Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 August 25

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 24 August	26 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:10, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ahnabith Gish[edit]

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

Delete. Article with advertorial overtones about band with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC, and no evidence of passing WP:GNG -- the referencing here is entirely to dead links in their own hometown media, and no stronger sourcing is locatable on Google or ProQuest. As always, a band is not entitled to permanently keep an article just because they exist(ed?) -- reliable source coverage, demonstrating something which would objectively pass an NMUSIC criterion, is required. Bearcat (talk) 23:52, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:10, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an unremarkable music band; fails NMUSIC and significant RS coverage cannot be found to meet GNG. Article tagged "Notability" since 2008. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands - I'm willing to be convinced, but what stands out on Googling the name is that I don't even see them much in unreliable sources, let alone reliable ones - David Gerard (talk) 01:11, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:10, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MetDaan[edit]

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

Non-notable magazine company that has no coverage in RS, also promotional. KGirlTrucker81^{talk what I'm been doing} 23:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:18, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:18, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands - there's nothing here - David Gerard (talk) 01:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not even mentions to be found, let alone "coverage." Mr. Magoo (talk) 04:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I myself find this to be G11 and am nearly tagging it as such. SwisterTwister talk 05:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete WP:CSD#G11. A billion views/month and I've never even heard of it??? --Randykitty (talk) 10:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:G11 as corporate spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:14, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Two pages of Google hits, and every single one self-published (including this article...) Narky Blert (talk) 13:12, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:10, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Lotus Assembly[edit]

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

The article fails to meet the notability criteria in WP:GNG and WP:ORG. The article is completely unsourced and I could not find "reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond its mere trivial mention." JimRenge (talk) 23:10, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Simply an advertisement.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 00:46, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My Google search found only passing mentions. As always, I will reconsider if significant coverage in reliable, independent sources is discovered. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:39, 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 keep. Jujutacular (talk) 16:49, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paravector[edit]

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

No significant coverage, Apparent COI Rgdboer (talk) 22:43, 25 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 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:03, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prof. William E. Baylis is the author of cited sources, and possibly the author of this article as it was started from University of Windsor at computer 137.207.80.65. User: Cabrer7 last edited it in May of 2007. The four-dimension concept of "paravector" fails notability outside Baylis texts. Rgdboer (talk) 23:12, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Google Scholar search linked above appears to contradict your last sentence. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 08:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:27, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - This search shows plenty of sources not by Baylis— this topic seems to have very clear notability to me. Margalob (talk) 23:24, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:52, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:50, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On mathematical subjects Mathematical Reviews gives sharper results than Google, which turns up links like this for Paravector Using MR with "paravector" requested in the title of an reviewed paper turns up only six articles with 2 by Baylis, 1996 and 2004. The review MR 2343438 is just an advertisement for the reviewer’s book. Two other reviews only quote from the source papers: MR3129054, MR3266495. The sixth article MR2970983 looks more significant, but appears in Advances in Applied Clifford Algebras where Baylis is an editor and editorial standards can be viewed online. The body of publications on paravectors is insufficient to support an article on the topic.Rgdboer (talk) 21:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Highbeam search showed 6 articles, and a plain google search turned up sources not from Baylis (R da Rocha, R Jozef to name a couple). Also, there isn't any definite proof of a COI. Joel.Miles925 18:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article creator blanked most of the text of the article, which I have now reverted. While it could be interpreted as a request for deletion by author, it looks more like sour grapes, so I will not move for CSD G7 and instead let this AfD continue on to conclusion. Richarddev (talk) 19:44, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Richarddev has left this identical comment in multiple irrelevant AfDs. There are no reversions of page-blanking in his recent contributions. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:55, 4 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 considering Snow because, although it's only be a day, everything is suggesting that not only is the nomination not substantiating but there is certainly enough here (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 18:52, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

James Mallinson[edit]

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

Delete. Not noteworthy. Stub. Not much editing going on for years. VictoriaGrayson^Talk 22:37, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The problem seems to be this edit, which removed from the lede the fact that this person is a multiple Grammy-award winner, which meets criteria for inherent notability. WP:ANYBIO criteria 1: "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times". In this case, the subject has received fifteen of them. bd2412 T 00:39, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He won the very first "Producer of the Year" Grammy Award for classical music in 1979, and has won many other Grammys since then. The article should be improved, not deleted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Neither "Stub" nor "Not much editing going on for years" comes anywhere near to being a reason for deletion, and just saying "Not noteworthy" without giving any explanation doesn't give any reason either: See WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:10, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per previous comments. Notability not in doubt. There may be an appearance of indirect conflict in that this nomination was submitted by the creator of the competing (for primary topic) article James Mallinson (author). —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 13:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. KGirlTrucker81^{talk what I'm been doing} 17:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per bd2412, subject appears to be more than sufficiently worthy of note. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 23:13, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:10, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Schwindt[edit]

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

Non-notable political blogger. No coverage in independent, reliable sources, and all but a couple of his books are self-published. Joe Roe (talk) 21:41, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable blogger.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:10, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject not quite notable. Meatsgains (talk) 03:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - i came across this article when it was a draft and submitted for review. I knocked it back as I suspected the profile image was a copyvio, as it was used on the subjects Amazon and Linkedin profile. Either that, or it was an autobiography. The draft was then deleted per G7. Even with the suspect image removed, the subject clearly does not meet WP:AUTHOR, and if the draft had come up for review I would have still knocked it back. Instead of resubmitting it for review, in which the author would have discovered that the person does not meet basic notable requirements, the author has created the page in main space. David.moreno72 15:46, 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 merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons nonhuman deities. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:52, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kuraulyek[edit]

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

This article does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 21:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to kobold (Dungeons & Dragons) or possibly a deity list. Very minor; no evidence of independent notability. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:08, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons nonhuman deities. BOZ (talk) 06:30, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per BOZ.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 01:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:34, 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 merge to elf deities. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:53, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rillifane Rallathil[edit]

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

This character article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 21:21, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:22, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to elf deities. No evidence of independent notability. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:48, 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]

Merge per J Milburn. Jclemens (talk) 04:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge per above. BOZ (talk) 06:29, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per J Milburn.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 01:36, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge - has one indep source but will be hard to find another I think so elf deities a feasible parent article. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:47, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:34, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charkhi Sharif[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-notable place; unreferenced. Brianga (talk) 20:49, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no sources found in my search results. KGirlTrucker81^{talk what I'm been doing} 23:19, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:41, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:41, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:41, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:41, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:57, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails WP:N, per source searches. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:10, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There seems to be almost no context, and no real claim of notability (there are many spiritual hills everywhere). This almost could have been speedily nominated. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:44, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 01:36, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Futures (magazine)[edit]

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

Promotional. No evidence of notability. A reference check shows that literally every source is bad: zero claims cited to RSes, and all external sources fail to verify even the claim they are used for, that the person is linked to Futures. Was PRODed, de-WP:PRODded with comment "I don't necessarily think that the article should be kept, but [1] describes it as iconic." To me that reads like a press release, though I couldn't find other copies of the text. Regardless, even if that one source actually about the magazine were considered a reason to keep, it would still be a WP:TNT case - there's literally no good sources here to base an article on. I could be wrong and I'm willing to be convinced, but ... David Gerard (talk) 20:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 21:17, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 21:17, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 21:17, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and only consisting of PR, nothing at all actually comes close to genuinely stating information for an article here; thus delete by all means. SwisterTwister talk 05:41, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- unreliably sourced WP:PROMO article. My searches do not turn up anything better. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Moss, Rita; Ernsthausen, David G. (2012). Strauss's Handbook of Business Information: A Guide for Librarians, Students, and Researchers, 3rd Edition. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO. pp. 288–289. ISBN 978-1610692366. Retrieved 2016-08-28.
  The book notes:
  Futures. Chicago: Futures Magazine, 1972–. Monthly. Semimonthly in January, June, and September. (Online subscription and some free information are available at http://www.futuresmag.com/)
  Futures offers its readers a series of articles on different aspects of futures and options trading. An issue may contain as many as 20 different articles dealing with such subjects as trading techniques, government policy affecting trading, the economy, and developments at specific exchanges. It also includes a section on international markets and news. Although readers new to futures trading may some articles difficult going, for the most part Futures is lively and well written and can be useful to novice investors as well as seasoned professionals.
  There is also an excellent education section that guides one through the intricacies of futures. On the web page is also a link to the SourceBook (http://www.futuressourcebook.com/). The SourceBook contains the names and addresses of the major U.S. and non-U.S. brokerage, charting, computer, and advisory services, as well as publishers, consultants, and available software.
  Although not as popular as Futures, another periodical contains data of interest to academicians and other researchers.
  The Journal of Futures Markets. ...
2. Roush, Chris (2015-06-04). "Futures magazine changes name to Modern Trader". Talking Biz News. Archived from the original on 2016-08-28. Retrieved 2016-08-28.
  The article notes:
  Futures magazine, which has been published since 1972, is changing its name to Modern Trader with the July issue.
  The name change reflects the fact that its coverage has been more than the futures markets for quite some time, said editor Daniel Collins.
  ...
  Collins noted that the Chicago-based magazine was originally called Commodities before changing its name to Futures.
  The magazine has an estimated 50,000 subscribers and is sold at Barnes & Noble and Books-a-Million. Its primary subscribers are professional traders and active investors.
3. Crawford Jr., William B. (1992-09-14). "Oster Enterprises' Chief A Quiet Force Behind Growth Of Futures". Chicago Tribune. Archived from the original on 2016-08-28. Retrieved 2016-08-28.
  The article notes:
  Oster's successes are attributable, in some measure, to the phenomenal growth of the futures industry. In the last two decades, the number of futures exchanges around the world has risen from a handful to more than 50, while world volume has skyrocketed from around 100 million trades annually to more than a half billion last year.
  Oster's purchase of Futures Magazine, then titled Commodity Magazine, is demonstrative of Oster`s ability to move quickly when he smells a profitable investment. During a casual conversation in 1976, Oster heard that Leon Rose and Mort Baratz, the publication`s founders, were toying with selling the magazine. Next scene: Oster showed up and negotiated the purchase of the publication for an undisclosed price.
  "We sold Commodity Magazine for a low six figures, a brilliant move by Merrill and probably the worst business decision I ever made in my life," recalls Rose, who now is a consultant for Managed Account Reports of New York.
4. Marek, Lynne (2014-07-09). "Futures Magazine publisher buys New York financial news rival". Crain's Chicago Business. Archived from the original on 2016-08-28. Retrieved 2016-08-28.
  The article notes:
  Mr. Joseph, who is the majority owner of Alpha Pages, and his investment partners bought Futures Magazine and its digital operations last year from Summit Business Media.
  The 43-year-old print Futures Magazine has been profitable and is increasing pages, and plans to add an issue so that it will publish 11 times this year, he said.
5. Alden, William (2014-07-09). "FINalternatives Is Sold to Upstart Media Firm". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2016-08-28. Retrieved 2016-08-28.
  The article notes:
  The Alpha Pages was founded in late 2012 by Jeff Joseph, a former mutual fund executive and venture capital investor who is aiming to build a suite of media titles focused on alternative investments. Shortly after founding the Alpha Pages, Mr. Joseph bought the trade publication Futures magazine.
  In August, when Futures publishes its 500th issue, the Alpha Pages plans to introduce a namesake publication as an insert in the magazine. In the future, Mr. Joseph said, the Alpha Pages may print content from FINalternatives.
6. Mickey, Bill (2013-01-22). "Summit Business Media Closes Print Edition of Treasury & Risk, Selling Futures Magazine". Folio. Archived from the original on 2016-08-28. Retrieved 2016-08-28.
7. Mickey, Bill (2013-01-31). "Summit Business Media Sells Futures Magazine to Financial Media Startup". Folio. Archived from the original on 2016-08-28. Retrieved 2016-08-28.
8. Mitchell, Cory (2014-03-19). "How Traders Can Utilize CCI (Commodity Channel Index) To Trade Stock Trends". Investopedia. Archived from the original on 2016-08-28. Retrieved 2016-08-28.
  The article notes:
  The CCI, or Commodity Channel Index, was developed by Donald Lambert, a technical analyst who originally published the indicator in Commodities magazine (now Futures) in 1980. Despite its name, the CCI can be used in any market and is not just for commodities. The CCI was originally developed to spot long-term trend changes but has been adapted by traders for use on all time frames. Here are two strategies that both investors and traders can employ.
  The Commodity channel index was first published in Commodities (which was renamed to Futures)
9. Greising, David (1998-07-27). "31 futures pros pose for Futures pix, prose". Chicago Sun-Times.
  The article notes:
  The pictures in Futures magazine's special Profiles issue are worth a thousand words, or at least a couple of hundred.
  Behind the biographical sketches of 31 of the futures industry's heavyweights are some character-revealing stories about how the magazine's photographers obtained photographs of the figures.
10. Schmucker, Jane (1997-12-12). "Corn, Soybean Futures Exchange in Toledo Unlikely to Gain Support to Survive, Say Traders, Economists". The Blade.
  The article notes:
  On an average day, the Chicago board trades about 345 million bushels of corn and 303 million bushels of soybeans, according to numbers collected from the first nine months of 1997 by Futures magazine, a Chicago publication aimed at traders. That's about as much corn as Ohio has raised each year in recent years and twice as many bushels of soybeans.
  ...
  There is another much smaller exchange in Japan and one in Brazil. But in Brazil, taxes on foreign money are so high that it is prohibitive for outsiders to trade on the market, said Jim Kharouf, associate editor at Futures, which has a circulation of 65,000.
  This is a passing mention but can be used to verify information in the article.
11. Hinz, Greg (1998-04-11). "For the Record". Crain's Chicago Business. Archived from the original on 2016-08-28. Retrieved 2016-08-28.
  The article notes:
  New York-based Futures Communications Co., which publishes Futures magazine, announced it is changing its name to Financial Communications Co. and will move its headquarters to Chicago.
  This is a passing mention but can be used to verify information in the article.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Futures to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 23:59, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Those are better than anything presently there, though only the textbook reference says anything actually about Futures itself beyond its existence. Could we write an article based on those references? - David Gerard (talk) 01:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think there is enough information about Future's history to write an article based on these sources. Cunard (talk) 02:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of sources provided by Cunard. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 12:18, 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 keep. WP:NAC (non-admin closure) Lourdes 02:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adnan Ibrahim[edit]

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

Doubt about notability. He might be notable as professor in Vienna, but the article give no indication of his work there is notable. Article is mostly: "I have something to say" The Banner talk 20:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sources in the article from Der Standard and Die Presse appear to go a long way towards establishing notability. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:56, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question. The article says he's a professor at the University of Vienna, which might get him in as an academic. However I didn't manage to find him there. Is it true? Zero^talk 10:27, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any mention of him on the Univ. of Vienna's website either, nor is it mentioned on his own website ([2], autotranslated), and I can't find any academic publications. So this claim seems dubious – maybe confusion arising from the fact that he has a PhD in philosophy from Vienna? Joe Roe (talk) 11:58, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lede claims that he is a medical doctor, that needs a source. the cited book by Raphael Israeli says taht he "studied medicine" before moving to Vienna, whether that means that he is a physician, or, perhaps, decided not to finish that degree is unclear, but unless we can find a source it needs to be removed for the article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:36, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is a bit of a puff piece at the moment, but the references show substantial coverage in the Austrian press. Joe Roe (talk) 12:00, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has been rather over-enthusiastically expanded, but dedicated press coverage over a number of years means he passes WP:GNG. Statement that he is a professor is dubious. Media coverage is of his statements as a religious leader. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 21:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of the Raphael Israeli book, which has a page or 2 profiling him and his career. And the news stories.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:36, 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 Keep as there is strong consensus among the editors here that the subject meets GNG. Vanamonde (talk) 17:31, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2006–07 York City F.C. season[edit]

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

Despite being well-written and well-referenced, there is no evidence that these seasons meet the general notability guidelines. The sources are run of the mill newspaper sports reporting, which WP:GNG states is not sufficient to establish notability. Beyond this, the page does not show notability as a season. Other AfDs have established a strong consensus that seasons in non fully professional leagues - such as the Conference in which York competed in for these years - are not inherently notable. Comparable deleted examples are: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13.

I'm aware that a couple of these seasons have been given good article status. They are well written. But being good does not exempt an article's topic from having to be notable. Wikipedia is not a place for everything: we have agreed as a community that an encyclopedia should have limits to have value. Across several articles, a consensus has developed that seasons at this level are not inherently notable. With no evidence that the seasons are otherwise notable, I feel that they should be deleted. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 20:35, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The full list of seasons being listed is:

You do realise it is near impossible for an article to attain GA status without satisfying WP:GNG, right? Mattythewhite (talk) 20:43, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not here for an argument; I've made my points. I'd like editors to have their say and if I've misunderstood, well that's why this is here! Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 22:17, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nor am I, just making a rebuttal to your point re GNG. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:06, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stating they do is not a reubtal; this listing is genuine so I'm a bit stumped! Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 20:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is clear that WP:GNG has been met. Spiderone 15:35, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 15:40, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article meets WP:GNG. Nfitz (talk) 18:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the three (yes, three) GAs listed in this AfD demonstrate, club seasons at this level are able to pass WP:GNG. They garner independent coverage from multiple reliable sources, including BBC Sport, Non-League Daily, The Non-League Paper, and from local media, most notably The Press for the club in question. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:11, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - not notable per NSEASONS but clearly meet GNG. Giant Snowman 08:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - They clearly satisfy WP:GNG, and it would be very hard to get good article status if they didn't. Smartyllama (talk) 14:06, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone explain to me how these meet GNG, rather than just say they do? Because I'm genuinely confused. Mattythewhite's later post is the only attempt I can see to actually claim that this does meet GNG. The sources are reliable, yes. They're from notable sources, yes. But GNG says

"Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage. For example, routine news coverage such as press releases, public announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not significant coverage. Even a large number of news reports that provide no critical analysis of the event is not considered significant coverage. The Wikimedia project Wikinews covers topics of present news coverage. In some cases, notability of a controversial entity (such as a book) could arise either because the entity itself was notable, or because the controversy was notable as an event—both need considering."

Aren't all these sources just news reporting that falls into this description? Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 20:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To elaborate - the topic is the season. The sources describe matches, list statistics. They tell us what happened. But they do not provide critical analysis, particularly of the season as a whole. Indeed, across each article, none (that I could find) describe or analyse the seasons as seasons My concern is that the Good Article reviewers, and indeed all the people above, have been blinded by the extent and quality of the sources, without considering adequately if they actually show that these topics are notable.

To add one final point - none of the Good Article reviews are asked to comment on, or do comment on, whether the topic is notable. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 20:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 06/07 and 07/08, Keep remainder - there is clear consensus that the fifth tier of English football is not sufficiently high to fulfill WP:NSEASONS "top professional leagues" requirement unless GNG can be satisfied. The first two do not show GNG, with the articles consisting of nothing but stat dumps referenced to routine match summaries. The later three show wider GNG through significant sourced prose from sources that go beyond match reporting. Fenix down (talk) 09:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be interested to learn which sources are in the latter three that aren't in the first two that you see as making a difference? For 2009-10 can I find just one, which clearly doesn't meet the requirement of multiple sources; for 08-09 and 10-11 I can't find any. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 14:16, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question to User:Mattythewhite I looked quickly at 2008–09 York City F.C. season. Can you tell me which of the sources aren't routine match reports or transfer announcements. Honestly I don't see many if any that aren't routine. Also about the GA status. It is possible to write a nice article from WP:ROUTINE sources and as a GAN is reviewed my one user it is quite possible that these articles don't actually meet GNG. Reading the article you basically just summarise the transfers and results using routine sources. I ask @Spiderone, Nfitz, GiantSnowman, Smartyllama, and Fenix down: to list any sources that show these articles meet GNG. Also to MtW your listed reliable non-routine sources are (all comments are about 08-09 only): BBC Sport (every single one of those in 08-09 are match reports or transfer announcements); Non-League Daily (transfer announcement); The Non-League Paper (not in 08-09 so no comment); The Press (I see one that could be seen as non-routine but the rest are transfer/match reports). I urge those !voting keep to back-up their argument. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:57, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The article could do with bulking up to be more descriptive and therefore be better able to demonstrate independent coverage, a la the 2015–16 article, but most of the prose was written over seven years ago. However, it should be noted that evidence of meeting GNG does not necessarily need to be present within the article, per WP:ARTN. I fee this passage is particularly pertinent: "Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability".

