Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 August 23

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 22 August	24 August >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete and redirect to Doug Guetzloe. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Phoenix Network

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

While Guetzloe is notable, this network of his appears not to be.

Most of the references are either unreliable, primary, not actually about the network, or point to totally unrelated articles.

The meat of article seems to focus on Guetzloe and a weird section about a fund for a missing person that seems to have no relation to anything. Ridernyc (talk) 22:25, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Doug Guetzloe, it's entirely unclear there's anything here worth saving - David Gerard (talk) 09:15, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Any radio show that's syndicated at all will, by definition, always have its own ad hoc "network" of stations that carry it, because that's what syndication is — but that fact doesn't confer an automatic presumption of notability on that "network" per WP:NMEDIA. The sources here support Guetzloe's notability as an individual, but most of them completely fail to even glancingly mention the existence of "The Phoenix Network" at all — and the one non-primary source that does mention it is a WordPress blog, not a reliable source. None of this is remotely enough to make The Phoenix Network independently notable as a standalone topic. Redirect to Doug Guetzloe. Bearcat (talk) 01:05, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (after delete) to Doug Guetzloe. Not independently notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:00, 28 August 2016 (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 Deleted after I tagged this (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 16:07, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trollbeads (Troldekugler)

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Most links are no longer reachable, but from their names, the sites don't appear to have provided independent coverage in the first place. ubiquity (talk) 22:14, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 14:14, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 14:14, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:02, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied - this was pretty blatant - David Gerard (talk) 10:39, 26 August 2016 (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 nomination withdrawn as a commenter found proper evidence to support a redirect instead. Bearcat (talk) 01:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

VF2218

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

Delete. For reasons I've explained in other recent AFDs, VF stations in Canada are no longer granted the same presumption of notability that full-power radio stations get -- and in this case, even the CRTC's website has no record of any decision notices about it even before this class of station became mostly exempt from CRTC licensing, making its operational status even more unverifiable than usual. A station in this class of broadcasters could still have an article if it could be sourced over WP:GNG, but is not entitled to one whose only source is inclusion in a directory. Bearcat (talk) 22:13, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:55, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:56, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My own search of the CRTC's website produced this decision that, amongst the authorization of several television retransmissions, also authorized what seem to be the two radio transmitters this article is about (since it essentially covers VF2219 as well as VF2218). (The REC database, using Industry Canada data, mentions a CRTC decision number of "930434" for both VF2218 and VF2219, which probably corresponds to the "93-434" number on the CRTC decision itself. The decision also seems to say that the transmitters were licensed to Shalalth, as opposed to Seton Portage as shown in more recent data; the two communities neighbor each other) As the decision mentions, the 103.5 facility — which would be VF2218; CRTC decisions for brand new stations rarely if ever mention the likely-not-yet-assigned call signs — was slated to be a rebroadcaster of CFMI-FM, while 106.1 — VF2219 — was to rebroadcast CBU-FM. I haven't found anything more recent than that 1993 decision regarding the two transmitters, but I suspect that they are still rebroadcasters. VF stations don't get the presumption of notability for broadcast stations as it is; rebroadcasters simply aren't notable at all if they have never originated their own programming. Barring any evidence suggesting otherwise, the VF2218 page should redirect to CFMI-FM. It's either that or deletion; there is no reason why VF2218 or VF2219 need a separate article (that will never be more than a permastub anyway, since there's not much you can say about a rebroadcaster, which is why they generally aren't supposed to have their own articles). (Note that neither VF2218 or VF2219 are presently mentioned on the articles for CFMI-FM and CBU-FM, but that might not mean anything.) --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this; being licensed to Shalalth is why I missed that decision (as I had searched on "Seton Portage"). But yes, it confirms that this was a rebroadcaster rather than an originating station — which isn't all that surprising, because even for the licensee's other radio or television transmitters in the area that I was able to locate on the CRTC website on my own, "community owned rebroadcaster of something from Vancouver" is what every last one of them was too — so I'm going to withdraw this and go straight to redirect. Bearcat (talk) 01:33, 24 August 2016 (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 18:18, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

VF8004

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

Delete. While Canadian VF stations formerly had to have a conventional CRTC license, making them eligible for inclusion on the same grounds as a full-power station with a real CXXX call sign, they have since become exempt from CRTC licensing -- with the result that their operational status is no longer verifiable at all because the CRTC doesn't have to publish any decisions or notices about it anymore, and thus stations of this type have now been deprecated as not satisfying WP:NMEDIA anymore except in the unlikely event that adequate media coverage can be located to get them over WP:GNG. But even the one other source here, its history page at the Canadian Communications Foundation, gives the station's original commencement of broadcast operations as "undated". Which means proper RS coverage clearly doesn't exist, if even an internal project of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters can't locate the launch date. Bearcat (talk) 21:42, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 00:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 00:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; this is yet another religious VF station that exists to broadcast church services and little else, and thus have been exempt from CRTC licensing since 2013. The presumed notability for broadcast stations does not extend to these stations, and they don't have (and generally aren't going to have) the sufficient coverage in reliable sources to satisfy the general notability guideline. I'll note that most if not all of the Canadian Communications Foundation histories for these church stations (including the ones associated for stations whose articles have already been deleted at AFD) follow the same pattern of listing the original licensing, an undated "began broadcasting", and the effective-immediately 2013 CRTC exemption. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:30, 24 August 2016 (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

The result was keep (non-admin closure). —Mythdon (talk) 01:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wildwood Kitchen

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Small restaurant chain, only claims to notability are that the CEO's family founded other, notable, restaurant chains. No significant coverage in WP:reliable sources. A couple of restaurant reviews provided, the companies own website and a link to a Daily telegraph article about another company that happens to have a one line mention of it. noq (talk) 09:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:46, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:46, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:46, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is one of several chains in the Tasty Group run by part of the Kaye dynasty which has started numerous restaurant chains like ASK and Zizzi. Altogether, there's plenty of notability and, while there might be some scope for merger or restructuring, this should not be done by deletion per our editing policy. Andrew D. (talk) 12:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. The chain already has 12 restaurants, which makes it significant. And it has substantial backing, and will very likely expand further. Edwardx (talk) 13:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG, 12 restaurants and growing. Joseph2302 17:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well-known chain in the UK, even if I haven't got round to eating at one yet. I've added some sources from a range of reviews in different newspapers. Blythwood (talk) 19:06, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Problably notable restaurant that passes GNG and will likely expand its bussiness. KGirlTrucker81^{talk what I'm been doing} 23:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could I ask the keep advocates to actually show how it passes WP:GNG or WP:NCORP rather than just asserting it. There is nothing in the article currently that satisfies that and I am not seeing any significant coverage on google. Is 12 locations automatically considered notable? Why? Could someone identify who the Tasty group is as I can't find anything about it. Tasty PLC is the small company that owns the Wildwood brand. The fact that other family member run notable businesses does not automatically make this notable. Speculation about expansion is just speculation. The current references consist of the companies own website, what appears to be a directory listing, an article in the Telegraph about other members of the family that makes a passing one line reference to it and a local newspaper article about a promotion. Nothing significant there at all. noq (talk) 08:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment Someone has just added some more local restaurant reviews as references. These are not considered as meeting WP:CORPDEPTH. noq (talk) 09:27, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a misreading of WP:CORPDEPTH, which states, "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability". Even if none of the sources are as in-depth as one might ideally like, there are several of them, and thus we satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. Edwardx (talk) 11:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You missed out the bit about "Acceptable sources under this criterion include all types of reliable sources except works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as:

... routine restaurant reviews" - so how is it a misreading? And no-one has addressed the bulk of my original comment. noq (talk) 17:49, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've worked on many articles about restaurants – most recently Bocca di Lupo – and the idea that reviews are not acceptable is absurd. Andrew D. (talk) 07:28, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thats as may be but the guidelines do say to exclude routine reviews. As these reviews are in local papers that would over time review all the restaurants in their coverage area, the reviews are routine. noq (talk) 19:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They are not "routine" reviews. There will be large numbers of eating places in the catchment areas of those papers, and most will never be reviewed in this sort of detail. Edwardx (talk) 23:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the chain is generating some negative coverage as well (also local): Warm food and pest potential spark two-star hygiene rating for Wildwood Kitchen in Abingdon, Oxford Mail. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:28, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Being scolded about cooking burgers until they are hockey pucks is a sign of quality, IMO. The good places use fresh meat and serve them medium so there is still some pink. Anyway, it was also interesting to see that Tasty's restaurants are on a list of chains banned from a development in Ashford. As usual in such cases – the more you look, the more you find. Andrew D. (talk) 07:28, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:36, 23 August 2016 (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. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:37, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lalit Prabhakar

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

No apparent indication of notability. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:56, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:20, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:35, 23 August 2016 (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. Didn't mean to relist the first time around, but given WP:RELIST says "A relisted discussion may be closed once consensus is determined without necessarily waiting a further seven days" and that I think there is a consensus to keep, I'm closing as keep. (non-admin closure) jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:29, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Worcester Park House

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

Article seems based almost completely on original research. PastScape and Historic England show no notable structures at this site. Undoubtedly there was a building here at some point but there's no reliable third-party sources to document the claims made in the article. Kelly ^hi! 12:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 17:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This very detailed description does seem to match the details in the article. Other in-depth coverage exists. [1][2] Apparently James Pennethorne lived there. [3] --Oakshade (talk) 06:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 08:47, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Certainly appears to have existed and would undoubtedly have been listed Grade I had it survived to the present day, so would meet WP:GEOFEAT. I see no good reason for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:49, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There was a house. It is verified independently. The references that verify it are independent. The coverage in them is significant. It is capable of being referenced further. The building passes WP:GNG. The nominator may have a point with segments of the content. Those segments can be edited. Fiddle Faddle 12:57, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Joe Roe (talk) 11:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They may have dug up the body of Thomas Pride, who died there, but that is no reason for us to behave in similar fashion. Johnbod (talk) 02:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Emnix

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

A Linux distribution that does not meet WP:GNG, as per several source searches. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:41, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:41, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:41, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software (linux distro) article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 16:46, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:08, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:34, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO; "product brochure" content and no claim to notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:07, 31 August 2016 (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. Jujutacular (talk) 04:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Storer

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

It's been nine years since the last afd, but the same basic concerns remain. Storer has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:21, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:22, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:25, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Possible keep? After he serves his 8 match suspension for impersonating Luis Suárez, at least in one respect: Gloucestershire Echo, June 4, 2016, Sky Sports June 3, 2016, he will continue to play for Cheltenham Town F.C. which now is in Football League Two - unless they let him go, I suppose. His contract lasts until the end of this season according to this article: Transfermarkt Kyle Storer player profile. He also has a player profile on ESPN FC ESPN FC Kyle Storer profile, whereas perhaps he did not before his team's promotion. He was and maybe still is vice captain, for whatever that is worth. Presumably he will qualify for an article if he starts to play matches for a team in the Football League and any reliable source notices. The article does not amount to much now but perhaps it can be expanded if he begins to make a record in a fully professional league. Donner60 (talk) 06:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. May be notable in the future if he plays this season, but too soon at best. Fenix down (talk) 07:10, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with a low bar for recreation- note that he has a contract with Cheltenham Town which is now in League Two, a fully professional league. All he needs to do is play for them once (likely, given he's the vice captain) in the new football season, and voila, meets NFOOTY. jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:54, 31 August 2016 (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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:31, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Duke of Avezzano

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

I'm a Wikipedian from Italy. There are no historical documents that demonstrate that a Duchy of Avezzano ever esisted; plus the article presents inconsistent information (it reads that the Duchy of Avezzano is a noble title of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies but was established... by the Pope Pius X who was sovereign of the Papal States). Nor is true that such title was kept after the incorporation of the Two Sicilies in the newformed Kingdom of Italy. Rather, the Savoia created the title of Duke of Abruzzi for the first cousin of King Victor Emanuel III. This article sounds like a hoax. -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 21:06, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm a girl from Avezzano. This page is not serious. --Marica Massaro (talk) 21:37, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've informed some projects just to be sure but I think we can delete as well. "Duca di Avezzano" also fails the "google test".--Alexmar983 (talk) 22:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also the article could be included in Wikipedia:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wikipedia, and there are 3-4 minor edits of the creator that should be checked. If User:Dax11Koy does not show up, we might considering blocking him.--Alexmar983 (talk) 23:05, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete On the face of it, the article looks reasonably well sourced to multiple offline sources. But the placement of the footnotes suggest these sources confirm facts tangential to whether the Duchy actually existed. For example, the only online source confirms that King Ferdinand was King. I can't find anything online to support the existence of the subject (but admit I cannot read Italian). AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a hoax. Searching for the two words, Iezzi and Avezzano produces no results on Questia or Project Muse. Searching for Duke of Avezzano turns up nothing as well. I have seen a few hoaxes where citations are given to actual books, but if you can track them down, you find that they don't support the facts in the article. I give no weight to these citations. Since the relevant combination of words does not show up in Google, Questia or Project Muse, and surely it would a few times if the title has existed for as many years as alleged, I think it must be hoax. Also, technically, notability can not be independently verified - which raises suspicion and supports deletion. Speedy deletion even seems proper here now that the comments of several editors confirm the nature of this article (hoax). Donner60 (talk) 23:14, 24 August 2016 (UTC) Clarifying edit/addition to this comment has been made to remove "likely", note hoax has been established and even speedy deletion now justified. Donner60 (talk) 06:00, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have removed three hoax edits by the creator of this page to three other articles and left three warning messages. For some reason, the user deleted a hoax addition to a fourth article. I have added the (possible) hoax template to the article. In view of the fact that the creator of the article created a hoax, the creator was not in good faith. Therefore, a notice of this AfD to the user is not required even as a courtesy as I read the AfD guidelines. I suspect we will have seen the last of this user, at least under this user name. Donner60 (talk) 05:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(cheeky)Comment, was also thinking of adding this to the "Fictional elements" afd list.... Coolabahapple (talk) 13:21, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, looks like a hoax, no mention of this in italian wikipedia - [4], nothing at Avezzano or any other articles, a gsearch[5] brings up nothing (there are/have been other dukes associated with avezzano but not this title). Coolabahapple (talk) 14:29, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax. Zero sources on the key phrase "Duca di Avezzano". — Sam Sailor 14:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, complete hoax: a title actually exists of Duca degli Abruzzi (Duke of Abruzzo), and it is an appanage of the House of Savoy, which in 1849 was fighting at the same time both against the Pope and the King of the two Sicilies, who were separate entities with no space for the hypothesis of the pope giving away titles of another state. Moreover, since Avezzano is a town in the region of Abruzzi, there simply cannot exist a duchy inside another duchy. And there are no sources at all. Well done, but totally a hoax :-) --g (talk) 09:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Break Your Heart Right Back (Ariana Grande song)

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

Fails WP:NSONGS, no media coverage, no charts. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 20:48, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NSONGS, mostly source to tweets. Content present is basically someone converting the song's credits to prose, nothing the track listing/infobox at the album article doesn't cover. Sergecross73 msg me 13:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. not a single. to the best of my knowledge, not going to be a single. Delete it, do not even bother with the redirect. Kellymoat (talk) 15:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On that note, if the article was kept or redirected, all of the disambiguation is unnecessary, and Break Your Heart Right Back already exists as a redirect. All the more reason just to delete this. Sergecross73 msg me 22:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shinjini Das

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

PR for someone whose career comes with PR, searches are not substantial nor is the information (Forbes Under 30 Summit Leader is basically a PR position, no notability comes it) and my own searches are not finding better than PR and mentions. The PROD was removed simply with the this basis "other sources available".... SwisterTwister talk 20:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This individual is not notable and information is PR, not substantial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Golems24 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:05, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, this is puffery - David Gerard (talk) 12:22, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO. This is a weakly sourced vanity page. The subject is not notable as sufficient RS coverage is not available. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:50, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable public speaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:58, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This individual isn't notable, and the article reads like their resume.Bhupsyclopedia (talk) 17:12, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coastal Carolina-Liberty rivalry

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

Unsourced, non-notable rivalry. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 20:02, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:04, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:04, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:04, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:04, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I Googled and couldn't find any sources with anything other than passing mentions of it being a "rivalry." I'm open to being convinced if someone can provide them. Smartyllama (talk) 20:51, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find any sources either. Maybe it's a rivalry to some of the students, but it fails GNG by Wikipedia standards. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:47, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Little content, no sources. Margalob (talk) 20:53, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable supposed rivalry. CrispyGlover (talk) 19:21, 30 August 2016 (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 Snow delete without prejudice against recreation if an Wikipedia-compliant version can be created. We judge deletion on what the article in question is, not what it has the potential to be, and there is no realistic possibility of this article in its current state being improved to Wikipedia standards in the week this AFD has to run, so the result is inevitable barring an unlikely miracle. Given that the fact of this AFD discussion even existing is causing intense debate which is taking up a lot of editor time, keeping it open just to go through the motions serves no useful purpose. If the article creator (or anyone else) genuinely believes that they can rework it into something which meets Wikipedia's rules in terms of encyclopedic content, neutrality, and reliable sourcing while avoiding synthesis, I'm more than happy to restore it to either draft or user space to allow them to work on it for a reasonable time. ‑ Iridescent 22:45, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Relationship between Tyranny and Arms Control

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

Prod removed by the author. Article appears to be an essay or original research that is not written from a WP:NPOV. While sources exist, this would be more of an essay than an encyclopedic article. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:40, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Author has claimed he needs (a lot) more time, but I don't see this heading towards anything encyclopedic. Just because someone supports individual components of an essay with sources doesn't mean it's still not original research. ubiquity (talk) 19:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 20:13, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I could see that this was shaping up to be a massive wall of original research, but in the interest of assuming good faith I tried moving it to draft space where the author could work on it at their leisure. But given that the author is persisting in working in mainspace (apparently because WP:ITSIMPORTANT), I have to evaluate the article as it is, and at best it is simply not ready for prime time. And while I tend (sometimes to a fault) to stick with assessing the current state of an article as opposed to what will be there or what could be there, it doesn't look promising for all the reasons given by the "delete" !voters above. --Finngall ^talk 20:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. This article is original research in the way that this is defined in Wikipedia. Wikipedia articles are not like academic papers, they do not draw arguments together to make a conclusion. Wikipedia article report on conclusions that others have made and published and report that without interpretation. The content may be admirable but in Wikipedia terms, not notable. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:38, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Pure WP:OR and not wirtten neutrally. KGirlTrucker81^{talk what I'm been doing} 22:03, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:23, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Boxing Bear Brewing Company

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

Trivial awards. No first place national award. The references are local papers, and therefore not sufficiently discriminating to be reliable for notability. DGG ( talk ) 23:03, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:42, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:42, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:00, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Local business with expected local coverage in home city. Not notable. Article created by SPA, clearly promotional. MB 21:59, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:05, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:30, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the awards are non-notable; the coverage is strictly local. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:23, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and the nomination is exact with shoeing these concerns, none of it escapes the areas of PR and unconvincing information and sources, there's nothing to suggest even at least convincing substance. SwisterTwister talk 23:25, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Highland Village Museum/An Clachan Gàidhealach. czar 21:35, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An Drochaid Eadarainn / The Bridge Between Us

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

Fails notability. Marked as non-notable since April 2013. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:22, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 18:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 18:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 18:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Highland Village Museum/An Clachan Gàidhealach, the organisation that launched the web site. It does not appear to be independently notable, but would be a useful section in the target article. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:24, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:27, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:30, 23 August 2016 (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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Swift Manouver

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

Doesn't seem notable... Kernosky ^talk2me! 08:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:02, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:02, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Literally one hit on GNews - David Gerard (talk) 00:07, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:30, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Does not meet WP:BAND. I found this source, but additional available sources are only providing mentions (e.g. [6]). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:20, 30 August 2016 (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. Discussion indicates that the neologism doesn't have enough material/sources to have an article. There was also support for redirection, but since there is no agreement on the target, deletion prevails - I believe this is the normal method to handle conflicting redirect targets. If I am wrong, please note so on my talk page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Big labor

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

Article about a neologism. As Wikipedia is not a dictionary, any coverage of the term would most appropriately be in the article Opposition to trade unions. Graham (talk) 19:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Graham (talk) 19:51, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:NOTADICTIONARY. KGirlTrucker81^{talk what I'm been doing} 20:14, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Might this article be improved? The current version doesn't cite any sources and reads like a dictionary definition, but based on the links to the search results on google scholar, google books and news, it seems like the concept passes WP:GNG. —PermStrump(talk) 20:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As WP:NEO discusses, it's not enough to find a great number of uses of the term when the sources are not discussing the term per se.

In addition, I think we have to consider WP:NOPAGE. Even if the term were notable in itself (which is an argument I don't think would be reconcilable with WP:NEO), WP:NOPAGE tells us that sometimes "it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context." Even if detailed standalone works could be found about the term big labor itself, it would be best covered in the context of opposition to trade unionism more generally. Graham (talk) 21:34, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to opposition to trade unionism or trade unionism. The term appears to be in fairly frequent use in the U.S., though I'm not familiar with it. Thomas A. Kochan's 1979 article, "How American workers view labor unions", seems to be the only serious study relating to the term which gets cited in the academic literature; I don't think there's enough for a stand-alone article. Warofdreams talk 00:29, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – If the article is redirected, my preference would be to redirect it to Trade union (unless, in the future, Opposition to trade unions specifically discusses the term). Graham (talk) 04:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Should be included in the general article on trade unions, and a redirect to that article created. - Tim1965 (talk) 14:24, 30 August 2016 (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. Consensus for a particular action has not arisen within this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AAON

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

Non notable company -- only local references DGG ( talk ) 23:11, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N.CerealKillerYum (talk) 00:34, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:13, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:13, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- It's a $1B publicly traded company, so WP:LISTED applies. Online overage seems to be mostly local (Tulsa) + earning results, but reasonable for a regionally important company. The company was profiled in Fortune in the Fortune 40: The best stocks to retire on list and in TheStreet.com 's Top 5 Small-Cap Stocks.

I also located brief discussion of their strategy in Strategic Management: Concepts and Cases. This is a college textbook, so meets RS criteria. Here's some more: International Directory of Company Histories (1998), which seems reasonably in depth from what I can see. The company was mentioned in Business Week in 2001 link and 1994 link. It was discussed in another textbook Strategic management: a cross-functional approach.

