likewise, the United States, which had only just attained independence, exerted virtually no direct influence in South America during the 18th century, and American businessmen certainly did not have "monopolistic power" over South America (then controlled by European colonial powers, chiefly Spain and Portugal). There's nothing to suggest that anything in this article is true. Calamondin12 (talk) 12:50, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:28, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lamara Qoqiauri

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

Unreferenced WP:RESUME. Appears to be WP:AUTOBIO based on creator's username. This person may meet WP:GNG but would require a complete rewrite. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 00:54, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've seen only pretty limited mentioning of this person's work online, and it looks like notability isn't really established. Even if it was established, I think this article would be at the 'burn it to pieces and start over' stage anyways. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:17, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:13, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question: is being terribly written, ready for WP:BLOWITUP and presumably created by the subject grounds for deletion? if so, I'm in.New Media Theorist (talk) 02:33, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as although I found sources here, here and here, this would need to be restarted and it's worth noting the Georgian Wiki is basically the same and from one perspective, if no one has fixed the native language article, there's a half chance they're not going to fix this one. Inviting DGG and David Eppstein for comment. SwisterTwister talk 05:37, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article (I use the word generously because really it's a cv) has no independent sources. Repec has very little coverage of academic economics in Georgia [18] and she is not mentioned. Google scholar shows that she has published but not that she has been cited. I am willing to believe that we are missing a lot of information because of the language barrier, but we have nothing to give us the basis for an article. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:53, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Uncertain. Even assuming we could source all the information, and look for citations, I think if the information could be verified, she would qualify as WP:PROF. Possibly not as a researcher: we have generally interpreted WP:PROF this to mean notable on an international scale, for science is international. But social sciences, especially the applied social science are often country or region specific. but we have no way to look for citations. She would possibly qualify under WP:PROF provision 4 "The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions. Criterion 4 may be satisfied, for example, if the person has authored several books that are widely used as textbooks (or as a basis for a course) at multiple institutions of higher education." Her bibliography shows she has written what would seem to be major textbooks, and I would think they might be widely used within the country. But this is speculative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

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 Persian leopard#Conservation. I'm counting Мандичка's !vote as a Merge to make life easier, After being up for 4 weeks & barely any !votes I'm closing as Merge - I think this has had the life dragged out of it enough for one month! . (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian Leopard Conservation Society

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

I can't find any more evidence of this group aside from here and here and, although I can't speak for the Armenian side, I'm not seeing any signs od improvement and none has been made since August 2007 (author was blocked shortly after as an account by a community banned user). SwisterTwister talk 21:27, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:20, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:21, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think the correct name is Caucasian Leopard Conservation Society. I'm finding Russian sources (from Armenia) so I'm leaning toward a merge with the Caucasian leopard#Conservation. —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:05, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had also considered this would be best moved elsewhere like that but I never saw a good target. SwisterTwister talk 17:39, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 06:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter¹²³ (quip) @ 16:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Persian leopard#Conservation (note that this is the same target as the one proposed by Мандичка who uses a redirect) Kraxler (talk) 02:49, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:51, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Bob kargbo

A Sierra Leonean Movie, Actor Scriptwriter and Producer based in The Netherlands.His movie "Unpredictable Journey" Won Best Original Screenplay of a feature film at 2019 London International Filmmakers Festival http://www.filmfestinternational.com/london-iff-2019-winners/

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, and WP:GNGACTOR. I added one source [19], the only one currently used in the article that I consider reliable. However, it focuses on the subject in a the manner of a local story. The article had major WP:NPOV, WP:PROMOTION, and WP:PEACOCK issues, which I cleaned up for the most part. The article had inappropriate social media and wordpress external links which I removed per WP:ELNO (also removed one spam link). I removed the nonsensical awards section, though it was unsourced, and didn't really do anything to help establish notability. Anyhow, that long-winded comment aside, I can't seem to find much else about the subject; I don't think the one reliable-ish source I added quite does it. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 12:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since there are no sources apart from this. WP:GNG states that there should be multiple sources, covering the subject and this doesn't seem to be the case here. Hansi667 (Neighbor Of The Beast) ^{a penny for your thoughts?} 18:23, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 22:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 22:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 00:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Hansi667 (Neighbor Of The Beast) ^{a penny for your thoughts?} 22:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Hansi667 (Neighbor Of The Beast) ^{a penny for your thoughts?} 22:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found and added an award that he had received but cannot say that this pulls him over the line of WP notability. gidonb (talk) 17:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 20:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:41, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:Is not enough Resources available for this article(Toomass (talk) 00:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]
Delete - Couldn't find enough sources to put this person over the hump of WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:16, 19 September 2015 (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.

^ Muslim Rajputs 1944 Published by Waleed Chaudhry page 18 Link

[1] Including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, and academic journals. In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view, is credible and provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article.

[2] Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. It is common for multiple newspapers or journals to publish the same story, sometimes with minor alterations or different headlines, but one story does not constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Similarly, a series of publications by the same author or in the same periodical is normally counted as one source.

[3] It may be that the article contains so few citations that it is impractical to add specific citation needed tags, in which case consider tagging a section with {{unreferencedsection}}, or the article with {{refimprove}} or {{unreferenced}}. In the case of a disputed category or on a disambiguation page, consider asking for a citation on the talk page.

[4] When tagging or removing such material, please keep in mind that such edits can be easily misunderstood. Some editors object to others making chronic, frequent, and large-scale deletions of unsourced information, especially if unaccompanied by other efforts to improve the material. Do not concentrate only on material of a particular POV, as that may result in accusations that you are in violation of WP:NPOV.

[5] Muslim Rajputs 1944 Published by Waleed Chaudhry page 18 Link

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]