A search for articles from The Press, who provide the most in-depth coverage of the club, for the period of the season yields around 2k results. I used the search term of "York City" (with quotation marks), so some results may not pertain to the club, but a quick check shows they mostly do. Most of the results are routine coverage, as should be expected, but I would argue there are numerous articles that satisfy GNG. See: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm happy to support the articles based on these latter sources Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after good work from Mattythewhite. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:31, 2 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:12, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Afara[edit]

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

Non-notable person; promotional. Brianga (talk) 20:29, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per TNT. pure advertisement. I am pretty sure this article existed before and was deleted before; it may be necessary to SALT. Jytdog (talk) 20:57, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable wedding planner/businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:07, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I nearly was going to PROD myself and I nearly speedied as G11 too, this is explosively advertorial consisting only of naming mentions from other people and groups, and that's not an article. SwisterTwister talk 16:47, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:34, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:34, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:34, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a WP:PROMO page for a non-notable event planner. Sources provide trivial and PR-like mentions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't review all the sources for language reasons but if they are as bad as the ones I do understand then this is no good at all. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:09, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:12, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2006–07 Stevenage Borough F.C. season[edit]

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

There is no evidence that these seasons meet the general notability guidelines. Though well referenced, the only sources are run of the mill newspaper sports reporting, which WP:GNG states is not sufficient to establish notability. Beyond this, the page does not show notability as a season. Other AfDs have established a strong consensus that seasons in non fully professional leagues - such as the Conference in which Stevenage competed in 2005/06 - are not inherently notable. Comparable deleted examples are: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 20:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they offer no evidence for meeting the WP:GNG, and cover the same league.

Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 20:22, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Clear consensus that these fail WP:NSEASONS and we need to have a cut-off somewhere. Number 5 7 08:46, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 15:40, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all; they all fail WP:GNG as there is no non-routine coverage on these topics. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 02:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 08:09, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - there is clear consensus that the fifth tier of English football is not sufficiently high to fulfill WP:NSEASONS "top professional leagues" requirement. Fenix down (talk) 09:24, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:18, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2005–06 Dagenham & Redbridge F.C. season[edit]

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

There is no evidence that these seasons meet the general notability guidelines. Though well referenced, these are run of the mill newspaper sports reporting, which WP:GNG states is not sufficient to establish notability. Other AfDs have established a strong consensus that seasons in non fully professional leagues - such as the Conference in which the teams competed in these seasons are not inherently notable. Note that the the articles for Dagenham and Redbridge's two prior seasons were recently deleted Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 20:11, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because it is for a club in the same league, with fewer references, and nothing suggesting that it meets the WP:GNG

Delete both We need to have a cut-off somewhere and consensus is that these fail WP:NSEASONS. Multiple AfDs on club seasons in the same league have resulted in deletion: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 compared with three or four that ended as no consensus (one of which was deleted at the second AfD) and none as keep as far as I'm aware. Number 5 7 09:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 15:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both; they both fail WP:GNG as there is no non-routine sourcing. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 01:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 08:09, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - as per argument provided by Number 57 Spiderone 07:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - there is clear consensus that the fifth tier of English football is not sufficiently high to fulfill WP:NSEASONS "top professional leagues" requirement. Fenix down (talk) 09:24, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:18, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cherry Mobile Omega Spectrum[edit]

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

Non-notable smartphone. ViperSnake151 Talk 04:07, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:55, 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 08:09, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I did some investigation and while this is indeed an existing model of phone, I believe they sell rebranded handsets, don't actually design anything. Of course there are numerous other companies who offer very very similar looking devices under a brand name most of us won't have heard of and the fact that someone makes something or sells something isn't enough to deserve a page on Wikipedia.

Landlineman (talk) 21:17, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Trying for more input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:28, 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 merge to Accel-KKR. Sandstein 17:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ektron[edit]

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

I certainly hope we can finally get a better consensus as this was actually kept 6 years ago but deleted the previous AfD, still none of this is actually convincing, no actual substance and my own searches are simply finding unacceptable links such as PR. SwisterTwister talk 21:25, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:27, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:27, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Best I can tell, this was kept at the previous AfD, and there is nothing new to consider here, except maybe that the company was merged. As per WP:NTEMP, notability is not temporary. Unscintillating (talk) 22:53, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Closer - This comment is not keeping to mind WP:CCC especially given the we have changed regarding advertorial and questionable articles since then, and this vote is also essentially WP:LASTTIME, not actually clarifying or stating how the article should be kept now. I will also note WP:ILIKEIT. SwisterTwister talk 03:21, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is with the talking to the closer routine? WP:CONSENSUS is a policy. As for the substance of your argument, I suggest that you put more effort into preparing a high-quality nomination, rather than throwing up trial-balloon afterthoughts. The nomination does not make an argument for deletion...is this a notability argument, a WP:NOT argument, or a WP:IAR argument? The work of our content contributors, i.e., our articles, comes with an assumption of good faith, so no editor has a duty to prove the good faith of our content contributors. Your being "convinced" is not a policy based argument, and is not associated with metrics to define the difference between being "convinced" and "not being convinced". "No actual substance" is not a policy-based argument and is likewise not associated with metrics to define the difference between "substance" and "no substance". I've cited WP:NTEMP, which is a part of WP:N. You've looked at the point that your nomination incorrectly states the result of the last AfD, yet you've not responded. You've been challenged before for the unsourced claims that something has changed at Wikipedia, yet we see no response here to the previous request. Why are we here? Unscintillating (talk) 06:15, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (from this version) to Accel-KKR, as one of the companies in its portfolio; if it ever gets sold, the content could be moved to the new company. Other than that, non-notable on its own. Coverage is not there to meet GNG and sustain an encyclopedia entry. Does not meet CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:50, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I update my vote from "Delete or merge"; I believe the content that remains would be a good addition to the Accel-KKR article. I removed intricate detail and am thus proposing this latest version. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:53, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:52, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:52, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Possibly) Merge to Accel-KKR, which acquired Ektron in 2014, yet the merge target article has no mention of Ektron whatsoever. This will improve the merge target article as a functional and appropriate WP:ATD. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:56, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if Accel-KKR is the appropriate target. Their interest is purely financial; it's not like they would help to develop or market the product. The other companies mentioned at Accel-KKR do not have blurbs on them, so, if anything, only Ektron's name would appear there. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Accel-KKR is a rather undeveloped, start-class article, and as such, should be expanded, in my opinion. A merge would be a functional start to this expansion. Why keep it dumbed down when there's usable content that will improve it for Wikipedia's readers? I've added a mention of Ektron there, so that's a start. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:27, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the website, Ektron is a product, but the parent company is now EPiServer. Accel-KKR is a private equity firm, and thus, essentially operates as a holding company. Merging the articles would not make sense, as EPiServer is still a completely standalone company, just financially owned (and board-operated) by Accel-KKR. Biggg10 (talk) 00:27, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated my !vote above to read "(Possibly) Merge". It's the closest available target to merge to, as there is presently no EPiServer article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:31, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:32, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:47, 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. As with any other list or category of people by religious/philosophical/political affiliation, the inclusion of any particular article is a matter for talk page discussion. postdlf (talk) 22:09, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of atheist Americans[edit]

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

Why is this relevant? There isn't a list of atheist Brits, or atheist Chinese etc. Couldn't this be done as a category instead? Specto73 (talk) 18:36, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:LISTN. As nominator says, there are no other nationality-based lists of atheists. Additionally, there are no other religiously-based lists of Americans. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:09, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:15, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:15, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:15, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we do have other "religiously-based lists of Americans", such as List of American Muslims and List of American Catholics. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:19, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- As for the "Couldn't this be done as a category instead?" argument, Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates addresses this, and lists the advantages of each. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:54, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A big problem is that atheism is defined by non-assertion, as opposed to assertion. Some of these people publicly and openly identified with a religion, and only philosophically supported atheism. Religions are a wholistic thing that one has to proactively embrace. Beyond this, it is open to question if the statement "I do not believe in God" is one of atheism or agnosticism.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:45, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay but isn't that an argument to delete every atheist people list and category? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:31, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:15, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Every instance seems to be sourced to RS of person making a declaratory statement of their atheism. See no issues with BLP or GNG. BlueSalix (talk) 23:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This begs the question of what counts as a declaration of atheism. A person could say "I don't believe in God" and yet believe in a different belief system (e.g., one with many gods) which would mean that they don't count as atheists. Besides this, there must be thousands of atheist Americans with Wikipedia pages; building a complete list would require vast amounts of manpower and would rely very heavily upon the interpretation of different editors as to a person's religious beliefs. That, perhaps, is why this has never been attempted for any other nationality. Specto73 (talk) 15:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Policy-wise, I'm unable to make a significant differentiation between this list and pretty much every list on Lists of Americans. I'm not voting keep, since that would be an other stuff exists vote. However, I think it would be somewhat arbitrary to delete this list while allowing a hundred more similar ones to stand. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:22, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:43, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As I've stated above, we do have a number of lists for notable atheists, per Category:Lists of atheists and master list Lists of atheists. We also have a number of lists for Americans by religious affiliation. I'm not seeing a policy based argument to delete. We have a family of alphabetized lists beginning with List of atheists (surnames A to B) -- eight in all -- but those lists are not sortable by nationality. So this American list would seem to be useful for readers and meets WP:LISTBIO. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:33, 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 01:18, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ophir Gertner[edit]

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

No evidence or statement of notability; PROD removed by creator, but sources not improved. First source literally says in its "about" that it's a blog. There are no sources for any bio details; in its present condition, were it to be kept, it would be cut to one sentence about getting funding for invest.com. Part of the recent invest.com cluster of articles. David Gerard (talk) 18:32, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 18:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with David Gerard that improvements to the artilce should have been made earlier.I Added more verifiable references, removed any unnecessary content. All 3 sources are from highly trusted third parties such as The Telegraph and CNBC .I believe these sources are evidence of notability. Ymd2004 (talk) 00:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those are definitely reasonable sources. However, the sources say nothing about Gertner personally, only talking about him in the context of invest.com; there is nothing substantial in them about Gertner. (See Wikipedia:Notability (people).) At best this would end up redirected to invest.com, assuming that survives its AFD. - David Gerard (talk) 23:22, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I frankly consider this A7 and G11 material by all means. SwisterTwister talk 05:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no indications of notability nor sufficient RS to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:02, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage of Gertner anywhere. And the company he co-founded (Invest.com) looks almost certain to be deleted as well. Edwardx (talk) 12:05, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable venture capitalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:48, 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 Speedy delete per CSDs A7 and G11. Nick-D (talk) 07:12, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Secure Insight[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP, sources fail WP:CORPDEPTH as either press releases or namedrops. None are significant coverage of the company itself. PROD contested by author. shoy (reactions) 18:09, 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 no consensus. Default to keep. Various good policy arguments each way. It seems to hinge on whether or not the references constitute "non-trivial" coverage. No immediate BLP or promotional concerns, but should be monitored. Jujutacular (talk) 17:04, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rémy Couvez[edit]

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

This article mainly cites the artist's own website, and fails to provide any substantive independent sources to establish WP:GNG. Guy (Help!) 10:04, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm the author of this page (I'm also French so forgive my mistakes...). There are several websites which are talking about him. He did a lot of concerts and there are some articles on newspapers talking about him, and even some videos of his concerts... I don't know what the criteria are in the English Wikipedia but it is admissible in the French Wikipedia. Cordially, — Antimuonium (Talk) 10:13, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found these sources after a quick search: [3], [4], [5], and [6]. I do not speak French, nor do I have any knowledge of French media sources, so I do not feel able to evaluate these. If they are reliable, then the subject would appear to meet GNG. Vanamonde (talk) 11:16, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Fr wikipedia has an article on Couvez, unfortunately it has no references, summary of above refs. mentioned by Vanamonde93 - 1 and 4 are short reviews of performances with no depth, 2 and 3 are announcements of future performances. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:27, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, hi Antimuonium, you might like to take a look at WP:NMUSIC to see what makes a musician notable. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:36, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think that there still are many articles talking about him, like here, here, here with discography, here, here, etc. I know these articles are not very long but can't it be counted as a criterion of WP:NMUSIC? I mean, the first one? These articles are multiple, independent of the musician himself, etc. He also did a lot of concerts in France. — Antimuonium ^{U wanna talk?} 10:00, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at least until the many sources discussed here have been added to the article and together assure notability under WP:MUSICBIO at which the article currently clearly fails. Bearing in mind that even a plethora of cited sources still does not make a topic notable that does not meet the claims of importance and significance required by the guideline.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:05, 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 01:04, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, WP:CONTN] - "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. ... Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability." Coolabahapple (talk) 03:12, 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 04:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I find exactly seven news articles mentioning the subject, all in French, and while my French is terrible, it's good enough to recognize that he is not the subject in five of them, and the other two are describing the same concert, one before and one after. Outside of that, I see nothing that qualifies him under WP:NMUSIC. It's all primary sources. ArchieOof (talk) 21:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would advocate some more leeway for this guy because he's a hurdy-gurdy player and not just another cellist or lead guitarist. Our coverage of the hurdy-gurdy is scant. OK, so now looking at overall notability, here're the four refs provided by Vanamonde93:

Brief review/mention. Don't know the venue's notability but its slick and professional.
Brief review/mention. Don't know the venue's notability but its slick and professional.
Brief review/mention. Same outlet as previous.
Brief review/mention. Don't know the venue's notability but its slick and professional.

and from the article

Dunno, its behind a paywall. Looks slick and professional and must be at least a brief review/mention.
Tourism site, would need an archived copy, but probably just a bare listing.

There more, looks to be 3-4 more brief reviews/mentions, and then [7] here's a discography and one-paragraph description.

I'd like a proper little mini-bio in at least a regional paper or something like that, but he's French so it's harder to find that stuff. The refs don't have a lot of meat on them, but there are quite a few of them. He does not meet WP:GNG as far as I can tell, but the article seems worthwhile nevertheless.

Look, he's far better ref'd than Jean-François Dutertre (one ref) and Valentin Clastrier (one ref, to his own website) and Dominique Regef (two refs). And that's it for our French hurdy-gurdy players (Régine Chassagne is Canadian). Should we clear out that class of musicians? There's no argument against Rémy Couvez that doesn't go double against these other guys. And after we've cleared out the French, there are only twelve others in Category:Hurdy-gurdy players, maybe we should just blank out the category? What are we trying to accomplish here? Provide the sum of human knowledge, or just dump all our material on this instrument and it's players? Keep. Herostratus (talk) 00:38, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:18, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cynthia Lett[edit]

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

Fails WP:NAUTHOR. None of the sources listed are significant coverage of Lett herself and are namedrops at best. shoy (reactions) 17:37, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:27, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nominator that there's no significant coverage of Lett herself. A handful of times, quotes from her are used in article about etiquette as she appears to be a frequent "go-to" for questions like that, but I don't believe that qualifies her under WP:NAUTHOR. There's certainly no coverage of her as the subject of an article in any reliable sources. The barrage of citations are filled with primary sources, links to Amazon pages hawking her books, and the like. ArchieOof (talk) 21:32, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:43, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I did a ref check: very few RSes, most sources primary or user-generated, many unreliable sources, almost all biographical details completely unsourced - by WP:BLP, this should be culled to a stub ASAP. I wonder if we could get her to write some civility or etiquette guidance on promotional editing of Wikipedia - David Gerard (talk) 00:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is clearly only existing for PR the fact it's going to specifications for her career and clientele-laced information, none of it is actually convincing. SwisterTwister talk 05:58, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- strictly a vanity page with no substance. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:53, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:18, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SimCorp[edit]

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

I cannot find any evidence that this company passes WP:NCORP. Even though it is publicly traded, the only sources I can find are press releases or Reuters briefs, which all fail WP:CORPDEPTH. shoy (reactions) 17:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 09:08, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Literally unreferenced. I note also the many redlinked SPAs in the history with a considerable interest in this article - David Gerard (talk) 10:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This company has been very good at keeping itself out of the independent press. Maybe if one of the other wikis (da:SimCorp, no:SimCorp, fr:SimCorp) finds some good non-english refs the page could be recreated. Until then, not notable. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 13:10, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is all still entirely PR where I consider it speedy material, none of this actually amounts to show how and why the company is independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 19:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:G11. Corporate spam with no encyclopedic value. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:13, 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 speedily deleted under criterion G11. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OSell[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. The article has plenty of references, but vast majority are either press releases or self-published (company's own website, etc.). There are few minor news stories but they mention the company in passing, discussing some of its products, or acquisitions (including a warehouse in Toronto...). I don't see what makes this company pass the notability criteria. Considering that this type of an article is usually created by a paid-for editor, I'd also like to ask its creator User:Rzafar if s/he would like to update his/her statement at User:Rzafar#Volunteer.2Fhired_Content about not having done any paid for articles? That statement is from June 2016 and this article suggest this may no longer be true. PS. Editors who comment here may want to see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OConnect by the same user (but with even worse refs). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:51, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 14:42, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 14:42, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 14:42, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 14:42, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete and I've tagged it as G11 also - David Gerard (talk) 00:29, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:21, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:21, 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 no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:15, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Vegas[edit]

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

Had nominated as CSD, this was removed, am now bringing it here. Subject of article only appears to have attracted the attention of local media outlets, not the kind of broad news attention required to sustain a notability claim. Also, having run for political office (and not won) does not further such a claim (see WP:POLITICIAN paragraph #3). Neither does having appeared in a series of non-notable films (see WP:Notability (people)#Entertainers). I am not proposing the removal of all Elvis impersonators from Wikipedia, I am nominating this article for deletion because it does not appear to have made an adequate notability claim. The fact that it is seemingly overloaded with citations strikes me as WP:CITEOVERKILL rather than as evidence of notability. Being crowned "No 1 Elvis tribute artist in the world" by the Collingwood Enterprise Bulletin is not evidence of notability as this newspaper is not of national or even regional scope. KDS4444 (talk) 11:02, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hmmm .... interesting. OK strange that this article has been nominated for deletion. Quote:- "Also, having run for political (and not won) does not further such a claim". His running for office is of interest to the reader. Quote:-, "The fact that it is seemingly overloaded with citations strikes me as WP:CITEOVERKILL". Ahh, actually good choice of word(s) "Seemingly". Actually The citations are in line as per what is written about him. Nothing more. You say Quote:- "Neither does having appeared in a series of non-notable films". Well George of the Jungle 2 and the other 2 are for the interest of the reader. Vegas is notable without that. Vegas appears in newspapers around the world. Not only Australia! And I dare say given time, you'll come to realize that. Also the Collingwood Enterprise Bulletin is a Canadian news paper. One of many around the world that covers Vegas and the like. The Collingwood Enterprise Bulletin didn't crown Vegas #1 Elvis. The organization (Collingwood Elvis Festival) that hosts the competitions annually has that role. The role of the newspaper is to cover the event. Thankyou Karl Twist (talk) 11:38, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:56, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:56, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It may be laughable that he has that amount of coverage, but have it he does. Meets WP:GNG. Doctorhawkes (talk) 07:25, 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 11:02, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The amount of coverage is indeed amusing, but the sources seem very local/niche. I do not see any depth of coverage, he is mentioned primarily in passing. IF I missed any reliable, in-depth source, please ping me and I'll look at it. But as such he seems to not rise to the level of being encyclopedic (notable). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:15, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, there's in depth coverage of him. Sure there's a lot of smaller mentions but there are at least 6 reliable main. He's covered by New Zealand papers as well as Canadian. 2 times Elvis winner in the recognized ELvis comps. Easily notable! Karl Twist (talk) 11:55, 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 17:20, 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 List of films broadcast by Nickelodeon#2015. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:53, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One Crazy Cruise[edit]