So I think there's plenty there for expansion and improvement. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:LISTED, and the advice given there about locating sources for listed companies. A quick search finds http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/tulsabusiness/business_news/local_business/biz-briefs-aaon-wins-at-dealer-design-awards/article_924ab073-9a90-5c27-971c-2b9813413958.html, and many others. Firkin Flying Fox (talk) 08:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Listed applies to NYSE not NASDAQ. A tulsa source for a Tulsa company is unreliable for notability -- especially in a section of the newspaper entitiled "Local business". I'd even say there putting it there proves lack of encyclopedic notability. DGG ( talk ) 16:16, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I hope this can at least be relisted because I honestly disagree with these Keep votes, the coverage is still not to the levels of substance and convincing; the nomination analysis is exact with shoeing there's still noticeably localized coverage including of which consists expected business activities. SwisterTwister talk 17:24, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep mainly per K.e.coffman's argument and additional non-local sources provided above; as I noted in the first AfD this company and its predecessors have long been leaders in their industry, and I would like to see more content added about the corporate history going back to the John Zink Company. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:03, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:18, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:LISTED says "...listed on major stock exchanges such as the NYSE..." which NASDAQ is. There's coverage in BusinesWeek and then the local coverage, and to those who deprecate this as merely local, the Tulsa metro area has more people than Luxembourg or Iceland or Montenegro and is comparable to Estonia or Cyprus, and is an economic powerhouse to boot. It's local, but its not local to some podunk town. Tulsa is huge. 1400 employees, $1B company, major player: can we not find room for articles on entities like this among our D-List entertainers, video game characters, bar bands, ballplayers with 3 games played, and so forth. Herostratus (talk) 19:20, 23 August 2016 (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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Travis Baltz

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

Baltz never actually played in a game for an NFL team. His college career was not of a significant enough level for him to pass the notability guidelines John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:14, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:14, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was somewhat intrigued by the external links, as bio pieces in papers like The Washington Times would possibly meet WP:GNG if they were substantial and went beyond coverage of the team, but those links are dead and we can't guess at sources we don't have in front of us. No evidence of notability as per WP:NCOLLATH, WP:NGRIDIRON, or GNG. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:15, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found the links earlier. Here they are just for the record. [7] [8] [9]. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 18:04, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Baltz was a first-team All-ACC punter in 2008 (here), a freshman All-American in 2007, a four-time academic All-ACC player (here and here) and was the subject of significant, non-routine coverage in multiple reliable sources such that he passes muster under WP:GNG. Examples of the significant coverage include the following: (1) "Anthony Wayne's Baltz gets kick out of life", Toledo Blade, Oct. 12, 2006; (2) "Anthony Wayne alum a top punter nationally, Toledo Blade, Nov. 6, 2008; (3) "Maryland's Travis Baltz talks about the lonely life of a kicker", "The Washington Post", Dec. 10, 2010; (3) "Travis Baltz Pulling Triple-Duty, May Just Take All Three Jobs", Sept. 13, 2010, SBNation; (4) "Baltz steady under pressure, The Diamondback, Oct 17, 2007; (5) "Freshman Baltz kicks for two spots", The Washington Times, April 18, 2007. Cbl62 (talk) 01:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:12, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting on the sources provided above: The awards don't reach the level required by WP:NCOLLATH, so they only matter so far as they got him significant coverage that could allow him to pass WP:GNG. A small hometown paper running a story on him doesn't count for much; it's expected even for players that never amount to all that much in college. As such, I don't put much stock in 1 or 2. The Washington Post article numbered 3 (there were two 3s) is just a video, not an article, and it's filed under "voices.washingtonpost.com". If you go directly to that domain, you discover that's where they host their blogs, so no credit there – not a reliable source. SB Nation hosts blogs which aren't considered reliable, per multiple past discussions at WP:RS/N, so there goes the second #3. The Diamondback is the University of Maryland's student newspaper, so it's hardly independent. That leaves the Washington Times piece, which is substantial coverage. The Washington Times is local to the University of Maryland, so it's just regional coverage of a college athlete by the local regional paper. I don't think that passes GNG. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:36, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no stake in the article, but I think you're misconstruing the sources here. First, the Toledo Blade is not a "small hometown" newspaper as you call it; to the contrary, it is a respected, Pulitzer Prize-winning, metropolitan daily newspaper. The articles in the Blade plainly represent significant coverage in a reliable source. Second, The Washington Times is also a reliable source (another metropolitan daily), and the profile therein is significant coverage. With the depth of significant coverage in the Blade and the The Washington Times, the requirement of GNG is satisfied IMO. The others are gravy but further support the conclusion. As a further example, your attempt to discredit the Washington Post piece is flawed. Blogs are not per se unreliable. To the contrary, you have to look at the nature and expertise of the blogger. See WP:BLPSPS and Wikipedia:Reliable source examples#Are_weblogs reliable sources?. In this case, WaPo is one of the most respected daily papers in the world, and the video was a companion piece to an in depth feature article about kickers here. WaPo's coverage of Baltz further supports his notability. As for the in depth profile of Baltz in The Diamondback, I believe it fair to include because the Diamondback is, as reflected on its masthead (and in the text of the wiki article), an "independent" newspaper. As for SB Nation, your point may be well taken, but could you provide a link to the discussion holding it to be unreliable? I had thought it depended on whether or not the writer was an SB Nation staff writer and whether the piece was subject to editorial review. Cbl62 (talk) 22:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to me to pass WP:GNG based on the sources provided. I am interested in the outcome of the SB Nation discussion, but I don't believe that would change my position. Washington Times and Toledo Blade are sufficient.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:14, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - barely clears the GNG bar with the Washington Times and Toledo Blade articles, which are reliable sources and far more than local hometown newsletters carrying a "local boy makes good" story. Rlendog (talk) 13:52, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Satisfies WP:GNG with coverage in multiple sources as mentioned above. Smartyllama (talk) 14:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a WP:GNG pass, per Cbl62's sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 13:54, 27 August 2016 (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 Zimperium. Preserving history in case someone has material that could be merged over. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:39, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Itzhak Avraham

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

Avraham is a non-notable businessman John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:05, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:42, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:42, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Zimperium. Founding a multimillion$$$ tech company does confer notability, but since, at this pont, I don't find sources for an independent article, name should be redirected to the corporation he founded.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:12, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Zimperium, as above.--Geewhiz (talk) 05:47, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge to Zimperium, since it's his only achievement as for now. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 10:43, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then Redirect as I'm not seeing how he can honestly be independently notable anytime soon thus I'm not comfortable with keeping this if the essential parts are simply the company itself thus delete and link there. SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as overly promotional. The subject is not independently notable per available sources. Then redirect to Zimperium. I'm not sure that the latter is notable either, but that can be dealt with separately. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:34, 27 August 2016 (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. There is no agreement on whether the sources present are enough to write a good encyclopedia article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:10, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Toast, Inc.

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

They may possibly be notable, though almost all the references are either from their website or press releases or notices but this is too thoroughly promotional to rewrite. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is y good reason for deletion. 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 encyclopedia DGG ( talk ) 02:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples below, which consist of bylined news articles written by staff writers published in independent sources (not republished press releases) and not always about funding announcements. Edited to remove press releases published by the company itself and removed promotional wording and content. Happy to pare down even more if necessary. Originally the page was modeled after Shopkeep and Revel Systems, other point of sale companies. Abarkth99( talk ) 10:15, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

The Boston Globe
Boston.com
VentureFizz
TechCrunch
eMarketer
PYMNTS
The Wall Street Journal

KEEP - notable according to Wikipedia standards. DGG has once again brought in their own false assumptions in an attempt to rewrite "case law" for company notability. Any promotional concerns can be easily fixed by stubbing the article with the independent, reliable references left intact. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 17:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:04, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I'm not sure why and where the criticism of the nominator's exact and specific analysis comes from, when the exact article itself still only consists of funding and financing activities along with other coverage consisting of that; there has been exact consensus at AfD that this alone cannot be sustained for notability thus, with nothing else, there's can't be anything else better for a substance. SwisterTwister talk 22:50, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH per a review of available sources. Also meets WP:AUD per having received coverage outside of the Boston area, such as in the Telegram & Gazette. Source examples include, but are not limited to the bylined news articles written by staff writers that have been published in independent, reliable sources listed below. These are not press releases, as evidenced in part by utilizing Google searches using the titles of these article, in which links are only present for these articles themselves, as opposed to press releases, which typically have the same article hosted on many various websites. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:34, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Boston Globe
BostInno (published by BostInno)
Boston Globe
Telegram & Gazette

Delete -- TOOSOON; the company is not yet notable for an encyclopedia article. The coverage presented at this AfD is mostly local and / or PR like, such as WSJ (funding news); or Boston Globe -- interview with the CEO and preview of the app. Telegram & Gazette does not qualify as out of area coverage as it's a Mass. newspaper.

In the same vein, eMarketer is PR driven, as it's a citation to Toast-issued report: "Toast, a restaurant point of sale (POS) company, revealed that almost three-quarters of US restaurant industry professionals plan to upgrade their restaurant technology within the year. ..." (i.e, this is a routine mention which does not add to notability).

Overall, coverage is rather trivial and insufficient at this time for an encyclopedia entry. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:10, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I also concur about the analysis about, it's nowhere close to actually becoming convincing substance because it's all entirely trivial and local PR. SwisterTwister talk 19:21, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by DGG per WP:G11. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:14, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crestron Electronics

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

While acknowledging Crestron's importance in their field, we all should know importance is not the determining factor for a subject's inclusion in Wikipedia. Notability is. The applicable notability guideline is CORP, and after BASIC, I don't see it for this company. The Forbes story already on the article appears to be all there is for this company. There were 2 very similar (leading to the conclusion that they came from a press release) articles in Dallas area media about an expansion made into that area, and a few namechecks in other reliable sources. Other than that, no mention outside of trade publications. Trade publications tend to be not independent, as they are usually generated from press releases. John from Idegon (talk) 19:00, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:43, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:43, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:43, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage in Forbes and in "Crestron fully automates homes and offices" from Globes are just some of the examples of the specific coverage in reliable and verifiable mainstream media sources from around the world about the company establishing notability. It's disappointing that the nominator arrogates the authority to simply dismiss trade publications, the type of media most likely to be writing about a niche technology company. Alansohn (talk) 15:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question: The article discussed here is a red llnk showing the following 06:32, 26 August 2016 DGG deleted page Crestron Electronics (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion (CSDH)). It also shows that this article was restored on 16:08, 22 August 2016 as a result of WP:REFUND by User:Jo-Jo Eumerus, and before that on 09:40, 5 January 2016 DGG deleted it after it was wp:PROD ed.

@DGG: Why did you delete this article 3 days after it was listed here and after it received a Keep vote? Ottawahitech (talk) 13:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)please ping me[reply]

Most of the page was promotional drivel, but it may have made a valid stub after de-spamming. I am generally fairly strict with G11 deletions (and inferentially on refusing to restore PRODs citing G11 as well), far more so than DGG. I see that DGG's second deletion occurred after SwisterTwister tagged the page for deletion under G11 with the edit summary Basically a sales pitch, the Keep vote is non-applicable here as this is basically WP:TNT material, consisting only of PR information. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged it because it was still too advert-like (I'm not confident it would've been a confident trim) regardless of a Keep vote. Also, I had in fact noticed the links above but they were simply trivial (the 1 URL is simply above the company's services), because if needed, this can be restarted. I always trust DGG with deleting as he always makes good choices. The nomination itself noted how the article was consisting of PR. SwisterTwister talk 17:04, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Close? - as this is a matter for deletion review now. John from Idegon (talk) 21:28, 28 August 2016 (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. Technically, either keep or merge - there is no clear preference here but little support for deletion. A merge discussion may be initiated at the talk page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guardinal

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 18:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there is at least one review stating the importance, or failing that merge to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 19:40, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the review mentioned by BOZ and the Paizo (non WotC, non TSR) source indicate multiple secondary source coverage. Merge would be an editorial decision, and entirely possibly a correct one, but on the merits of this case, keep. Jclemens (talk) 17:00, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Boz's suggestion. I'm really not sure I understand Jclemens's comment. One mention in one review, though it counts for something, does not give us enough to justify a separate article. If there are more sources (or a reason to believe more exist) I'm all ears, but, right now, this falls well below the notability line. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:52, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per BOZ.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 01:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the sources are not adequate to establish notability. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:47, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Noach Orlowek

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

No assertion of notability. Only reference on page is a link to a copy of his book. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Would have speedied this one but it's a pretty old article. FuriouslySerene (talk) 18:43, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:23, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:23, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:23, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:23, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possible keep Sometimes with these very old, unsourced articles, it's better to tag them for sourcing, notability. It has been edited over the years since creation in 2007, which makes it possible that tagging would have inspired someone to swing by and add sources. I don't iVote delete without running at least a quick check for sources, so i checked, and added some RS to the page. Cutting out some unsourced fancruft.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:10, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding those sources. In my view these are trivial mentions and I don't believe the page meets the notability guidelines. For example, the Fox News article contains a single quote from Orlowek, and has no information about him at all (beyond the blogger's admiration). FuriouslySerene (talk) 20:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A credible claim of notability as an author and educator, with appropriate sources to back up the claim despite the systemic bias that usually makes finding sources for such individuals rather challenging. Alansohn (talk) 14:17, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Simply being an educator or author is not sufficient to meet the notability guidelines. And unfortunately if there are no reliable sources with in depth coverage, there isn't much we can do as editors about that. FuriouslySerene (talk) 20:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Incidental mentions are not substantial reviews. His boks are held in very few libraries--My child my disciple is not event in World Cat. This does not altogether disqualify them from being notable within his community, but it does indicate no wider notability . DGG ( talk ) 00:26, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we lack the indepdent, 3rd party reliable sources that would be needed to establish notability. Some of the assertion about Orlowek, such as that he is "respected" by Jews in "Mexico and Latin America" lack any sources at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- One of the sources is essentially a community event advertisement. This is not the level of source we should be using to establish an encyclopedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:43, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Of the three sources, the first is an event announcement and the second mentions him only trivially. I can't access the third but evidently it's about his otherwise-non-notable publications, and even if it is reliable and in-depth it wouldn't be enough by itself for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:14, 30 August 2016 (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. Possible page moves can be further discussed on the article talk page. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:41, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lochtegate

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

Unencyclopedic article on an isolated news event: WP:NOTNEWS, WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP concerns. More encyclopedic approach, adequate for reflecting coverage in reliable sources, is to cover briefly at Ryan Lochte (where it is already covered at somewhat excessive length) and in one sentence at those of the other swimmers concerned. PROD was declined. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:13, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article is explicitly not about Ryan Lochte, but rather the scandal (this term is cited) centered around four US Olympic swimmers and that aftermath. So merging this article isn't appropriate. The incident is already covered (possibly in excessive detail) in the articles of all four swimmers, 2016 Summer Olympics, and Concerns and controversies at the 2016 Summer Olympics with broad and ongoing international coverage from WP:RS. The undue issues are better served by keeping as a linked, stand-alone article which is (already) well-sourced. UW Dawgs (talk) 18:33, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to 2016 alleged robbery of U.S. Swimmers in Rio de Janeiro - This is clearly a highly notable event, considering the massive and continuing coverage of the event worldwide. However, the "Lochtegate" title is not widely recognized and mostly tongue in cheek. I would therefore propose that the page be moved to a more widely recognized title. FuriouslySerene (talk) 18:55, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment I would've agreed with your recommendation even a few days ago, but I've heard this term myself recently and just did a Google search for it - 949,000 results. It appears the name is going to stick; whether that's good or lamentable, I couldn't tell you. But it is certainly less wordy. ArchieOof (talk) 18:10, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion exclusively about name of the article (please do discuss at Talk:Lochtegate#Name of article).

It's a cute title but I don't agree it's widely used in reliable sources, and I don't think it would be recognizable to most people. Take a look at coverage today in reliable sources and you'll see almost no sources use the title (this is just a random sampling I just opened from Google News): IB Times, NBC News, CNN, USA Today, ABC News. Media generally use gas station incident or Rio gas station robbery. See WP:CRITERIA. FuriouslySerene (talk) 19:38, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, a Google News search for the term returns 41,000 results, and articles from NBCNews, Inquisitr, Fortune, Yahoo News, NPR, Vanity Fair, and CNN, among many others, are using the term. Even the Esquire TV network is using "Lochtegate" to promote their re-airing of Lochte's reality show. It's all over the place. ArchieOof (talk) 20:25, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The most appropriate name for this article was/is already under discussion at Talk:Lochtegate#Name of article and belongs there, rather than this AfD discusion. Let's keep the focus here on the scandal and GNG. UW Dawgs (talk) 04:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disputing that no sources used the title, I'm saying the vast majority of articles on the incident do not. Anyways, I agree with UW Dawgs and will move my discussion to the talk page instead. FuriouslySerene (talk) 15:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Notability is established by significant news coverage of an international incident, especially by United States news sources. It is definitely an emerging news story in light of the allegations, counter-allegations, and investigation by USA Today. Given the different people involved and the many places on wikipedia where it is being tracked, I say it makes sense to have one stop article like this one, at least for now. At a minimum, I recommend that people read the essay on WP:RECENTISM. This is a perfect example of a significant topic that changes rapidly. Peace, MPS (talk) 18:56, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that we can take seriously any comment that claims that notability is established "especially by United States news sources". This is an encyclopedia , not a compendium of Americana. 86.17.222.157 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:13, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

point taken, but a quick review of INTERNATIONAL NEWS SOURCES also reveals that the Lochte story has traction on most continents. RUSSIA + ISRAEL + FRANCE+ AUSTRALIA + SOUTH AFRICA + VENEZUELA... would have given you all 7 continents but I am not sure if Antarctica has a newspaper. ;) Peace, MPS (talk) 21:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Does this story really have any long-term lasting encyclopedic value, as suggested in WP:RECENTISM? To that I propose another way of looking at it: does this event deserve a mention on Brazil–United States relations? I think not. Both nations have said this event will not impact their relations, and it would be silly if either nation used this event to worsen relations. This article came about because the day-to-day developments, ie. RECENTISM, have gotten a bit out of hand. The info can be trimmed considerably and kept on the pages of the swimmers. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:19, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given the ongoing developments of the last day or so, I strike my delete. The Brazilians want Lochte back to testify. This has now gone beyond WP:NOTNEWS. I think the article title is putrid and should be changed, but that's another matter. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:26, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Notability is established by significant news coverage of an international incident, also by Brazilian news sources. -- Andrevruas (talk) 20:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Concerns and controversies at the 2016 Summer Olympics#Crime, the Ben Johnson case in 1988 still have a lasting effect and this compared to it is chicken feed. Donnie Park (talk) 08:03, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's the biggest non-sports story of the 2016 Olympic Games. How does anyone feel this isn't notable enough for an article? The story isn't even over yet, as new articles about it continue to come out, from mainstream sources every day. There are hundreds of sources to draw from already. Deleting this article is the fever dream of an overzealous PR rep for the US swim team. ArchieOof (talk) 18:07, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Like it or not, this has become worldwide big news. And definitely defined the ending days of these games. Sadly. It definitely is notable.BabbaQ (talk) 19:36, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: We have an entire article on Concerns and controversies at the 2016 Summer Olympics?! Good grief. This is in no way independently notable; deal with it there. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. This is a news story about some people who went out and got drunk one night and went on to make a silly decision that blew up into an international incident. If it ever gets into history books we can have an article, but for the moment it is obviously news, not encyclopedic content. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:17, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait, so you ***agree*** that there was "an international incident" but you don't think wikipedia should document it? Please clarify. Peace, MPS (talk) 17:35, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not every international incident needs to have a dedicated encyclopedia article about it. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:01, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ok, so what I hear you saying is you don't think this particilar incident is notable enough... is that what you are saying? (Do you think that this incident has significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject?) Peace, MPS (talk) 22:15, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - I thought that I had made my position clear. Everything that gets into a few newspapers has significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, but, per WP:NOTNEWS, that doesn't mean that we should have an article about everything that gets into the news. This is an encyclopedia that should take a long-term perspective of what should be included, not a news site that reports everything that has been in the headlines for a week or two. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:56, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Concerns and controversies at the 2016 Summer Olympics. It is notable, it has got encyclopedic value on the conduct of an Olympic team’s members and for foreign people interested in the matter it’s undoubtedly something that should remain documented in this encyclopedia. ―Born2bgratis (talk) 03:37, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, wikipedia is not news, this is one news event but as it involves members of the us swim team it will of course receive a large amount of international coverage, a redirect/merge to Concerns and controversies at the 2016 Summer Olympics would be appropriate. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:01, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rename and cross-link. This page is definitely needed to consolidate text from the articles of the 4 swimmers, and other pages, to avoid wp:UNDUE details in other pages, but allow separating what swimmers said versus what their families (incorrectly) assumed in news interviews. Seems some details called "false" came from family members, not from the swimmers themselves, and investigative journalists visited the gas station and talked to employees about minor damage to refute police report of "vandalism". Under Brazilian law, the event seems to be armed robbery because of money taken (with no written receipt) versus actual damage proven. All such details need to be covered in a separate page. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:25/15:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The event "seems to be armed robbery" "under Brazilian law"? Are you sure about that? I've been researching this article for days and that's the first time I've seen that opinion. Do you have a source for that? Because that's something I would definitely add if I could cite it. ArchieOof (talk) 21:19, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Brazilian judge quoted by USA TODAY Sports, Aug 22, 2016 [10]: "João Batista Damasceno, a Rio judge, does not discard the possibility that the guards' actions could be rightly interpreted as a robbery. 'If they only asked for the amount of the damage, it may not be a robbery,' Damasceno said in a message to USA TODAY Sports. 'But if the amount taken is higher than the value of the damages, with the use of a weapon by the security, this is robbery.' " That was a Rio judge's opinion, in report from reporters who investigated site. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:26, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable. Significant international coverage. The article's name might use a tweak. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a newspaper, this gives undue weight to minor events.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:55, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Minor? It has been in the news media in basically every country. Wikipedia is more or less a source for news these days.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The people that has !voted delete or merge refers to NOTNEWS. But at the same time does not refer to the fact that this article subject has been in the media spotlight all over the world, is well sourced and does fall within NOTNEWS.BabbaQ (talk) 15:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason to think that anyone, of whatever opinion, in this discussion has failed to refer to WP:NOTNEWS. We simply disagree about how it should be applied to this article. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This story has gone beyond "routine news" and "breaking news" as described in NOTNEWS. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, participants in this discussion disagree about how WP:NOTNEWS should be interpreted in this case. If there wasn't any such difference in interpretation then there would be no need to have a discussion. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:01, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No because NOTNEWS is not longer applicable for this article. BabbaQ (talk) 07:25, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment is it necessary to have the associated category Category:Lochtegate ? -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 23:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The category was G7 deleted -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 04:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Still thinking, but I do want to bring up that the notability guideline is clear that even if topics may be considered notable under relevant notability guidelines, that does not mean that a standalone page must be created as a matter of editorial judgment. Per WP:PAGEDECIDE: When creating new content about a notable topic, editors should consider how best to help readers understand it. Sometimes, understanding is best achieved by presenting the material on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we do so. There are other times when it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. Also, per Yngvadottir, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:UNDUE, and WP:BLP definitely factor in. We must be especially cautious of recentism bias. The controversy is still fresh in our minds, and so we might be giving more weight to it than it would really be worth five years down the road. How big is this in the context of Lochte as a whole? Mz7 (talk) 15:09, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is so big that it definitely was the main topic of the last days of the Olympic games. Again, IDONTLIKEIT does not trump the fact that this subject has reached the notability threshold. NOTNEWS is not relevant anymore. BabbaQ (talk) 17:56, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it was the main topic of the last days of the games depends on where you are sitting. It got coverage in the UK, but the main topic of the last few days here was definitely the UK team holding on to second place in the gold medal table. And please stop repeating your opinion about whether WP:NOTNEWS is relevant as if it was proven fact. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
NOTNEWS is relevant in every case. A newspaper reports on events as they occur, focusing specifically on recent events and disregarding the past as "old news". An encyclopedia looks at the whole of knowledge available on a topic, balancing both past and recent events according to neutral point of view. By creating an independent standalone article, we are saying that this recent controversy involving Lochte weighs the same as the entirety of his swimming career. Perhaps that is what you really mean by "NOTNEWS is not relevant anymore"? (Not sure where you're seeing an IDONTLIKEIT argument in my comment. Yes, my personal feelings on the topic are not relevant, but the balance of coverage is.) Mz7 (talk) 20:20, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just because two different topics are notable does not mean they are equally notable. Certainly articles about US Presidents or World Wars are more notable than almost anything else on this encyclopedia, Lochte included. That's completely irrelevant. This still passes WP:GNG per myself and others above and below. And a merge isn't appropriate anyway because there were other swimmers involved. Smartyllama (talk) 19:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not different levels of notability, i.e. one topic is "more notable" than another topic. The relevant concern is neutral point of view: how we balance our coverage of different aspects of the same topic per WP:WEIGHT (especially WP:BALASP). The controversy described in Lochtegate is an aspect of either Ryan Lochte or Concerns and controversies at the 2016 Summer Olympics. How significant is this controversy in the context of the topic as a whole? This is, in my view, the relevant policy-based question for this AfD, and I think the closing administrator should focus on the arguments that address that issue. Mz7 (talk) 19:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of sources covering this. Keiiri (talk) 19:16, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename - Per Wikid77 & User:Joseph A. Spadaro - Should be moved to something like "2016 Lochte Olympic Robbery Report". NickCT (talk) 14:58, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE. This article really has no place in an encyclopedia. However, this article is more fair and balanced compared to how Mr. Lochte's BLP is written and presented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CE98:1510:4CEF:D74C:D98C:4A0E (talk) 16:33, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Should be merged into his main article. The Title Lochtegate is a Neologism and really doesn't belong under that title. If a different title is used then Keep but it involved more that just Ryan Lochte since other olympic swimmers were involved with him. Should be something like "Rio Olympics Robbery Incident". 207.135.137.72 (talk) 23:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The appropriate article name for the scandal involving the four swimmers and associated international fallout has been under discussion since its creation, see Talk:Lochtegate#Name of article, but is not being evaluated in context to this AfD discussion. The current title, which may change, has no bearing on whether we should have a stand-alone article to consolidate coverage of the scandal, or just support it within at least six other articles with less context. UW Dawgs (talk) 00:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep, but possibly rename. plenty of sources. Frietjes (talk) 14:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Merge is not appropriate as it discusses several subjects. Plenty of reliable sources and coverage for a lengthy period of time after the event satisfies WP:GNG easily. Agree should be renamed, though, but this isn't the place to discuss that. If it's notable under some name, it's notable under any name. Names don't confer or deny notability. Smartyllama (talk) 19:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A few weeks is far from "a lengthy period of time" in relation to whether a subject is suitable for an encyclopedia, rather than simply news. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:46, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Concerns and controversies at the 2016 Summer Olympics. Just a news story, really; WP:NOTNEWS applies. Sandstein 18:23, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep without prejudice to merging (although WP:WHENSPLIT would have to be considered if merging into the suggested Concerns and controversies at the 2016 Summer Olympics). Significant international news coverage, so definitely notable. jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:58, 31 August 2016 (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 Redirected to Winter Olympic Games. I'm also going to protect the redirect. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:34, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2030 Winter Olympics

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

Violates WP:CRYSTAL. KGirlTrucker81^{talk what I'm been doing} 17:51, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt Don't restore the article or redirect until a bidding process is announced. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:07, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:18, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:18, 23 August 2016 (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 00:49, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

VU TANG CLAN

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

The article does claim the importance of the subject so this should not be speedy deleted. Nevertheless, the only references are to his website, his Instagram account and two links to some of his work although neither page credits him for the photos. I was unable to find any reliable source discussing the subject in any sort of depth so the article should be deleted for failing the general notability guideline and the biography notability guideline. Pichpich (talk) 17:49, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Commercial photographer, failing WP:GNG and all criteria of WP:ARTIST. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:37, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Hoary (talk) 12:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and does not meet WP:ARTIST. Nothing in the way of reliable sources to confirm that they are notable. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:33, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Article was speedy deleted by Deb per WP:A7 and WP:G11. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CellSavers

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

Company is not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:44, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Terrible sources showing no evidence of passing notability. Also, was created by an account almost all of whose article creations are corporate writeups with terrible sourcing, most of which have been PRODed or AFDed - David Gerard (talk) 18:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:26, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:26, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:26, 25 August 2016 (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:40, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2007–08 1. FFC Turbine Potsdam season

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

I am also nominating the following similar women's club season articles:

General consensus states that all football club season articles should be about a professional football season to be considered notable. Fully professional leagues are listed at WP:FPL. All these women football clubs are in the Bundesliga (women), which is listed on WP:FPL under "top level leagues which are not fully professional", and therefore not notable, per WP:NSEASONS. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 17:11, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 17:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 17:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 17:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 12:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is nothing in any of these articles that seems to satisfy the general notability guidelines. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 12:26, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Inherently erroneous nomination rationale. WP:FPL is completely unassociated with WP:NSEASONS. WP:FPL is used in assessing the notability of players. WP:NSEASONS specifically refers only to "top professional leagues", there is no requirement for leagues to be "fully" professional. All these seasons relate to club's playing at the highest level of football in Germany and are therefore notable per NSEASONS. Fenix down (talk) 12:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The league is semi-professional, and WP:NSEASONS states that only top professional leagues are always notable. Just because a team is in the top flight of their country does not mean an article would pass WP:NSEASONS. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 12:49, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing to confirm that the league is semi-professional here. However, if there is a degree of professionalism as you have noted, plus the league is the highest level in its country then it meets NSEASONS. It is the most successful league in Europe for CL winners, and therefore one of the most important at a continental level, so I think it is fair to describe it as a top professional league for the purpose of NSEASONS. Fenix down (talk) 13:00, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I only mentioned WP:FPL because of the reference it used, which states "whilst the Women's Bundesliga has a structure similar to the fully professional men's league, it uses a semi-professional model. Most players for the Women's Bundesliga must have a second source of income". I understood WP:NSEASONS to include only professional leagues, but I could be wrong. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 13:13, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all; they all fail WP:GNG as there is no non-routine coverage on these topics. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 02:04, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - not a fully pro league as has already been confirmed Spiderone 06:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Serge Pustelnik

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

This long article actually fails Wikipedia's general notability guidelines.