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

Non-notable 2015 film. There is no speedy deletion category available for films, so it must be nominated here. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:56, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:16, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This could probably redirect to List_of_films_broadcast_by_Nickelodeon#2015, since it's a Nick film. I know we've done that with some of their other stuff in the past. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:22, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of films broadcast by Nickelodeon#2015 – I think I found the original sourcing for this one, and there's not much: just "Teen zeens". There's not enough independent coverage to justify a separate article. So redirect back to List of films broadcast by Nickelodeon. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:42, 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 09:46, 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 17:18, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to a redirect. ~Amatulić (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 merge to List of Autobots. Or elsewhere appropriate. Sandstein 17:49, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstorm (Transformers)[edit]

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

This character article does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 23:26, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 23:26, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 23:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Lists of Transformers characters. The character has appeared in multiple shows/comics, so there's not an obvious redirect target. This is a list of character lists, which should help the reader locate the specific version they're looking for. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:38, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Autobots. BOZ (talk) 05:36, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability has been established by multiple reliable sources. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 18:39, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are certainly multiple sources in the article. That may satisfy WP:V, but just existing does not satisfy WP:N. They are not used in any meaningful manner, so they are useless in regards to that. TTN (talk) 18:58, 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 17:10, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge if there's anything worth merging, but a redirect or outright deletion would also be appropriate. I am strongly opposed to keeping the article as is; there is little indication that the character has independent notability, and the article itself is a mess. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:01, 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. As with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrea Ciliberti, if the SNG discussion takes a surprising turn and ends up supporting this being kept, ping me. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Duke[edit]

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

Andrea Duke is only marginally notable for being Miss North Carolina USA, but that is not enough to establish notability. The only paper that ran an article on her win seems to be the one in Ashville, North Carolina. The papers in the larger metro areas of Greensboro/Winston-Salem, Charlotte and Raleigh/Durham did not take note of her win. This shows that winning the title does not get much attention on the broad state level. The previous discussion basically closed that these people were not default notable, but that individual discussions on specific articles were needed to decide in more detail. Her success while playing volleyball at Wofford College does not look to be enough to establish notability either. John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:33, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:07, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:57, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:57, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss North Carolina USA as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:57, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO1E and a minor one at that. The subject is otherwise not notable. The state-level win does not satisfy ANYBIO1, and the coverage is not there to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:06, 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) 04:16, 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 00:39, 18 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; and (2) 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. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:40, 21 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 17:10, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty Pageants-related deletion discussions. PageantUpdater (talk) 00:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now, pending outcome of SNG pageant RfC. Aoziwe (talk) 12:48, 8 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FinancialContent[edit]

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

fails WP:CORP. created by a single purpose editor. And lacking in depth third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 16:05, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 09:08, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Extensively unsourced to unreliable sources. Nothing to show notability or depth of coverage - David Gerard (talk) 10:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I frankly consider this speedy material as it both contains PR and then also no significant claims of actual independent notability, all in all enough to delete. SwisterTwister talk 19:55, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no indications of notability and strictly promotional. Article edited by Special:Contributions/Mdierolf who appears to be the founder of the company. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:30, 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 redirect to Miss Jamaica Universe. MBisanz ^talk 01:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kerrie Baylis[edit]

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

The only source here is the Miss Jamaica Universerse page. This is not enough by even the most loose interpretations to pass GNG. John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article." - WP:CONTN. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:13, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:14, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:14, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty Pageants-related deletion discussions. PageantUpdater (talk) 00:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:24, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Jamaica Universe as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:25, 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. Keep arguments are unconvincing in the face of almost every source in the article talking about the site's creator and not the site. I'd suggest that there's reasonably good footing for a Patrick Killelea article, and Patrick.net can redirect to there uncontroversially. As such, I won't personally salt here. A Train^talk 12:46, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick.net[edit]

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)

Non-notable website. The sources in the article do not establish notability. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 13:57, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The site is in fact notable because it was widely referenced during the housing crash for its arguments, and there are about 500 incoming links from sites such as http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/25/your-money/25yourmoney.html The site is a common topic of conversation, particularly in the San Francisco area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:77C6:B9E0:2CAD:2548:5D2B:FB8A (talk) 04:40, 28 August 2016 (UTC) — 2602:301:77C6:B9E0:2CAD:2548:5D2B:FB8A (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Incomming links are irrelevant; Wikipedia has established guideline for defining notability at WP:Notability (web), specifically in the "Criteria" section of that guideline. What is needed to establish notability are "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I see some additional third-party sources that focus on the site or its founder have now been added to the article. If additional third-part references that provide non-trivial coverage of the site can be provided, that would help the article further. It's then up to the Wikipedia community to evaluate the quality of those sources to determine if they meet the threshold of notability as defined at WP:Notability (web), or via the general notability guideline at WP:N. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Barek. You have been a tremendous help, and your time is greatly appreciated. I'm Glad to know it's moving in the right direction. Will work on incorporating additional 3rd party articles. There are plenty. Do they all have to be in the form of in-line citations? I'm only asking because it would obviously be easier to add a whole bunch of related articles, but then expand the content and connect it to its respective citations, as time permits. Susannny (talk) 19:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)— Susannny (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

@Susannny: There are a few options - the links could be added to the "External Links" section or in a new Further reading section could be added just above the existing external links section; but any links that run afoul of Wikipedia's external links guideline could be removed by others. Optionally, a discussion section could be added to the article talk page at Talk:Patrick.net, where potential references could be listed until any editor has time to review them for later incorporation into the article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP THIS PAGE! — Preceding unsigned comment added by OriginalBankster (talk • contribs) 07:29, 29 August 2016 (UTC) — OriginalBankster (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: An editor has expressed a concern that OriginalBankster (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.

Delete. It just doesn't seem to be notable. I can't figure out how it can be a free speech site and a real estate site at the same time anyway, which the lede seems to imply. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:34, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - based on the OpEdNews interview and the ABCnews.go.com article, I believe the article (stub) just barely meets the threshold for notability - although I could see an argument that those sources better define the site founder as notable rather than the site itself. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:19, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Delete and Salt Not notable. Fails WP:GNG, I don't think those sources are enough, and, as Barek said, they better define the founder. (And cue the SPA's with their "keep" !votes that don't say why the subject is notable, and the trolls from the website). ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 22:27, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As ThePlatypusofDoom just said, people have been canvassed into this discussion, which, of course, violates our meat-puppetry policy. For the canvass, see [8]. As our policy says, editors found to be a meatpuppet may be blocked from editing. Also, for anyone coming from that website, it is in everyone's best interest if you go ahead and say you came from there, per our conflict of interest policy, though it isn't required unless you're being paid to edit the page. If you are being paid by anyone to edit the page, it is required under the Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Use. Also, after reading through that forum page, I can say that very few of us here (including me) are admins and that almost anyone can add notices (such as the one at the top of this page) to almost any page. -- Gestrid (talk) 23:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: After reviewing the thread from the website, I'm not sure it qualifies as canvassing. He's asking for help. He asks for comments. Another user clarified that the comments need to be something that contributes to the improvement of the page so that it meets your requirements, including specifically asking that comments include citations. At no point was anyone asked to just come on here and vote "Yes." They were asked to comment, simply because who would know more about the site than the membership? Many of the members have been around for many years, some since the beginning (2004). They have watched it evolve... They read the various articles written about the site when the articles were first published. The older members of the site just know it well, and it was that knowledge he was hoping to access in order to generate ideas that would meet your criteria. As for the concern that contributors admit to being members, I am a member of the Patrick.net site. I've been a member for many years. That doesn't make my contributions here any less meaningful, and I have helped (so far) to get at least one "weak keep" from an admin, not because I "voted," but because I incorporated citations and corrected the references formatting, as requested by a contributor. I have no ownership interest in the Patrick.net website, and I am by no means being paid to help out. I'm helping because I choose to, and I support the idea that Patrick.net is something worthy of a Wiki entry. Additionally, I have had a Wiki account long before this particular Patrick.net Wiki page was created. I made extensive suggestions below, which I think address every issue you've mentioned. It is under the proviso that those additions be made that I felt comfortable adding a vote of keep. As always, I appreciate everyone's time and help, and I hope I was able to clarify the intention of the request for help found at the Patrick.net website.Susannny (talk) 09:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, nobody here is an admin. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 23:33, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ThePlatypusofDoom: Wasn't sure. I've been here for years and I still don't know how or if I can check other users' permissions. And thanks for clearing that up. After seeing people in that forum going on about "admin posts" (one post specifically called the notice at the top of the page an admin post), I figured I should clear that up. Of course, once this discussion is done within the next few days, an admin will evaluate the consensus of the discussion. (Arguments without any policy-based reason given are usually disregarded.) That last bit was for those who came here from that website. -- Gestrid (talk) 23:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Gestrid: Go to Special:ListUsers, type in the name of the user, and it shows their permissions. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 23:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wait, Barek's an admin. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 23:55, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Forget Barek's an admin? That's a paddlin'. clpo13_(talk) 23:56, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, ThePlatypusofDoom. I want people from that site to know that it's not just admins that not-vote on this stuff. In fact, probably the majority of Articles for Deletion discussions don't have admin comments on them. -- Gestrid (talk) 00:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt per ThePlatypusofDoom's comment. Salt it because, as the forum page said, it was deleted and then someone almost immediately recreated it. I have a feeling someone will likely do it again. -- Gestrid (talk) 23:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After further consideration, I have decided that I'm ~~okay with~~ !voting for either "delete and salt" or "userfication", provided editors use WP:AFC and follow WP:COI. ~~(Closer, count my !vote as either one, depending on the other !votes.)~~ -- Gestrid (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If "userfication" and proceeding using a different path is the best option to decompress things, I'm all for it. This site is notable. We just need to get that across. Perhaps the creator submitted (probably without knowing the other options) too quickly. There's no ego, here. We are clearly not super experienced Wiki page creators. But we are genuine. If the issue is bias, though I assure you I truly can look at something objectively even if I'm considered biased as a "member," I know that may not be good enough to establish unbiased, 3rd party creation. But this site is notable. We just need some help to effectively communicate that (pardon the split infinitive).... Obviously. The very fact that an admin gave it a "weak keep" (before edits) and another user I cannot identify (not a patnet member I recognize, and I've been there a very long time) also gave it a "keep" should suggest some merit, here. (See, I didn't even include my "keep" in that accounting.) If it needs to be reclassified to give us time to work through some things, please point us in the right direction. I haven't the first clue how one goes about "userfying" a page so that it becomes a "draft" rather than a "submission," allowing the opportunity to find an independent, 3rd party editor to submit the article on Patrick.net's behalf. I'm still struggling with remembering to sign my additions! Do I need to do something, or do you do something? I'm learning as fast as I can. Susannny (talk) 02:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for not replying sooner, Susannny. I've been very busy in real life, though I have been keeping an eye on this discussion, including putting a reminder up that we shouldn't bite the newcomers by deleting something they created, from what I can tell, may have just not known what they were doing. (Of course, there are exceptions to this, like if the page was completely made from copyrighted material.) The best way, at the moment, to get the article moved into "draftspace", as we call it, is to simply put your not-vote so it says something like * '''Move to Draftspace''' per Gestrid. -- ~~~~. (~~~~, automatically changes into your signature, of course.) Copy that text above and put it after the very last comment on this page. -- Gestrid (talk) 17:40, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt per ThePlatypusofDoom. --Tarage (talk) 00:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ThePlatypusofDoom: I've read your concerns about the page being deleted and then immediately being re-put back up. I assure you. We are just getting familiar with how this site works. There is no malicious intent, just a learning curve. If either the author or I were responsible for this, it was an innocent mistake.Susannny (talk) 02:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)— Susannny (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete due to lack of tangible evidence of actual notability, plus the rather obvious fact that it was created (both times) by a user whose username is a variant spelling of Patrick, so it's almost certainly a promotional article (and indeed reads as such). Guy (Help!) 13:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree: The opinion statements contained in the article are pulled directly from the cited sources, which include WSJ, Nightline, ABC News, Business Insider. So, this is just what was said by the third-party source. Promotional articles wouldn't have support. Also, the matter about the deletion/recreation has already been addressed as user error.Susannny (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)— Susannny (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Sure so we disagree. I've been here over ten years and have over 80,000 edits to over 30,000 unique pages. You have been here about five minutes and have a handful of edits all but one related to this debate. Feel free to carry on disagreeing. Guy (Help!) 20:06, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, you could give me something more specific than "promotional." Is it the way something in particular is written? Oh, and you didn't answer the question on how mentioning something that's from news sources (or other 3rd party sources) would be classified as promotional. Seems like a lot of Wiki articles refer to such things. In fact, I believe it's one of the criteria for notability. Your vast experience is duly noted, and your comments are appreciated, particularly those that allow me to take specific action to rectify your concerns.Susannny (talk) 03:30, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the site as stated above does not meet WP:WEB. Also a good dose of salt might be healthy too. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:29, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as all initial reasons for why it was put on deletion were addressed; the user has already explained that the deletion and recreation issue was likely user inexperience on the use of the initial draft features, so he submitted way before the page was ready. Susannny (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)— Susannny (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
You !voted above, so I put a strikethrough on this comment. - MrOllie (talk) 19:40, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This was not meant to be a duplicate vote. The vote above was qualified with conditions and the other vote was not. So the vote went from "keep with changes" to "keep" since the changes were made. I have since deleted the "keep with changes vote," since that's no longer applicable. So, the strikethrough is no longer necessary. There is only one vote. Susannny (talk) 19:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for clearing it up. No big deal, even the regulars lose track and throw up a dupe once in a while. - MrOllie (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Susannny has shown interest in userfication as an alternative to deletion. See the discussion that took place on the user's talk page here (permalink) about userfication, as well as the discussion above under my not-vote. -- Gestrid (talk) 23:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Business Insider and CSMonitor pieces were authored by Patrick Killelea of Patrick.net, so not independent. WSJ and ABC interview Killelea about the housing slump, not really about the site. NPR isn't about the site either. We need some good sources that are about the site, not about its founders ideas on the housing slump. - MrOllie (talk) 19:40, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Business Insider pieces were not written by Patrick. The Business Insider pieces were written by other members of the forum. The very point is that the membership itself was authoring ideas that were being picked up by outside sources and published. That does speak to the website itself. NPR was the personification of the very debate that the site was initially about. Seems quite similar to other accepted pages of a similar type.Susannny (talk) 20:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"The Business Insider pieces were written by other members of the forum", which STILL makes it non-independent of the forum though. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hear what you are saying, but the fact that contributions that came from the forum were considered of a level of quality that they would be picked up by a known publication speaks to the quality of the material provided by various users on the site. The page says that the articles were written by anonymous user of the site, so it's not pretending to be something that it isn't. AND, it provides evidence that speaks to how the site evolved from being exclusively a housing blog to one that discusses a multitude of topics. Now, this next part will sound petulant, and I don't mean it that way, but I have to ask. If you go to the Reddit page, not a dissimilar product and removed all their supporting citations that trace back to Reddit, you'd have nothing left. This isn't a tantrum, I'm truly just trying to understand because I genuinely want to fix it. When I read many of the comments, I see similar violations on a similar page that was, in fact, accepted. I actually had a hard time drilling down to the independent articles on their page, as there were literally hundreds of citations that go back to Reddit. Feel like you all are telling me some of these apples are oranges, and I'm still seeing all apples. As to notable... The requirements are Evidence is Verifiable (done), No Inherent Notability (we've shown that the site has attracted notice), and No Inherited Notability (admittedly, this is our weakest area, but I feel that this has been accomplished, particularly through the fact that the very articles you want to delete from Business Insider were, in fact, picked up by Business Insider by virtue of stand-alone notability of the site. Thank you, BTWSusannny (talk) 20:39, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you take a few seconds to scan down the list of references toward the end of the Reddit page, you'll find the NY Times, USA Today, Reuters, CNN, etc. Here's a good example of what we would like to see: CNN - here we have CNN/Money writing a piece about recent events on reddit.com. This isn't Ellen Pao being quoted on some other topic, this isn't some other site reposting a reddit comment verbatim. Reddit and events there are the main topic of the article. This is the kind of thing we would really like to see on all wikipedia articles. - MrOllie (talk) 20:54, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. Clearly, having an entire article dedicated solely to the site would be ideal. However, according to Wiki's own guidelines, "'Notability' is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance," and even web content that editors personally believe is "important" or "famous" is only accepted as notable if it can be shown to have attracted notice." Yes, admittedly, there are differences in degree. However, the site has shown to have attracted notice, which is the listed requirement.Susannny (talk) 21:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, the site has generated some good content. The CNN article I just linked was good content, but we don't have an articles on Laurie Segall or Chris Isidore, who have written numerous pieces for CNN. While we have articles by those journalists, we do not have articles about those journalists. - MrOllie (talk) 21:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But that's precisely what attracted ABC News and NPR: the site. Patrick Killelea would have been unknown if not for the blog started at Patrick.net. Patrick.net is what caught their attention, hence the references to the site contained within those cited articles.Susannny (talk) 22:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Susannny (talk • contribs) 22:24, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The site might have been the reason that he was noticed, but unless there's more coverage of it, it's not notable. (Thank you for working constructively, by the way. There are plenty of people who lash out when we consider deleting the article about something that they like, as the comments on the forum are an example of.) ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 00:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that you see that even a site member can contribute constructively. I was a little thrown by the comments that site members must be biased... Sounded like something Trump said about a certain judge. I truly am just trying to help. Again however, I fail to see where a threshold of notability is THAT specifically laid out. The site is mentioned in major publications as why they were interviewing the creator. According to the Notability page, it is defined as "having attracted notice." It doesn't say how many times. It doesn't say how densely the article must refer to the site. It does say something about "passing mentions," but it's not like it's a passing mention on an unrelated issue. It's the whole reason for the interview. Perhaps this is like the "I know it when I see it." I just need to better understand the Roth Test being using here. And seriously, thank you for your help. Clearly, I'm no expert on getting Wiki pages up. I'm learning as I go, as is the creator. But going through this process has made me want to participate more on other, unrelated, pages, as I see that a tremendous amount of effort comes from people who are volunteering their time. You guys/gals are all volunteers, right? I feel kind of bad that I didn't realize this before. I actually love editing.Susannny (talk) 02:03, 31 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Susannny (talk • contribs) 01:58, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found easily notable sites, with WP articles of their own, reporting on the subject site. I linked a half dozen examples spanning several years. It would seem hasty to delete and salt before editors have time to establish notability.TVC 15 (talk) 01:09, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TVC 15, can you provide some examples of those links you found? That way, we can see if they stand up to WP:RS, our reliable source guidelines. -- Gestrid (talk) 06:14, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the editing diffs show the additional source links and the quotations from already linked articles published by ABC News and The Wall Street Journal.[9] I added The San Francisco Chronicle, among others. All have their own WP articles if you would like more information about them, and the more famous sites have prominent reputations including fact-checking per WP:RS. For example, The Wall Street Journal has more than 120 years of experience and a daily circulation of more than 2 million people. More than 20 million rely on National Public Radio.TVC 15 (talk) 07:09, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No one's going to doubt that WSJ is a reliable source - it is - but does it discuss the subject in significant detail? I personally can't answer that - 90% of the article is locked behind a paywall, and I don't have a subscription. Can someone else confirm/deny? Sergecross73 msg me 20:54, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only seeing namechecks there, not substantive coverage. And osme of the sources are differently reliable. Guy (Help!) 23:03, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The linked WSJ article[10] reports on residential housing sites and the people behind them. Regarding Patrick.net, the WSJ article says:

"For Patrick Killelea, however, this year has been one long victory lap. Mr. Killelea, a 41-year-old software engineer, has long preached that it makes more economic sense to rent than buy homes. He recalls shouting "Wow!" when he heard about September's 9.7% drop in prices of new homes.

"I didn't want to gloat," he says. "But then again, maybe I did."

* * *

Among all the defiant renters, few roar louder than Mr. Killelea, who pays $2,350 a month to rent a snug, two-bedroom craftsman house near Stanford University in Menlo Park, Calif. He figures it would cost him $7,000 a month in mortgage payments and taxes if he owned it.

Most mornings, he sits at a small pine table just off his kitchen and scans emails from acquaintances for any bad news that fits his world view. Before he heads off to work at a bank, he posts the dozen bleakest stories to his Web site -- patrick.net/housing/crash.html -- under the permanent headline, "U.S. Housing Crash Continues."

Almost anything grim will do. Economic assessments from Finnish newspapers pass the test. So does an ad from a Michigan home seller offering to cut his asking price $1,000 a day. One favorite posting consists of a spoof of a Realtor ad, showing a terrified woman screaming in front of a hideous house.

A native Midwesterner, Mr. Killelea worked in Chicago in the mid 1990s before moving to Silicon Valley in 1997 to take a job at Sun Microsystems Inc. He was excited about the $77,000 starting salary -- a 55% increase from his previous job -- until he discovered how much housing cost in California. He and his wife, Leah, rented for a few years in Palo Alto before deciding that they might find cheaper housing in Berkeley.

"We spent several months looking at open houses and bidding on properties," Mr. Killelea recalls. "We bid over the asking price, but never enough to win. On the last one, they were asking $395,000 and we bid $500,000. We got a call afterward, asking us if we wanted to raise our bid. We said, 'No.' We thought that was enough. It turned out that the house sold for $530,000."

After losing that Berkeley home, Mr. Killelea told his wife they were calling off the home-buying search. She says she wasn't thrilled. But they moved to a new rental -- their fourth in five years -- and nestled their two children into an upstairs bedroom with bunk beds.

Even though prices have come down a bit in parts of California, Mr. Killelea vows to resist the pressure to buy. Recently he mused on his Web site about why more people don't follow his example. "I get the feeling many wives are pressuring the husbands to buy," he wrote. "I know it's not politically correct to say so, but I think a lot of irrational purchases are driven by female nesting instincts."

Mr. Killelea says his wife has been "very understanding" about his refusal to buy at today's prices: "She can do the math, too."

But Ms. Killelea seems more open to the idea of homeownership. "We haven't really talked yet about when we'd want to start looking again," she says. "I think we're going to need to discuss that."[11]

At more than 500 words, I think that adds up to more than a namecheck[12]. If anyone objects that this longer excerpt might risk copyright infringement, please feel free to delete the excerpt from this comment. I am not trying to steal from or compete with any site; I am only trying to present the excerpts relevant to this discussion.TVC 15 (talk) 21:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Biting Reminder: When considering this AfD, please remember our policy that says not to bite the newcomers: Avoid deleting newly created articles, as inexperienced authors might still be working on them or trying to figure something out. To me, this currently seems like a case where new users simply didn't really know what they were doing and didn't go through the proper channels. While this doesn't mean the page shouldn't be deleted, it does mean that we should definitely mean that we should assume good faith since we have no reason at this point to assume bad faith. That's why I changed my vote to userfy above. -- Gestrid (talk) 02:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
'Fraid I have to go delete on this one. Despite the best of efforts of several of the users of the site, I don't think we have found sufficient detailed coverage yet. The owner of the site is clearly notable, and several articles focus on him, but the website itself is only receiving passing mentions. If somebody wants to take this into their userspace with the understanding that they would only resubmit an improved version, I would not be opposed to userfication. Vanamonde (talk) 05:16, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The site owner's notability results from the site, and the articles report on him as the person behind the site. Consider The Wizard of Oz, who is notable only because of Oz, without which he would be only a man behind a curtain; Oz is what makes the Wizard notable. Likewise, whatever the owner's coding or culinary skills, the subject website is what makes him famous.TVC 15 (talk) 05:59, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some of participants of this AfD mentioned owner of that site may be notable, but not the site itself. There is no article about Patrick Killelea on English Wikipedia. I wonder (and I agree it is a little bit crazy idea...), wouldn´t be better to change focus of the article to owner himself and mention his site there? Pavlor (talk) 09:57, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Pavlor: no, we'd need to create a separate article. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 16:23, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I looked through the WP List of Internet forums to get a sense of what qualifies as notable, and how the question is usually addressed. For example, Patrick.net has more than twice as many registered user accounts as Urdu Mehfil, and the Patrick.net article cites significant coverage in multiple WP:RS, compared to zero WP:RS references in Urdu Mehfil. The Urdu Mehfil article was flagged for notability in January 2015, but remains on WP. It's fine with me to see an article on Urdu Mehfil, and I'm not suggesting deleting it. However, may I please suggest some sort of timeline or sequence to address notability, rather than hastily deleting and salting before editors can even address the issue? I don't understand the rush to delete this particular article, when others have more than a year to address notability.TVC 15 (talk) 00:06, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFF. Guy (Help!) 17:01, 4 September 2 may suggest, 016 (UTC)

Thanks, as noted in that article, citing other stuff may be (and in this case is definitely) an argument against the speed with which certain users have attempted to delete the article faster than editors could supply WP:RS links establishing notability. And, while we are on the subject of other stuff, please see the | section on conclusory statements regarding notability. I have addressed all of your specific assertions, but you have not yet retracted your initial (incorrect) conclusion. I found your "namecheck" comment particularly puzzling, considering the linked WSJ article devotes more than 500 words specifically to the subject site including how and why it is made and by whom. Likewise Beth Kobliner's praise in The New York Times, wherein she called the subject site "excellent" and listed several of the arguments it addresses: I'd like to see similar coverage of the Urdu site, but haven't yet. The subject article cites independent coverage in multiple clearly notable WP:RS. The speed with which this article came up for deletion does therefore appear hasty compared to other articles that lack _any_ independent coverage in WP:RS, let alone as much.TVC 15 (talk) 08:04, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A masterpiece of quote-mining. OTHERSTUFF says that the inclusion of $THING is not an argument for (or indeed against) inclusion of $RELATEDTHING. The more arguments of this type we get, the more we are inclined to conclude that no valid basis for inclusion exists. Guy (Help!) 08:50, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you were being sincere, then thanks I guess, best I could do in the brief time allowed and amid competing responsibilities. If you were searching for a specific quote from WP:OTHERSTUFF, here is the quote you may have been looking for, I've italicized portions for your particular attention: "The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether other articles do or do not exist, because there is nothing stopping anyone from creating any article. (This may be an argument that this article is not bad enough to be speedily deleted; but that does not mean it should be kept.) While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this." If you were attempting sarcasm, then may I please refer you to WP:SARCASM? I don't want to prolong a pointless digression, but your comments in this particular discussion have not always met the standards that I had seen from other admins. So far, you appear to have bitten two newcomers, mischaracterized a lengthy article including more than 500 words on the subject site as a "namecheck," and resorted to sarcasm, all in a misguided effort to delete as not notable an article on a demonstrably notable website. I suggest a cup of tea, and some time to reconsider. Meanwhile, I've continued to add independent WP:RS coverage, so the article continues to improve.TVC 15 (talk) 05:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment UPDATE: Despite a busy Labor Day weekend, I have added several quotations from clearly notable and independent WP:RS reporting on the subject site. The article links now to 10 different examples, including authors and interviewers who are notable in themselves as described in WP articles of their own, linking thus to a dozen different WP articles. The linked WP:RS include The Wall Street Journal article excerpted above, which devoted more than 500 words specifically to Patrick.net and the people and events behind it, as well as other substantive coverage and interviews spanning a decade and with a combined audience of more than 20 million people. Any editors who voted to delete prior to these additions, please reconsider now that notability is established.TVC 15 (talk) 05:18, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now seems notable enough, just. Aoziwe (talk) 13:03, 8 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mexico, South Carolina[edit]

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

As far as I can tell, there's never been a place in this part of South Carolina known as "Mexico". See the talk page for a discussion of this subject; previous ANI discussion, extensive checking of current and late-19th-century sources, and contacts with the local historical society together led to the conclusion that no sources for "Mexico, South Carolina" existed, except for the GNIS, and it seemingly has misclassified some other type of location as a community. This conclusion prompted it to be PRODded several years ago, but it was later recreated, and it's the recreation that I've brought here. The GNIS data are based either on (1) Board on Geographic Names files, or (2) USGS quads (see 34°56′16″N 81°00′17″W / 34.9379°N 81.0048°W / 34.9379; -81.0048 on the Acme Mapper and pick the "Topo" option at top right), but the GNIS entry gives no record of a Board decision, and there's no Mexico on any zoom resolution of the USGS quads, so I'm led to conclude that the GNIS is in error, leaving us with no actual sources for the existence of a Mexico in this location. Nyttend (talk) 13:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on your extensive research. I'm impressed that you contacted the local historical society. If it's still coming up in GNIS data it might be a good idea to salt the page so it doesn't get recreated, thereby perpetuating the spread of misinformation. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 13:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't contact them, but as is noted at talk, someone else did. Nyttend (talk) 13:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete From the remarkable work that Nyttend put into the research of this article, this clearly shows this town just doesn't exist and never did. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:43, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect. I'd like this nominally deleted, but I see no harm in a redirect. It's possible to search online Maps to find this place, and according to the non-GNIS reference in the article, the unnamed area was annexed some time in the 1960s. There's a property website which even defines its boundaries.[13] However what it doesn't have is multiple independent non-trivial sources. And there seems to be so little to say (it's only a small area) that it could be said in the Rock Hill article, per WP:GEOLAND. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I actually considered redirecting it. However, I figured that deletion would stick more firmly, and as ONUnicorn suggested, salting would be a good idea; people tend to be more friendly toward salting than they are toward full protection of a redirect that's not a likely vandalism problem. By the way, that property website's about page notes that its descriptions of locations are developed by algorithms; it's an autogenerated big data website, and (at least in the USA) these websites typically depend on the GNIS and similar websites, so when there's a GNIS error, we can expect autogenerated websites to reflect the error unquestioningly. Nyttend (talk) 13:56, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The annexation map provided as a source doesn't even list Mexico, it shows that entire area that was annexed in 1961 as "Industrial Hills". RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 14:13, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as I noted on the talk page almost 7 years ago, it is very unlikely that this was an inhabited place. Abductive (reasoning) 17:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. When I hear a reference to Mexico in South Carolina, the first thing that comes to mind is South of the Border in Dillon, which is a good 120 miles from Rock Hill. A redirect wouldn't be unusual in circumstances like this, but given the absence of any solid evidence, probably the best course here is to skip it. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:11, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As someone who lives there, don't redirect. South of the Border in Dillon and the middle of town in Rock Hill are apples and oranges, trust me. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 21:11, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: In 2009 I wrote on the article's talk page: "This suggests that Mexico may have been the name of a railway station or junction, or alternatively of a post office." I would add the possibility that it was the name of a large farm or ranch. But on the basis of Nyttend's work, I am willing to agree that the listing in GNIS is wrong and that the article should be deleted. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Per [14], there's never been a Mexico post office in York District or York County. Nyttend (talk) 00:46, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on your research. (It's worth noting that it does appear on more recent USGS maps, but I think that's just copying the same error; it doesn't appear on the 1984 topographic map, and there's no way a new unincorporated community could have formed since then on land that had already been incorporated by Rock Hill.) TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 12:07, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:32, 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 keep. Article's been sourced and improved since nomination (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:53, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Pavlović[edit]

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

Unable to locate any reliable sources in any language that offer more than a trivial mention. —swpb^T 12:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:01, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:01, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:01, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno. Here's her very short resume [15] at her home theater's page (Serbian National Theatre is a relatively big name). She did play the main role in Madame Butterfly, among other operas, yet I'm also struggling to find any information about her beyond what is written there. No such user (talk) 20:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The subject's own resume is very clearly not a reliable source. Please familiarize with WP:GNG. —swpb^T 15:55, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am very familiar with GNG, thank you. You clearly fail to understand that it is not her own resume, but one published by her home theater. To prevent any further misunderstanding, I will clearly state that a) I'm a native speaker of Serbian and b) my own search for sources confirms your assertion that there's very little in reliable sources about her indeed (just multiple very short mentions about her roles), which is surprising for a singer of her rank. Hence my indecisiveness about the article, which I expressed using word "dunno", colloquial for "I don't know". Is there anything else I need to clarify? No such user (talk) 19:56, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - You are clearly not as familiar with GNG as you say, because a publication by the subject's employer is clearly not independent, and therefore counts for absolutely nothing. —swpb^T 12:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Her employer happens to be Serbian National Theatre, the second-largest theater in a European country, est. 1861. Last time you claimed it is not a "reliable source", now you merely claim that it's not "independent". Which is it? Anyway, I'm not interested in continuing this pissing context. No such user (talk) 12:59, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Its lack of independence is what makes it an unreliable source for this subject. That's how this has always worked. —swpb^T 19:19, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Seems to me we have enough independent coverage to meet WP:BASIC, the article has been here since 2009, and while coverage is light, she is a national-level performer in her home country, and I am reluctant to delete where we have to rely on foreign-language sources in a nation not particularly noted for having everything online. Montanabw^(talk) 04:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Montanabw. I updated the article with the refs I managed to dug out. Meets WP:BASIC, a string of major roles in important operas, with mostly short but persistent coverage throughout the career. No such user (talk) 12:59, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 19:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per @Montanabw and No such user:. Multiple roles in important operas. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:39, 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 speedy deleted as A7. Also an extremely close paraphrasing of its own website, sufficient that it would have failed WP:COPYVIO. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Consumer Finance Review Board[edit]

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

Website/organization which does not meet notability for WP:NCORP, WP:NWEB or WP:GNG. Unsourced article, search result finds only promotional activity (twitter, facebook, etc) and mirrors. Previously CSD'ed with tag removed by author. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 12:38, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable. Not verifiable. It is verifiable that it is not notable though. It may not even be the most notable thing with this name. I notice that this refers to a "federal Consumer Finance Review Board" which sounds like something more official although Googling for it turns up very little either so maybe not. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:57, 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 redirect to Scouts Australia . MBisanz ^talk 01:21, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Glossary of Australian Scouting terms[edit]

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

Per very brief discussion, this is considered a non-notable topic. I'd prefer to see any truly notable terms merged into Scouts Australia than have this deleted outright. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 12:22, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 12:22, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 12:22, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP is not supposed to be a dictionary or glossary. I know that other stuff exists, but would like to see them nominated too. Rather see the list hosted on another site and linked from main article.Borock (talk) 15:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Although Wikipedia is not a dictionary, stand-alone glossaries are an acceptable kind of list article. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Glossaries. That said, I'm not certain this list meets other criteria such as notability and independent sourcing. Color me neutral toward this deletion discussion. Cnilep (talk) 23:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:31, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:31, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article has concerned me for a long time, but I hoped it might develop into something useful, or be changed by the author involved. This has not happened. It is time for it to go. There are no similar articles for Scouting in other places. It is also largely specific to Scouts Australia. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:18, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Decimate and merge per nom.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:15, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question - I don't see a Glossary of scouting terms, which would seem to have a much easier time satisfying WP:LISTN, but I don't know the extent to which these only apply to Australian Scouting? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:00, 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 speedy delete as WP:CSD#G5. (non-admin closure) Mr. Magoo (talk) 18:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss International 1966[edit]

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

Unremarkable unorganized event. 333 -blue 09:43, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:29, 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 01:21, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dischan Media[edit]

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

I can't find any reliable mentions of Dischan Media as a notable company. All of the sources are related to their game, Juniper's Knot, which makes sense to have its own page. However, it doesn't make sense to have this one, where all the sources are from the studio's own website, making it a case of self promotion. The studio itself isn't notable, and has shut down so it's unlikely to become more notable in the future. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 09:06, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 09:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reference check done. Exhaustively and painstakingly referenced to ... their own website and YouTube channel. There's a few independent reviews on blog level, most of which are dead links - David Gerard (talk) 10:30, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this also hints at G11, the sourcing and information are not amounting to how and where this company is specifically independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 19:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:PROMO and unreliably sourced. No indications of notability nor significant RS to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:09, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:10, 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. Euryalus (talk) 11:34, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Osman Mir[edit]

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

This is a procedural nomination. The article was created and worked on by sock puppets but is ineligible for WP:CSD#G5. The article is obviously poorly written, but my sense is that Mir does not meet notability guidelines. Any notability appears to be local. However, my ability to assess notability for Indian artists is not very good, so I'll let the community decide. Bbb23 (talk) 17:09, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:56, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:56, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:54, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The article is very poorly cited, but that alone is not a sufficient ground for deletion IMO. If the information that his music was featured in the films and has received awards as mentioned and if they can be verified by sources, then maybe there is a chance for this article. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 10:07, 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 08:11, 17 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) 08:13, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article originally by a blocked sockpuppet following repeated previous placements (and still technically under protection: [16]). For all the placement effort, it remains scantily sourced: an Amazon shopping link, a link to a ticketing site for a cancelled concert, a name-check in a DNA India article and, most substantially, a 6 sentence review of a college concert. The Indian newspaper tailored search located one other brief review from Udaiput Times, which I have added as a reference, but otherwise just the occasional film name-check. There are claims of awards: I have added a (rather insubstantial) source for one, but it is unclear whether this is a notable award: it has no article here, and is mentioned in only one other article. All in all, there is enough to confirm the subject is following his trade, but it is not inherently notable and I don't think there is sufficient evidence of encyclopaedic biographical notability at this time. AllyD (talk) 15:20, 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. Additional sourcing were insufficient to carry the argument, and the MTG criteria don't override the GNG. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:42, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Cheon[edit]

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

Fails GNG and BLP. Article sourced entirely to the website of the Wizards of the Coast game company. LavaBaron (talk) 12:57, 3 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 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:15, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Cheon meets the GNG. There is coverage of him out there, it's just not in the article right now. I have added a source to the article independent of the wizards site, and could add more if needed. Tazerdadog (talk) 00:41, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, Cheon's 11-5 finish at PT Eldrich moon today is good for 10 additional pro points, which raises his career total to above 200, meeting the subject-specific notability guideline here Tazerdadog (talk) 10:45, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:40, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:49, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

His "finishes" are utterly beside the point. That "guideline" is not Wikipedia notability policy. Delete per nom. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:07, 7 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, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:32, 14 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 16:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last relist to assess whether the new sources provided by Tazerdadog satisfy notability. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:10, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:10, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per the other MTG afds such as Marcio Carvalho, note WP:LOCALCONCENSUS, users can't decide that their SNG overrides WP:GNG. The only source that seems to cover pro MTG is Channel Fireball, but I'm not even sure if that is reliable.--Prisencolin (talk) 03:18, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:21, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Supply Network Collaboration[edit]

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

As suggested by JamesBWatson, it doesn't meet CSD Criteria and is therefore being produced for AfC.
The article is unencyclopaedic and not notable nor does it look like an article. Deletion required Varun FEB2003 ^{I am Offline} 07:10, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. no evidence for notability DGG ( talk ) 17:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Varun FEB2003 ^{I am Offline} 12:07, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:53, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Totally unsourced, and no evidence of notability anywhere. (It seems to be an attempt to publicise the subject, though not so blatantly promotional to justify speedy deletion.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even worth merging, since no sources and will never be independently notable. W Nowicki (talk) 22:39, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - @JamesBWatson: you're an admin right so.......you ain't deleting this? Varun FEB2003 ^{I am Offline} 08:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@VarunFEB2003: No, because I don't think it satisfies any of the speedy deletion criteria, as I have already told you on your talk page. However, it is no doubt going to be deleted in a few days, so it doesn't make a lot of difference. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:51, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@JamesBWatson: What happened? Varun FEB2003 13:03, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as completely non-notable, nothing coming close to substance and there are not even any attempts at minimally showing better. SwisterTwister talk 03:24, 30 August 2016 (UTC)]][reply]
Delete -- no indications of notability; no sources; advertorial content. K.e.coffman (talk) 14:50, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:21, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Caradh O'Donovan[edit]

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

Non-notable kickboxer since she fails WP:NKICK. Sports results, facebook, and her own web page don't meet WP:GNG. Jakejr (talk) 07:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NKICK and none of the sources meet GNG. Astudent0 (talk) 14:45, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NKICK.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:42, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 17:36, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dakota Ditcheva[edit]

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

Teen age amateur Muay Thai fighter who fails to meet WP:NKICK. Coverage is routine sports reporting and fails to meet WP:GNG. Jakejr (talk) 07:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable martial artist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:27, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- The nominator didn't notify me of this AFD . I have moved this page to my userpage User:Marvellous Spider-Man/Dakota Ditcheva.