The entire article fails to explain what the person is.

And he neither in news, nor in books. Marvellous Spider-Man 17:05, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. Seems to have had some bit part in a FINRA investigation, but neither that, nor his other jobs and events meet GNG for a stand alone article. Reads like a promo piece. Kierzek (talk) 17:11, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete indeed, there's no actual claim of noteworthiness at all - David Gerard (talk) 09:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as promotional CV with no claim to notability. Wikipedia is not a WP:WEBHOST nor is it LinkedIn. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:59, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable law student. He may well soon parlay this to a position where he is actually notable, but he has not done so yet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:55, 28 August 2016 (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 withdrawn. postdlf (talk) 01:58, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of television series considered the worst

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

This list focuses only on a negative portion of many subjects. I think it would be better if this kind of thing (talking about negative reviews) was limited to the article of the subject. MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 16:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article title says it all; you're going in pretty much expecting little positive talk about these series. Also going from that first nomination this has actually had its inclusion requirements tightened; a series must have well sourced critical consensus of its ineptitude (the 240 sources show this easily), and we're not just throwing on shows without complete agreement that they belong (so that incredibly mediocre series aren't just put on to push an editor's agenda, or Game of Thrones somehow gets put on there). Go back in the article's history and you'll see that this article is definitely better than it was in the past. Nate • (chatter) 17:10, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given very good sourcing and strict criteria, I see no issue with keeping this list article. However, the title of the article should be reworked to something seemingly less subjective-sounding. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Since when are specials, TV movies and sports coverage considered "series"? Clarityfiend (talk) 19:33, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- They can always rename it "television SHOWS." It was only series at first before I think I was the one that added one-time specials. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 20:40, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although the page needs a lot of cleanup and probably deserves to have several of the series listed removed (mediocre is not the same as worst-ever), there are enough sources and enough of a consensus on some of the biggest names on the list to warrant maintaining a list, just as there are articles discussing the best TV shows, provided that there is enough of a consensus for each entry among reliable sources. (I get your point, though—these types of articles, especially on a "anyone-can-edit" site like this, can draw a lot of entries from random Internet peeps who don't like a particular show and use the page to vent. Yet with proper administration, it shouldn't be that much of a problem that it requires deletion.) J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 20:40, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:39, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:39, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw: After more consideration, I do agree that this article is not delete-worthy, but it does need some work to improve it. --MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 01:39, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of phobias. with a possible merge to Specific phobia if there is any material that goes beyond a definition in a list. SpinningSpark 16:54, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chaetophobia

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

There is some "tossing Greek around so you know I'm edikated" reference to hair on Victorian women and maybe on visible body fur but as usual nothing except the usual list books which make up names for everything one could potentially be afraid of. Mangoe (talk) 16:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: Wp:BEFORE nominating this for deletion, a quick look would have shown this term falls under section 300.29 Specific Phobia of DSM-IV and many other reliable sources. Tossing around greek is not a reason for deletion. Toddst1 (talk) 16:56, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep This does indeed seem to be a legitimate topics: aside from the DSM (which should be sufficient, in my view) there is also a fair amount of other scholarly coverage (not all of those results are great, but there's a few quite substantive ones. Vanamonde (talk) 17:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:16, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One should take a look at those 17 GScholar hits, because they don't give a picture of research into an actual phobia. There's the usual list of names works, and a few incoherent cites that also always appear, and then there's a bunch of articles talking about societal or whatever attitudes towards long hair. And perhaps the DSM does provide a list, but if that's all it supplies, we're still at DICTDEF. Mangoe (talk) 22:12, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The term "Chaetophobia" does not appear in the DSM-IV, DSM-IV-TR, or the DSM-5. People can have a Specific phobia of literally anything, so this is only in the DSM in that sense that "Specific phobia" is in the DSM and people could conceivably have a specific phobia of hair. That's not to say this term doesn't meet GNG. I'm not prepared to weigh in on that aspect yet. Just wanted to make sure the part about the DSM was clear before more peopled !voted based on that. —PermStrump(talk) 03:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I didn't check if "Chaetophobia" was used in editions of the DSM earlier than DSM-IV, but I assume it wasn't and it would be so outdated that it probably wouldn't have a bearing on the decision here anyway, so I didn't bother. —PermStrump(talk) 19:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There isn't enough coverage to offer more than dictionary definition. There's no indication in reliable sources that it has ever been used in a clinical sense, which is how the article presents it, and it doesn't meet WP:GNG as a social phenomenon like trypophobia or nomophobia because of the lack of in-depth coverage. The majority of the article is unsourced and I haven't been able to verify its claims in my own search for reliable sources. —PermStrump(talk) 23:11, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - even if not documented in psychological literature, this fear is attested anecdotally and in popular culture. Bearian (talk) 19:04, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide any examples of in-depth coverage in reliable sources? I can't find anything except definitions. —PermStrump(talk) 20:18, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Permstrump, I just added several sources. Look under "fear of hair" or alternate spellings. Bearian (talk) 21:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sources had been removed as WP:OFFTOPIC by the time I saw this, and after looking them over myself, I agree that the material was justifiably removed. —PermStrump(talk) 00:57, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:13, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article needs massive cleanup in order to determine if it is notable. QuackGuru (talk) 22:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've been working on it. Every single source that I've added specifically names "chaetophobia" or "hair loss". Some sources give significant coverage, others in passim. Bearian (talk) 22:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I propose the unsourced claims be removed. I requested a ref. QuackGuru (talk) 22:36, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge after trimming out trivia and poorly referenced stuff either to specific phobia or List of phobias. We do not needs thousands of "Xphobia" articles with your favorite Latin or Greek word substituting for X.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:34, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've tried, in the face of vandalism and trolling to bring this article up to speed. I'm giving up. Bearian (talk) 22:39, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing sysop: Now that every single sentence is sourced, and the trivia has been removed, those are no longer valid reasons to delete. If, however, the consensus is that, despite decent sourcing, the topic is just what you all feel is not notable, or that we have used too many bytes on specific phobias, or that it's just too odd even for Wikipedia, then please, go right ahead and redirect, merge, or delete it to your heart's content. But don't blame it on not passing WP:GNG, because lots of people suffer from this phobia (not me, in case you're wondering; I'm a bear in real life). It's not without precedent here that people decide they just don't want such an article here at Wikipedia, and I can live with that. Bearian (talk) 22:56, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The first source is a dictionary. I think a better source can be used. QuackGuru (talk) 23:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even if something passes GNG does not mean it has to have its own article. Fear of hair can be dealt with appropriately in the specific phobia article which I will work on soon. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:13, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I encourage the closing sysop to look at this version of the article because a lot of sources that discussed fears or phobias of hair without using the term "chaetophobia" have since been removed from the article as of this comment, we're left with only sources that provide a definition of chaetophobia. —PermStrump(talk) 01:25, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

merge to Specific phobia from a medical perspective, this phobia is marginally notable. The one decent source here lists this as an example of animal phobias and that is one of the 5 kinds actually named in the DSM per our Specific phobias article. Given the proliferation of garbage articles about phobias and as part of our larger effort to clean these up, this is the most reasonable outcome here Jytdog (talk) 23:14, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought the "Specific phobia" page is for general information. It does not have detailed information on the different phobias. All the content cannot be merged into the "List of phobias" because it is only a list. QuackGuru (talk) 23:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Jytdog, which source are you referring to? Did you leave this comment before you removed a bunch of material from the article as off-topic? I don't see one that uses the word "chaetophobia" in reference to specific phobia, animal type. I'm guessing there was previously a source that talked about the fear of hair as specific phobia, animal type without using the term chaetophobia. I'll put my foot in my mouth if I'm wrong, but I've been clicking on all of the sources at the article and talkpage and doing ctrl F for "chaetophobia" and "animal" and haven't found it yet and I'm out of sources. —PermStrump(talk) 01:25, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - it is Gamble, Catherine (2015). Oxford Handbook of Mental Health and Nursing. Oxford University Press. p. 204-206. ISBN 978-0198703853. Retrieved August 26, 2016. - that somehow got lost and I just restored it. Jytdog (talk) 01:41, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Foot in mouth. :-P But it's still just a passing mention and no more than a definition, so it doesn't affect my !vote or other comments. Also, FWIW I don't agree with that author's interpretation of specific phobia, animal type and neither does the DSM-5 (or any other clinical/academic sources so far). The Oxford Handbook of Mental Health Nursing says: "Fear of animals–for example, fear of human hair (trichophobia), animal fur (chaetophobia), or skin (doraphobia)". The DSM-5 says: "Code based on the phobic stimulus: 300.29 (F40.218) Animal (e.g., spiders, insects, dogs)" and the DSM-IV (and DSM-IV-TR) says: "The following subtypes may be specified to indicate the focus of fear or avoidance in Specific Phobia (e.g., Specific Phobia, Animal Type): Animal Type. This subtype should be specified if the fear is cued by animals or insects", so I'm not really seeing where those authors came up with the animal subtype meaning parts of animals, including humans, and it's especially weird that fur, hair and skin are the only examples they gave. Personally, I'd code someone with a specific phobia of hair as the "specific phobia, other" subtype, but that's neither here nor there. —PermStrump(talk) 03:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        yep a passing mention. this article should not exist. Jytdog (talk) 04:46, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
merge to List of phobias--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I just want to be clear that there's no doubt that people legitimately have a phobia of hair. It is well supported by reliable sources as a type of specific phobia. My issue is specifically with the term "chaetophobia", which as far as I can tell, ~~is not used in any clinical, scholarly or authoritative sources that discuss specific phobias~~ *is only used in one clinical source (Oxford Handbook of Mental Health and Nursing) where it's still just a passing mention with no more than a dictionary definition*. I'd be fine with a redirect either to Specific phobia or List of phobias, but there's nothing here to merge. As an aside, the specific phobia article could use a lot of improvement. —PermStrump(talk) 01:00, 27 August 2016 (UTC) *Updated 03:14, 27 August 2016 (UTC)*[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:49, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Melinda Hughes

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

Non-notable. Article relies on self-published sources and a claim of inherited notability. CSD:A7 template has been removed by original author and a new editor whose only contribution has been to this article. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can't find any inkling of notability, yet. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:16, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:36, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:36, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:19, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable for a stand alone article on her own; inherited notability, not sufficient. Kierzek (talk) 17:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no independent reliable coverage of subject. Doesn't meet the GNG or BIO. FuriouslySerene (talk) 18:58, 23 August 2016 (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) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rich The Kid

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:BASIC; almost no coverage in reliable secondary sources, except for three short mentions in XXL: [11], [12], [13]. These XXL articles offer a thin, often trivial biography that barely support notability. The rest of the sources cited are the usual online record vendors, and his Twitter account. Also appears to meet none of the WP:MUSICBIO criteria. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable rapper. John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:51, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keeps He passes WP:GNG, in depth coverage in: Forbes, Complex Magazine, W Magazine, he is mentioned in: Billboard, Rolling Stone, Vibe, Highs Nobiety, Spin, BET, MTV, all which meets number 1 of WP:MUSICBIO. Also, you have failed to explain how and where does it doesn't meet WP:BASIC.Xboxmanwar (talk) 17:51, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of the reliable sources significant coverage in notable magazines and forbes online identified above so that WP:BASIC is now passed. Atlantic306 (talk) 05:08, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:19, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable at this time. Never charted and nothing of substance beyond, local interest. Kierzek (talk) 17:18, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I mean, there's an in depth article here in Forbes, a highly notable magazine. This alone is basically enough to meet WP:GNG. And then there are 34 references. What do you people want. 100 references, 200? Sure some of the refs are trivial but some aren't. OK, I get that the Forbes ref was not in the article, maybe you all did not know about it, I put it in as an external link. So now there's not excuse for not keeping this article. Herostratus (talk) 21:06, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It appears some worthwhile work has been done on this article since nomination. While there are still some obvious problematic sources that are cluttering things up, notability is established with enough good references to indicate significant coverage. ShelbyMarion (talk) 16:28, 24 August 2016 (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. WP:NPASR per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Moor (journalist)

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

fails WP:CREATIVE as a journalist. The 2 sources provided are articles by the author and do not qualify as actual third party coverage about the subject. No evidence of major awards or peer recognition LibStar (talk) 12:17, 9 August 2016 (UTC)'[reply]

What about this - http://old.melbournepressclub.com/news/profiles/keith-moor Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 12:21, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:38, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:38, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:38, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:38, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:38, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:51, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Walkley Awards winner (1986 Print Best Piece of News Reporting Keith Moor Winner The Melbourne Herald. Can be found searching here.) Has two books that have been reviewed in reliable sources. egs [14] [15] Richardson, Owen (21 March 2009). "Crims in Grass Castles: The True Story of Trimbole, Mr Asia and the Disappearance of Donald Mackay". The Age.. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:47, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:18, 23 August 2016 (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. —Cryptic 14:39, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nandana Lokuwithana

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

There isn't sufficient coverage of Lokuwithana to meet WP:BASIC. I've found some mentions in articles about his businesses and other routine coverage. The Daily News interview isn't independent of the subject. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:26, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:26, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:26, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article is improving rapidly and identifies with notability guideline for biographies — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dominiqueabal (talk • contribs) 05:37, 10 August 2016 (UTC) — Dominiqueabal (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the internet search results, this person seems to involved in political and financial controversy and also notable in Sri Lankas overseas business achievement, therefore suggest to keep but need to improve more with content rather than deleting Maximpoudje (talk) 10:04, 10 August 2016 (UTC)— Maximpoudje (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment -- there appears to be some connection to the Panama papers per this link Colombo Press; I'm not familiar with the publication so cannot say whether this is RS or not. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:13, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:03, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep I added more citations and due to past week changes the article is more balanced with his links to controversies and therefore request to remove the label. Rogerrabelo (talk) 02:55, 19 August 2016 (UTC) — Rogerrabelo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- While the article has changed since this discussion started, the sourcing still does not demonstrate sufficient in-depth, independent coverage to satisfy WP:BASIC. Most of the sources are about Lokuwithana's companies and/or routine business transactions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 15:34, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clearly all of the Keep votes have an invested connection to the subject somehow, and none of them are making a convincing case how and where he's exactly convincing for his own notability and substance. Looking at this has found nothing suggesting better at all. SwisterTwister talk 20:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being a Sri Lankan and owning a hotel from International hotel chain is a big notable milestone in Sri Lankan Business history and He had been covered from both Sri Lankan and UAE (Middle East Media) for this achievment and not only that, He is linked to big local and international controversy in finance. As the only Sri Lankan name recorded in panama papers he was again notable(negative) in another manner during the last period due to this controversy. if you simply run a google search many different search result with both negative and positive basis will prove my suggestion. therefore I suggest to keep the article while balancing it as per the comment by K.e.coffman Sophonore (talk) 01:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC) — Sophonore (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete on second thoughts, as I cannot find any better / more extensive sources than what I listed above. The subject fails GNG per available sources. The interest of various SPAs in this article is also a concern. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:22, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ more than sufficient coverage of Lokuwithana HERE , HERE , HERE , HERE , HERE , HERE, HERE , HERE , HERE and HERE to Meets the WP:BASIC. User:Dominiqueabal —Preceding undated comment added 19:16, 3 September 2016 (UTC) — Dominiqueabal (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Duplicate !vote struck. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Source analysis:
  - D1 - This is an announcement about a hotel opening, and Lokuwithana is being quoted, so it is not independent.
  - D2 - routine business coverage
  - D3 - This is reporting an investment, and Lokuwithana is being quoted, so it is not independent. It also does not have in-depth coverage of Lokuwithana.
  - D4 - This does not have in-depth coverage of Lokuwithana.
  - D5 - WP:QUESTIONABLE, single editor
  - D6 - gossip.hirufm.lk, not reliable
  - D7 - This does not have in-depth coverage of Lokuwithana.
  - D9 - This does not have in-depth coverage of Lokuwithana.
  - D10 - passing mention
Does not meet WP:BASIC. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:06, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above keep votes.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:45, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ with all the comments and talks, I presumed that JJMC89 has taken this discussion in to a personal level, as clearly mentioned in WP:BASIC If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. I can only agree with JJMC89 if all the given sources are in the favor of Nandana Lokuwithana , but there are different types of sources (bias , against and neutral ) which covers his career movements. As an example D1 is analysed as This is an announcement about a hotel opening, and Lokuwithana is being quoted, so it is not independent. by JJMC89 but the same news is covered in different angle in HERE and HERE Which help us to have collective open idea about the subject, it is also mentioned and linked in Nandana Lokuwithana page, yet ironically and personally JJMC89 keep state that the subject does not meet WP:BASIC. The subject has been mentioned in special local business achievements and as well as has his name in many political and financial controversies. Therefore letting this article to be developed to a certain level will help to give some light to major business and political events related to Sri Lanka.Rogerrabelo (talk) 06:17, 4 September 2016 (UTC)— Rogerrabelo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Duplicate !vote struck. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:50, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The first of those two 'HERE' links doesn't have significant coverage of Lokuwithana, and the second doesn't work. I have not taken this discussion personally. Presenting an analysis of sources that others bring forward is common at AfD. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:35, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Both second and third HERE links do work. And your comment about the second link is contradictory (they can’t be both ‘no significant coverage’ and ‘doesn’t work’) - Dominiqueabal, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Comment If you google, ‘Nandana Lokuwithana’ you get hundreds of article that actually mention something about him. Some are just news announcements (i.e. is providing information about an activity or event), some are fore him and some against him. What I listed is a random few. The source analysis by JJMC89 is questionable. I’d also like to hear her interpretation of WP:BASIC? I wonder why JJMC89 has taken this personally? (User:Dominiqueabal), 5 September 2016 (UTC)— Dominiqueabal (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Google hits do not imply notability. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:35, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - But I was not talking about raw hit counts. The content inside those articles justify his notability (almost all the results of a google search on ‘Nandana Lukuwithana’ will be about the same person i.e. the person whom this discussion is about). He seems to have links with both current and former regimes of Sri Lanka. Lots seem to be happening under the carpet. So this topic has lot of potential to be dynamic and happening and the article is align with the WP:BASIC. - Dominiqueabal, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Delete. as promotional. Consideran article about his company. DGG ( talk ) 06:39, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). 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. Could also have been keep but with as little input as provided here one cannot really establish notability. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:52, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Music India

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

WP:ENN, and I'm not sure that the one source that's not from the company is RS - I went to the about page, and it was blank. The name is so generic as to make it difficult to find sources. WP:BROADCAST indicates Notability may be presumed for a radio and television broadcast station if it verifiably meets through reliable sources..., but even the company's website fails to give any of the information in the article, so I'm not sure WP:V is met for WP:BROADCAST to be applicable. MSJapan (talk) 18:44, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:17, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:17, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In certain cases, as you know existence does equal notability. WP:BROADCAST tells us that "Generally, national or regional cable channels are presumed notable." As this music channel is not only national but was for a time international -- and notability is not temporary -- I daresay WP:BROADCAST applies. Keep. And as I've said before here (not to you) a bare link to an essay (as opposed to actual policy) doesn't make for a strong case. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:24, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I felt it was somewhat obvious in this case. There's more to it, though, so I will amend. MSJapan (talk) 18:44, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a better argument but I would still say that the 2nd ref, the BizAsia one, verifies sufficiently that it does exist -- and that for several years was carried by Sky in the UK, too. We don't need the "company's website" to convey this info -- we have a news cite that does that, better. My !vote remains the same. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:14, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:26, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:04, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:15, 23 August 2016 (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) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MIDACO

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

Seems like outright WP:SOAPBOX. bender235 (talk) 14:04, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment: I am the creator of the article. I removed any text passage that might be considered "written like an advertisement".