I saw AFD this on my watchlist. In wikipedia sports notability is created by wikiprojects. Perhaps the nominator is right about WP:NKICK but the WP:GNG part is wrong about a world champion. Junior world champion ND GOLD MEDALIST, NATIONAL CHAMPION Fails WP:GNG is ridiculous.

And I disagree that it's routine sports reporting. Someone who has won more than one competition What do you expect? News about her boyfriend, about her scandals, her political ambition. A sportsperson will have sports related news. Marvellous Spider-Man 17:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some multiple world champion mentioned in non sports websites BBC, mirror, elle uk fails WP:GNG? Marvellous Spider-Man 17:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article should not have been moved out of article space while the AfD was in progress and I messed up trying to move it back.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: I have moved the article back to its place in the mainspace to allow this AFD to proceed. It was being moved all over the place by different editors which was disrupting this AFD. The article cannot be speedily deleted under WP:G7 because a number of other editors have worked on the article. Additionally, it shouldn't be userified to contravene an AFD outcome because the author simply disagrees with the other editors. The purpose of userfying drafts is that so the author can work on the article to get it up to our inclusion criteria -- and not to grant them another opportunity to try again later. Maybe the article meets the criteria now; maybe it does not. That's why we have discussions like this and interrupting the process is not going to help in the community making that determination. I have advised Marvellous Spider-Man that they can request the article be moved to their userspace after the AFD at WP:REFUND or put their request in here for review by the closing admin. Mkdw ^talk 18:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am requesting here to the closing Administrator, Please userfy this article to my userspace draft. User:Marvellous Spider-Man/Dakota Ditcheva as she is not that non-notable as the nominator thinks due to these sources BBC, mirror, elle uk and being in the news for being a world champion. maybe world champion at the junior level, but still a world champion. Marvellous Spider-Man 18:22, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:49, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:49, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, added women project to article talkpage so that participants are notified of this afd.
(warning: 1st bit is humorous) Comment, this has got to be a "keep", look how cute her pigtails are - [17], c'mon coola, just because a subject is cute, doesn't mean they are notable, remember the cute pics at no articles for these, oh, thats right, now to the serious bit; nom states that Ditcheva does not meet WP:NKICK which is not surprising as she has only just turned professional and has come to notice as an amateur, winning multiple IFMA world (junior) championships she may meet WP:ANYBIO as having "received a well-known and significant award or honor" and WP:SPORTCRIT - "are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion if they have, for example, participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level (such as the Olympics).", as the IFMA "is the sole recognised sport governing body of amateur Muaythai" (from lead of its wikiarticle) Ditcheva would seem to meet this criteria, so this is a "keep". Coolabahapple (talk) 13:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think your interpretation of WT:NSPORT is wrong since it recommends using the sport specific criteria, which she clearly fails. Both MMA and kickboxing clearly state amateur competitions don't support notability. Junior competitions are virtually never considered enough to meet notability criteria--and I've never seen it in a martial arts case. Astudent0 (talk) 14:43, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have been watching Coolabahapple work in Nagpur for one year. I agree with the above comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.39.39.143 (talk) 02:02, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— 1.39.39.143 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep, as per my comments above, i am adding this so that afd stats - [18] registers this correctly. ps. a thankyou to the above ip:) Coolabahapple (talk) 04:24, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As now there is support from established editor, I will say that, due to strong WP:RS sources given above, she easily passes WP:GNG. --Marvellous Spider-Man 06:16, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet WP:NKICK and don't agree that GNG is met. Neither junior nor amateur championships meet notability criteria while local coverage and sports results don't meet GNG. Astudent0 (talk) 14:43, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just when support votes, pile on. One member of this team comes to vote delete. If you think that BBC, Daily Mirror is local coverage, then you are missing WP:CIR. --Marvellous Spider-Man 14:11, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Looking at the last sentence of WP:NKICK, there are some third-party sources, such as BBC and Daily Mirror, but isn't quite enough for an amateur kickboxer to establish notability. The rest of the references are from local news. I think this article will reappear eventually, but as it stands I think it's WP:TOOSOON. Minima © (talk) 11:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note There is a new development here. The IP commented, Keep I have been watching Coolabahapple's work in Nagpur for one year. I agree with the above comment., which was altered by Astudent0 by replacing @Coolabahapple:'s name with 1.39.39.143. A six year old editor can't say "I made a simple mistake". Reminding another simple mistake by the nominator of not notifying the page creator of this deletion discussion. Marvellous Spider-Man 08:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer to WP:AGF. I just corrected what I assume was a simple editing error by Astudent0 and notifying the article's creator of an AfD is not required, although it is considered a good practice. All editors make occasional mistakes. For example, in your comment above I assume you meant to say that Astudent0 had been editing WP for six years, not that he was six years old. Papaursa (talk) 00:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Astudent0 could have corrected his own comment. Why did you take the responsibility to correct his comment. How were you sure that, at this time he won't be able to reach the place from where he usually logins? Marvellous Spider-Man 13:19, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You really are quite tiresome. I corrected the statement because it didn't make sense to me so I suspected other editors coming along would also be confused. I have corrected obvious mistakes by other editors before, but I always make a note that I'm doing it. Papaursa (talk) 00:41, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can check the date of account creation: you can see when I created my account, not my birth certificate. Nice try. Marvellous Spider-Man 02:16, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you missed my point about mistakes. Papaursa (talk) 03:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's clear that WP:NKICK is not met. I happen to agree with those who also don't believe that WP:GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 00:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You said I happen to agree with those who also don't believe that WP:GNG is met.. Those two comments made before you are by Jakejr and Astudent0. Marvellous Spider-Man 15:18, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As well as PRehse who agreed with the nom and Minima who stated the coverage was not quite enough. I'm not sure why you keep trying to make a controversy. Papaursa (talk) 00:41, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now lets wait and watch whether Mdtemp comes to vote delete. Marvellous Spider-Man 02:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE These users are under an ongoing SPI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Papaursa. Marvellous Spider-Man 13:56, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG (which trumps WP:NKICK) and Google News 1. Article could use expansion, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 18:51, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, just to clarify a few things, some of the above editors who are suggesting delete state Ditcheva does not meet WP:NKICK, which as i have stated before is not surprising as this sng (as with the other sports sngs) covers professionals. But it also says "Kickboxers that have an amateur background exclusively are not considered notable unless(my emphasis) the person has been the subject examined in detail (more than a single paragraph) in several reliable third-party sources (at least four), excluding local publications." The article presently has more then 4 references that meets this. Editors also have not answered the proposition that as the junior world IFMA champion she meets WP:SPORTCRIT as having "participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level". (so one of the statements above that "Neither junior nor amateur championships meet notability criteria" is not necessarily correct.) Also, another statement "(apart from BBC and Daily Mirror) The rest of the references are from local news." is also misleading, Elle UK is a national magazine, Messenger Newspapers represent the North-West of England, the Manchester Evening News "is a regional daily newspaper", Sport England is a national body, and IFMA is the governing body for amateur Muaythai world wide, so actually none of the references presently cited in the article are "local". Coolabahapple (talk) 08:01, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it's hard to invoke WP:SPORTCRIT when she doesn't meet the particular notability criteria for her sport. Amateur and junior championships are rarely considered sufficient to show notability, and I can't think of any cases where it's been enough for a martial artist. As for coverage, it's pretty clear that the Messenger papers are local coverage when the paper's tag is "Get the latest local news". Given that she goes to a school (Trafford) in the Manchester area, I don't see how you can claim the Manchester paper is not local coverage. Even papers like the New York Times have coverage of area athletes that can only be considered local. It appears there's a definite difference of opinion as to whether or not she meets WP:GNG, so I suspect this will be closed as a no consensus--and that means the article will remain on WP. Perhaps one day she'll meet the sports notability criteria. Papaursa (talk) 00:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Touché

Coolabahapple (talk) 04:47, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources in article currently meet the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:41, 5 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:21, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rama Rama Re...[edit]

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

deadend text. Needs a rewrite and a infobox + category add. » Shadowowl | talk 07:01, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete No evidence whatever of notability. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Below are a couple of sources I found. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

"Rama Rama re gets celebrity push". The New Indian Express.
"Experimental, my dear fan". Deccan Chronicle.

Delete not notable at this point, a case of WP:TOOSOON and WP:NFF this the first film by the director Blade Srini and is being within a small budget.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:39, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:21, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Piddington[edit]

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

Non-notable martial artist. No evidence he meets WP:NSPORT by competing at the highest level or that he meets WP:MANOTE. Appears his best ranking was 9th nationally. Halls of fame and articles about student successes at a state regional tournament are insufficient to show notability. I don't think the coverage meets WP:GNG. Jakejr (talk) 06:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable martial artist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:32, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with previous comments. Neither WP:MANOTE nor GNG is met. Astudent0 (talk) 14:55, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:21, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gilbert Allan[edit]

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

Can't find anything that would show this person as notable, checked the sources, but there may be more out there for his 3 films? Dollface Canon (talk) 06:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication that any of his films are actually significant. He comes no where near passing GNG. One article quotes him in one line, the other it is hard to see that it is much better since it is about a TV show he is involved in making the pilot, about the show and not about him. IMDb clearly does not count towards GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:31, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:55, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:55, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing here constitutes a strong claim of notability under our inclusion rules for film directors (which do not confer automatic inclusion rights on every film director who exists at all), none of the referencing is strong enough to pass WP:GNG, and the article strikes a highly advertorial tone about how wonderful and masterpiecey his work is in defiance of our WP:NPOV rules. And there's no evidence on either Google News or ProQuest of the improved coverage it would take. No prejudice against recreation in the future if something changes (e.g. he gets nominated for a Canadian Screen Award), but nothing written or sourced here right now is enough. Bearcat (talk) 17:56, 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 speeedy delete G5. (non-admin closure) Savonneux (talk) 13:11, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BlogRex[edit]

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

Fails WP:WEB WP:CORP. The actual website has almost no content and the huffington post citation is fake. This is just self promotion. Savonneux (talk) 05:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fake claims and nothing on google to show notability. Domain is owned by someone other than the person named in the article. noq (talk) 16:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable. Fake citations, removing AFD tags, editor knows what he's doing as well. FelisLeo^Talk! 21:49, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:16, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:GNG, a gsearch brings up nothing useable. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:40, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seems he is advocating using Wikipedia to improve SEO. [19] - number 29. noq (talk) 16:46, 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. MBisanz ^talk 12:51, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Life (Divinity Angels of Rock album)[edit]

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

Also included in this nomination are the following articles:

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

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

Coverage on the band Divinity Angels of Rock is minimal and the albums they released even less so. Discogs and AllMusic listings without reviews are not sufficient thus the albums fail notability requirements. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:22, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:49, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:49, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all including these other versions that were redirected to the articles nominated: Life (Divinity Angels of Rock Album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Arc Angels (Divinity Angels of Rock Album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Arc Angels (Divinity Angels Of Rock album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), and Divinity (Divinity Angels of Rock album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). The albums lack significant coverage in reliable sources, failing WP:GNG/WP:NALBUM. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect all to Divinity Angels of Rock. The Steve 11:06, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Divinity Angels of Rock (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is also at AfD. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:23, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thesteve, Divinity Angels of Rock has been deleted at AfD. — JJMC89 (T·C) 14:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:34, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all: these articles appear to be part of the walled garden, with dodgy editing. For example, after Divinity Angels of Rock was deleted, it was recreated within a week. Prior deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Divinity Angels of Rock. Also suggest salting this and related articles due to likely recreation. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:26, 2 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. As with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrea Ciliberti, if the SNG discussion takes a surprising turn and ends up supporting this being kept, ping me. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:24, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Mitteer[edit]

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

Mitter is not notable. Winning Miss Vermont USA is not enough to make someone notable. The fact that some of the sources used, such as her birth record, are primary sources, is another indication that this is not a notable person. When original research is used to create a Wikipedia article, the subject is generally not notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:07, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator. My sweeps came up without much dust except for an occasional mention.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:51, 10 August 2016 (UTC) Or Redirect as per NorthAmerica.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:00, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a non notable pageant contestant. All sources used in the article are primary. My searches find no sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:40, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable for stand alone article. Her name is mentioned in the Miss USA contest article for that year, which is enough. She did not win, was not runner-up and was not even in the top 15. Kierzek (talk) 21:39, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:28, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Vermont USA as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:04, 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) 04:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I don't believe that the above suggestion is a good idea. This is looking to be a solid detele/redirect. I suggest that the existing nominations be evaluated on their own merit. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:14, 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 01:01, 18 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.

Further, a deletion is preferred as a BLP for a non-notable person is potential invasion of privacy and may be subject to vandalism. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty Pageants-related deletion discussions. PageantUpdater (talk) 00:31, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now pending outcome of SNG pageant RfC. Aoziwe (talk) 13:06, 8 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:25, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Ann Young[edit]

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

Young's only almost claim to fame is winning Miss Wisconsin USA, but winning a state Miss USA pageant is not enough by itself to make someone notable. Beyond this the article has been tagged since 2009 as not having adequate sources. That an article can go so long with no attention to such details suggests that the subject is not in fact notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:22, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Wisconsin USA as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:03, 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) 04:10, 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 01:00, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:32, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think it meets WP:Anybio. Dolotta (talk) 23:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty Pageants-related deletion discussions. PageantUpdater (talk) 00:31, 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. Sandstein 10:04, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Schreiner[edit]

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

Schreiner is only almsot notable for winning Miss Wyoming USA. However this is a one event that does not make her notable. Getting engaged to her possibly notable fiance (I am not convinced he is actually notable, but that would be a seperate discussion) is not enough to make her notable. Her sports competition is so far below the threshold of notability it is not even worth mentioning. John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I think she squeaks by because of her engagement to another notable, and doing it in a media friendly way, in addition to the beauty stuff. Although -- not an official measure by any means -- just noting that she only averages 7 pageviews a day while I average 11 pageviews a day so it must mean that yours truly is prettier than Ms Schreiner. And I don't wear makeup! Maybe it's my handyman work.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:14, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:34, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:01, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:01, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If found to not be independently notable, redirect to Miss Wyoming USA as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:01, 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) 04:12, 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 00:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:32, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty Pageants-related deletion discussions. PageantUpdater (talk) 00:31, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the sources offered above only provide trivial mentions re: engagement. Wikipedia is not "society pages"; thus I advocate deletion until the subject becomes more notable on her own right. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:48, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what content may be relevant about their relationship/wedding to Michael Yo's page. She is not wiki-notable independent of him; she is not wiki-notable for the subnational pageant win (as evidenced by the scant coverage of the win); and the coverage on the two do not combine to "substantial coverage" for GNG. (The number of unverified claims in tis entry are smthg of a reminder of why that GNG sourcing requirement exists.) And then I would recommend against a redirect. If some of this is merged to Yo's page, then she'll be mentioned both there and at the pageant's page, and a search for her name will turn up both. I think that's more fair to her and to users, rather than to take it upon ourselves to declare a most-important point of reference for her. Innisfree987 (talk) 03:53, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, pending outcome of SNG pageant RfC. Aoziwe (talk) 13:09, 8 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 redirect to Miss Wyoming USA. MBisanz ^talk 01:25, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robyn Johnson[edit]

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

Johnson is only known at all for being Miss Wyoming USA. Winning a state Miss USA pageant has been shown by multiple discussions to not be significant enough to make someone notable on its own. Nothing else about Johnson comes close to suggesting notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:48, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Outside of winning the Miss Wyoming title, there's nothing really notable about her. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:49, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:48, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:00, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:00, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Wyoming USA as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:00, 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) 04:12, 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 00:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:31, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty Pageants-related deletion discussions. PageantUpdater (talk) 00:31, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect as per above.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:08, 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 redirect to Miss Arizona USA. MBisanz ^talk 01:25, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Courtney Barnas[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Barnas' only action that received any note was being Miss Arizona USA, and this is not enough to make a person notable. The previous discussion in 2008 was based on the assumption that such people are "regionally notable." However an actual perusal of sources shows that they are lucky to get an article in their hometown newspaper. It will be papers covering their specific sub-section of a metro area for example. This is not coverage of a level to suggest the person is notable. The one event coverage also makes these articles unworkable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:57, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:39, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although I am willing to stand firmly behind any Miss USA state titleholder with even the slightest positive affirmation in the public domain, I am unable to find any such reason for this subject.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:56, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:53, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- non notable state-level winner. Coverage is local and trivial. It's interesting that the previous AfD closed as Keep, because of "precedent". What a difference 8 years make. :-) K.e.coffman (talk) 05:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Arizona USA as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:59, 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) 04:13, 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 00:58, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:31, 25 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.