Additional (primary) sources for notability can be found here: http://www.midaco-solver.com/index.php/about/publications

Additional (secondary) sources for notability can be found here: http://www.midaco-solver.com/index.php/about/applications

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:34, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:14, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am admittedly not an expert on software, but it does appear to be notable, given that two articles in a seemingly reliable journal (cited in the article) give it substantial mention. The problem of soapboxing has mostly been dealt with, and I pruned another little bit: I don't think it qualifies for deletion as a promotional piece any longer. Vanamonde (talk) 17:34, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline, but I would lean to keep as long as it stays neutral in tone. Quite a niche appeal however. W Nowicki (talk) 23:03, 26 August 2016 (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. NA1K is usually pretty on the ball with finding sources to rescue articles, and even he's struggling. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:13, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SpotCam

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

Non-notable company. Sources provided are not independent and a search turned up no independent sources discussing the company per se. -- Jytdog (talk) 14:20, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks independent coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 17:48, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - You can easily find lots of major IT media coverage about this company and its product and service. I edited the page to include more reference from independent sources so this subject could be more creditable. This article provides useful and quick information for people who are trying to learn more about this company/product. Zachery neeb (talk) 11:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zachery the sources you added were about the company's products, not the company per se. What sources are you aware of, about the company itself? Jytdog (talk) 16:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog, I got your point, added company information source in the article. Zachery neeb (talk) 05:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those are not the kind of sources that "count". Crunchbase is a wiki and not reliable, and the other was a directory entry, most likely provided by the company. To meet notability there needs to multiple independent sources with substantial discussion of the company -- see WP:Golden rule which summarizes the policy WP:NOTABILITY. Jytdog (talk) 00:08, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When yous search SpotCam you see lots of independent and credible source talking about the product and usually in the article it mentions about the company, so to me from notability perspective, the company and its solution is notable, just when media or independent source writing article about something new or cool, they more focus about the product instead of company, that's also why this subject worth to be here because when people want to learn something about the company they can see it here instead of going through all different articles or websites.118.168.96.152 (talk) 08:21, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what matters. The company has to meet GNG to have an article, which means there must be several independent sources with substantial discussion about the company, or there can be no WP article at this time. Jytdog (talk) 10:00, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:17, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:17, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:17, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:11, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I frankly consider all of this speedy material. SwisterTwister talk 22:44, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly keep and convert the article to be based upon its primary product line, the SpotCam. Below are examples of significant coverage. Source searches are not providing enough content about the company, but its products are notable per Wikipedia's standards. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Forbes
PC Advisor
Engadget
Inquisitr

Delete -- the above coverage in the product are mostly trivial; this is still "product catalog" material and insufficient for an encyclopedia entry. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:12, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Convert and keep I've edited the article to be an entry about SpotCam product, which should qualify for notability with those sources provided as reference.Zachery neeb (talk) 04:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- even with the change, this is still an article on a non-notable subject and overly promotional, such as:

The SpotCam HD is a fixed type indoor Wi-Fi cloud camera
The SpotCam HD Pro is a fixed type indoor/outdoor Wi-Fi cloud camera with weatherproof feature
The SpotCam HD Eva is a fixed type indoor Wi-Fi cloud camera with pan/tilt capability

The sources added at the AfD do not amount to SIGCOV to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:08, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is now an article about a product; nothing in the article suggest that the article has revolutionized the business or has the potential to do so. This is not Gutenberg's printing press. In 2-3 years the product will be off the market, replaced by other products. Thuresson (talk) 06:18, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

yep this is just a webcam with the kind of reviews you expect to see about a new iteration of a gadget. Jytdog (talk) 08:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources presented above amount to significant coverage in this field (except perhaps the one labelled "Forbes", which I can't evaluate because I can't find the actual page among the maze of ads and redirects). Delete. —Cryptic 14:50, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). 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 03:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Empires: 1914-1918

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

Not notable. There are no reliable sources talking about this game in an in-depth way. Most English/non-English sources are just screenshots gallery and wiki, instead of actual articles. AdrianGamer (talk) 14:21, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video games-related deletion discussions. AdrianGamer (talk) 14:21, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NVIDEOGAMES. The 2 external links in the article are not reliable sources. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:08, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Position It is planned to complete the article and the project much bigger similar addons Men of War: Vietnam, Men of War: Condemned Heroes, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Messer282 (talk • contribs) 06:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:09, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well... there aren't any refs. You need to have refs to have an article. Metacritic has a page for the game, but 0 reviews. The Steam website has 1,121 user reviews, which... I don't know what that means. Obviously some people have bought it. But "Valiant Hearts: The Great War" has ten times that number, so I guess 1,121 is not that much... OK, here is an actual review. The rest of the refs I can find seem to be just bare descriptions of the game. Need more references, at least one more full review, and absent that delete it I guess. Herostratus (talk) 22:22, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV, game's coverage currently is not significant enough to make it notable.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:32, 25 August 2016 (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. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aninda Sinha

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

Being an associate professor is not notable enough for inclusion. Nothing in the article makes the subject notable enough for inclusion. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:02, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:36, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:36, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Sinha has a respectable number of citations (WP:PROF#C1) and has won what appears to be a nationally prestigious award (WP:PROF#C2). The article is concise, solidly referenced and not at all promotional so we lose nothing by keeping this marginally notable academic. Joe Roe (talk) 15:08, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Regardless of whether one considers his awards as significant enough, his citation record (as linked by Joe) shows a convincing pass of WP:PROF#C1. Being an associate professor is not enough reason to keep by itself, but neither is it a reason to delete, and in this case other factors (citations and awards) argue for a keep. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:03, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reasonable GS citation record for well-cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:31, 24 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. In addition to a fairly impressive citation record, he actually has two national level academic awards: the one mentioned above and the Ramanujan Fellow award [16]. The latter is explained at [17] and it seems to be similar in standing to NSF CAREER awards and Sloan Research fellowships in the U.S. Not enough to establish notability by itself but taken together with the Swarnajayanti Fellowship and with a the citability record, certainly good enough to satisfy WP:PROF#C1. Nsk92 (talk) 03:09, 26 August 2016 (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. After sources were found around midway through the discussion. Sandstein 18:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Henry of Bremen

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

A non-article. This person does not even seem to have existed. The article has no sources whatsoever, and the little bit of content blatantly contradicts our own List of archbishops of Gniezno and primates of Poland. AndreasPraefcke (talk) 15:51, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject is not notable and lacks any kind of coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 15:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ (see below) as incorrect. The archbishop of Gniezno in the years up to 1271 was Janusz Tarnowa. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:12, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unsourced permastub. p b p 17:14, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot find evidence of notability for this individual, nor any substantive coverage in reliable sources. Vanamonde (talk) 17:36, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The issue isn't notability, or substantive coverage, but that there was no 13th-century (or any other century) archbishop of Gniezno with this, or similar (such as Heinrich von Bremen), name. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:04, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article has no sources, and no evidence of this person's existence can be found. Also as 86.17.222.157 stated, the archbishop of Gniezno at that time (up to 1271) was Janusz Tarnowa. Ilyushka88 | ^Talk! _Contribs 18:26, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is my archbishop of Gniezno, and this is my other archbishop of Gniezno. (Gosh, didn't any of you people watch Newhart to see how this is possible?) Clarityfiend (talk) 19:41, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article on Jakub Świnka says that his predecessor as Archbishop of Gniezno was Henry of Bremen (although it also gives the name Henryk z Bremy). I am looking to see if I can figure out more about this. I created this article back in July of 2007 when I was new to editing Wikipedia and still did not understand its norms. One thing I did know is that I had had a professor (who probably merits having an article in Wikipedia, but I have not yet mustered all the sources on him) tell me that encyclopedia articles do not use sources. What I did not understand then is that this works for a controlled encyclopedia where experts in the subject are asked to write the articles, it does not work for an encyclopedia anyone can edit. I make no claim of understanding what source I used 9 years ago to create this article, and even less of a claim that the source was reliable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:42, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely unsourced, and doesn't seem to meet WP:Notability (people). Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:59, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As best as I can tell the issues is neither that this article is unsourced, but that it is just plain wrong. A review of sources available on Google Scholar makes it clear that Janusz Tarnowa died in 1271, in 1278 the Pope appointed Martin of Opova as Archbishop, but he died before taking office, and Jakub Swinka, who was possibly the most important archbishop in medieval Poland, became bishop in the 1280s. Not having access to JSTOR I can't find the whole article, but I have removed the references to Henry of Bremen from the article on Swinka. I also removed the statement about when he was first elected. There is an article through JSTOR that would probably give a good source on how it happened, but since that was connected with claims of Henry resigning in 1271 the whole line was suspect, and I don't have access to JSTOR.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:12, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now I think we are getting somewhere. According to this source there was an archbishop of somewhere called Henryk z Bremy who died in 1302, and these sources list him variously as a candidate or nominee for Archbishop of Gniezno. There is probably a notable person hiding in there somewhere, but at the moment I don't think we have enough to go on. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 11:58, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:02, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:02, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm pinging Ealdgyth, who is knowledgeable in this area; she should be able to answer the fake/not fake question, at least. Montanabw^(talk) 00:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. According to Conrad Eubel, Hierarchia catholica medii aevi, vol. 1 (1913), p. 265, he was a Franciscan who was named archbishop of Gniezno by Pope Martin IV in December 1281. The same pope named Jakub Swinka to the same see in July 1283. Eubel's sources are the papal acta. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 20:45, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good find. A bit of synthesis (which we are not supposed to do) between the various sources would suggest that Henry/Henryk/Henricus/Heinrich was appointed as Archbishop of Gniezno but didn't actually take up the position. I don't quite know how we are to create an article on the basis of the sources found so far, but would love to be able to keep this, not least because my wife is from Gniezno and we visit there regularly (we actually met when Pope John Paul II was in town during his first trip as pope to Poland in 1979). This article has piqued my interest, so the next time I go to Gniezno, which will probably not be until next year, I'll try to find time to visit the cathedral museum to see if they have anything about this guy. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:16, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. "Henryk z Bremy" turns up a number of hits on Google Books, but all "snippet view", and in Polish (a language I sadly lack). But it was you that posted that link, so you know all about that. ~~--Andreas Philopater (talk) 21:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)~~--Andreas Philopater (talk) 21:25, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Will you be changing your "delete" recommendation? (Assuming it's the same person on the IP!) --Andreas Philopater (talk) 20:58, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've stricken my "delete" above, but I'm not convinced that we have enough to go on to actually sustain an article so won't say "keep". We have evidence that he was named as archbishop, and that he was never consecrated, but nothing to connect the two giving the circumstances of his non-consecration. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 12:29, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Only a stub, but nomination to a vacant role at this level is probably enough to enable us to keep this stub. The list article clearly needs correction. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:08, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Userfy~~, interisting findings above, but currently the article is not ready for the mainspace as there are some big holes in his biography and we cannot replace them with our unproven synthesis and original research. A source says he was appointed archbishop, but according most of the sources his position was taken by someone else. Probably there is a very interisting story behind that, but until we don't have the whole picture we cannot have an article saying "according one source he was apparently appointed and then we don't know what happened". Cavarrone 13:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've done a bit more looking around and have found some more conclusive sources, this and this, so I can finally put that word in bold. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@86.17.222.157:, as far as I can see your sources are hardly conclusive. The first book has no preview and not even a snippet to be evaluated, about the second have you any idea about what the text say? As I said above, is there a chance to have an article with meaningful contents out of synthesis and original research? Cavarrone 16:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The first source displays a snippet for me, saying that Henryk was appointed but declined to serve, and my Polish is fluent so I have plenty of idea what the second one says - it confirms the date of appointment and that Henryk had no previous experience in church office. It then goes on to say something about it being a diplomatic appointment urged by Henryk IV Probus to please Rudolf I of Germany, but unfortunately the snippet runs out there. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, thanks. I am striking my vote above as apparently there is a potential for an article. Cavarrone 19:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but make sure the article is revised to reflect the fact that Henry appears to never have assumed the office of bishop and also to downplay the Polish-German ethnic rhetoric. To me as it is written it imposes ideas of ethnicity and identity developed in the 19th century on events of the 13th century. I am quite glad to find that there are actually soyrces that support most of what is said in this article I neglected to include any source with. I am glad my nine year old mistakes are rectifiable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnpacklambert (talk • contribs)
Comment another takeaway I have from this is that people we have articles on born before 1400 are virtually always notable unless the article is a deliberate modern hoax. We also have to keep in mind that sorces do not have to be in any way obtainable online to be reliable. I was going to speculate creating this article might have related to over enthusiasm during my medieval history class. However that class I did not take until winter tern 2008. Beyond that it was early Medieval History. I can't remember if we ended with the dawn of the 11th century or if we made it all the way to the Great Schism. We may have even mentioned William theConqueror in passing but we didn't make it to the Crusades even starting let alone to the 13th century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnpacklambert (talk • contribs)

I agree with your first sentence there. In the days before movable-type printing the only durable written records were expensive and time-consuming to produce, so it is rare for any non-notable person to be documented at all. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 06:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep But as Johnpacklambert said, "make sure the article is revised to reflect the fact that Henry appears to never have assumed the office of bishop". Ilyushka88 | ^Talk! _Contribs 01:30, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:42, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If he was appointed a Roman Catholic archbishop then he is clearly notable, even if he didn't actually take up the post. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:00, 31 August 2016 (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 Move to the hoax museum. And ick. How did a hoax article survive for 11 years and 8 months? Thanks for the detective work, folks; I shall move the article to Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Milk Studios for record-keeping and investigative purposes, seeing as we need to avoid this stuff - and duration - in the future. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Milk Studios

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

Non-notable company Orange Mike | Talk 15:42, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete finding sources is complicated by the existence of "Spilt Milk Studios," but I cannot find any substantive coverage in this case. Vanamonde (talk) 17:42, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:53, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:53, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a hoax. Avoiding false positives using searches such as "Milk Studios" "Alex Hammer" and "Milk Studios" Älmhult I am very willing to bet that this is a candidate for Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia. All the very few hits that turn up are either still false positives or various Wikipedia mirrors. The notion that an almost 30-year old company that by 2004 supposedly had "12 locations in Sweden, two in Norway, and three in the United States" has zero sources is not to be believed. And the Swedes would have taken pride in a company that could "make it over there" and would have created sv:Milk Studios, but that article never existed. I did do a search for "Alex Hammer" on svwiki, nada found. FYI: (Orangemike—Vanamonde93). — Sam Sailor 14:21, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Sam: noted, thank you. I could believe that this is a hoax, and I see that you have tagged it as such. I don't quite have the knowledge (of the relevant languages, and of this specific field) to regard it as "blatant," myself, but thank you for doing the digging. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 16:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails WP:V cannot find a single source do agree it is most likely a hoax. Note this Article was created in 7 December 2004‎ by an IP has been around for decade without being detected. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A "speciality products retailer" with 12 locations in Sweden, headquartered in Älmhult? Oh please. There is or was a Milk Studio or Studios in Norrköping (a considerably bigger place than Älmhult), but that's an actual music studio. A search for "Milk Studios" Älmhult finds exclusively our article and mirrors. I do understand the language, though not specifically the speciality products retailing business, but Sam Sailor's point that Swedes would have been proud of it is persuasive. There would certainly have been some newspaper articles for a company from little Älmhult (a tiny place, albeit the cradle of IKEA) that hit the big time. But there's nothing. Delete as hoax. Bishonen | talk 19:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy delete as potential hoax. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:49, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: If the company continues to fail verification, this may well be the longest-lived hoax article ever found, surviving in main space for more than 11 years and 8 months. Consider moving it to the hoax museum at Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Milk Studios, cf. the instructions given on WP:HOAXLIST. — Sam Sailor 08:12, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As suggested above, this looks like a hoax. A few additional notes:
- Dairy Farm, the "large, American specialty retailer" supposedly acquired by Milk Studios in 2004, appears not to exist. No news or financial coverage exists for this transaction, which would certainly follow any acquisition of one international retailer by another. There is a notable retailer with a comparable name, Dairy Farm International Holdings, but that company originated in Hong Kong. An interesting fact: Dairy Farm International Holdings appears to have actually acquired the Hong Kong division of IKEA (which did originate in Älmhult) in 2002, not long before this article's creation. Conceivably, that fact might have inspired this apparent hoax.
- No evidence exists to support the existence of a Milk Studios office location in Tiburon, California, whether now or in 2004.
- In addition, no Google hits exist for "Alex Hammer," the company's supposed founder, in combination with Milk Studios (except for this article and mirrors).
- On top of the other improbabilities in this article, very few businesses have an "exclusive line of cards, paper, calendars, office supplies, books, drafting tools, and clothing," all of them supposedly designed by the company in its own headquarters. That range of products is exceptionally diverse, and would generate a considerable online footprint if it actually existed.
- According to the article, the company began online sales in 1998, but no trace of an e-commerce operation can be found. Likewise, there are no consumer reviews or comments about the retailer.

The search is complicated somewhat by a large number of false positives (most of them refer to an actual prominent photography studio in New York and Los Angeles, but definitely not the subject of this article). Still, the evidence appears overwhelming that this is a long-lived hoax - at more than 11 years, a new (dubious) record. Calamondin12 (talk) 19:18, 27 August 2016 (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. Chiefly due to poor article quality, the subjects may be notable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:08, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fernando N. Villarreal

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

Incomprehensible, filled with information that has nothing to do with subject. Single reference does not mention subject. ubiquity (talk) 15:40, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they follow the same pattern:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 16:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 16:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While all four of them technically have a valid claim of notability, i.e. having served as (interim) governors of the Mexican state of Querétaro, all four of them are sourced for shit and the articles themselves are written so badly that it's nearly impossible to make heads or tails of what they're even saying. In two of the four cases, the article was so poorly written that it took the category declaration for me to even realize that "Governor of Queretaro" was their notability claim — and one of them seems to contain a personal "rest in peace, distinguished forefather" prayer that falls far outside the scope of what Wikipedia is for. Even a valid claim of notability does not exempt an article from having to follow our content and style and sourcing rules. Delete all per WP:TNT, without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can write and source them better than this. Bearcat (talk) 00:14, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nominator. Source is a blog. David.moreno72 07:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete They are all written and edited by a sock farm, now CU blocked - by me. There's good evidence that all of them are actually socks of Tuesttay (talk · contribs) but the CU data is stale. Interestingly, this article is one of a number deleted last year on es.wiki[18] 28 May 2015 22:20 Taichi ( discussion · contributions ) deleted page Agustín Pérez Herrera (mass Elimination of pages created by the user 189.234.215.254) June 19, 2014 8:06 Taichi ( discussion · contributions ) deleted page Agustín Pérez Herrera (mass Elimination of pages created by the user 189,234,220,216)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (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 delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Rates

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable journalist. All refs press releases, WP:ROUTINE, affiliated sources, or minor in passing references mentioning him as the reporter on the scene. ResultingConstant (talk) 14:31, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination calls this topic an event. This topic is not an event. Unscintillating (talk) 14:10, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is no evidence that the nomination has made an attempt to determine either wp:notability or the alternatives to deletion. Unscintillating (talk) 14:10, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A non-notable journalist. This article was deleted back in Febuary for the very same reasons.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:40, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:20, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:34, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This AfD is the nominator's 20th contribution to Wikipedia and only the second page ever created. The entire content of the first page created is three letters, diff. Unscintillating (talk) 14:10, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I note that the previous AFD nomination states, "...a...news personality". The statement has already stipulated that the topic is not a hoax, the topic's work is published by a reliable news source on a regular basis, and that they are a "personality". As per the nutshell of WP:N, notability is understood as the evidence that a topic has attracted the attention of the world-at-large over a period of time. WP:Notability is not an issue for on-air TV personalities of network affiliates, as on-air personalities attract the attention of the world at large. In my personal experience, people recall these personalities throughout a lifetime, just as they talk about local malls from many years ago. The role of the encyclopedia here does not require standalone articles, but until we have staff bio pages for TV stations, and the discipline to cross-link on these pages when the personality changes jobs, standalone articles are the way that our content contributors have to organize this material. Those who don't like that can get involved in the content contribution for these topics. Unscintillating (talk) 14:10, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You argue that every journalist is inherently notable even though the only coverage of them is WP:ROUTINE job change announcements? And I note while you chose to dig into my background, you neglected to notice that the author of the article has a major COI with the subject of this article ResultingConstant (talk) 14:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Citobun (talk) 04:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a vanity page for an unremarkable news anchor. Sources are insufficient to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:12, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while vanity pages are sometimes created for notable people, topics that lack articles, Rates appears to be a journeyman newscaster. My searches find ca couple of job transitions briefly covered as industry news [19] - already on the page, but nothing more, not even the sort of color stories or stories about charity fundraisers he has co-sponsored that you find for a lot of local news anchors.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Bartholomew

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

Bartholomew is a non-notable football player. His college career was not at the level to rise to notability. He never played a game in the NFL, he was dropped from his first team before the start of the season, and later part of another teams practice squad, which does not make one notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:45, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment might participation in the East–West Shrine Game meet criteria 1 of WP:NCOLLATH? Not that familiar with college football, but being invited to a national all-star game seems close to meeting that criteria. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:03, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. There's dozens of college all-star games and none of them are particularly notable. Lizard (talk) 02:48, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Makes sense. Just thought I would bring it up. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:30, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:30, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Lizard's explanation. No other indication of notability. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:18, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and not finding sufficient coverage to meet GNG. Rlendog (talk) 14:00, 25 August 2016 (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. No opposition of any substance. Sandstein 18:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Montana Montana Montana

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

Non-notable rapper who fails WP:MUSIC. Only independent reliable source that was a police blotter that noted his bail amount. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:13, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Montana Montana Montana is a music artist of the 10's Hip-Hop/ Rap Genre. born Lovie Johnson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maclafornia925 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

^[1] ^[2] ^[3] ^[4]

Note: I moved the above comment and links by Maclafornia925 to the discussion field and standardized and attempted it so the AfD would be more readable TonyBallioni (talk) 18:45, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:36, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:36, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the claimed two chart entries can't be found attributed to Montana Montana Montana on billboard.com. Other than that this is a WP:TOOSOON at best. Apart from reading like a press release - David Gerard (talk) 18:35, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The sourcing is ridiculously bad. One of the cites was literally to a Google web search for "Montana Montana Montana" - David Gerard (talk) 18:39, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also nominated his album, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Really Not a Rapper - David Gerard (talk) 19:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:12, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Music artist Montana Montana Montana ^[5] released four albums . the first album is Really Not a Rapper ^[6]

Maclafornia925 (talk) 20:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note Maclafornia925 made the following edit and comment and blanked the page in good faith. I'm linking to the diff as a courtesy so people can see their views it because it was lost in the revert when I restored the rest of the discussion [20] TonyBallioni (talk) 20:29, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.worldstarhiphop.com/videos/video.php?v=wshhU2vndkIX1UW28i3x
^ http://www.thizzler.com/blog/2014/10/18/montana-montana-montana-ft-philthy-rich-straight-to-the-mone.html
^ https://www.flickr.com/photos/montana925/?
^ https://itunes.apple.com/us/artist/montana-montana-montana/id869637967
^ http://www.allmusic.com/artist/montana-montana-montana-mn0003297361/credits
^ http://www.allmusic.com/album/really-not-a-rapper-mw0002722238

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Hot 20 Countdown

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

Delete. Completely unsourced article about a radio program. This one was syndicated to several radio stations, meaning it would probably pass WP:NMEDIA if it could be reliably sourced, but NMEDIA does not grant radio shows an exemption from having to be reliably sourced just because the article claims a notability pass -- and the only "sources" here are primary ones: archive captures of its own webpage, and its host's own Myspace. This is not enough to qualify a radio show for inclusion. Bearcat (talk) 15:09, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Any countdown show article that doesn't well-detail its inclusion requirements (or doesn't even make clear what it's counting down; there definitely is no CHR/Christian Radio genre at all, which is actually called Contemporary Christian music) doesn't get close to a keep, and this show didn't have much notability outside of the Canadian CCM community. CT-20 is from the same originating editor with the same poor structure and I would support an AfD on that also. Nate • (chatter) 17:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can't find any reliable secondary sourcing, agree with above "delete" voters ArchieOof (talk) 17:32, 24 August 2016 (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) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:04, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abhinay Banker

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not appear the actor is notable; most of the footnotes are to articles about things with which he is connected, not about him. Orange Mike | Talk 14:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep : I originally nominated the article, but I think it has been much better since. Even includes a few WP:RS, which are specifically about him, such as this, this, this, so I am inclined towards keep. Coderzombie (talk) 16:46, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - is there a template for "so cluttered with non-reference references that you can't spot the tiny handful of actual substantive mentions"? --Orange Mike | Talk 16:50, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know about the template, but you do have my sympathies. Coderzombie (talk) 17:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are enough reliable sources such as Times of India and other press coverage that confirms that he is notable enough to pass WP:BASIC Atlantic306 (talk) 16:56, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting : Adding another user's comment, which he seems to have put on talk page instead of here.