Further, a deletion is preferred as a BLP for a non-notable person is potential invasion of privacy and may be subject to vandalism. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty Pageants-related deletion discussions. PageantUpdater (talk) 00:31, 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 Miss Georgia USA. MBisanz ^talk 01:26, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brittany Swann[edit]

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

Swann is only known for being Miss Georgia USA. Even at that some of the sources are things like the newsletter of her college within a larger university. Being Miss Georgia USA is not enough on its own to establish notability, and nothing else about Swann suggests she is notable John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:07, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. JudgeRM (talk to me) 17:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. JudgeRM (talk to me) 18:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My searching came up empty.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:56, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Georgia USA as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:56, 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) 03:52, 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 00:58, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO1E. The coverage is trivial or local. If a redirect is chosen by the closer, suggest deleting. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:44, 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. Tomwsulcer presented some sources, but nobody seems to have been impressed by them and MB presented some good arguments why they're insufficient. As with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrea Ciliberti, if the SNG discussion takes a surprising turn and ends up supporting this being kept, ping me. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:31, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie Bruno[edit]

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

Bruno is only marginally notable as Miss Massachusetts USA, but this is not enough on its own to establish notability. Her work as a local television journalist is not enough to make her notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:05, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The creator of this article used the account name Jtbruno. Bruno's middle name is Theresa. The account used to create this article has made 5 edits to Wikipedia, all connected with creating this article. This highly suggests that the person making this article was engaged in making an autobiogrpahical article, which is both against policy, and generally if someone has to create an article on themselves they are not overly notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:10, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I believe you are in error when you state that the creator of the article was Jtbruno. Jtbruno did not edit the article until 2009. If you click on oldest in the history you'll see it was actually created in January of 2008 by Alyssa2007. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:56, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:43, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:43, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:43, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:44, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources include in-depth and in-depth and in-depth and in-depth and a paragraph and quote and in-depth. Further, she is a working reporter with on-scene coverage of the Boston Marathon bombing and politics and interviewing celebrities. Easily meets the WP:GNG. Note -- the nominator has been mass-AfD-ing wiki-pages of beauty contestants, which suggests there has not been much effort made in assessing any particular contestant, so nominations should be reviewed with a skeptical point-of-view.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:22, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concur with nominator. Winning a single state level beauty pageant does not establish notability (established in other AFDs - e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keena Bonella). The sources listed above as "in-depth" are not; they are mostly interviews with her and trivial coverage related to her entry in Miss Massachusetts. The others concerning her news reporting just document a reporter doing routine work for the position. MB 23:04, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Massachusetts USA as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. Another option is to redirect to New England Cable News. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:05, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to New England Cable News (Miss Massachusetts USA) can link to her there. I searched pretty hard, and there were stories about her when she won not one but 2 statewide beauty pageants, so this is borderline. I would have iVoted keep if I could have found any significant, secondary coverage of here career as a newsreader. But I can't. There should be a favorable attitude towards keeping or re-creating this article if c/when coverage of her career surfaces.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:50, 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) 04:18, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jujutacular (talk) 00:46, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:29, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or Redirect, but less preferred). Neither pageant win nor TV career make the subject independently notable. Delete is preferred; otherwise a redirect to Miss Massachusetts USA would define subject's accomplishments solely in the pageant win, which seems a bit demeaning. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:20, 30 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. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty Pageants-related deletion discussions. PageantUpdater (talk) 01:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now, pending outcome of SNG pageant RfC. Aoziwe (talk) 13:12, 8 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. It may be prudent to await a community consensus at the beauty pageant RFC before nominating again. A Train^talk 12:36, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Monica Day[edit]

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

Being Miss Ohio USA and being a local television news anchor are neither enough to establish notability and that is all we have John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:48, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:48, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(addend: Possibly) Redirect to Miss Ohio USA as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. Another option is to redirect to WCMH-TV. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:55, 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) 04:15, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:03, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sub-national beauty pageant winners don't seem auto-notable. Further, the coverage of this article is poor. It seems dubious this subject passes WP:BIO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:30, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Winner of Miss Ohio seems to justify inclusion.--YHoshua (talk) 19:52, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:22, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (a weak one) Beauty pageant stuff usually isn't enough but combined with being a TV news anchor in a fairly large market (Columbus OH) pushes her into the keep column for me, with sources like this one and a minor award here and judging a beauty contest here and hosting a weird competition and a mention here. Kinda slushy but I think she passes the WP:GNG, barely.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect because there is not anything for actual substance making independent notability obtained here; thus there's nothing to suggest having her own article. SwisterTwister talk 17:20, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty Pageants-related deletion discussions. PageantUpdater (talk) 00:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per NewYorkActuary....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:41, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- being a news anchor is insufficient to overcome WP:BIO1E situation relating to the pageant. Sources are insufficient to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:50, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Having a couple publications about her does not justify notability. My very best wishes (talk) 02:58, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tomwsulcer and see also magazine feature on her from 2008 magazine feature on her from 2013 News article Brief article --- PageantUpdater (talk) 14:37, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss Ohio USA. There is simply not sufficient coverage of her activities as a Pageant-winner or as a newscaster to pass WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:28, 9 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. Sandstein 17:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deirdre Macnab[edit]

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

WP:NOTPROMO, and basically WP:NN. MSJapan (talk) 03:36, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete likely as I myself PRIDed and am still concerned if there's any actual independent notability and substance, none of this confirms it. SwisterTwister talk 03:50, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:19, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:19, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:19, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOL. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:31, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable activist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:36, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:GNG met by significant coverage in cited reliable sources, specifically: [20] and [21]. WP:NPOL is less restrictive than WP:GNG and so is also met. Nomination reason and delete comments are not compelling. ~Kvng (talk) 15:00, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Says the deprodder, in the face of five statements to the contrary (including the PROD). MSJapan (talk) 17:42, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject is clearly not independently notable. I see coverage but most of them consist of her quoting stuff on behalf of League of Women Voters of Florida or local sources which tend to report on local news (and even then are actually reporting more about the organisation than her). Notability is not inherited simply because the subject occupies a position in a notable organisation - the subject needs to demonstrate that they are independently notable of the organisation. I do not see that here. We have had similar articles where the CEO of a company tends to receive coverage as they usually announce decisions and these article have been deleted. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:25, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was a tough one to work on, but she has significant coverage in Florida news sources (which I added to the article) and in addition, appears in national news such as The NY Times and the LA Times. The efforts of the League of Women Voters are part of her career and as the leader, there isn't a case of inheriting notability, her successes are part of her biography. BTW, I rewrote parts of the article so it's less of a mess. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:18, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage in LA Times is restricted to 1 line. The NYTimes article doesn't even mention her. And yes, the leader of an organisation is obviously going to be in news if the organisation is notable. Notability has to be demonstrated independently of the organisation. This is the reason why we don't keep articles about CEOs on every notable company as it is essentially BIO1E. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:20, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A bit more than 1 line in LA Times after being named Central Floridian of the Year: [22]. Hmlarson (talk) 04:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Megalibrarygirl. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:11, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. we don't consider state branches of national organizations to be notable. So how can hte president of one such a branch derive notability from that? DGG ( talk ) 16:50, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

She doesn't derive notability from the state branch. Her article passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:36, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the separate origins of this state-level LWV gives it a separate history, written up in a scholarly journal. And at present, it has an independent agenda. I have not delved into the degree of policy (issue-focus) independence of the state level LWVs in general, but this one at least is clearly independent both as a matter of its charter, and as a matter of fact in it's legal and policy initiatives.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:05, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I probable do not belong in here but am trying to defend Deirdre Macnab and her importance. The redistricting which is taking place all over the US now was germinated under her watch, starting in Florida with Amendents 5 and 6 about which she fought and won by enlisting the clout of the League. She will possibly be the driving force for bringing solar energy to Florida, the Sunshine State, with Amendment 4 folowed by Amendment 1 in November. She is chair of the League’s Natural Resources/Solar Action Group but could easliy have made a run in politics, choosing to advocate on the non-political side, instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauriebourie (talk • contribs) 19:06, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, you don't. You've got a conflict of interest, and what somebody "possibly" could have done is wholly irrelevant to what they've actually done. Every single article about Macnab says ..."president of the Florida League of Women Voters". She's got no coverage independently of that, and that is the problem. MSJapan (talk) 17:46, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment So, after getting here from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/League of Women Voters of Florida , I read the above comment about her not being in a particular NYTimes story and searched her name in NYTimes.com, found this "Deirdre Macnab, the president of the League of Women Voters of Florida, filed suit with other civic groups to overturn the law. "Basically.... (yada yada)... said Ms. Macnab, whose organization has sued the state over past restrictions."[23] and a total of six presumably similar [24] showed 6 separate article between 2011 and 2014. Search of WaPo showed 3 articles /#q=%22dierdre+Madnab%22++site%3Awashingtonpost.com. Wall Street Journal only one [25]. CNN 4 [26] and tonight's winner is the Miami Herald with 32 hits!!!! /#q=%22dierdre+Madnab%22++site%3Amiamiherald.com%2F. Seriously, the regional coverage of her is both deep and ongoing. Bio is reliably sources to the Orlando Sentinel. Remind me why we are discussing this? ~~Keep~~.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:28, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning towards delete but! E.M.Gregory, it seems that a couple of your links are messed up. Please, if you wish to convince me, just drop a couple of links to solid articles from the Washington Post search, or from the NYT. (I think you may have misspelled the name too.) Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:10, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here: NYTimes last 3 paragraphs here: [27]; Here'a the Times link I posted above " WaPo: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2014/08/01/judge-orders-new-congressional-map-in-florida-by-aug-15/, but all I did was put : "Dierdre Masnab" site:NYTimes.com in my search box.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:28, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

She seems to be discussed in Saving Florida: Women's Fight for the Environment in the Twentieth Century, Leslie Kemp Poole, University Press of Florida, 2015. But I can't access the text. E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I can't see that book either. I looked at the articles--sorry, but it's all still too thin for me. <time passes> And now I've looked at all the hits in the NYT and the Washington Post; she's mentioned in a bunch of them, but always in her capacity as President of the League; she's not being discussed herself, as a topic. Sorry, I can't vote keep on this basis. Drmies (talk) 15:58, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ to League of Women Voters of Florida where a section on Presidents can be created with names, sources, perhaps brief bios. Reason is, I had taken sources 1 and 4 for 2 profile articles in the Orlando Sentinel, but there is really only the sole profile article. If someone sees a 2nd story in a major daily that contains detailed info/analysis about her, flag me and I will reconsider.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:44, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, that's probably the best, but you might as well call for merge to save the content. If she hits the big time we can restore/recreate more easily. Drmies (talk) 01:36, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @E.M.Gregory: Besides the Orlando Sentinel, I cited coverage in the Orlando Business Journal in my keep comments above. I guess it's not a "major daily" but I assume it is a WP:RS. ~Kvng (talk) 15:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, careless of me, good point, this is a valid RS 2nd profile in a valid media source, thank you User:Kvng. Source can be read for free by anyone willing to walk through the registration process (or, click on register button, then click the "back" button, and you will see the article for 3 seconds without having to give them your email address.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:46, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

note that at least one other former President of the Florida League does have an article, May Mann Jennings.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:19, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because she was the First Lady of the State - she didn't get the WP:N for being president of the group. This is why WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a valid argument. However, going by that route, if only one person in a century got an article for being associated with the group, it somewhat lessens your argument, doesn't it? MSJapan (talk) 03:36, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know that only one former President has an article? I certainly know no such thing. The academic journal article I read asserted in its first decade the Florida LWV sought and got the most predominant women in the state as President, they named the woman who was instrumental to founding the League. My assumption would be that some of the others have or should have articles, but I have not checked that out.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:22, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then don't present "assumption" as either "facts" or "supporting evidence" when making notability arguments. You presented the statement that one other former president has an article, thus insinuating that the position is notable - that's why you said it without qualification. However, when pressed, you have no basis for making the statement. I think you've figured out that BLUDGEONING people with minutiae makes it look like there's substance to your statements, when in fact, you are presenting your assumptions as fact. MSJapan (talk) 15:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:GNG. Article could use clean up and additional referencing per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 04:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With apologies to all, I am changing my opinion, again. Reason is that yesterday I dove into the sourcing and notability issues at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/League of Women Voters of Florida, reading not only some of the academic history on that organization, but also serious journalism covering the League under Macnab's Presidency. It looks to me as though under her leadership the League reemerged as a force to reckon with in Florida politics on an impressively wide range of issues, from race-related right-to-vote issues to environmentalism. As part of this revival of the LWV in Florida, during her presidency the League was the lead plaintiff several important, policy-related lawsuits. imho, the LWV Florida needs an historian to write up it's recent activism (suggestion to present leadership: get thee to a thesis-topic-seeking seeking feminist political historian). I do not aspire to be that historian even on Wikipedia (although a good article on Masnab could be sourced to a thorough read of regional newspapers. keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:37, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:27, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Drama of the Lost Disciples[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This book does not meet WP:BOOKCRIT. From searches, this source provides some coverage, but other sources are only providing passing mentions (e.g. [28], [29]). The first AfD discussion in August 2011 was closed as no consensus, with only two total contributors. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As the article's creator, I quite agree it should be deleted for lack of nobility, as well as for the reason I gave when I nominated it the first time: its (well-intentioned at the time) attempts to point out the multiple inaccuracies of the book's contents are original research. I don't think there's anything salvageable. --Nicknack009 (talk) 16:17, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure Scholar seems to show that the book has been referenced or cited in multiple places, so I suspect we should care enough about it to note it somewhere, especially if its thesis has been adopted by a minor (yet disturbing, but that's not Wikipedia's problem) religious worldview. I don't think deletion is the right course of action, but I'm unsure where else this would be best covered. Jclemens (talk) 17:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well... it all depends on where it's being cited. For example, the book is mentioned in this work, however it's published by Tyndale, a religious publisher. Religious publishers are kind of iffy because they don't always go through the type of editorial oversight that Wikipedia requires, although Tyndale is one of the most major and easily recognized publishers so this could possibly be usable. I also need to note that the book said that the work is generally not accepted, so if it is merged anywhere this will need to be done carefully and selectively. Now all of that said, I'm not really seeing a whole lot out there for this work. I'm checking my college databases and there's nothing coming back that can be used to establish that this is a noteworthy or groundbreaking work as a whole. It's mentioned here or there, but in places we can't use like a letter to a newspaper editor. The only truly usable thing I've seen is a doctoral thesis where the work is mentioned in a few footnotes, which is helpful but not nearly enough to establish notability by that source alone. I have one or two last places to look, but offhand I'm leaning towards a delete rather than a merge. There's so far little coverage and what is out there is fairly brief and relatively tepid. I'm generally getting the impression that it was known within the religious community but overall dismissed by most. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 00:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I checked around. Most of the coverage is in indie and self-published books that Wikipedia would not consider to be reliable at all. I did find this blog post, but since it's a blog and not a newspaper article, it's a SPS. There were some other links like this one that kind of fall under the iffy category since I'm not sure how reliable the publisher would be considered on Wikipedia. Publishers that put out religious themed works are always kind of tricky since so much of what's published is based on personal opinions than thesis work, for instance. Now what makes me think that this could be potentially merged somewhere is this mention in a McFarland book, which would be considered a RS on Wikipedia. I'm not opposed to a merge, but the question here would be where to merge and how much. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 00:43, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Tokyogirl179: your "other links like this one" is published by WestBow Press, which although part of a respectable publishing firm is a self-publishing press: "Our self-publishing company is designed to empower you to fulfill your dreams and reach your goals."[30] Doug Weller talk 14:21, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that the website seemed a little hinky. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep -- There is a lot of this sort of thing about, but it is at best pious fantasy, essentially fiction. All of this is unsubstantiated rubbish, but there is a significant body of such historical fiction. The article clearly exposes the work for what it is. This has the merit of telling people that it is a tissue of lies, built around some truth. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:04, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:09, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. the article is an extended presentation of nonsense. Mentions in a book, when the total available information is that it is listed as one of the hundreds of references in the bibliography, do not show notability. The actual contents of the book must be examined. The argument for keep , above, is that the genre is notable--and so it is, but not the individual work. DGG ( talk ) 16:56, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- per article creator, the page contains mostly WP:OR and should be removed on these grounds. If someone wants to create an article based on scholarly sources, all the power to them. Thus, the page should be deleted without prejudice to creating a replacement article until such time arrives. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:02, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG, lack of coverage in reliable sources. Doug Weller talk 12:22, 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 keep. MBisanz ^talk 01:27, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Society of Gilders[edit]

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

Searches found nothing better and there's still nothing actually convincing for its own notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here is an additional reliable source that can be added to the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - In it's present state, it looks like it has serious copyvio problems, according to Earwig's Copyvio Detector, 2/3 of this article is copied/pasted from their website - Society of Gilders (about), specifically the "Mission" and "History" sections, and if you compare the text in the lead to their home page, it gets even worse.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:29, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:29, 13 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 16:51, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. seems a significant society in a minor art. DGG ( talk ) 16:52, 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 01:27, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Black Jungle Squad[edit]

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

Leak of information and unfinished Article. ~ Junior5a (Talk) Cont 04:33, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Junior5a, your rationale for nominating this article for AFD is not a very good one. I highly recommend that you review Wikipedia's articles for deletion guidelines, as well as Wikipedia's deletion policy. Typically, the article itself does not matter; it's whether or not the article subject meets the notability requirements that do. That being said, I'm not going to vote yet, as this article subject may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I just wanted to give you feedback and help you to improve your AFD rationale statements :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:39, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:22, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:22, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A7. Non notable band, Fails WP:BAND. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:35, 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 17:35, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:06, 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 01:27, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kate T. Vogt[edit]

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

The other K.T. whose VA career was mainly voicing Washu in the Tenchi Muyo! series. Only that role is Wikipedia notable, but no secondary source coverage on Vogt. Does not appear in AnimeCons. Only one ANN Article and it's about her band. Recommend redirect to Washu (Tenchi Muyo) AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:49, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable voice actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:56, 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 04:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:ENTERTAINER She clearly has worked on several productions, but lacks any references that imply any sort of notoriety. 80.193.74.158 (talk) 16:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Virtually no sources to show reliability, only one major role. Esw01407 (talk) 14:00, 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 keep. postdlf (talk) 17:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marvel Universe (toyline)[edit]

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

This is just a list of toys without anything to establish notability for the actual toyline. TTN (talk) 19:07, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:55, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:55, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Basing my comment on not paper; this is the sort of article that expands our coverage of areas better than a paper encyclopedia would. It should be thought of as appended to Marvel Toys. It's quite a tidy, informative article, certainly not subject to the excesses of some. Hiding T 15:01, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It takes some effort to sift out the retailer websites, but there are enough reliable sources providing news and reviews for this toyline to demonstrate notability. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:15, 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 04:32, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep See Star Wars: The Vintage Collection for example. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 20:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Example of what? An article whose notability has been in question since 2012? Argento Surfer (talk) 20:55, 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 01:27, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Synthpop reival[edit]

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

Besides having an incorrectly spelt "revival", there is no need for a page that deals and discusses the exact same thing as "synthpop" itself. Synthpop never left the building, so a revival doesn't make any sense. Not only is the article completely unsourced, but it also seems to contain nothing but original research. Carbrera (talk) 18:57, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:50, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to synthpop - this is uncited OR that's not worth saving - David Gerard (talk) 17:49, 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 04:32, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unreferenced original research. No need for a redirect, since "Synthpop reival" is not a plausible search term. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:23, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sources provided and I am unable to find anything that refers to "synthpop reival" or "synthpop revival" as a separate genre. No redirect as this is an implausible search term. - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:17, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:27, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Nolin[edit]

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

Delete. WP:BLP of a local-station television journalist with no strong claim to passing WP:JOURNALIST. As usual, this far too closely resembles the kind of "our staff" profile one might see on her employer's own website, rather than an encyclopedia article, and it is sourced only to her own self-published primary source website about herself rather than to any reliable source coverage about her. (Plus, even her own website is now a dead link.) There's a potentially stronger claim of notability here as a past host of a program on APTN, but that's not an inclusion freebie in the absence of proper sourcing either. As always, journalists are not automatically notable just because they exist; they must be reliably sourced over WP:JOURNALIST and/or WP:GNG, but nothing here accomplishes that. Bearcat (talk) 16:01, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable local TV journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:55, 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 04:31, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. simply a promotional bio note without evidence of notability :"Aside from her work as a respected journalist,". DGG ( talk ) 17:50, 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 01:27, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Willard (author)[edit]

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

Promotional article on barely notable author .Almost every references is from a blurb he wrote about himself for giving a presentation. Trivial awards, no book reviews in any really reliable source DGG ( talk ) 04:31, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:34, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:34, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:34, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:17, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I did a full reference check: mostly bad, very few RSes actually about biographical details, lots of puffery, primary sources and questionable claims of notability. As well as being a bad article that should be cut to a bare stub under WP:BLP if kept, there's no evidence he's article-worthy - David Gerard (talk) 09:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing here constitutes a strong claim of notability in and of itself — and the referencing is parked entirely on primary sources with the exception of a single article in a college newspaper, which means WP:GNG has not been met either. Bearcat (talk) 19:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the nom's analysis is as specific as can be, none of this actually comes close to genuine convincing and substance as an article. SwisterTwister talk 05:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no claim of notability; fails GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:00, 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 keep. MBisanz ^talk 01:27, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sgm Group Of Institution Mathura[edit]