I don't understand what is the reason for 2nd time nomination!
We all have discussed about it previously and the outcome of it was KEEP because of many HIGHLY reliable references. Also, there is no major edit on last few months then why suddenly it went for delete??
Also, on what base I have been blocked?!!!
Jaydev Pala (talk) 07:56, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Coderzombie (talk) 10:56, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:34, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:34, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Alot of references here that need cleaning up by the editor. However there are two decent references:

"Ahmedabad-based actor Abhinay Banker of Acktors Theatre company decided to portray Imrozs and Amritas relationship in his new play Main Tenu Phir Milangi. He got interested in the writers life after reading her biography. Banker says,I was intrigued by Amritas life and later read another book written by Uma Trilok that chronicles the relationship and personal conversations between the poetess and Imroz. " The Indian Express and another in The Times of India i would suggest a good cleanup rather than a delete. 80.193.74.158 (talk) 17:05, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:80.193.74.158 Thank you for saying 'Keep'. After spending around 14 years in this field, at present can see his name as a writer in few gujarati movies as well which I want to update in near future after getting reliable source. I do agree that above lines need cleanup and not delete of whole page itself! Many thanks againJaydev Pala (talk) 11:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ Everyone: When 1st time page went for delete request, I tried my level best to re-write it with the help of many admins/moderators/experts in Wiki Live Chat. I do have copies of all those previous chat. They guided me and also edited wherever needed. I added at-least 50+ most treatable resources. After all this, we should not go back to point A and start the same discussion again and again. In addition, one can always edit the page as per their best knowledge then why rather than doing so, people are asking for delete? Do they are having any 'Personal Benefit' from the removal?! Otherwise one can read the perious delete discussion which resulted in KEEP. I hope everyone will be agree on this. Apologies for any errors which might have occurred while writing this on this page if am wrong.Jaydev Pala (talk) 11:26, 28 August 2016 (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 under criterion G11. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:09, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Iwueke 'Dr Craze

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

PROD removed by page's creator. The page reads like a puff piece and the subject lacks coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 14:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nomination --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:55, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:24, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:24, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:24, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable comedian who fails WP:GNG —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 16:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that while the topic might merit an article, the current article is unusable. If Isaidnoway or someone else wants to recreate it with better sourcing and neutral wording, feel free to do so. Userfy or draftify requests may be made at WP:REFUND or my talk talk page, or other places where such requests can be made. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Mahoney

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

promotional article, almost entirely written by banned undeclared paid editors.

The claims to being a producer of the various shows are generally correct; the claims that the shows won awards are correct. The claims that he won an award for being the producer are false. The books are all self-published--only the first is even in WorldCat

If he is notable, this needs to be started over. DGG ( talk ) 20:22, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:57, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:57, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:57, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:57, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - referencey, but not well-referenced - David Gerard (talk) 17:55, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:30, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - First, I totally agree it's promotional and would benefit from a re-write, it reads like a LinkedIn resume, but I do think he passes GNG, and I would also like to know which - claims that he won an award for being the producer are false - because they are plenty of sources that say otherwise - a Tony award-winning Broadway producer, he won a Tony Award as a producer., owner of two Tony Awards for his work as a producer, Ken is a Tony Award winning and Grammy nominated Producer, a Tony Award winning producer, Mahoney Wins Tony, a producer who has won multiple Tony Awards and three Emmys.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:38, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT - I agree with Isaidnoway that the subject is notable, but the article as it is is a complete mess. — Chevvin 19:36, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete instead as I also notice the apparent awards but there are still concerns that are outweighing this and with there being nothing substantial enough to suggest keeping altogether, this is best deleted. I would also suggest, if a new user attempts this, to please use AfC instead. SwisterTwister talk 06:16, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO. Nothing salvageable here. Best deleted and then recreated a not an advertisement. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:57, 27 August 2016 (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. Seems like there is consensus that the article does not meet notability criteria. As for Graham11's note moving Patricia King (trade unionist) to Patricia King needs its own move request, I believe. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:56, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia King (evangelist)

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

She is not notable. Her role in Belize can simply be added to LGBT_rights_in_Belize#Church_opposition_to_decriminalization. There are no reliable third-party sources specifically about her. Zigzig20s (talk) 23:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have remove the SPLC reference, as it did not really support the guilt-by-association claim made in the article. As a result, the article now has no references. St Anselm (talk) 02:16, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, page 8 of the SPLC report says she/her church supported Belize Action, an anti-LGBT organization in Belize. But she doesn't need her own article for that.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and that's all it says. It doesn't say she is an anti-LGBT activist herself. It doesn't even say that she "has supported anti-LGBT discrimination" (as the article used to say) - merely that her organization has supported an organization that supported it. St Anselm (talk) 02:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The SPLC are a bunch of leftist hate mongers who try to silence the voices of those who believe in man/woman marriage and should never be used as reliable sources for anything. They are one the side of people who engage in shooting of security guards at Christian organizations and call for the bombing of Christian places of worship. There is no reason to give their hate campaigns any standing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. St Anselm (talk) 02:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I assume by SPLC that you mean Southern Poverty Law Center? I would not call them "hate mongers" by any means. They are specifically against hate groups. Wikipedia's page on them says that: "It is noted for its legal victories against white supremacist groups, its legal representation for victims of hate groups, its classification of militia movement and other extremist organizations, and its educational programs that promote tolerance." I am pretty sure that removing the SPLC from the article was an incorrect move, because they can be seen as a reliable, if potentially biased, source. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What we have here is basically a PR résumé for a person who exists, rather than an encyclopedia article about a person who satisfies any specific notability rule. Prior to being tackled by the clean 'n scrub union, this was based entirely on her own primary source content about herself with the sole exception of the SPLC citation — and the problem with the SPLC reference isn't that the SPLC are "hatemongers" (which is not a claim that would pass even the most cursory test for WP:NPOV), but that it didn't even properly verify the content being cited to it. Nothing left here now is a strong claim of notability, none of it is properly sourced at all, and Wikipedia is not a free publicity platform on which a person is entitled to keep an unsourced or primary sourced article just because she exists. Bearcat (talk) 23:10, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat. And as an aside, the argument that the SPLC are "hate mongers" is laughable at best. Graham (talk) 23:48, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: If this article is deleted, Patricia King probably should be too and Patricia King (trade unionist) moved accordingly. Graham (talk) 23:48, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Her main role seems to be as leading Christian Services Association, which appears to have several offices, implying that this is not a one-woman ministry. I would be happier if that article existed, which it does not. In the circumstances, my view has to be neutral. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:57, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, an article about that organization could absolutely be created, if it can be reliably sourced over WP:ORG. But leading an organization isn't an automatic inclusion freebie that gets King in the door as a separate topic, if her article is entirely unsourced. Bearcat (talk) 16:10, 24 August 2016 (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. As noted WikiProjects cannot create their own notability guidelines, never mind that such a guideline for beauty pageants and their organizations does not seem to exist yet. The article does not appear to meet any of the existing notability guidelines for organizations, competitions and general topics, judging from the discussion. The article may be restored if foreign language sources can be found which support notability, which does not seem to be the case here yet. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:02, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Grand Nepal

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

Not notable. Deleted at AfD previously, and the years since don't seem to have resulted in increased significant coverage. Fram (talk) 08:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:41, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:41, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:41, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:41, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. Discussion about notability guidelines has already started on the Talk page for the Beauty Pageant project. No harm will be done by closing this nomination as "keep" and letting the project-level discussion take its course. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Projects in general don't decide their own notability guidelines, a global consensus for these is needed. WP:N is more than capable of handling this, no subject-specific guideline can be looser than this anyway. I see no consensus emerging for such a guideline at that discussion, and furthermore that discussion is about a guideline for contestants, not for organisations, so it wouldn't apply anyway. Fram (talk) 07:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Subject-specific guidelines serve the important role of fostering uniform treatment of the many articles that fall within the scope of each guideline. This is especially important given the generally low level of participation at AfD discussions, as well as the differing standards used by individual administrators when assessing consensus -- both of which tend to create disparate and oft-times unpredictable results for similar articles. As for your observation about the current project-level discussion, you are quite correct that the discussion is currently focused on state-level contestants. But this discussion is simply the initial topic in a broader discussion that also will address international pageants.

But there are other reasons to keep this article. The subject organization is a "feeder" for the Miss Grand International pageant. As such, the instant article is part of a series of articles that collectively provide comprehensive coverage of that international pageant. Providing comprehensive coverage of a topic via a series of stand-alone articles is a well-established practice here on Wikipedia. Although the instant article would certainly look better if it had additional sourcing, that fact in itself is not sufficient to justify its deletion. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Notability is not inherited, qualifications are not notable just because the final competition or pageant may be notable. What you describe is not "a well-established practive at Wikipedia" but an end-run around notability. What you need is reliable sources showing notability for this event, nothing more, nothing less. Fram (talk) 20:31, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but it's not nonsense. Nor is it a question of inheriting notability. It's a question of using stand-alone articles as a reasonable means of providing comprehensive coverage of a topic. This is a long- and widely-accepted practice, as evidenced by articles such as Acalyptris vittatus, Hezekiah Allen, Edward Newell (cyclist) or 3 Andromedae. Despite the wide range of topics from which they are drawn, these permanent stubs share something in common -- they will never be deleted because each of them is part of a series of articles that collectively provide comprehensive coverage of a broader topic.

But there's something else to consider, as well. Wikipedia already provides coverage for the winners of national-level feeders to Miss Grand International whenever the delegates are being chosen from the same pageant from which delegates to other international pageants are chosen. One example is that of the delegates from India, who receive coverage in a list within the article on Femina Miss India. If the delegates from Nepal had been chosen by the Miss Nepal franchise, they would appear in a list in that article. But they're not -- they are chosen by a different franchise. So, a stand-alone article is appropriate. Indeed, to grant coverage to delegates from India, but deny that coverage to Nepalese delegates based on the identity of the franchising organization, strikes me as a dubious reason for deleting the article. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable per Wikipedia's standards, neither per the general notability guidelines, nor per the specific guidelines for events. And, as Fram says, projects don't get to set their own standards for notability. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:21, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article did not meet notability guidelines.--Richie Campbell (talk) 23:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This competition does not meet the notability requirements for competitions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up. Two sources have been added to the article. Interestingly, one of them is an article from the Indian Times, thus showing that the event has received press coverage from a source in a different country. I also note that much of the daily press in Nepal is published in the Nepali language; someone who is fluent in that language would be able to do a more-thorough search. NewYorkActuary (talk) 12:44, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- the sources added provide trivial coverage. I cannot find sufficient RS on "Miss Grand International" to understand its significance so the feeder pageant does not appear to be notable in turn. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:05, 28 August 2016 (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) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 04:58, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gustaw Marek Brzezin

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

I haven't been able to find evidence of notability, but I'm no expert here as the sources are not in English. If he didn't win any election, then he can't be a notable politician.

Polish sources mention him, someone who could read Polish can comment. Marvellous Spider-Man 14:19, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Voivodeship marshal is an elected position, so Brzezin has won an election. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 14:39, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:23, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:23, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as a Voivodeship marshal, Brzezin meets WP:POLITICIAN, btw, here is a recent article stating him still in that position opening an airport - [21], also meets WP:ANYBIO as a recipient of the Gold Cross of Merit - [22]. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:02, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We do need better and more sources, but as the head of a top level sub-division of Poland Brzezin clearly passes the notability guidelines for politicians. Probably all members of Voivodeship leadership do, and more so the executive council, but the Marshal clearly without question does.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:02, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. consensus seems clear DGG ( talk ) 01:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

+×

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

This article is about an album that's not even announced yet. No legitimate source to prove its existence. Rizhopper (talk) 13:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:47, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:47, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - wp:TOOSOON and wp:cball both apply here. Margalob (talk) 15:26, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: definite WP:TOOSOON, but will almost certainly be notable enough in a month or two to have its own article if that release date is correct, so I wonder if a redirect to Martin Garrix would be the best option for now. Richard3120 (talk) 21:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed but at this moment, we don't even know if the article name is real. No announcement have been made about the name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rizhopper (talk • contribs) 09:08, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very good point actually - there's been no official confirmation of the album title, so the article title could be wrong. Richard3120 (talk) 15:11, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy / Draftify as WP:TOOSOON. I searched and found sites of unclear reliability saying this is the name of an upcoming album. I also found official Martin Garrix self-source using "+x" that seem to suggest this is the title of the next album. However I didn't see anything sufficiently firm, and the current article has zero content. It seems almost pointless to delete and recreate the page, but this does not belong in article-space yet. Alsee (talk) 08:01, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:04, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Empty article except for the infobox, infobox says "Peace Is the Mission" for some reason and there is no coverage to be found except for vague statements about an upcoming album from the artist. There is "enough" coverage of the vague statements, however, so that makes this a bit trickier. Yet it's all so vague that it really just warrants a mention at the artist's article. It's WP:TOOSOON for the album to have an article of its own, especially in this style. Mr. Magoo (talk) 20:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - wp:TOOSOON and wp:cball as already stated above. Aoba47 (talk) 21:58, 31 August 2016 (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. Euryalus (talk) 13:03, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vidya Yeravdekar

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

Is a non-academic 'Principal Director' of an educational institution group notable? No references as well to support this article. On a closer look, she's the daughter of the Chancellor of the University. WP:INHERITED. Uncletomwood (talk) 09:46, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:43, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:43, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 ^talk 02:00, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, the article is indeed promotional but we have at least two reliable sources (a university website and a magazine article), and, though I am not fluent in the Indian educational system, to me her position looks equivalent to the president of the university.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:24, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 12:31, 23 August 2016 (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. DGG makes a good argument regarding the published papers and available citation numbers. The breast cancer awareness work is laudatory, but the sources supporting his media profile are too thin to meet the WP:GNG requirements. No prejudice against recreation if he further lifts his profile and can establish significant coverage for it, but at present this isn't there. Euryalus (talk) 11:12, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Glynn Bolitho

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

Promotional article for non-notable surgeon. Despite all the emphasis on his work, the citations for his most cited papers are 70, 56, 42,11,4 ,which is not notable in medicine. His claimed book is not in WorldCat--it appears to be some sort of review book for use in training. His appearances on various media are his self-advertising, as is customary in the field.

The references are promotional interviews, and ref 1 isa good example. WP is not for the purpose of adding to his quite thorough efforts at self-promotion. ' DGG ( talk ) 16:20, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Seems what we have here is a celebrity doctor situation. Thus the appropriate standard is just WP:N, not medicine. While I agree that WP:NOADS is our policy, I want to be sure that we are examining the question of "significant, third-party coverage independent of the subject." If all his work in just in his local region, then I'd agree that deletion is appropriate, but the Discovery Channel appearance may lift it up a bit. Undecided. Montanabw ^(talk) 20:26, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:01, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:01, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:57, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I see him as notable for his breast cancer awareness raising. No comment on his notability beyond this, as plastic surgeons often have references that are throw-away due to the way they're described in the media. Jeremy112233 ^{(Lettuce-jibber-jabber?)} 07:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 ^talk 02:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. MBisanz ^talk 12:30, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 12:30, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Miss South Carolina USA. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:20, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Medley

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

Medley's only coverage ever is winning a state teen beauty pageant and a state beauty pageant. Recent discussions have made it clear that neither of these alone are enough to make someone notable. Her dabbling in modeling comes no where close to making her even marginally notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:33, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm of mixed views on this one. IF the claim of being the youngest contestant at 14 can be verified, that's interesting, and if the runway modeling was national or international, it's a maybe. Normally I'd lean delete, but I wonder if it's worth a bit of digging first. Montanabw ^(talk) 18:04, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:34, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:50, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 ^talk 02:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss South Carolina USA as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:24, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Discussion about notability guidelines has already started on the Talk page for the Beauty Pageant project. No harm will be done by closing this nomination as "keep" and letting the project-level discussion take its course. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:54, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 12:30, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My sweeps didn't come up with much.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:34, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO1E; the subject is not notable. If a redirect chosen by the close, suggest deleting first and then redirecting as it's unlikely the subject would be notable in the future. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, South Carolina is larger than Belgium and more populous than Ireland (or New Zealand, Turkmenistan, Croatia, etc.). If Miss Ireland or Miss Belgium would rate an article (not sure about that), maybe Miss South Carolina ought to also. On the other hand, is there even a mention of any of this in the Charleston paper? Not that I can find. With no proper refs, it's not looking good for this article. Herostratus (talk) 19:09, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem was she was crowned in 2004 and competed at Miss USA in 2005. Most newspaper archives barely give you stuff from five years ago. I've looked at Newspapers.com and can't find anything but that also isn't a slam dunk because finding stuff from there is very much dependent on what papers are available on it. PageantUpdater (talk) 03:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

However the newspaper studies we have done have shown these people covered in general only in their very small home town paper. Beyond this, Wikipedia is not news, so not everyone who gets coverage in the paper merits an article. Newspapers will have much more substantial and sustained coverage on candidates for the United States congress, but candidates who are not elected are only notable if they are notable on some other grounds. This even applies to those who won their party primaries, in some cases they could win their primary parties with more votes than candidates in other elections get at all. Also, all members of state legislatures are presumed notable, yet in most states they will be elected with lots few votes than would be earned by a major party nominee in a competitive district. Yet, as I said, news paper coverage alone is more substantial for nominees for US congress than for Miss Virginia USA winners (or any other state).John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:24, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In general it seems the main papers in states do not take note of who wins the state Miss USA title. However, guidelines of academics make it clear there are some types of titles on a national level that make someone notable that would not on a sub-national level. We do not general try and determine which nations and are are not worthy. Although if we go striaght GNG than it just means we have to get significant enough coverage. Put another way, just because someone is declared the winner of a beauty pageant in some country does not mean people there care. If the number of people who read of, watch or attend the national beauty pageant in Belgium were to exceed the number so involved in Brazil, than it would seem that the winner is more notable even though Brazil has way more people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:20, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are zillions of things most people don't care about but still pass GNG. p b p 03:42, 1 September 2016 (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:17, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3dcart

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

Article exists for publicity purposes. Most sources are primary sources (interview on techli.com, numerous press releases on PRweb and BusinessWire). The only bona-fide reliable source might be PCMag, but that's just a brief mention in a larger list, as is the toptenreviews source. The merchantmaverick source is basically an infomercial. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:24, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:52, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:52, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- while the article is basically an advertorial, I'm seeing some sources via Google books, for example in E-commerce Platform Acceptance: Suppliers, Retailers, and Consumers. This is published by Springer Publishing so should be RS. Another book mention: Fashion Retailing: A Multi-Channel Approach. Further input on sources would be welcome. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Additional sources added to "Further Reading" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liarakrios (talk • contribs) 14:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I checked a few of the sources in Further Reading - all trivial mentions so far. - MrOllie (talk) 16:40, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I checked all 18 of the further reading sources too just now, and ended up removing all but three. I removed the book sources because they don't provide coverage of the company, but rather the product. And even then, I don't see that as significant coverage in the context of a larger book. Of the three I kept, one is an interview (primary source) but the other two are detailed reviews (of the product, not the company). I don't know if those sources are considered reliable though.

Possibly the article could be recast as an article about the product than the company? ~Amatulić (talk) 18:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 12:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete - this is substantially promotional - David Gerard (talk) 10:18, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on second thoughts. I minor e-commerse company with a marginally notable (?) product. Coverage insufficient to meet CORPDEPTH and GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advertising. Coverage insufficient to meet WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. The Banner talk 19:52, 31 August 2016 (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 publication may be notable, but the journalist does not seem to be according to the discussion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:13, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Allyn Malventano

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

Appears to be someone doing her job, but doesn't seem to meet the WP:JOURNALIST criteria. Twitter and her work page are insufficient sources, and the TWiT link doesn't actually mention her. A search did not find much of anything to meet WP:GNG. GAB^gab 15:20, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not meet WP:GNG. ubiquity (talk) 16:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Technology journalist Allyn Malventano's Internet (Google) presence is centered on one online publication: PC Perspective.
A search on "PC Perspective" shows that the publication, PC Perspective, has many (hundreds of) times more citations than Allyn Malventano (journalist), specifically.

Therefore, PC Perspective (publication) has more search prevalence than Allyn Malventano (journalist). It stands to reason that PC Perspective (presently not on Wikipedia), as a publication, should exist on Wikipedia before Allyn Malventano as primarily an author/contributor of the publication. Rblaettner (talk) 18:30, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 12:26, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a non notable journalist working for an non-notable outlet. Sources are insufficient to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:03, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:05, 28 August 2016 (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, there is a split on whether her only award is notable, and hence whether she passes PORNBIO. The award is relatively new, and it would be reasonable to repeat this nomination in several years to see whether there have been any changes.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:01, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Karla Lane

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No qualifying awards or nominations. No independent reliable sourcing. No non-trivial biographical content. "BBW Performer of the Year" is a recently created, little-noted niche award which fails the well-known/significant guideline standard. Even if this were to get a technical, tenuous PORNBIO pass, that is outweighed by the utter failure to even remotely approach meeting the GNG. PROD removed with inapposite edit summary but without article improvement. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:54, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable figure in the pronographic industry.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:39, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets of PORNBIO, won of AVN Award. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 22:18, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:PORNBIO#1 with AVN BBW Performer of the Year Award, which is a well-known/significant industry award that is not a scene-related/ensemble category. The award is also proof that she meets PORNBIO#2, ("Has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre"). Rebecca1990 (talk) 23:49, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yawn...yet another one of the nom's WP:IJDLI porn-related AfDs. Anyway, the other two keep !voters have already explained why this should be kept, but to add, I'll also point out that the admin who originally deleted this article did not object to its re-creation. (SN: If the nom tries to respond with one of his usual threats in all bold text, he's just wasting his time (sorry, bullies don't phase me).) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 02:28, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete Seriously? The proporn fan club are really flexing their .. er .. muscles.. to claim this one. fails GNG yet they expect a niche award like this to allow a shit sourced BLP. No thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:45, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:BLP, as being an article about a living person with no reliable sources. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 22:03, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. PORNBIO does not carry as much weight as most notability guidelines; as with the other additional BIO criteria, it's closer to a notability suggestion. See WP:BIO § Additional criteria ("[M]eeting one or more [of the additional criteria] does not guarantee that a subject should be included."). The additional criteria are helpful shortcuts in most cases: when notability under WP:BASIC (or GNG) is plausible but disputed; but they should not be used to find notability where notability is clearly absent.
Here, the available coverage in reliable sources does not come close to meeting BASIC or satisfying the reasons for the notability requirement; thus, the article may not be retained. I will reconsider my vote if anyone can point to specific sources that satisfy BASIC or GNG that I may have overlooked in my BEFORE.
Also, I don't accept the suggestion that winning AVN's BBW Performer of the Year award proves that the subject "[h]as made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre." The award is going to go to someone whether the recipient's contributions are unique or merely the best that happened in a particular year. The rest of point 2 elucidates what a "unique contribution" likely entails: "beginning a trend in pornography; starr[ing] in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature; or [being] a member of an industry [h]all of [f]ame . . . ." Rebb ing 22:54, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- But the point you're missing is that she does pass PORNBIO. She doesn't have to pass PORNBIO and an additional guideline. Another argument that a lot of the "delete" !voters seem to be making is that the award she won hasn't been around for very long. Even if that were true, I don't recall ever seeing a discussion where consensus was made than an award has to have been around for a certain amount of time for it to be notable. If there is such a discussion, someone please direct me to it. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 09:05, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, I didn't miss that point. Perhaps I should have been clearer, but my vote implicitly assumed that the subject meets PORNBIO. PORNBIO is a notability suggestion, not a notability guideline; by BIO's own words, it comes with caveats that BIO does not have: "[M]eeting one or more [of the additional criteria] does not guarantee that a subject should be included."
    The additional criteria are useful in mine run cases where notability is unclear: they let us sidestep researching and arguing about whether a particular set of sources provides sufficient significant coverage. But, per NRVE and the disclaimer accompanying the additional criteria and with support from the reasoning given in WHYN, the additional criteria like PORNBIO should not be used to find notability in unusual cases like this where notability under BIO is very clearly lacking.
    I'm not sure which votes you're referring to, but I agree that an award's longevity isn't relevant under PORNBIO point 1; what's relevant is whether or not that specific award (and not the organization that granted it) is a "well-known and significant industry award." Rebb ing 09:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Plus, how could it be that the award itself is notable but the individual who won it isn't? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 09:28, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not sure what this has to do with my vote, but, as a general comment, notability isn't usually inherited. An award can be notable without each of its recipients being notable. Cf. WP:NOTINHERIT; WP:BLP1E. Based on an examination of the article and a little research, I also find dubious the proposition that the AVN Award for BBW Performer of the Year is notable, but that's a conversation for another day. Rebb ing 09:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - PORNBIO is a notability "suggestion"? The last time I checked, it was indeed a guideline. And as for WP:NOTINHERITED, well, that's not exactly how that clause works; besides, you'll notice that it doesn't mention awards (in addition, NOTINHERITED isn't a guideline). Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 09:32, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm not sure why you persist in ignoring what I've said and raising irrelevant issues. By its own terms, meeting PORNBIO "does not guarantee that a subject should be included." I have explained, based on our guidelines, why, even accepting that the subject meets PORNBIO, she is not notable. If you're not going to engage with what I said and cited in my vote and what I clarified in response to your questions, you shouldn't bother replying. Furthermore, your incredulity that "the award itself is notable but the individual who won it isn't" has no bearing on this discussion or my vote and is patently ridiculous to boot, as '157 succinctly showed. Rebb ing 09:56, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        What exactly am I ignoring? I'm even quoting everything you said yourself. And you seem to be trying to invoke WP:IAR here, which is pretty much a cop-out. But you appear to be more interested in battling than anything else, so I think I'm done with you. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 09:57, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        You've ignored the fact that my argument implicitly accepted that the subject meets PORNBIO. You've ignored the fact that the introductory notes to WP:BIO § Additional criteria state that meeting PORNBIO, while suggestive of notability, does not guarantee it. You've ignored the fact that my argument is explicitly predicated on the text of the guidelines and not IAR. You've raised the wholly irrelevant and laughably frivolous argument that, because the BBW Performer of the Year Award is (according to you) notable, it would be unreasonable not to find every one of its recipients to be notable. And now, after I've refuted your repeated bludgeoning, you say I'm the one looking for a battle and that my vote is a cop-out‽ If anything, your vote and comments here, in related AFDs, and at WT:BIO make clear that you are on a crusade to defend pornographic biographies—not to impartially evaluate notability. My only interest is in faithfully applying our notability guidelines, which I interpret, when possible, with special concern for the explanations given for them in WP:N, especially WP:WHYN and WP:NRVE. Rebb ing 11:42, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Check out who opened the AfDs for Alison Tyler and Alina Li and then ask again if I'm defending all porn bios. But you just reiterated again that Miss Lane passes PORNBIO, so...thanks, actually. Now, back to our regularly scheduled programming... Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 09:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - An award being notable certainly doesn't make all of its recipients notable. As a child I received a Blue Peter badge, a very notable award, but I am not notable. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 09:54, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - You know perfectly well, Erpert. There are many notable awards -- Rhodes Scholarships, British crown honors, militaty medals are prominent examples -- where the awards and awardgivers are notable, but individual recipients aren't necessarily, or even presumptively notable. Both PORNBIO and the more general ANYBIO use the more restrictive "well-known"/"significant" standard. The more lenient "notable award" standard was removed from both guidelines, by strong consensus, years ago. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:18, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't think this meets the WP:GNG as stated above. -- Dane2007 ^talk 19:20, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep automatically notable because she meets WP:PORNBIO #1 - "Has won a well-known and significant industry award." The AVN award easily qualifies. I notice that the delete votes basically echo the theme stated by Spartaz above: "The proporn fan club are really flexing their .. er .. muscles.. to claim this one" - being anti-porn is not a good reason to support the deletion of an article, sorry. ArchieOof (talk) 22:13, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a nice straw man you've built there. In recent memory, I voted to keep a pornographic performer's biography based on the her work's likely influence on a film I'd seen. Watching enough porn to be able to cite it at AFD is hardly "anti-porn." Turning to the merits, you'll see most of us did not use variations of Spartaz's vote, and, if you'll look at the section of BIO where PORNBIO is found, you'll read that meeting PORNBIO "does not guarantee that a subject should be included," so your claim that the subject is "automatically notable" is contrary to the guidelines. Rebb ing 10:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than seeing the subject as "automatically notable", percieve "Pornbio" as suggested criteria that can help push the subject over the line if it is a borderline case. This clearly not a borderline case, as has been shown above, and now below. Also, "Pornbio" can be seen as an entryway into the possibility of being notable. And labeling Ivotes that don't agree with your sentiments as "anti-porn" does nothing to shore-up your argument. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:16, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 12:25, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per archieoofPwolit iets (talk) 11:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- there's insufficient coverage in RS to satisfy GNG. No award makes a person "automatically notable" -- this is not how GNG and PORNBIO work. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:58, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, when it comes to pornographic actors, that's exactly how PORNBIO works when the award is notable. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 13:18, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is not, and Erpert knows full well it's not. There's no exception for PORNBIO in WP:PEOPLE's express language that meeting an SNG "does not guarantee that a subject should be included". And the PORNBIO standard for awards is "well-known and significant", not "notable"; that higher standard was adopted by consensus long ago. Erpert may be willing to deliberately misstate applicable guidelines and standards to defends an article he created himself, but that just demonstrates that his opinions/arguments should be given no weight. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:00, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Swimming past the bait... Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 16:03, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commment: "that's exactly how PORNBIO works when the award is notable..." that's not how PORNBIO is worded. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:43, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I said that's how it works. Anyone who wants to read the guideline verbatim can just, well, read it. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 21:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We are unable to determine the significance of this BBW award, because there appears to be no significant independent coverage of this award in reliable sources. The Wikipedia page itself "AVN Award for BBW Performer of the Year" has nine sources that are AVN press releases, and one "Fleshpot" reference, which is not a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. In fact, it is a porn industry mouthpiece.

In any case, the outcome is - this is pretty much an end-around - resulting in circumventing GNG, BLP, or ANYBIO based on the following argument: We have a Wikipedia article therefore this award is notable, therefore this performer is notable for having received this award. Except this award is not notable per ~~WP:V~~ WP:NRV and WP:WHYN. And notability is not inherited (if the award were notable). Additionally, this shows once again that Wikipedia is not to be considered a reliable source.

Furthermore, the AVN Awards as a ceremony might be notable, but the awards themselves usually do not receive significant coverage in multiple reliable sources - as is the case here. In particular, the references in the BBW Performer of the Year article pertain to the AVN awards ceremony, where awards and awardees receive only passing mention in these promotional materials - never mind mainstream reliable sources. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:18, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How are the sources in the article not reliable? And the individual awards having to have multiple instances of mainstream coverage has never been a requirement (mainstream coverage would help if the actor didn't pass notability any other way; like, say, Charlotte Stokely or Kelly Shibari). Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 13:18, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that the two articles mentioned above would meet Wiki's notability guidelines; I tagged them both as such. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How are the sources not reliable? Of the three sources with nontrivial biographical content, two are press releases/PR copy and the third is a promotional interview from a site ("Porn Corporation", very NSFW) with no reputation for accuracy or fact-checking. The only likely independent, reliable source in the article, a Daily Dot piece, says next to nothing about Karla Lane, but does report that the AVN Award she received "didn’t include an actual trophy or any stage time. At the annual show, BBW is one of several category awards—along with MILF, BDSM, and most of the transsexual awards—that is not presented during the ceremony". If the awardgiver treats the award so dismissively, it's clear it doesn't view the award as significant, and there's no legitimate argument that anyone else should. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:56, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The notion that the AVN Award ceremony doesn't view the award as significant simply because the award wasn't shown in the broadcast is your own opinion. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 10:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not my opinion, since that's not at all what I said. Deliberately misrepresenting the statements of editors you disagree with is dishonest and disruptive. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 11:54, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, the "dishonest and disruptive" excuse again. That's still not going to work. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...}

That is not merely anyone's opinion. The article clearly demonstrates that AVN does not think this award has any significance, because the "AVN Award she received 'didn’t include an actual trophy or any stage time"'. Misattribution to an editor's "personal opinion" while linked to WP:SYN, as in this case, is a personal attack. And implying or stating another editor is engaged in baiting other editors, which you have done twice in this AfD, is another form of personal attack. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And the article demonstrates this how? (BTW, my being called disruptive and in turn not giving in is a personal attack? Yeah, good luck with that one.) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 21:41, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good job in seeming to not get the point, on how this article demonstrates AVN does not think this award has any signifigance. Also, I am not seeing where you were not giving in. You followed being described as disruptive with an indication that you were being baited. All I have to do is hover over the words "That's still not going to work" to see these are linked to WP:BAIT - which is the second time pertaining to the same editor. I am not seeing any supposed altruism with that reply. Steve Quinn (talk) 22:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That didn't actually answer my question. But returning to the discussion...actually, why is this even still open? It's been over two weeks. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 22:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While many of the AVN Awards are notable, I'm not convinced the relatively new "BBW Performer of the Year" meets the PORNBIO standard "well-known and significant industry award" currently. She also doesn't currently meet the GNG. Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 18:26, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above Keep arguments. Plus she averages 150 pageviews a day (an unofficial sign she's notable).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:23, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for an AVN Performer Award. That this award is new might be because her niche is propably quite new. However, the Award is just like other AVN Performer of the Year Awards, the Female Performer of the Year Award being their prototype. It should not be too hard to notice that it is the highest honour an oversized performer could ever get. In other words from all oversized performers out there, she's one of only 2 or 3 that will get noticed. So writing an article for one of the few popular BBW stars would just make sense for me. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 16:19, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to pass GNG. Also laughable that a BBW is described as 'niche' though ;) Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:36, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sourcing, searches fail to support notability. that award looks very minor, and is not supported by the kind of secondary sources that major awards have in any field.14:28, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. A redirect is probably a matter of editorial decision here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:14, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Albinuța

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

Unreferenced article since 2007. Probably non-notable subject. XXN, 12:19, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:04, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:04, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- redirect to the parent company Louis Delhaize Group. This article is in a poor state, but the parent company may be notable. Otherwise, [Albinuța is not independently notable. I cannot find sufficient RS to meet GNG and CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete entirely as I frankly consider this A7, there's no inherited notability from the parent company itself. SwisterTwister talk 05:35, 26 August 2016 (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. List has unclear criterion for inclusion -- RoySmith (talk) 11:58, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of eCommerce companies in India

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

Random list of eCommerce companies in India. The sources discuss market statistics, but give no indication that such a list is notable per WP:LISTN. The list does nothing that is not already accomplished by Category:E-commerce in India. - Mr X 11:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:05, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:05, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:05, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete is listcruft / OR with unclear criterion for inclusion -- who decides which company is notable? K.e.coffman (talk) 03:04, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- In this context it means WP:N; which companies have or merit articles. That's a standard limiting criteria for lists. At best that term should be removed from the header as a WP:SELFREF, but it's not inappropriate or OR to use for inclusion guidance. postdlf (talk) 18:20, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The problem isn't duplication of a category (see WP:NOTDUP), and I don't know what the nominator means by asking if the "list is notable", as the list is merely a presentation format for information, not the subject. I'd instead like to see discussion on whether "eCommerce company" is a meaningful grouping. Category:E-commerce in India is the closest thing to a complementary category, but is named like a topic rather than a group, and is also the only category in Category:E-commerce by country. There is no Category:E-commerce companies structure. postdlf (talk) 18:20, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:E-commerce in India contains several companies, so it's inclusion criteria is ambiguous. I think a common sense interpretation of WP:NOTDUP is necessary. A list with entries that have no additional context, and no inclusion criteria is no more helpful to our readers than a category. WP:LISTN says "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". This is such a broad, indiscriminate list that it serves little purpose. As far as I know, no one has thought it good idea to create a list of ecommerce companies for all the other countries on the planet. - Mr X 19:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a article which doesnt make any sense , nobody can decide which company is notable and which is not. This page has no authentication or any thing which proves is to be right. Mufaddal —Preceding undated comment added 11:34, 30 August 2016 (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:14, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

InteriorsInfo

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

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

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

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

Article about a company. Sources include press releases, routine business listings and the companies website. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. - Mr X 11:42, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:51, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:51, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:51, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a non-notable web site. Searches turn up virtually no 3rd party sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:39, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep InteriorsInfo.com is a growing website ,and is popular in Mumbai,Indian. It has more then 5000 Registered Vendors. InteriorsInfo has a registered office which is registered in ministry of corporate affairs for this reference it can be checked on its official website of Ministry Of Corporate Affairs that is http://www.mca.gov.in/mcafoportal/checkLLPName.do . InteriorsInfo is a growing brand which is active in many things such as events, workshops and other promotional activities , This page doesnt promote the brand it is helping the users who want to know about InteriorsInfo the right guide — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.209.36.137 (talk) 07:26, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is not the claim, but it is definately the "First Interiors Information Website In India" ,the name has a trademark (tm) and there is no such other portal in india which provides information exclusively for Interiors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.209.36.137 (talk) 06:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no RSes, blatantly promotional language, this is just spam - David Gerard (talk) 09:52, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I frankly consider this speedy material if not for the thin claim of "first". SwisterTwister talk 20:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This company is a verified company and is registered with ministry of corporate affairs (India), can check on the ministry's website as earlier a wiki user said on this page, InteriorsInfo is not a fake account , It is genuine ^[1]. It even has a Application which is verified by Apple ,or else it wouldn't let it upload it ,if it were not genuine ^[2],On zauba.org (an authentic source of information about registered companies) you will find out all company details^[3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devilcrew7 (talk • contribs) 06:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC) — Devilcrew7 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

References

^ InteriorsInfo.com/aboutus.aspx
^ https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/id1006569794
^ https://www.zaubacorp.com/company/INTERIORSINFO-E-COMMERCE-LLP/AAC-6600

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. Uninvolved admin deleted it as A10 speedy. (non-admin closure) Savonneux (talk) 05:16, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Breastlight

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

I am nominating for these reasons: 1 and 2

The article is clever tactic to promote the equipment Breastlight. The article doesn't stae any new idea which is not covered in Breast cancer awareness, Breast cancer screening, Breast cancer management and Risk factors for breast cancer.

This article would be an implausible redirect to any article. For which I propose delete. --Marvellous Spider-Man 04:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The links provided by the nominator don't constitute a valid reason for deletion, but do provide a warning that we need WP:MEDRS-compliant sources for an article on this product, although currently this is an advocacy piece about breast screening in general rather than an article about the product named in the title. Google Scholar finds a few studies of the efficacy of Breastlight, but no secondary sources such as review articles. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 11:45, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This nomination doesn't include any rationale for deletion and will probably be closed if you don't add one. I'm not against deleting this article as it was already deleted as a speedy G11 log (nominated by myself) yesterday.--Savonneux (talk) 12:12, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator didn't provide a valid reason for deletion, but I did. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 13:04, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Close No policy reason stated by nom. UW Dawgs (talk) 22:49, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But, as I said immediately above your comment, I had already provided a valid deletion reason before you commented (and the nominator has also now, after your comment, provided a deletion rationale). If this is procedurally closed then it will only be immediately restarted, so let's drop the wikilawyering and discuss the substantive issue. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:23, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anatoly I. Gozhenko

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

There is some notability, but in it's current form the article is not readable and written like a resume letter with no proper sources. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:47, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:47, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:47, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yeah, what can one say here... The information given in the article is probably correct, even if it is mainly sourced to a primary source associated with the subject (the official page at the institute where he works). So one could argue that there is a formal case for satisfying this or that criterion of WP:PROF here. However, the citability data is extremely low, both in English[23] and even, perhaps more importantly and more tellingly, in Russian [24], particularly for someone, who, according to the text of the article, has had such a long and prolific scientific career. This tells me that we are basically dealing with a walled garden situation, most likely by choice, where the subject's work is almost completely unknown outside of Ukraine, including even in Russia, and where most of his work was published in highly obscure venues and remained largely unnoticed. I don't believe that these kind of cases can be considered as passing WP:PROF, which does require evidence of making a broad impact on a particular field of study. It may be that one can make a case here for passing WP:GNG, but I could not find evidence of that myself. Nsk92 (talk) 23:27, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seemingly a footnote scholar outside his regional walled garden. I don't think he can meet notability due to his research, but there is a chance he could do this based on awards/membership in some academies/etc. But the article only states he got a presidential award "In 1998 by Presidential Decree prof. Gozhenko was awarded the honorary title "Honored Worker of Science of Ukraine» ". How important is that award this is not something I can answer, as majority sources are in Ukrainian. Presidential awards can be significant, or can be dime a dozen... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Given the lack of evidence of academic impact of his works (e.g. low citation counts in Google scholar), all we have to fall back on is the "honored worker" claim. But in the absence of reliable third-party sourcing that would put that claim into context, I think it's not enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:09, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 11:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Black XXX-Mas

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

Does not meet WP:NFP or other other evidence of notability for films. Source searches are only providing passing mentions, such as these: [25], [26]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 16:49, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:22, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There seem to be more substantial hits. For example, The Enchanted Screen: The Unknown History of Fairy-Tale Films by Jack Zipes and published by Routledge, which dedicates most of one page and perhaps more (difficult to tell with Google Books sometimes). It also seemed to attract some attention in the Belgian media: [27] from De Standaard and [28] from De Morgen. There's also a review from Film Threat listed at the IMDb, but I can't get it to load at archive.org. I hate how the IMDb encodes external links; it makes everything much harder than necessary when they go dead. This is a very brief review, but there's also [29] from DVD Talk. Normally, capsule reviews are discounted by WP:NFILM, but I think we need to consider the context of the film's 11-minute runtime. It seems kind of borderline, but I'm falling on the "keep" side because it seems likely from the amount of trivial mentions on Google Books that there's additional coverage in offline sources. For example, this book calls it controversial. If that controversy was enough to be mentioned in passing, it seems entirely likely that other sources have dedicated more space to it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:17, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mayang Agrofarm

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

Non-notable farm. The sources in the article include a blog, which is not reliable; and a dead reference that leads to link rot. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:12, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This fails WP:NCORP. The only sources available are a blog and a facebook page presumably controlled by the organisation. I don't see any other mention in third party sources. Accordingly, delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:49, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Does not meet WP:GNG / WP:CORPDEPTH, as per several source searches. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO; this is unambiguous advertising. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:50, 31 August 2016 (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. To be frank, the page's contents just do not make any sense at all as a serious encyclopedia article, and it is much the same with the "keep" arguments here. Sandstein 18:33, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trumperism

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

Appears to fail WP:NEO. Google search returns mostly hashtags, and it the term doesn't appear to be used in reliable sources. Even if there were WP:RS, I'm not sure if it would belong here or on Wiktionary. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:01, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This reads more like an essay that an encyclopedia entry. Phrases like "the take over of the Republican Party by the Alt-Right blogosphere" and "talking heads", the bolding of an entire sentence, and the complete lack of citations render it unencyclopedic. Tigercompanion25 (talk) 04:30, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not sure this word even qualifies as a neologism, much less one that should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. It garners a grand total of zero Google News hits. The more regularly formed term for Donald Trump's ideology is "Trumpism", which garners a lot more Google News hits, but which is already a redirect to Political positions of Donald Trump. If anyone can find a politician whose surname is Trumper, then maybe we can apply the term "Trumperism" to that person's ideology instead. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:33, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The concerns expressed above refer to statements that don't seem to be in the content. Perhaps they have been deleted. We would contend that the term Trumper is being used to describe people who follow Trump, and that the ideals laid out during Trump's campaigning process will most likely outlive the candidate's run, and even the candidate himself, we think Trumperism is gonna be a thing - is a thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.94.242.110 (talk) 08:04, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have serious doubts that this article, even if written properly and correctly sourced (the sources I looked through do not use 'trumperism' once), would belong on Wikipedia. PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do NOT Delete Google search on trumperism [30] uncovers "about 470 results." at this time, including a front page listing from April 13, 2011 [31] entitled "THE BURNED OVER DISTRICT: The birth of Trumperism From the pen of Pat Oliphant" which featured only one item - a cartoon done by the political cartoonist Pat Oliphant without comment. [32] In 1990, the New York Times described Pat Oliphant as "the most influential editorial cartoonist now working".[33] — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThePolicyGeek (talk • contribs) 13:15, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- As can be seen at [34] where the same Pat Oliphant cartoon was reprinted, Oliphant did not use the word "Trumperism" in his cartoon. Rather, a blogger known as "montag" put the heading "The birth of Trumperism" over the Oliphant cartoon when he reprinted it on his blog, The Burned Over District, at [35]. If the supporters of this article are trying to portray "Trumperism" as a concept distinct from "Trumpism" (the latter of which currently generates about 524,000 Google hits, much more than "Trumperism"), then they should provide sources that talk about how Trumperism is different from Trumpism. By the way, although some citations have been added to the article since this AfD began, many of them are just links to other Wikipedia articles which should have been entered as wikilinks instead. If that were done, the list of citations would be noticeably shorter. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just adding that 470 Google hits is not particularly a lot. I get 1,640 when I Google "narplot" which is a word I just made up and is certainly not notable. The 0 Google News hits speaks for itself, and to me as the nominator was one of the big reasons for the nomination, even though I didn't mention it there (thanks to Metroplitain for mentioning it.) TonyBallioni (talk) 01:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is this link that was in the entry. "Other political cartoonists, like Mark Kaufman of Drawmark posted a Cartoon entitled, "How I Spent My Summer: Trumperism"[36] in reference to Donald's Trump 2015 rallies leading up to his bid for the GOP Primary spot. It's not a made up word. Pretending "narplot" is a word is cute. Trumperism is an actual word. Perhaps the description is inartful. It's shown up consistently in blogs. This article mentions it in reference to the birtherism element of the political theory that Trumpers subscribe to.[37] On July 28, 2106 Blog Juanita Jean's used the term in her first sentence here [38]. The right scoop used the term in a piece on May 1, 2016 [39] Two Minute Politics used it in a blog on April 17, 2016[40]. GOP Lifer's blog used it Feb. 2, 2016 [41] There are a dozen more. They are not false hits.

The fifth estate is using it in detail. The Great American Balding Seagle Speaks used the term on August 19, 2016 [42]. [43] [44] tags the term Trumperism as a keyword and posted July 17, 2016. [45] [46]] which goes to that same website.

The term is being used in the common vernacular. Narplot. Outside sources cited. Wikipedia sources cited. Its an ism. Media source cited. ThePolicyGeek(talk) 10:42, 24 August 2016 (PST)

This doesn't address the issue that the word "Trumperism" is just a less common variant of the word "Trumpism", not a different (and supposedly notable) concept. I could find more and better sources that use the word "Trumpism": Politico.com, Bloomberg.com, The Atlantic, The Globe and Mail, The Week, Salon, The Wall Street Journal, Huffington Post, Irish Examiner, International Business Times, etc. We don't need an article about "Trumperism" unless it is both notable in itself and different from "Trumpism". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:50, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- A Trumpism is simply something that Trump has said. Trumperism seems to desrcibe the shocking nature of Donald Trump statements, [47][48], the nonapologetic way in which he delivers those statements [49], his widespread use of facts mixed with unproven facts [50][51][52][53], the pro-white and anti-minority views he expresses when discussing American minorities [54], and the way his supporters respond and act on those speeches. It would appear Trumperism is the style with which his believers act-out their support. Trumperism is less about the candidate, and more about the movement and beliefs his followers, in turn, espouse. [55][56][57][58][59] Democracy now ~~ LLieblein — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.94.242.110 (talk) 22:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that it is not a notable neologism ThePolicyGeek cited it as something in common vernacular, even if that were a criteria for inclusion (which it isn't) it isn't in common vernacular. It's an obscure term, that some people might use, but that the majority of people aren't using. Trumpism is a much more common term, and even then we don't have an article on it, but have it instead as a redirect to Political positions of Donald Trump. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- do not delete

(talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.94.242.110 (talk) 22:11, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-encyclopedic neologism. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 22:56, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NEO.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:57, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:17, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P. M. Jayatilaka

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

Fails WP:NACADEMIC and WP:ANYBIO. The subject's only notability is that he was a cricket player in high school and a principal at two high schools (only one of which is notable). The subject's sister (for which an article doesn't exist) is far more notable - in that she was the first female chancellor of a university. (WP:NOTINHERIT). Ref #1, #3 & #4 are all mentions in passing. Dan arndt (talk) 01:53, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A worthy citizen but notability not present. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:09, 18 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 03:48, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. School headmasters can sometimes be notable (more likely through WP:GNG than WP:PROF) but we don't have evidence for that in this case. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:17, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Arrellano

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

From what I can tell from the article it does not seem that Arrellano is notable as a boxer John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WP:GNG because of a lack of significant independent coverage. There's also no evidence he meets WP:NBOX as he hasn't fought for a NABO or higher title.Jakejr (talk) 00:54, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 03:45, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree he doesn't meet WP:NBOX and I didn't find enough to show GNG is met. Astudent0 (talk) 14:26, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks significant coverage. The article's only reference is a link to his fight record. Papaursa (talk) 00:05, 30 August 2016 (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 community is clearly still split about what to accept as indications of notability in the porn topic area, and this discussion reflects this. Sandstein 18:39, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abella Anderson

AfDs for this article:

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

Anderson is not notable as a pornographic actress or as a model. The awards she has won are not notable, and nominations for awards do not count for notability for pornographic performers. The article has been deleted twice in the past, and once survived as no consensus without any strong arguments for keeping it. John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:40, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:40, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:PORNBIO#1 with NightMoves Best New Starlet (Fan's Choice) award, which is well-known/significant and not scene-related/ensemble. In 2002, the St. Petersburg Times noted that the NightMoves Awards were "the third largest in the porn industry". Other porn industry award ceremonies held in 2002 include AVN, XRCO, Venus, and NINFA, which are all considered well-known/significant industry awards by consensus, satisfying PORNBIO ([60], [61], [62], [63], [64] & [65]). If at least two out of the four awards I've listed are smaller than NightMoves and still considered well-known/significant enough to meet PORNBIO, than NightMoves also satisfies PORNBIO. NightMoves is also the porn industry's third longest running awards show. Best New Starlet is a newcomer award, and those have overwhelming consensus favoring their inclusion in PORNBIO. Most participants at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keri Sable, a recipient of the exact same award, voted to keep the article. Three of the keep votes regarded her NightMoves win as a reason (one by me, the others "per Rebecca1990"). Anderson also passes PORNBIO#3, "Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media", for her roles in the film Clapping for the Wrong Reasons and the music video 3005 (song), appearances which have generated a lot of mainstream media coverage for her. The fact that all three of her award wins were fan voted is also evidence that she passes WP:ENTERTAINER#2 ("Has a large fan base"). Rebecca1990 (talk) 19:39, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited so these other awards have no relevance and do not transmit notability to anything else. Saying the other awards are "smaller" has no meaning and is imprecise and without context. That is POV.