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

No real content. Just a list of courses. No links, no infobox etc. Is notable but would require a complete rewrite from scratch to a decent article. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 15:18, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I did some simple wikification, fixed most of the problems that were bothering you. I have to run an errand and can't do a google search just yet, but I imagine there might be some press for notability. Yvarta (talk) 15:52, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back. I couldn't find any sources in English that would help with notability, although I didn't search in Hindi or any other languages. Yvarta (talk) 17:38, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a degree-awarding institution per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:48, 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 04:31, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. , even tho its a minimal article, though it should be expanded to cover the other 3 schools in its grou. They do not necessarily warrant individual articles. DGG ( talk ) 16:39, 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 01:27, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SafeTrade[edit]

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

Clearly promotional. No evidence of passing WP:NCORP. Sources are mostly primary, user-generated or fail verification, and that's after one pass at cleaning them up. News searches show another company of the same name, and then press releases from a few years ago. I'm willing to be convinced, but so far there's not much in its favour. David Gerard (talk) 13:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 13:42, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 13:42, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 08:50, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as entirely PR and I in fact consider this entirely speedy material. SwisterTwister talk 22:58, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PR with PR refereences. The only availble RS that is more than a mention is ghe general article in Forbes, which does not mention the company . DGG ( talk ) 16:43, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no indications of notability nor sufficient sources to meet GNG and CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:50, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:28, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Topaz Winters[edit]

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

Endorsed PROD tag was removed twice by new users. Obviously fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 13:29, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 14:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 14:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 14:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:38, 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 04:29, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. one minor book, and a lot of press releases about it. DGG ( talk ) 16:44, 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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 01:28, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ricki Noel Lander[edit]

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

By all means nothing actually suggestive of establishing her own independent notability (I still confirm my PROD) as she's simply best known for dating a CEO. SwisterTwister talk 07:08, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:44, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:44, 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 10:20, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: coverage in reilable sources show up in my search results. KGirlTrucker81^{talk what I'm been doing} 15:52, 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 04:22, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The coverage is just that she dated a notable businessman. We don't cover spouses of anyone other than heads of state on that basis. DGG ( talk ) 16:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per KGirlTrucker81 and analysis of article. She has been covered in multiple, third-party sources independent of the subject; as a person with a professional career and who sits on the board of directors of some major programs (New York City Ballet among those), we have far more than just someone's girlfriend. In fact, that is irrelevant. Montanabw^(talk) 22:51, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is taking away the fact the majority of coverage is again only for being the CEO's girlfriend; "professional career....board of directors of some major programs" is not a convincing claim for actually keeping this as her own article. SwisterTwister talk 00:12, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per KGirlTrucker and Montanabw. Sources in article meet GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:19, 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--regentspark (comment) 03:04, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chatha[edit]

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

Lacks notability. All the clan articles in the category of 'Jat Clans of Punjab' face the same issue. Most of them are as if there are listed in a clans directory, WP:NOT. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 11:55, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, pending evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 21:18, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:17, 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 11:00, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Make and Redirect to a general Jat clans list~~ There was a suggestion like this and I really liked the sound of it. There exist some vague sources for these clans in the Wiki I found: [31]. Mr. Magoo (talk) 13:17, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr. Magoo and McBarker: But the source you have mentioned is a mirror site of Wikipedia. It cannot be used. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 09:10, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Like I wrote, it lists sources which can be used but which need to be verified. Mr. Magoo (talk) 10:42, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rescinding my vote: it was pointed out the Jat Wiki's sources are unusable. It might be best to delete and then redirect to Jat. Mr. Magoo (talk) 03:51, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is far from the first time that people have suggested creating a List of Jat clans. In fact, it has been suggested at least twice in AfDs during this month. Those AfDs ended with deletion, as this one should. I'll try to find the relevant details but am not around much at the moment due to poor health. Basically, this alleged clan fails GNG and we don't collect unverifiable trivia, nor are we a directory etc. There is a reason why that list has itself previously been deleted and has languished, with an increasing number of redlinks, in someone's userspace without ever being worked upon.

And, btw, Mr Magoo, the wiki you found (jatland) is notoriously bad. That's why we had/have an edit filter in place for it. British Raj sources are, for example, unreliable and have long been deemed so. - Sitush (talk) 23:03, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr. Magoo and McBarker: sigh, and we should also not redirect titles to Jat people where the title is not reliably verifiable. Castes are artificial constructs at the best of times - this post by me explains some of the issues and, as I already explained on your talk page, we do not rely on caste affiliated sources, nor Raj sources etc. - Sitush (talk) 06:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why use the word caste? We're essentially dealing with clans or families here, not the broader caste system. They have some notability as there are sources covering them. We have a newspaper describing the Chatha and Cheema clans as subgroups of Jat. I don't see how this doesn't make them viable redirects. Mr. Magoo (talk) 07:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retain - Saying that Wikipedia pages relates to castes or clan system are useless is instead baseless. Because deep in Asian specially subcontinent people still stick to clan system and they want to know more about their origin, history and their ancestors and Wikipedia being the biggest online encyclopedia should be a source of such information. Failure of Wikipedia to provide sufficient the information should not be tried to be covered by deleting pages like that but instead reliable information should be added to the pages. The page should not be redirected to the page Jat because deep down in general culture terms Chattha/Cheema/Waraich are given more importance than the more general term Jat.

Mr. Magoo The word caste had been used because although a subgroup of Jat but these subgroups are generally termed as castes in publicly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aisha2084 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 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 Delete--regentspark (comment) 03:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chhokar[edit]

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

Lacks notability. All the clan articles in the category of 'Jat Clans of Punjab' face the same issue. Most of them are as if there are listed in a clans directory, WP:NOT. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 12:02, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, pending evidence of non-trivial, significant coverage from reliable publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 21:16, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, its funny that the villages that these people live in could probably have articles under WP:GEOLAND but the people as a group may not, could all the Jat people articles be redirected to a 'List of Jat clans' article instead? Coolabahapple (talk) 17:04, 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 10:47, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Make and Redirect to a general Jat clans list~~ The suggestion from above is actually fairly sound and there exist some vague sources for these clans in the Wiki I found: [32]. Mr. Magoo (talk) 13:15, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Rescinding my vote: it was pointed out the Jat Wiki's sources are unusable. It might be best to delete ~~and then redirect to Jat.~~ Mr. Magoo (talk) 03:51, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Adding strikethrough to that last bit, because Chhokar isn't a viable redirect, for it's a part of two different groups of people. Mr. Magoo (talk) 18:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:19, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is far from the first time that people have suggested creating a List of Jat clans. In fact, it has been suggested at least twice in AfDs during this month. Those AfDs ended with deletion, as this one should. I'll try to find the relevant details but am not around much at the moment due to poor health. Basically, this alleged clan fails GNG and we don't collect unverifiable trivia, nor are we a directory etc. There is a reason why that list has itself previously been deleted and has languished, with an increasing number of redlinks, in someone's userspace without ever being worked upon. - Sitush (talk) 22:03, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And, btw, Mr Magoo, the wiki you found (jatland) is notoriously bad. That's why we had/have an edit filter in place for it. - Sitush (talk) 22:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr. Magoo and McBarker: sigh, and we should also not redirect titles to Jat people where the title is not reliably verifiable. Castes are artificial constructs at the best of times - this post by me explains some of the issues and, as I already explained on your talk page, we do not rely on caste affiliated sources, nor Raj sources etc. - Sitush (talk) 06:30, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why use the word caste? We're essentially dealing with clans or families here, not the broader caste system. They have some notability as there are sources covering them. We have a newspaper describing the Chatha and Cheema clans as subgroups of Jat. I don't see how this doesn't make them viable redirects. In the case of Chhokar it might not be as viable, because it's a subgroup of two peoples and the second source seems to refer to Gujar and not Jat. Mr. Magoo (talk) 07:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not understand the relationship between caste, clan, gotra, jati, varna etc then I think you need to read up quite a bit more before jumping to conclusions, sorry. I can't provide a primer here but our articles on the various meta aspects should suffice, even though often quite poor. Similarly, if you do not understand how Indian newspapers work when it comes to reporting caste-related matters (especially self-promotion, reliance on Raj ethnologies etc) ... It's a complex topic, I grant you, but it has been discussed at length over many years: I am merely reiterating the outcomes of those numerous discussions. I'm not saying that you are one but even the most rabid of inclusionists have repeatedly failed to achieve the end which you seek. For example, just because something is mentioned in passing etc doesn't mean we should acknowledge it, and especially not if there are concerns that Wikipedia may be being used to legitimise off-wiki claims. - Sitush (talk) 07:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's all great, but I'd prefer if you were to actually link some of these discussions or sources stating something like this. The one "discussion" you linked to happened at your talk page, after DGG had reverted your removal of an article's contents and had just few paragraphs of your opinion on the matter, again without sources or any official noticeboard discussion. The other person supporting your stance had much better reasoning of lack of sources. And lastly, caste seems to be used as a synonym for family; even though to a westerner it brings to mind the hierarchical caste system. There's nothing wrong with articles about family lines, and it's not the same as a "caste system." Mr. Magoo (talk) 10:15, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pfft. You really do not understand what caste is, do you? Part-exogamous, part-endogamous groupings of variable number but running into the thousands and based on, well, take your pick: birth, occupation, social control, aspiration, etc. Then again, in classical theory, a merely four groups known as Varna. The articles are there, so maybe go read them? As for nothing being wrong with articles about family lines, that rather depends on whether the family is notable, and we are not a genealogy website. I wouldn't dream of dragging out a discussion in an AfD about, say, medicine because I know next to nothing about the subject; the same might be a wise approach for you until you are clued up. - Sitush (talk) 18:42, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we've already covered this, and hierarchical castes is seemingly not what we were dealing in with the other two as they covered families with the surname. The Dawn article especially to that effect. If it weren't solely biological but some by-marriage or other kind of grouping, the other two would still be worthy of a redirect, as a cited subgroup of the Jat people. Mr. Magoo (talk) 19:33, 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--regentspark (comment) 02:58, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cheema[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Lacks notability. All the clan articles in the category of 'Jat Clans of Punjab' face the same issue. Most of them are as if there are listed in a clans directory, WP:NOT. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 11:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, pending evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 21:02, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:42, 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 10:16, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Make and Redirect to a general Jat clans list~~ There was a suggestion like this and I really liked the sound of it. There exist some vague sources for these clans in the Wiki I found: [33]. Mr. Magoo (talk) 13:18, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Rescinding my vote: it was pointed out the Jat Wiki's sources are unusable. It might be best to delete and then redirect to Jat. Mr. Magoo (talk) 03:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:19, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is far from the first time that people have suggested creating a List of Jat clans. In fact, it has been suggested at least twice in AfDs during this month. Those AfDs ended with deletion, as this one should. I'll try to find the relevant details but am not around much at the moment due to poor health. Basically, this alleged clan fails GNG and we don't collect unverifiable trivia, nor are we a directory etc. There is a reason why that list has itself previously been deleted and has languished, with an increasing number of redlinks, in someone's userspace without ever being worked upon.

And, btw, Mr Magoo, the wiki you found (jatland) is notoriously bad. That's why we had/have an edit filter in place for it. British Raj sources are, for example, unreliable and have long been deemed so. - Sitush (talk) 23:02, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr. Magoo and McBarker: sigh, and we should also not redirect titles to Jat people where the title is not reliably verifiable. Castes are artificial constructs at the best of times - this post by me explains some of the issues and, as I already explained on your talk page, we do not rely on caste affiliated sources, nor Raj sources etc. - Sitush (talk) 06:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why use the word caste? We're essentially dealing with clans or families here, not the broader caste system. They have some notability as there are sources covering them. We have a newspaper describing the Chatha and Cheema clans as subgroups of Jat. I don't see how this doesn't make them viable redirects. And in the case of Cheema there's also the book by Rait. Mr. Magoo (talk) 07:21, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:28, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MacSipho Raymond[edit]

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

Non-notable musician with no reliable sources about him. Marvellous Spider-Man (talk) 12:26, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:20, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:20, 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 10:15, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article was created with sources from Facebook, Twitter, Wordpress and Youtube. There is a fake reference in the article from Daily Telegraph. Editors can click the daily Telegraph link, which will take you to soundcloud. Simple search shows nothing apart from videos from his own youtube channel and facebook pages Marvellous Spider-Man 01:01, 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 04:18, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no coverage in reliable sources. The videos on this guy's YouTube channel only have an average a few hundred views, so this is another indication of non-notability.--Prisencolin (talk) 22:53, 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. The "keep"s don't address the sourcing problems. Sandstein 08:12, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Makazhoy[edit]

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

I checked for Makhazoy online, and found absolutely nothing. I think it's a hoax, but I think this needs a second opinion. Joel.Miles925 (talk) 22:01, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:22, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:22, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Even if factual, which I'm sure it is, the clan lacks notability and cannot be verified in RS. Meatsgains (talk) 22:44, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is a Russian version out there if you search "Макажой", I just made an English version and added extra information. Aylmao12344 (talk) 23:48, 11 August 2016
Keep - There are many reasearches about the Makazhoy clan and the defeat of the Mongols in Chechnya Wyd2222 (talk) 13:13, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:48, 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 04:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as uncited original research. The link offered is to a locality in Chechnya. It's possible that it's also a name of an ancient clan, as the article claims, but we'd need sources for that. This really should be an article on the town first, and if sources are found than the clan info can go into the "history" section. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:15, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:28, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Delicate Balance – The Truth[edit]

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

tagged for 2 years as reading like an advertisement (see also talk page), no reliable sources. --Wineisred (talk) 10:11, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 09:54, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a rundown of the sources, some of which I had to run via the Wayback Machine:

Sourcing

The Lifescape source is unusable. It only confirms that the film exists and a look at the content shows that it was lifted directly from the Wikipedia page, which means that there was likely no actual checking of the content.
IMDb is not a RS on Wikipedia.
Vegetarian Guides is an e-commerce site, so it shouldn't be on the page at all, let alone be used to back up claims of positive reviews. Places trying to sell you something are far less likely to show the negative reviews for a work and are more likely to say nice things about the product, assuming that they write anything about the product at all. Most e-commerce sites just use the marketing materials provided by the company that created the product.
Official website. This is a dead link, but it's also kind of a moot point since an official website is not usable as a RS to back up claims of reviews. The reason for this is that it's quite common for websites to feature promotional blurbs from various people. These blurbs might seem like they're excerpts from a longer piece but in actuality just be a promotional 1-3 sentence blurb solicited by the publisher for the product (in this case a film). In other cases the blurb might be from a longer review, but the publisher cherrypicked the one positive sentence from the article. And then, of course, there's the possibility that despite being highlighted that the blurb is from a review or article that isn't considered to be a RS on Wikipedia.
Meatout looks to be a primary source, since its content seems to be PR material geared at directing people to the film's website and sign up to host screenings. A truly independent source wouldn't be pushing for that, at least not to that degree.
Abolitionist. I couldn't get the Wayback Machine to bring up anything and the link itself is dead. I'm not sure that Abolitionist Online would be considered a RS on Wikipedia, especially as there's not much out there and the website seems to be dead offhand.
Evolving Wellness. This one is debatable as to whether or not it's usable. It's a review written by the site's founder, however I also note that she "only" holds Bachelor's degrees in the given fields her site covers and there's little here about editorial oversight. I have to assume that this would likely be seen as a SPS. However even if this is a RS, this is the only usable source thus far and not enough to keep the article.

So far there's little to nothing to establish notability on the page per the review above, but I'll see what I can find. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 02:48, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A search brought up nothing better than what was already on the article and nothing to show that any of the blurbs in the article are anything other than a short promotional blurb sought out by the filmmakers to promote the documentary. There's no mention of it in anything that Wikipedia would considered to be an independent, notability giving RS and even the trivial, primary, or SPS are kind of few and far between. It looks like this exists, but there's not much more beyond that. The best I could find was this mention in a list of documentary films, but then I'm not sure that the publisher would be considered a RS on here even if the mention was in-depth. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:45, 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 04:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pyre advertising. Should have been removed as G11. DGG ( talk ) 16:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TokyoGirl's analysis of sources. Most likely doesn't meet GNG. There are some mentions of this film in books, but it's trivial.--Prisencolin (talk) 22:57, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:52, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nawab Mir Khudrath Nawaz Jung Bahadur[edit]

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

Non-notable royal person. Marvellous Spider-Man (talk) 05:51, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:10, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:10, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:10, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep -- It is a bad article, but the Nizam was a sovereign Indian Prince and this person was one of his ministers. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:35, 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 04:13, 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 merge to Beyond International Group. MBisanz ^talk 01:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond Home Entertainment[edit]

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

Not notable and unsourced. -- Whats new?^(talk) 02:22, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now There are sources online but the subject really doesn't warrant a separate article. It should be merged with Beyond Television Productions to Beyond International Group, but that article doesn't exist. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:35, 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 04:12, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a non notable distribution company. I cannot find sufficient RS to meet GNG and CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:14, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:CORP. despite being listed from 11 August no one has found actual sources. LibStar (talk) 09:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Beyond Television Productions per AussieLegend. Montanabw^(talk) 22:43, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Marie (singer)[edit]

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

I can't find evidence that the subject satisfies WP:MUSICBIO guidelines. Her official website listed as a citation is now a dead link. The "2008 Hollywood’s Best New Talent" which doesn't appear to be a national level or a significant music competition unless I have missed something. Even if it were, the article states that she was part of a group which won the competition, so that would still not contribute to Marie's individual notability. No evidence of a major record label or national chart positions, and there doesn't seem to be significant coverage in reliable sources. Mz7 (talk) 04:12, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable singer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:18, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:40, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:40, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find nothing on her myself either (once I search "-Cabanos", to take out hits on Christine Marie Cabanos) - David Gerard (talk) 12:17, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Piccola Accademia degli Specchi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Renom due to lack of participation in previous AfD. NN ensemble with a bunch of WP:COATRACKed material not actually cited in the article because somebody related to the ensemble was mentioned off-handedly by a reviewer somewhere. MSJapan (talk) 01:48, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:50, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:50, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm unable to find sources about this ensemble. An ensemble doesn't inherit notability from its participants and over here I don't even see notable participants either. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:19, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:12, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't imagine that a musical group where none of its members have WP articles would itself be notable enough to meet GNG.--Prisencolin (talk) 23:00, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ghadeer Aseri[edit]

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

Did not won any election and a living person/active activist with no media coverage Marvellous Spider-Man (talk) 15:08, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:13, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kuwait-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:13, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable Kuwaiti activist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:17, 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 01:42, 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 04:11, 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 no consensus. Per WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:53, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reba Monica John[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No solid source. According to WP:BLP and WP:NMODEL, this person is not notable. All primary sources talk about her role in a film, where she played a role of having 3-5 min.s within her debut movie. The article fails WP:NACTOR. Uncletomwood (talk) 16:36, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:04, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:04, 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 01:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources include in-depth and in-depth here and in-depth here and in-depth here and she's a hot new star which partially explains why her pageviews average 350+ per day (which usually correlates with notability). Meets the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:25, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the above is still not actually convincing for establishing her own independent notability especially when she's only had 1 film, thus there's no convincing substance. SwisterTwister talk 17:21, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:10, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty Pageants-related deletion discussions. PageantUpdater (talk) 00:29, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:30, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Process Technology[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP. ubiquity (talk) 17:37, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:26, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:26, 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 01:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - #6 is the only source that is an independent source but it is basically a directory entry. shoy (reactions) 19:12, 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 04:10, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. no evidence for notability at this time DGG ( talk ) 17:48, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no indications of notability nor sufficient coverage. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:35, 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 no consensus. Per WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:52, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Henry G. Brinton[edit]