I think the above editor needs to educate themselves on notability guidelines and policies rather than erecting a wall of irrelevant text. Also, where are the independent reliable sources that say she has a large fan base? And how large? This is conjecture and another POV statement. Steve Quinn (talk) 17:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets of WP:PORNBIO, won 3x individual awards. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 13:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - she has various individual awards (AVN-award is especially notable but Nightmoves is also notable enough), so she clears the hurdles set by WP:PORNBIO + on top of that she has some mainstream media appearances. -- fdewaele, 18 August 2016, 15:36 CET.
delete the third largest pile of bollocks in a pile of bollocks is still a pile of bollocks. Does this properly pass GNG? No. Then this fails. Any if you want to leave me a civility warning, you can shove that up the same pile of bollocks you are desperately referring to. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:48, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's not even an argument but just some inane rambling. -- fdewaele, 18 August 2016, 16:50 CET.

User:Fdewaele's statement is of course inaccurate. User:Spartaz said this obviously fails GNG - and of course it does fail. That's why there are these circumventing arguments above. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:29, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:ARTIST, WP:MODEL No significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. No noteworthy creative or artistic contribution to the film industry. She is of no historical significance. Not really an actress or actor in films or theater and no way to determine if she has a "cult" following because this is not noted in reliable sources - fails WP:ENTERTAINER.

Saying "Largest" is a nebulous word and has no meaning due to its inaccuracy and imprecision; especially in the context of an audience - and has no meaning in regards to the number of people watching the ceremony - that happens all the time her in the US from high school basketball, to professional baseball, to the National Football League. So, as an aside, she has not won significant film awards as denoted by the current WP:PORNBIO segment on the ~~WP:N~~ WP:BIO page. The NightMoves awards are not significant in this context, and pretty much a straw man. In fact, I can't find any mention of this award on a Google search and or on Google news - and this shows how insignificant these awards are.

Other AfDs (a linked by Rebecca1990) have no bearing on this AfD - and these do not confer Wikipedia wide consensus due to the small number of participants. Does anyone really think 5, 7, or 10 Ivotes changes policy or guidelines and so on? Only Wikipedia-wide RFCs result in Wikipedia-wide consensus. And citing other AfDs is WP:OTHERSTUFF exists. Regarding the Ken Sable AfD mentioned above - it may be that "keep" got the most votes but obviously "delete" had the better policy based arguments. I can't see how disregarding significant coverage in independent reliable sources is acceptable. Also, I agree that the above is simply piling on. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:29, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not seeing any sources that demonstrate she has won any of the awards mentioned in the first Ivote. Without reliable sources to back this up, these claims are simply blue wiki links and WP:OR. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:48, 19 August 2016 (UTC). An industry trade publication (vested interest) and the company produced publication, in the refs, which produces company announcements, are not independent reliable sources. Steve Quinn (talk) 17:21, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- trivial fan-based awards and fails GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:21, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The claimed awards are not substantial enough to outweigh the subject's failure to even approach meeting GNG requirements. "Fan" awards affiliated with more significant awards do not WP:INHERIT either notability or significance. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:36, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 22:02, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep THis one isn't even close. Multiple major industry awards automatically passes her under WP:PORNBIO #1. I notice the same anti-porn voters trying to eliminate a lot of porn actress pages; this must violate some kind of guideline. But that's off-topic. On topic: Anderson qualifies under Wikipedia guidelines as notable. Easily. ArchieOof (talk) 22:39, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "automatically passes" is not how Wikipedia's notability guidelines work, as I understand it. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Automatically passes" is a misunderstanding of the function of PORNBIO or winning an award. First, this award has not been determined to be significant, as it has no significant independent coverage in reliable sources - given that this is not the same as coverage of the AVN Awards in the aggregate, known as AVN Awards. PORNBIO is an indicator this person might be notable. Other criteria still have to be satisfied. For example, industry related promotional materials, her twitter account, and passing mention in articles about another topic, as the only coverage of this biography means it fails GNG and BIO. This means it falls short of (and is failing) BLP criteria which requires high quality sources, which these are not. I suppose a short hand way of saying all this is - sorry, but there is no such thing as automatic notability - it is a myth. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 03:26, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In general, the purpose of the special notability guidelines is to provide a tool for quickly determining when a topic is highly likely to have significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Accordingly, we tend to keep articles about Olympic athletes, state and provincial legislators and winners of major prizes like the Nobel, Pulitzer and MacArthur Fellowships because experience tells us that the reliable sources are almost certainly out there for these topics with an in-depth search. No significant coverage in reliable, independent sources have been uncovered for this person. Winning an award which is in itself marginally notable does not automatically confer notability on all its recipients. The sources are twitter, blogs, press releases about a third tier industry insider award, porn databases and so on. The current sources do not show notability. I am not an "anti-porn" editor, I have no moral objection to porn, and I want this encyclopedia to have biographies of actually notable porn performers. But PORNBIO is a failure because it encourages the creation of articles about non-notable porn performers. Every industry has internal trade publications, trade shows and insider back scratching awards. We do not need biographies of non-notable locksmiths, remodeling contractors, machine shop owners or porn performers, just because they might have won insignificant industry insider awards. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:32, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per rebecca1990 Pwolit iets (talk) 11:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think it's well established that in any field of endeavor,for WP purposes , best new whatever and the like is a polite way of saying "not yet notable, but might be some day" -- they're explicit an award for novices, regardless of field. "readers choice" awards similarly are usually not considered to shownw notability -- they're basically equivalent to Popular, which is explocitly not the same as Notable--in any field. (There may be some exceptions, but they need to be proven to be considered significant in each instance) DGG ( talk ) 01:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep rebecca1990 clearly show that WP:PORNBIO and I see no argument by the opposers that the article fails pornbio. --I am One of Many (talk) 11:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, AVN Awards are of course notable enough. Having been voted as the best of all webcamers is not really a downgrader, as well, but rather enlarging the basis of that category from the biggest prize in porn industry. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 01:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except that it's not an AVN Award, it's an AVN Fan Award, a recently contrived addition to their unending list of honorifics. As demonstrated by the Jayden Jaymes AFD a while back, and confirmed by an extensive DRV discussion, AVN Fan Awards do not demonstrate notability. As I pointed out in that AFD, ""AVN Award" gets nearly 600 GBooks hits. while "AVN Fan Award" gets only 2". The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 10:09, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First, this award has not been determined to be significant, as it has no significant independent coverage in reliable sources - given that this is not the same as coverage of the AVN Awards in the aggregate, known as AVN Awards. PORNBIO is an indicator this person might be notable. Other criteria still have to be satisfied. For example, industry related promotional materials, her twitter account, and passing mention in articles about another topic, as the only coverage of this biography means it fails GNG and BIO. This means it falls short of (and is failing) BLP criteria which requires high quality sources, which these are not. Steve Quinn (talk) 07:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:18, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Sisson

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

There's no inherent notability for underwater hockey players, and this year 12 student is certainly a very long way off from meeting WP:GNG. Schwede 66 03:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Schwede 66 03:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Schwede 66 03:33, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable sportsman, and close to being a man of a non-notable sport.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, people who represent their country in an adult team are generally considered notable, but in an U18 team are not. I'm also not seeing any sources that would justify an article.-gadfium 02:09, 28 August 2016 (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) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 04:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jitendra Mishra

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

I still confirm what I said with my PROD, he only actually made 2 films but none of that suggests actual independent notability, he then mainly seems to be a consultant and distributor. SwisterTwister talk 15:43, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- One of the two films, that he made, has won Filmfare Awards and National Film Awards, I believe these two awards are the most prestigious awards of Indian cinemas. Seems to pass at 4th criteria of WP:FILMMAKER. Hitro talk 16:02, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:36, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- To add another point : Currently he is promoting more than 100 meaningful films from India which is one of the biggest No in the category. He has also designed and has been hosting a film festival *Smile International Film Festival in New Delhi with an intention to promote meaningful films made for children & youth and committed towards producing at least one such film in a year. If that helps his notability.Dorothy.deb (talk) 19:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:19, 23 August 2016 (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yusuke Hatano

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

Notability problems. No reliable independent sources with significant coverage. Google News search returns no hits [66]. Vanjagenije (talk) 07:28, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:30, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:30, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since I cannot find any substantive coverage, but I could be persuaded if anybody could do a sweep for sources in Japanese. Vanamonde (talk) 07:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Based on the article as it now stands, subject seems to be involved in a number of fairly high profile projects. Where the article falls short is in demonstrating the extent and the importance of his involvement. That said, I would be reluctant to scrap it outright if it could be improved (perhaps by someone with access to the relevant Japanese or Chinese-language sources). Tigercompanion25 (talk) 04:16, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:18, 23 August 2016 (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:10, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alabi Hassan Olajoku

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

Non-notable businessman and politician Marvellous Spider-Man (talk) 07:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you expand your Google search beyond "news", this is one of the first sources that comes up. Having a park named after him suggests that there may be some notability somewhere, so perhaps there's more. It's not a good article, but that in itself is not a reason to delete. --Randykitty (talk) 08:52, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another source. --Randykitty (talk) 08:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Some notability", "perhaps notable" is not WP:GNG. Marvellous Spider-Man (talk) 14:15, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was, albeit admittedly rather obliquely, referring to WP:BEFORE... If I can come up with 2 sources like this in literally 30 sec, I don't exclude there's more. I don't feel like spending more time on this, so I did not do that searching (nad hence didn't !vote), but strongly suggest you have another look at this. --Randykitty (talk) 14:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If this politician has actually won any election which can be verified through reliable sources, then it can be kept. Now I have read WP:POLITICIAN and WP:SIGCOV and Lagos is big city 1, 2. So they have many reliable newspapers with online versions Category:Nigerian news websites, Category:Newspapers published in Nigeria and Category:Nigerian websites. So if this guy is notable he would have been covered in few of these reliable Nigerian sources. And google news Nigeria has some mention about his death. Marvellous Spider-Man (talk) 14:41, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unremarkable politician who fails WP:GNG. Google results only come up with his death and the park named after him expect maybe this which is a sort of COI. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 21:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- fails GNG per available sources; I'm only finding a brief mention here about his death. BTW, he's discussed there as a businessman and a financial backer, not a politician. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing here is actually amounting to convincing notability and substance. SwisterTwister talk 06:48, 26 August 2016 (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. Uncontested. Sandstein 18:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blogtronix

AfDs for this article:

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

Notability: significant RS coverage cannot be found; advertorial content. The article was nominated for deletion in 2010 and the result was "keep" but sourcing is still insufficient to establish notability. Company is currently known as Sharetronix. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:07, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:07, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:07, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I would've PROded instead because this is all still not convincing, substantial or anything actually better at all; there's essentially nothing outstanding here. SwisterTwister talk 03:01, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:01, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:23, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Game Creators. Nothing sourced to merge, but feel free to take from the page history. czar 03:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DarkBASIC

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

No third-party references since creation in 2004, promotional tone, defunct software so new RSes very unlikely. I PRODed it, an IP removed the PROD without addressing any of the issues. Disconcertingly, I'm having trouble finding even unreliable sources that aren't primary, let alone reliable ones. The related article DarkBASIC Professional is also at AFD. David Gerard (talk) 08:30, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 08:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 08:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Should be merged into article The Game Creators, see Draft:The Game Creators. Jonpatterns (talk) 10:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- So far that draft is similarly short on RSes ... but yeah, that would be a good place - David Gerard (talk) 12:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think there is enough sources for one article covering The Game Creators and their products. It would take a bit of work to put together though. Jonpatterns (talk) 14:18, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nothing stopping you copying these into the draft while digesting them :-) - David Gerard (talk) 18:52, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:13, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into The Game Creators if the studio is notable enough for an article, otherwise Delete.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:36, 25 August 2016 (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. sufficient consensus despite limited participation DGG ( talk ) 01:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Molluscophobia

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

Yet another specific phobia with no medical sourcing, lacking even the usual boilerplate. Mangoe (talk) 14:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I have recategorized it as a zoophobia. However, my keep is weak because I did not find sufficiewt sources to substantiate this article as notable. Laatmedaar (talk) 07:13, 16 August 2016 (UTC) Struck !vote by blocked sockpuppet — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:42, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:DICTDEF. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:52, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:12, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:MEDRS--Savonneux (talk) 12:30, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is clear after relist. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Reisch

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

He's a record producer and won a local award. Few sources even to show his studio is notable. Nothing for him unless somehow winning a local award makes a person notable. John from Idegon (talk) 15:26, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable record producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:10, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:10, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this is coming close to establishing independent notability and substance. 06:26, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Delete -- no indications of notability and local coverage only. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:09, 27 August 2016 (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. No prejudice against redirecting to Miss Iowa USA but I didn't see a clear consensus for that. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:15, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joy Robinson

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

Robinson's only claim close to fame is being Miss Iowa USA, but this alone is not enough to establish notability. Our one source is a bio from the Miss USA organization. Robinson's later work as a model is no where near enough to make her notable John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:51, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:51, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:51, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Iowa USA; valid search term. Cursory source searches are not providing coverage to qualify an article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:52, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 ^talk 02:23, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO1E, which is rather minor (not even Miss Iowa). Does not meet ANYBIO1 and coverage is insufficient to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:13, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Discussion about notability guidelines has already started on the Talk page for the Beauty Pageant project. No harm will be done by closing this nomination as "keep" and letting the project-level discussion take its course. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:59, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 03:09, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The discussion on pageant winners' notability is taking place here: RFC on creation of consensus standard, with participants variously advocating that (1) state level winners are not presumed notable, (2) state-level winners are not presumed non-notable; or (3) a special guideline is unnecessary, and that GNG should be used. There's an overlap between the these three positions. There aren't really voices for "state-level winners are always presumed notable" so I don't think the outcome of the discussion, if any, would have an impact on this AfD, which is trying to establish whether the subject meets GNG. Thus it may not make sense to suspend the AfD process for this nomination.

The question become whether to delete or redirect this article. I advocate deletion for two reasons: (1) maintaining a BLP on a non-notable person is a potential invasion of privacy and opens up the article to vandalism; (2) the redirect assumes that the person would never be notable for anything else, which I've seen elsewhere described as "insulting". :-) K.e.coffman (talk) 03:44, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect as per NorthAmerica. I didn't find much -- problem is her name is rather common.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:37, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I looked for sources, but all I could find was this--certainly not enough for GNG, and per K.e.coffman's summary, that at minimum, subnational pageant wins are not enough to presume notability without sourcing. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to My searches fail to show that is notable beyond being named Miss Iowa USA, and her name is already on that page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - no significant, in-depth coverage from reliable, third-party sources. No objection to a redirect if desired. Neutrality^talk 19:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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. Clear consensus to delete. Regarding the ongoing RFC, my suggestion would be to make a note of this title, and wait for the RFC to finish. If it turns out that the emerging standard would have resulted in this AfD ending differently, there's always WP:DRV. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:36, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mia Heaston

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

The alleged fact that she was the first African-American to win the Miss Illinois USA title might be enough to make her notable, but I don't think it is. Even more so because it seems no newspaper in Illinois cared that she won the title at all. The only people who seem to have cared were newspapers connected with either her hometown in Tennessee or the place she had gone to college.John Pack Lambert John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:46, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Illinois USA as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there as the 2007 winner. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:02, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 ^talk 02:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- non notable pageant contestant. If and when the subject becomes independently notable then an article can be created. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:25, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Discussion about notability guidelines has already started on the Talk page for the Beauty Pageant project. No harm will be done by closing this nomination as "keep" and letting the project-level discussion take its course. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:58, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 03:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The discussion on pageant winners' notability is taking place here: RFC on creation of consensus standard, with participants variously advocating that (1) state level winners are not presumed notable, (2) state-level winners are not presumed non-notable; or (3) a special guideline is unnecessary, and that GNG should be used. There's an overlap between the these three positions. There aren't really voices for "state-level winners are always presumed notable" so I don't think the outcome of the discussion, if any, would have an impact on this AfD, which is trying to establish whether the subject meets GNG. Thus it may not make sense to suspend the AfD process for this nomination.

The question become whether to delete or redirect this article. I advocate deletion for two reasons: (1) maintaining a BLP on a non-notable person is a potential invasion of privacy; (2) the redirect assumes that the person would never be notable for anything else, which I've seen elsewhere described as "insulting". :-) K.e.coffman (talk) 03:46, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm often a defender of the usefulness of local sources, but the campus newspaper at someone's alma mater is very definitely not an independent source, and beyond that I don't think this subject has anything close to enough coverage to write a balanced entry. (Frankly the absence is rather striking but until we have a secondary source commenting on that...) I agree with K.e.coffman's concerns about privacy and redirect--thanks KEC for bringing it up as the redirect problem wouldn't've occurred to me, but now that you mention it, I agree it's better avoided in this instance. Searching WP for "Mia Heaston" will still bring up her name in the list of winners on that pageant's page, which is the better way to account for the info that she won--as a matter of due weight, is one way to put it. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:03, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per KEC's and Innisfree98's analysis. Even assuming that a student newspaper can be considered independent/third-party/reliable, the coverage is still routine and run-of-the-mill; doesn't constitute significant, in-depth coverage. Neutrality^talk 19:09, 6 September 2016 (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.

Neculai Rățoi

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn: I'm not going to argue how notable members of any given national legislature are but clearly the original objections have been overcome. (non-admin closure) Mangoe (talk) 15:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

As mayor of small town with no especial fame/notoriety, fails WP:POLITICIAN. Mangoe (talk) 16:52, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article as originally written was misleading. Yes, he was mayor, but the first source in the article indicates that he was later elected a member of the Chamber of Deputies (Romania): he thus comfortably satisfies WP:NPOL. Mangoe, I'd suggest you withdraw this nomination, it really is quite clear cut. Vanamonde (talk) 18:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Members of national legislatures, as Ratoi was, are notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:54, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:35, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:35, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a verified member of a national legislature. In fairness to the nominator, I will confirm that at the time of nomination, the article did state only that he had been a smalltown mayor while leaving the national chamber of deputies out entirely — but now that the national chamber of deputies has been confirmed and added, it's on more solid ground. Bearcat (talk) 00:23, 24 August 2016 (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.

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

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. —Cryptic 15:05, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nestaway

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

I consider every one of these references the typical Press releases or slightly disguised press releases in Indian newspapers, an or mere announcements of funding. Part of a promotional effort with the article on the founder see adjacent AfD DGG ( talk ) 20:57, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As DGG said, these all appear to be press releases in one way or another. Definitely promotional. -- Dane2007 ^talk 18:54, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:07, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as entirely PR for a company searching for PR being a new company, none of this comes close at all for actually establishing a substantial amount for notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:55, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Below are examples of coverage in bylined news articles written by staff writers that have been published in independent, reliable sources. Note that these are not press releases, as evidenced in part by utilizing Google searches using the titles of these article, in which links are only present for these articles themselves, as opposed to press releases, which typically have the same article hosted on many various websites. Additional sources are available beyond those listed below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:12, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

"NestAway: A nest away from home". Business Standard. Authors: K Rajani Kanth & Shruti Sarma.
"NestAway: Reshaping online realty, one brick at a time". The Economic Times. Author: Anu Thomas.
"How young startup NestAway is creating marketplace for shared home rentals". The Economic Times. Author: Jyoti Pande Lavakare.
"Nestaway, 'Managed Home Rental' Player". The New Indian Express. Author: Praveen Bose.

Delete -- coverage offered at the AfD is all PR-like and promotional, such as interviews with the founders on how the company "adds value to the entire rental process", such as in:

"It's discovery platform to find properties. It provides several other services: acting as a property manager and using design and technology to lower costs and ease all payments and transactions from fees to billing. "We aren't merely transactional." link

Delete as WP:TOOSOON and WP:PROMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:13, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:24, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. If kept, will be cut to about a paragraph sourced from RSes - David Gerard (talk) 01:21, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). 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. Jujutacular (talk) 21:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alec Powers

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No awards, just nominations; and notability under PORNBIO is not inherited from simply appearing in a video which wins an award. No independent reliable sourcing. No biographical content. Little more than a list of credits in nn films. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC) The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable prornographic actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:24, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:34, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete and salt No ta, source it or lose it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:46, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Concur with nominator's assessment. Finnegas (talk) 09:51, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The nominator is correct. Fails PORNBIO with only nominations for non-notable awards. No coverage by reliable sources to pass GNG. Porn trade press coverage is limited to cast listings. • Gene93k (talk) 11:48, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 22:03, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt - Recreated page that still fails WP:PORNBIO. -- Dane2007 ^talk 18:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Concerned by the complete reversal from the previous AFD. Giving this one more time for any additional editors to weigh in. Jujutacular (talk) 02:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jujutacular (talk) 02:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no indications of notability and clearly fails GNG. Salt is an appropriate suggestion as this article has been discussed too many times. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:21, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- in the last AfD, the voters were apparently swayed by the argument that the subject "passes PORNBIO due to multiple nominations in multiple years". "Multiple nominations" is no longer part of PORNBIO, where actual wins in significant and well-known awards are needed to meet it. Regardless, the subject fails GNG, which PORNBIO is not exempt from. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:20, 28 August 2016 (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 20:59, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hope Alcocer

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

Alcocer is not notable as a writer. Most of the sources are directly connected to her writing instead of reporting on her work. Her work as a novelist for example is so marginal that the article still says her work will be published in the summer of 2015. Her first novel may well have been published then, but it was not of significant enough impact for anyone to note whether it actually was or not. John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:20, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article apparently created to promote a first novel published in 2015, a news google search [67] for that novel turned up nothing. And, as Nom states, there are no sources in article that support notability. Perhaps it is WP:TOOSOON in this young career.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agreed. This is WP:TOOSOON at this point, no coverage or sources support the notability on my searches either. -- Dane2007 ^talk 18:36, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jujutacular (talk) 02:39, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a vanity page on a non notable journalist / author. With content such as:

Alcocer has been profiled by Verily Magazine in January 2013 and Hope for Women Magazine December 2012.[11] She has also been interviewed on NBC.[12]

this is more of a resume than a Wiki article. Delete per WP:PROMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:25, 30 August 2016 (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 Miss Venezuela 2010. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 04:22, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jéssica Ibarra

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

Ibarra won a state level Miss Venezuela competition. Like the state level winners of Miss America competitions, I see no reason to think that Ibarra is notable, and nothing beyond that state level win to make Ibarra notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:55, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Venezuela 2010 as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:19, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. Discussion about notability guidelines has already started on the Talk page for the Beauty Pageant project. No harm will be done by closing this nomination as "keep" and letting the project-level discussion take its course. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:26, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think yes redirect, but then again all references appear to be dead links. Not sure. I tried different ways of searching the subject and nothing comes up. I can correct my vote if shown otherwise. FairlySavvy (talk) 16:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jujutacular (talk) 02:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Venezuela 2010. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:42, 23 August 2016 (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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:34, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Corey Allmond

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

Allmond has never regularly played with a major league team, only done so in practice. All his actual regular play has been in minor league or non-professional play. John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:05, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Chinese league and NBL Canada are professional leagues. Plus there are plenty of sources. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:57, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't find sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. I could change my mind if somebody else can dig some up, though. Rikster2 (talk) 13:23, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article is well supported by it's sources and there are some independent reliable sources cited. I don't see any problems with keeping this. -- Dane2007 ^talk 18:29, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This player has competed in multiple professional leagues and the article is well cited with mostly reliable sources. TempleM (talk) 21:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jujutacular (talk) 02:33, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reza Nourbakhsh

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

fails WP:GNG, selfpromo The Banner talk 23:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:47, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:47, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:47, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable activist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:36, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing is actually showing how we can have both substance and independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as spam per WP:WEBHOST. The pages serves as an online portfolio for the subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:11, 27 August 2016 (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:05, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pimcore

AfDs for this article:

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

Actually deleted in 2010 but later restored apparently for "attribution"; regardless, nothing here is actually convincing and substantial and my own searches are also not finding better aside from PR and trivial coverage, none of that amounts to being acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 02:40, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:41, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:41, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:06, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:06, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 ^talk 02:20, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Coverage is substantial and convincing. We put a lot of effort in creating an open source software product used by over 80k people (yet primarely in Europe). Just look at the activity and the community at https://github.com/pimcore/pimcore. Now that we have actively cared for this article for the last 6 years, we would like to hear a better reason for deleting this article. Otherwise (and to be fair) almost all articles linked on listing pages such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Free_content_management_systems (which is our main category) would have to be deleted. Please be fair. --drietsch (talk) 14:09, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and I will. note I have deleted several articles as it is, I can examine and continue deleting any if necessary. What's not convincing for notability here is essentially that there's still no actual substantial coverage about this. Articles here are a complex thing so we would have needed better to suggest keeping and improving. SwisterTwister talk 05:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback. We fully understand that this is a complex thing. We promise to improve the article by adding additional references and coverage. --drietsch (talk) 08:40, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Updated all 404 reference links and started to add new references. --drietsch (talk) 09:51, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 02:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO; this is advertorial material with no substance. There are product descriptions and non-notable minor industry awards. Coverage I'm seeing is trivial or PR like. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:39, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Keep, as software is used world-wide as open-source and this article is relevant for this audience. It's a special interest article. Thanks! --Roland_SBGLMN (talk) 16:25, 02 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Substantial coverage in reliable (mostly German-language) sources, including trend.at ("Great interest in Salzburg open source software Pimcore") and Softpedia. Sandstein 08:17, 3 September 2016 (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. Seems like evidence of notability exists here, as noted by E.M.Gregory. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Motlagh

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

I still confirmed my removed PROD as although there were some improvements, still none of it is actually convincing to keep. SwisterTwister talk 22:28, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:28, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:28, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My search (Proquest) produced RS for several prizes in addition to secondary source coverage of his career and RS discussion of impact of his reporting.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:17, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 28k search results on Google; has reported from 40+ countries for numerous big-name media organisations. --Karam.Anthony.K (talk) 00:51, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - However, none of that is actually establishing any independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 02:43, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:30, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep significant coverage and awards, has worked around the world for various media organisations. jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:02, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:52, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eli Nacht

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

The article fails to meet the relevant notability guideline The person is of no interest for Wikipedia cause of lack of achievements that has influenced on Israel.

No any prove of being strategic adviser to Yisrael Beiteinu
Adviser to a deputy speaker of the Knesset in Israel means one of two assistant of member of parliament. Assistant has no real power and/or influence but to fulfill the order of the boss.
Book Breaking Stereotypes – one of the thousand books that are published in Israel annually. The book is a matter of interest neither for science nor political

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitaskim (talk • contribs) 09:38, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 August 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 22:02, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 22:02, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. He looks more like staffer and lobbyist, then public servant, hence failing the notability guidelines. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:36, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:19, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--Jac16888 ^Talk 19:37, 25 August 2016 (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 Joe Biden. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 04:19, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Biden

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

Pretty clear case of failing WP:GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:21, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Are you sure the organization is not notable? Searching "Draft Biden" yields 22,000+ results at Google and 140+ results at HighBeam Research. Also, if consensus determines a standalone article is not necessary, redirecting would be more appropriate than deleting because "Draft Biden" is a possible search term. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- There are some WP:GHITS, sure, but I don't think a Super PAC that Biden didn't seem to approve of has sustained notability. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:31, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Whether or not Biden approved the PAC has nothing to do with notability. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:04, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Joe Biden as a possibly common and valid search term. However, it is not at all notable by itself. Bearian (talk) 16:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:19, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Young Actors Theatre (Tallahassee, Florida)

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

Successful, but doesn't seem to meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 16:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:02, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:02, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CLUB. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:46, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:34, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:19, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable sourced claim of notability Prevan (talk) 14:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Traction Labs

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

Non notable company, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buzzstarter for background. DGG ( talk ) 16:00, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - sources are present, but most are relatively brief trade press mentions or only mention the company quite tangentially. Blythwood (talk) 21:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:35, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:19, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I'm seeing some mentions related to Bernie Sander's campaign, but they are rather trivial. Surprisingly, I don't see anything in Google Books -- there's often something company related there. So this may be a case of TOOSOON. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:51, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I meant to comment sooner. All of this is PR as was the other AfD article, there's nothing coming close of the needed substance. SwisterTwister talk 18:53, 24 August 2016 (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:04, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Our Lady of Lourdes Academy of Bacoor Cavite, Inc.

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

I couldn't find any news reports, magazine articles, or other independently written information to show that this subject would meet the general notability guidelines. The article indicates that the subject is a secondary as well as an elementary school, but I have been unable to find an independent, reliable source that says so. I couldn't find an official website, and the school's facebook page calls it an elementary school. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This Government of Philippines.Department of Education letter does state that there is a School as per this Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:29, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - a broader search finds it exists and lots of potential sources. I'm not convinced, however, that this meet my own standards. Bearian (talk) 16:41, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:44, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:20, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that, if it is a secondary school (although Wikipedia:Notability (schools) is apparently a failed proposal...) Here's a non-independent source: http://www.schoolius.com/school/970732416352690/Our+Lady+of+Lourdes+Academy+of+Bacoor+Cavite,Inc. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:18, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a secondary school, we keep all articles on secondary schools.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:10, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per what Anne_Delong found. Bearian (talk) 12:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while there are sources that serve the bare purpose of verifying that this school exists, the coverage is so thin that there is nothing to base an article on. If more sources can be found, I would support recreation of the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:35, 30 August 2016 (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. Alright, no notability here. Salting should be asked for at RFPP or SPI - sometimes having such pages as "bait pages" for sockpuppets is useful but I don't know the sockmaster enough to assess that. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:24, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shanky RS Gupta Ventom

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

Non notable producer. Fails GNG Gbawden (talk) 09:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable music producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:59, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I quite frankly was about to speedy as A7. SwisterTwister talk 06:26, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no indications of notability; promotional purpose only. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT. This company and Mr. Gupta have been creating multiple pages and large socks are dedicated on this. Following are some points on related AfDs and SPI;

Sep 2015: Shanky R.S Gupta Afd: Deleted in Sep 2015. Apart from everything, this was a case of CITEKILL.
Feb and Sep 2015: Ventom Network India: This article was deleted three time between Feb and Sep 2015; twice under CSD A7 and once through this AfD discussion.
Jan 2016: Ventom Network India P.L. Deleted under CSD A7.
Dec 2015: Ventom Network. Deleted under under CSD, G11 and G4.
Mar 2015 & Jun 2016: Ventom Motion Entertainment Corp. Deleted twice, once under CSD G11 and once through this AfD discussion. AfD tag was removed from page.
Mar 2015 & Jun 2016: Ventom International Motion Corp was deleted under CSD and then recreated again in Jun 2016, which was moved to Ventom Motion Entertainment Corp and then subsequently deleted.
Aug 2015: Fashion With Dates AfD belongs to discussion of another related company of this series.
SPI: SPI was initiated by me and other editors. Here is the consolidated SPI.

In the past, I have received legal & other threats and lots of personal attacks, especially on social networking sites from the creator of the article. This Mr. Gupta and his SOCKS refuse to understand that they cannot push their way through. Few months back, I had also notified Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Orangemoody on email [email protected] about this long term abuse. SwisterTwister, thanks for not marking this for CSD, since we will now have a discussion for record. I request everyone to keep an eye for any new articles being created about the subject / related companies and review it properly. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 04:49, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note and request to closing admin. Can you please ensure that all the deleted pages are SALTed? I noticed that Fashion With Dates and Shanky R.S Gupta are not protected. Also, please remember to SALT this page as well. Thanks, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have initiated another SPI here. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:30, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Game Creators. Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap czar 03:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DarkBASIC Professional

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

No third-party references, promotional tone, tagged since 2008. PROD was removed by Jonpatterns without addressing any of these problems. I'm having trouble finding even unreliable sources that aren't primary, let alone reliable ones. The related article DarkBASIC is also at AFD. David Gerard (talk) 12:05, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 12:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 12:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

note Jonpatterns is doing Draft:The Game Creators on the company behind DarkBASIC, which would be a suitable redirect target when it's done - David Gerard (talk) 12:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:15, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 04:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cleosent Randing

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

fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 13:29, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a mess, but it does have sources from news outlets— I'd say Keep, but rewrite the article and fix the sources— there are about 3 different news articles it is sourced to, and lots of copies. Margalob (talk) 15:39, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:27, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:27, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - blatant promotion. Deb (talk) 11:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam under WP:PROMO. Purely promotional. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:32, 27 August 2016 (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 Cher. There's no clear agreement to notability but I get the sense a redirect would be an acceptable compromise. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:22, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Georganne LaPiere

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

Non-notable occasional actress and minor celebrity relative Orange Mike | Talk 00:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only one source, lack of information fails GNG. Hawkeye75 (talk) 05:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:09, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:10, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes NACTOR with multiple named roles. I'll go ahead and add them to the article. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:45, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (but a weak one) as per Megalibrarygirl with an in-depth source here, an acting mention here, but mostly the rest of the coverage is mentions of her in connection with her super-famous sister Cher or Michael Madsen (which slightly pushes her into the 'keep' column for me. If deleted, maybe merge to Cher.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:16, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the 2 Keep votes here are simply confirming the fact she has had background characters but nothing suggesting an obtained independent notable acting career. With this, none of the sourcing is actually persuasively suggesting anything for her own article. There's also no inherited notability from anyone else. SwisterTwister talk 17:39, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SwisterTwister, did you even look at her roles? She's had enough roles to pass NACTOR, especially for General Hospital. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:28, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 02:01, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability cannot be inherited. I hardly see any coverage to show that the subject is independently notable of Cher. Falling back on WP:NACTOR would require the subject to have "significant roles" in "multiple notable shows". I don't see any evidence of multiple notable roles. The only somewhat significant one is General Hospital, but even that was not a significant role. I also looked up and saw that she played the role for a short duration and another actress is more well known for playing that role for a longer time. None of the other roles I saw were anything close to significant. The subject doesn't pass GNG or WP:AUTHOR and considering that notability is not inherited, I would go for a delete. I'm OK with a redirect to Cher as well considering that previous AFDs of a similar nature such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Ciccone (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zachary Bogue have closed with a redirect. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 23:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:GNG. Article could use expansion, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 05:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ST and Lemongirl942's well-reasoned analysis. I would also be OK with a redirect to Cher. Neutrality^talk 19:06, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Roth

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

Delete: does not meet threshold of notability as actor. Quis separabit? 20:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:25, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:43, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:41, 23 August 2016 (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:53, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blaccode

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

non-notable artist who fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 13:29, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 13:29, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 13:29, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 13:29, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:41, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. The subject hasn't been discussed or mentioned in reliable sources. The references currently in the article appear to be self-published sources not independent of the subject. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 01:59, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rockto

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

This article is about a seemingly defunct Indonesian tech startup. Most of the cited references and indeed the official site for the company are 404 links. What references remain only assert that the site exist and the depth of coverage doesn't seem to meet WP:CORP. A search for the company on Crunchbase shows only one update: the company's launch in 2011, and nothing since. It's a pity to kill an article about a company from a part of the world that's underrepresented on the EnWiki but I don't think this one can be saved. A Train^talk 07:24, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:41, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I'm not able to find anything either. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:40, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands without prejudice - David Gerard (talk) 22:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as entirely PR and none of it amounts to substance. SwisterTwister talk 23:10, 29 August 2016 (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. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Box Cricket League

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

Fails WP:SPORTSEVENT in the clause "game that is widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable, outside routine coverage of each game". All references seem to be from PR publications due to involvement of actors. DEPRODed without providing reason by creator who also happens to be an SPA. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:35, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:35, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:35, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:40, 23 August 2016 (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. A bit of a WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input but given the prior deletion discussion and deletion review it's advisable that new and substantial sources be provided when asking for restoration. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:11, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DeskAway

AfDs for this article:

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

Notability: significant RS coverage cannot be found; advertorial content. The article was nominated for deletion in 2009 and was deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:08, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:08, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 ^talk 02:18, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article on a topic which had previously been deleted at AfD (also restored to the original user account), with the decision confirmed at a deletion review of a proposed replacement version. The given references are predominantly in the period 2008-10. Of those later than the deletion review, the name-check in a list in the Times of India article on start-ups is not evidence of notability, any mention in "The SaaS Edge" is primary (author is co-founder), and the inclusion in the Google new Apps blog is a routine announcement. In these and my own searches I am seeing nothing which goes beyond evidence of existence and could demonstrate notability and overturn the previously AfD/DR decision. AllyD (talk) 07:32, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:14, 26 August 2016 (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. —Cryptic 14:57, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Massive Audio

AfDs for this article:

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

If not for that 2006 AfD, I would've PRODed, nothing here at all for actual substance and independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 03:36, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:03, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:03, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the afD from 2006, but is been a long time ago (10 years) and now Massive Audio has exclusive partnership from two of the biggest and important series of all time (Star Trek and Doctor Who) to distributed exclusive fan products. User:Ejhonen talk 03:07, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 ^talk 02:20, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:34, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the article are adding to relisting two times, and no one says nothing about it. Can I request the keep of the article and closer of this AfD? User:Ejhonen talk 19:25, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This can actually be relisted three times to help for better consensus especially since the current article is still not actually convincing and no improvements have been made to actually fix this. Also, two partnerships with notable companies is not establishing notability of its own for this company as there would still need to be thr needed substance. SwisterTwister talk 21:23, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - I'm not seeing any good secondary sources at all, but I acknowledge I might not have found the right search terms yet. "Massive Audio" returns far too much, and adding the founder's name returns very little. I see a lot of primary sources/press releases. @Ejhonen: Notability is based on significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. If you know of such coverage, you should link to it here, but note that this does not include brief mentions, press releases, material produced by organizations/people tied to the subject (e.g. BBC promoting a Doctor Who-related product), etc. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:27, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I searched for "Fametek" as well and was only able to find trivial and PR-like mentions. The article's tone is strongly promotional so I would advocate deletion based on WP:PROMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Hi, @SwisterTwister: =) you said this: "If not for that 2006 AfD, I would've PRODed" Why after 23 days the article lost relevance? It's not only about the partnerships is about how huge this company is. I wrote this article because there are companies that are less relevant than Massive Audio and have a wiki, for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wand_Company If this company had a wiki and only had distributed in United Kingdom, why Massive Audio who distributed worldwide doesn't have to be on Wikipedia? I compared Massive Audio with a companies like these https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MTX_Audio or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JL_Audio

This article is about Massive Audio, not Fametek. Fametek is just a division of the company.

I'm not able to find much for "Massive Audio" either. The company appears to be non-notable, per available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:09, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now I have some doubts about the relisting process because I read these articles and says that things maybe can be different. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Relisting_can_be_abusive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Relisting User:Ejhonen talk 18:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). 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. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:54, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Thomas (actor)

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

Not seeing much notability or secondary source coverage for this actor. He appeared in some commercials and then as a voice actor? His biggest role was in Kyle XY but that's just one. Is that enough to meet WP:ENT? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:48, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:49, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:49, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:49, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:32, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:59, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:34, 23 August 2016 (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. Christian75 cited some sources, but nobody took the bait, so delete it is. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:30, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zikula

AfDs for this article:

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

I frankly would've PRODed if not for the other AfDs, nothing here is actually convincing and my searches simply found PR and trivial mentions, none of it acceptable of course. I examined the sources at the 2nd AfD but it's still not actually convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:07, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What was your analysis of the sources that Dmitrij D. Czarkoff found in the previous AfD? What was your opinion about the history merged from PostNuke? Did you notice that this edit history dates back to 2002? Have you reviewed PHP-Nuke? What did you find when you reviewed the other 11 Wikipedia's with this topic? Did you look at the "What links here"? Unscintillating (talk) 01:59, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 August 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:56, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:34, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - I'm seeing a lot of forum posts, primary sources, and blog posts, but very little by way of reliable sources that might establish WP:GNG. Going weak delete because there's an indication there are sources (other than those linked in the previous AfD, which I don't see as sufficient) in languages that are functionally unavailable to me. So I'm content to change my !vote if people can point out some decent ones, but for now we have an article about a company that probably doesn't pass GNG and is sourced entirely to its own content. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep per references in 2nd nomination. Christian75 (talk) 12:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is one of the numerous CMS available. Granted that it is open source, but I don't see any significant coverage or any indication that this became popular. Compared to other topics, a software usually has a lot more sources available and there are numerous software for doing every little task. I tend to compare a software with other similar ones. Over here, I don't see any indication that this was every widely used. Neither did it gain any significant coverage during this time. I doubt this is notable. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A lack of significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources = fails GNG. Neutrality^talk 19:05, 6 September 2016 (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. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:52, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chennai Swaggers

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:SPORTSEVENT in the clause "game that is widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable, outside routine coverage of each game". All references seem to be from PR publications due to involvement of actors. Also has been created by an WP:SPA; mostly for publicity purposes. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:31, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:31, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:00, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:25, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:33, 23 August 2016 (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. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Young K

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

Like Wonpil (also at AfD), Young K is not individually notable, and should not have a separate article per WP:MUSBIO. Random86 (talk) 04:51, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 04:51, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 04:51, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:14, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:33, 23 August 2016 (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:49, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guido Gianasso

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

Puff piece for a non-notable businessman. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Joe Roe (talk) 01:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:12, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:12, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:12, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is all about IATA, not him - David Gerard (talk) 08:44, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:59, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maintain This person is the Honorary Consul of Romania in Geneva, Switzerland, Appointed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Romania. If only that, this would secure a notable position to be mentioned in Wikipedia![Stefan Maier, Fairfax Station, USA] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.36.122.28 (talk) 00:49, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO: strictly a vanity page, with no indications of notability. "Honorary Consul" is not a title that leads to a presumption of notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sunnylab

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

Article spam for a non-notable ecommerce website. Most of the references are dead or non-RS and I can't find any coverage outside of press releases and directory entries. Joe Roe (talk) 01:14, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: Given that the main contributor has recently disclosed they are undertaking paid editing for another company, I strongly suspect this article was also written with an (undisclosed) COI. Joe Roe (talk) 01:18, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:12, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:12, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:12, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insufficient independent sources with substantial discussion of the company. Jytdog (talk) 04:50, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a non-notable company. The article states that "it is a subsidiary of SCIPAC Ltd, [which in turn is] part of BBInternational." It may be more profitable to create an article on BBInternational first, and then articles on various subsidiary units. That said, I cannot find any coverage on the subject in question. Thus, delete. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:51, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hi there. It is a long long time since I have had anything to do with Sunnylab. As far as I'm aware it doesn't exist anymore. Can I just say that I wssn't paid for helping them and when it was written the COI process was very different as I remember. I have always tried to stay within the rules of Wikipedia.Iainplunkett (talk) 09:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The core of the conflict of interest policy (declare your COIs and don't edit articles where you have a COI), hasn't changed since 2011. Joe Roe (talk) 09:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as everything here consists and hints PR, nothing at all coming close for substance. SwisterTwister talk 22:27, 23 August 2016 (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 18:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wiccaphobia

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

Another supposed phobia with no clinical sources. There are a couple of hits as a social phenomenon but even those basically boil down to a DICTDEF. Mangoe (talk) 00:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:13, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One of the refs is written by a self-admitted, persecuted Wiccan. The other ones simply demonstrate use of the word. Just because a word has been used doesn't mean it needs a WP article. I suspect this is political and not a "genuine" phobia in psychiatric terms. Famous _dog (c) 10:27, 23 August 2016 (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 20:47, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Celoxis

AfDs for this article:

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

Notability: significant RS coverage cannot be found; advertorial content. Article was subject to an AfD in 2006 and deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:05, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 ^talk 02:18, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 00:48, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I was not able to find enough coverage for the article to pass WP:GNG--Ymblanter (talk) 07:23, 30 August 2016 (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:48, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plan India

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

Article appears promotional in tone. I also can't locate any reliable sources outside of the organization itself to establish notability. On a side note, the article was also created by a SPA with a username promoting this organization who has been blocked for advertising and promotion. Seahorseruler ^{(Talk Page) (Contribs)} 00:46, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see there are some sources, such as this one. (Though I see that this new action plan isn't mentioned in the wiki article, as yet.) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:13, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 ^talk 02:01, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BRANCH. Local chapter isn't notable. Anything noteworthy can be incorporated into the main Plan (aid organisation) article. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:22, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 00:40, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or very selective merge into Plan (aid organisation). WP:BRANCH allows some particularly notable branches of organisations to have their own article, but even allowing for the common search keywords "Plan India" leading to inflated search results, narrowing down the search to "Plan India NGO" and "Plan India charity" doesn't come up with the independent notability required. jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:05, 31 August 2016 (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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:23, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Economic Order (NEO)

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

See WP:NOTESSAY. Ethanlu121 (talk) 00:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see that this article and Ross Honeywill were not bluelinked to one another. I've done so. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 ^talk 01:56, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Like the recently deleted New economic order this is a overly promotional personal essay. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:09, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 00:38, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to OpenText. Clear consensus here for a selective merge. I leave it up to whoever does the merge to figure out exactly what selective means. Leave a redirect behind. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:26, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RedDot

AfDs for this article:

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

I actually consider this PROD material but because of the 1st 2005 AfD, here we are; none of this actually suggests substance and my own searches are not finding convincing sources. SwisterTwister talk 21:28, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:29, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:29, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to OpenText, with a possible merge. Not notable on its own. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:56, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:43, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to OpenText, which presently has no mention at all of this business unit of OpenText. This will improve the encyclopedia by improving the quality of the merge target article; a functional and appropriate WP:ATD in this instance. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:45, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This article has it's own importance to keep, in additional it has acceptable third party sources. No mention about this info in main article of OpenText. For example we have separate pages for Google, Youtube of the same companyJessie1979 (talk) 12:59, 14 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]

[Revert as per WP:BLOCKEVASION using strikethrough font. 21:42, 13 November 2016 (UTC)]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 00:36, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect as it stands. Jessie1979, I'm open to having my mind changed by some convincing sourcing in the article - David Gerard (talk) 10:21, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note I hope these independent sources provided at article are sufficient [68] Jessie1979 (talk) 06:03, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Revert as per WP:BLOCKEVASION using strikethrough font. 21:42, 13 November 2016 (UTC)]

Comment the link above is to non RS ning.com, which states:

"Did anyone take the plunge to RedDot version 9 yet? We did, and it seems to be running fine. It seems like a rebranded version of 7.5. It comes with a new text editor (Telerik RadEditor) which seems a lot nicer, but I've notice on some of my pages after being published they show with the funny little question mark icon for an invalid character. The character usually occurs with a space. Not sure what the deal is with that, so I've just switched back to the regular RedDot editor for now."

And that's it. That's clearly insufficient to establish notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:13, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively and Redirect to OpenText per WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:NOPAGE. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:20, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to OpenText This is clearly not notable on its own. We don't create pages on every sub-entity of a company. A redirect will suffice here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:13, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with OpenText - there's a wealth of information online about this topic, but as other editors mentioned, there's no reason to have its own article. Most of the reliable sources I found were confined to a 2-year period (2008-2009). A redirect seems fine, as long as all the info in this article makes it to the OpenText article. ArchieOof (talk) 22:58, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively and redirect to OpenText - per above. Neutrality^talk 19:04, 6 September 2016 (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.

[1] ttp://www.worldstarhiphop.com/videos/video.php?v=wshhU2vndkIX1UW28i3x

[2] ttp://www.thizzler.com/blog/2014/10/18/montana-montana-montana-ft-philthy-rich-straight-to-the-mone.html

[3] ttps://www.flickr.com/photos/montana925/?

[4] ttps://itunes.apple.com/us/artist/montana-montana-montana/id869637967

[5] ttp://www.allmusic.com/artist/montana-montana-montana-mn0003297361/credits

[6] ttp://www.allmusic.com/album/really-not-a-rapper-mw0002722238

[7] InteriorsInfo.com/aboutus.aspx

[8] ttps://itunes.apple.com/us/app/id1006569794

[9] ttps://www.zaubacorp.com/company/INTERIORSINFO-E-COMMERCE-LLP/AAC-6600

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[1]

[2]

[3]