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

Article about a seemingly NN author, written by a relative (connection here). While there are plenty of mini-bios on connected platforms (Washingtonian Magazine, Wapo, Huffpo, etc.) and a few discussions of articles he wrote, I haven't been able to find any in-depth coverage of this WP:AUTHOR from independent sources. Toddst1 (talk) 21:00, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pastor. 2 books. Frequent columnist first for the daily in the city where he was then a Minister, then, after moving to a church in the D.C. suburbs, Washingotn Post, Gannett and USA Today. Very frequent. Page started in 2006. Clearly by someone who liked him or his writing. So many of these columns come up on a search of his name that it is hard to sort ofut the feature article coverage of him. Parish bio here: [34] may be worth sourcing/sourceable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:40, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:00, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:17, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:17, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:17, 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 01:31, 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 04:09, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak Keep. possibly notable author. Only one book with significant holdings, His Revelation is in 606 libraries, which is high for the genre. Published by Abington, a major religious publisher. DGG ( talk ) 17:18, 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 no consensus. Per WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:52, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shelf Awareness[edit]

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

This has been around for three years yet the references don't add up to notability. Discounting the several own web-site refs , almost all the rest are very peripheral mentions. The most likely candidate - Frank Reagan, Books make a difference appears to be a press release with company contacts posted at the end. I don't see notability here. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 23:02, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:57, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:57, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:57, 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 01:29, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I located this interview Geekwire, and the publication is cited often in book related news. It appears t be somewhat noted in the book publishing world. Borderline, but I'm leaning keep. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:05, 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 04:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep it seems to be a significant newsletter in its trade. DGG ( talk ) 17:04, 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 no consensus. This was a confusing debate to follow. Some of the arguments are clearly untenable without proof, i.e. the assertion that all print media in Nigeria works on bribery. I'm not sure I can say the people arguing for keep proved their case, but it is clear that the only person arguing to delete is the nominator, and that's not enough to delete on. So calling this No Consensus, with WP:NPASR. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:20, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ruby Gyang[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

NN musician, fails WP:MUSICBIO. The prior AfD was withdrawn, but of the sources taken at face value in the withdrawn AfD, the net.ng source is gossip with a pasted-in video, and is concerned more with why her "baby daddy" isn't in the video. Naij is also gossip. Premium Times is an interview, so that's not independent of the subject. Daily Trust is an interview, not independent of the subject. One of those articles points out she got into music in 2010. So in six years she released one EP, and fails the album requirement. There's no indication she tours, has released two albums on a major label, etc. She didn't chart anything, and that her EP was reviewed is a nod to WP:NALBUM, not her. The comp album fails WP:NALBUM, though, and she's not going to inherit notability from it anyway. She doesn't meet the criteria, because the review of the album is the only independent source related to her, and album reviews aren't part of criterion 1, because album reviews are for NALBUM, otherwise the artist would inherit notability from them. Just barely passing one criterion by an extreme stretch of policy isn't good enough. MSJapan (talk) 03:25, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The subject passes criteria 8 and 10 of WP:MUSICBIO. She was nominated for Best Vocal Performance (Female) at The Headies 2014. The Headies is the not only a major award in Nigeria, it is the biggest in the country. The nominator took the compilation album to AFD, but I've clearly provided sources to counter the nominator's argument. Passing two of WP:MUSICBIO's 12 criteria is sufficient to warrant a stand-alone article. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 00:31, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@MSJapan: Please stop using charts in your argument when nominating Nigerian-related articles for deletion. You should instead focused your attention on whether or not the subject meets WP:GNG. The music industry in Nigeria and much of Africa isn't well structured. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 00:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @MSJapan: Please prove to me how these sources (The Daily Times of Nigeria, Premium Times, The Daily Trust, and Naij) are not independent of the subject. The subject doesn't work for or is not affiliated with any of these media outlets. These sources cannot be considered WP:PRIMARY SOURCES. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 10:10, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that I can do. You're referring only to a portion of the overall guideline, instead of the whole thing. "Independent" and "third-party" are not the same. The former means that the subject isn't directly involved with the article at all, and the latter is that the subject has no relationship with the medium or author. So you are entirely correct that these are third-party sources. However, they are not independent, and WP:MUSICBIO#1 specifically excludes interviews from consideration as criteria for notability. They can be used for information, sure, but not to assert notability. The award you claim per #8 is neither given in the article, nor do we at present regard it as such as far as NMUSIC goes. As far as #10 goes, this is where there's a circular notability issue. Honestly, I think we need to open a discussion at NMUSIC - some of the points you bring up indicate there's a systemic issue we need to deal with in some way shape or form, because what you're telling me is that a criterion we use and seems to work for every other article won't work for this country. I can't fix that myself, and I can't arbitrarily not apply guidelines, so I think we need to have a more general guidelines discussion at NMUSIC. MSJapan (talk) 16:09, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MSJapan: You are misconstruing my statement. I never used the terms "Independent" and "third-party", and never said they were the same. I simply said that the sources I cited above are not WP:PRIMARYSOURCES. Do you expect stub articles to include every vital info? The fact that it wasn't included in the article doesn't take away from its importance. It is flawed to think that every article on Wikipedia are written in their best version. I am not going to respond because I already left a reply to the section you left at NMUSIC. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 23:33, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 23:40, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 23:40, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MSJapan: You are trying hard to refute the fact that the subject meets criteria 8 and 10 of WP:MUSICBIO. Please stop trying hard to refute something that is irrefutable. For your info, the word "major" in criteria 4 of WP:MUSICBIO is subjective. Are you going to tell me that out of all the numerous music awards in the world, only 4 are considered "major"? If you're saying that, you must be joking. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 00:00, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject passes criteria 8 and 10 of WP:MUSICBIO..--Obari2Kay (talk) 20:24, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In Nigeria before a print media make's you a topic on paper you most have paid them, so a person like Ruby Gyang must have paid and that goes with ever other artist like Davido, Wizkid (musician) and more. An common sense is need in written article for artist majorly in West Africa. If an article is to be writing for artist in West Africa we should look at this criteria to gain notability..

1. Major Nominations... Like The Headies, Nigeria Entertainment Awards, MTV Africa Music Awards, All Africa Music Awards, Ghana Music Awards and more..

2. Major music blog's like NotJustOk & tooXclusive are to be use as backup in writing an article...

If the article could meet criteria 8 of WP:MUSICBIO it is set to be notable..--Obari2Kay (talk) 20:26, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note @Versace1608:, You said MSJapan is trying hard to refute the fact that the subject meets criteria 8 and 10 of WP:MUSICBIO. If i was to add anything to that i would say you did the same thing to the article i recently wrote Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Koker (musician) and now you think he is wrong and you did same thing.. The subject passing criteria 8 and 10 of WP:MUSICBIO doesn't make the article notable, an been nominated or won a major award does not make the article notable as you said versace1608, let me also clear things up as you said.. --Obari2Kay (talk) 20:28, 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 01:20, 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 04:08, 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 Ask whether a transwiki is wanted on mw:Project:Requests, then delete. Alright, the easy parts of this are that the enwiki's inclusion criteria are not met. GeSHi needs its own discussion for a deletion. The hard part is whether to request a transwiki to mediawiki.org. This is fundamentally a question for mediawikiwiki and not for us to answer. Thus, I am going to ask on mw:Project:Requests whether they want the content transferred over, and once the answer is in this should be deleted. Please hold off deleting this one until the request has been answered - once it is, anybody may tag the article as {{Db-xfd}}. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:08, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pygments[edit]

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

Non-notable software engine. This article was also mentioned in the creator's RfA. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:09, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:09, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands. Or transwiki to mediawiki.org - it's used with recent MediaWiki - David Gerard (talk) 18:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping to elicit a reference independent of Wikipedia with this, not just one independent of Pygments. For this sort of library, you need more than "Our site uses Pygments" stated by the site, or "<That site> uses Pygments" stated by Pygments, to demonstrate third-party interest. I wasn't any to find any such source myself after I tagged the article at that time (though I didn't look again today). Delete. —Cryptic 10:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, then I wonder why GeSHi hasn't received similar scrutiny, as it seems to suffer from the same issues. I suppose what I was really looking for when I created this was something more than a disambiguation at Wikipedia:Syntax highlighting. Our developers should stop installing software they aren't willing to adequately document. wbm1058 (talk) 13:02, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I see it isn't documented on mediawiki.org which is where I'd expect MediaWiki-relevant documentation - David Gerard (talk) 18:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - also GeSHi. I have some sympathy for Wbm1058's view that "We have to document our own dogfood", but I don't think WP is the place to do so. WP (by principle) can't create any documentation, only report what's already out there. So WP can't actually do much that's useful for this purpose.

To belong here, these would have to show encyclopedic notability: are they innovative? Widely discussed? Widely used? Being "important" for the operation of WP is something different, and that sort of descriptive documentation belongs elsewhere, not here. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- e.g., on our site specifically for that sort of thing - David Gerard (talk) 18:16, 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 after I tagged it (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 16:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comrise[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Unable to find significant coverage that talks about the company in depth. CNMall41 (talk) 03:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:06, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:06, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete, there's nothing offered at all - David Gerard (talk) 08:26, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedied - speedy nom, which it totally warranted - David Gerard (talk) 14:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no claim of notability, the two sources here are self-published and there were no additional reliable sources about the firm and notability found in a Google search. Alansohn (talk) 13:47, 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.

Bhalchandra Dattatray Mondhe[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 speedily as promotional and a probable violation of Wikipedia terms of service (created by an undeclared paid editor and prolific sockpuppeteer). If the topic is notable then WP:TNT applies. Guy (Help!) 07:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

No indication of significance. Barely qualifies as a stub. Not worthy of their own article just because they received an award. Also page created by a user with seriously questionable motives. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 01:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: we're here to discuss the notability of the subject, not the current state of the article or the motives of its creator. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 03:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a recipient of the Padma Shri, India's 4th highest civilian award, which is only given to roughly 100 people per year out of a population of 1 billion, the subject passes WP:ANYBIO hands down. There was much press coverage after Mondhe received the award in 2016: [35], [36], etc. and this 2014 article details Mondhe's fight for Sirpur Lake. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 03:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Biwom (talk) 03:09, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is not enough content to deserve an article & the sources given do not go into the amount of depth/detail required to deserve an article. The names of Padma Shri recipients are listed on the Padma Shri article, a simple redirect from this article to the Padma Shri article would be the best option for something so trivial, with such little content. While the subject did receive the award, he hasn't done anything notable enough to deserve an article. Winning the fourth most important award in India, that has been awarded over 2500 times, isn't that much of a big deal. There are recipients of the Padma Shri who deservedly have articles, because they are highly notable in their own field - that isn't the case in this article. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:11, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 12:34, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 12:35, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per Spacecowboy's reasoning above. As an equivalent, UK CBE holders don't an article simply because they scored a gong. Awards are handed out like lollies these days by all governments as a means of courting the popular vote. Engleham (talk) 22:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Are you sure about CBE holders? You seem to be contradicting what I read here. Also, once again, the population of India is 20 times that of the UK. Only roughly 100 Padma Shri are awarded every year. That might be about the same number as CBE. So from my perspective, the value of a Padma Shri is much higher than that of a CBE, and your comparison doesn't hold at all. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 05:32, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Biwom, if you wish to base your argument on this, then please note that a CBE is the third highest award in the UK and the OBE is the fourth highest award - (1. GBE 2. KBE/DBE 3. CBE 4. OBE) and that it was stated that "the MBE (or OBE) does not confer inherent notability. Consensus is, however, that the CBE (and above) does" The Padma Shri is the fourth highest award in India, so at a comparable level to an OBE, which in the link that you were so kind to provide, does not confer inherent notability

Also, to state that something has a higher worth because the population is larger is not very accurate. A phd holder in India is not worth more than one from a country with a smaller population, so why would an award be worth more?

I'd suggest that based on this, consensus regarding the notability of different levels of awards is crystal clear and can be applied to this particular article. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:20, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Yes, I was thinking I was going to be misunderstood here, so to clarify: I am not saying the Padma Shri has more value than the CBE because India is a bigger country than the UK, but because it is proportionally given to less people. Now that this is clarified, I disagree wholly with your argument that say, "you can only compare the 4th with the 4th". From my perspective, the comparison can only be made based (roughly) on the number of awardees per year to total population. Otherwise, we would have a bias in favor of countries where awards are "handed out like lollipops", which is once again clearly not the case of the 4 "Padma" awards in India.

Now, to be even more clear: if it is true that the roughly 100 (??? to be confirmed) CBE awardees are considered automatically notable (??? to be confirmed), and if we consider that the roughly 100 Padma Shri awardees are not, I would like us, as a community, to explain exactly why it is so, so that it doesn't look like we have a wp:systemic bias here. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 08:47, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So basically, you wanna link to this because it refers to the notability of a CBE, but then disregard what it says when it says that an award that is clearly comparable with the padma shri, does not equal notability.

Number of awardees has nothing to do with it. There are numerous unimportant awards that are given in far smaller numbers than the Padma Shri, do they all equal notability? Damn...I was employee of the month for three months running! That must mean that I get my own Wikipedia article! Awesome! Now, where is Spacecowboy420 and how do I propose it for GA status? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:58, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The quality of the article and being a stub has nothing to do with notability, but the fact of him receiving Padma Shri awards makes it passing WP:GNG. I've also added some information and references to article to show notability out of Padma Shri context. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:42, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:43, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the Padma Shree award by itself does not automatically confer notability, it certainly contributes to it, and when it is coupled with subject's other achievements, I think the article definitely meets GNG. If the article isn't particularly good yet, that has no bearing on notability and we should improve it, not delete it. We don't just delete stubs because they're stubs. Tigercompanion25 (talk) 04:09, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Padma Shri is a 4th order awards as does not imply notability or, in my opinion, substantially contribute to it. (As for the CBE, I think consensus is that it does imply notability -- it is the 3rd highest; but consensus on that is subject to change. Outside the award, there's nothing that meets notability here. }Author of one book--is not normally notable unless the book becomes extremely notable, or famous. Photographer, but no evidence of any works in major museums or, indeed , any museums. DGG ( talk ) 18:01, 25 August 2016 (UTC) .[reply]
Comment The article has been deleted as unambiguous advertising. I've requested the said admin to undelete the article to allow the discussions to go on. Lourdes 02:18, 2 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. Vanamonde (talk) 18:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Priscilla Corner[edit]

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

PROD contested by someone but the contesting user is not actually staying how exactly they will "confirm her notability" and whether they understand the need Ed improvements for actually accepting this; I still my PROD as the PR speak about her attention for her celebrity clients and customers speaks for itself. None of this actually suggests anything close at all for the needed depth. Being a "public figure" and being known for having known clients is not notability so I certainly hope that's not the defense of keeping this, which is what the user is suggesting apparently by "we had several photoshoots and she had a known client". SwisterTwister talk 04:47, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 06:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 06:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 06:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't really have a stance on the subject's notability, but i've cleaned up the article and added the references I could find, so that this AfD discussion can be done without concern of how well-written or not the article is. Silver seren^C 06:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment i really have stance on the subjects notability and iam adding the references i could find which substantiates its stay here in wikipedia.these article can stay and not go for deletion process.being a hair expert of popular hair oil brand is not photoshoots thing.http://www.keokarpin.com/news.php plus an official columnist of leading national daily speaks of her work http://www.telegraphindia.com/1120718/jsp/entertainment/story_15739045.jsp#.V7OTl1t97IU — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soumen491 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC) Kolkata786 (talk) 07:18, 18 August 2016 (UTC)my view on these subject is it completely fulfill wikipedia biography criteria.she raised her work level through her craft and skill not any celebrity photoshoots.her work speaks it.http://www.koramangala.com/korabuz/pers1999/11.htm http://www.wellnessindia.com/2015/priscilla-corner.php.hope my other friend editors can agree with me.thanks[reply]
Comment - I'll note this for the closing user that this article was, as shown by all of this, requested for restoration for exact PR uses; being an expert and having a lot of attention along with "wanting an article here" (with still no substantial non-PR listed so far, at that) is not what this website signifies. SwisterTwister talk 17:28, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources include in-depth and in-depth and several paragraphs here and she qualifies imo as a beauty expert. Meets the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The sources above are an exact example of what she's capable of here: PR, the sources are simply essentially self-authored guides where she is advertising her services. That's not an actual in-depth news coverage, simply looking at the sentences such as the first Link's first sentences.... SwisterTwister talk 17:24, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is in-depth coverage. Corner is recognized by many leading newspapers as a beauty expert such as here and here and here. Editors decided PC's views qualified as editorial content important to readers. If Corner had paid the newspaper to go there, then it's an advertisement; but she didn't.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:07, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But they may well as be because those are exactly also offering her services hence an advertisement. None of thid is actuslly amounting to to non-PR or PR-like coverage. Also, there's been noticeable consensus before that several of these types of news media have a pay-for "method" of publishing "news". SwisterTwister talk 23:36, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the said beauty expert skills have been recognized by two leading companies namely ITC and KEO KARPIN.I think the said companies would not have done so if she had no standing or notability.IT is not self promotions but merely stating facts...Kolkata786 (talk) 07:29, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Being named by two companies is essentially endorsements which happen quite frequently in exchange for money or services. SwisterTwister talk 23:36, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:35, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Soumen491 (talk) 06:52, 25 August 2016 (UTC)priscilla corner signed a contract with both the leading companies mentioned which they paid her for expertise just like any artist featured in other Wikipedia pages are contracted to recording labels etc[reply]

Delete. advertisement. Notability doesn't even matter, because promotionalism is an even better reason for deletion. Of course, as is usual with promotional bios, she isn't notable. A notable stylist will have in depth articles from sources recognized internationally ,Nor would we expect good sources, for she has done nothing notable. "oficial beauty and hair columnist" for a newspaper is not notable. unless its a paper with recognized international authority, which the Kokota Telegraph is not, --but there isn't even evidence for it: the reference is to a single column which just says she wrote that column. . "Eastern Region head hair expert of the ... brand" is not a high level position. Stylist for "a number of celebrities" isn't meaningful unless they are very famous'--and there's no reference for this, so the sentence would have to be removed. Lets look at the actual references:

1, The Calcutta Telegraph is a mere mention as one of the performers in an article on a concert. She didn't even get a whole sentence.

2, KoraBuz Home is so extravagently written that it is impossible to take it seriously as other than an advertisement, anda rather foolish one at that

3, dna India is a mention that she among a number of other people , spoke at a fashion event.

4 is another mention of being one of the speakers at a fashion presentation--and events like this and the preceding one are designed and intended as opportunities for advertising. It's a if she spoke on a merchandising cable channel.

5 is a column she wrote.

6 is participation in another event,

7 is inclusion of one poem in an anthology

8 is a listing of a bit part in a film, from IMdB.

All in all, an excellent example of what are not reliable sources for notability . DGG ( talk ) 18:01, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

this article honestly read like an autobiography or memoir. I think it should be a footnote somewhere or be removed. Pyrusca (talk) 04:55, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I would not consider a beauty column authored by the subject (link) offered above to be in-depth article on the subject. Coverage is trivial or PR like and is insufficient to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kolkata786 (talk)these is a body of work spanning 25 years is not trivia .what would you considered substantialSoumen491 (talk) ~not delete.remove PROD tagYou rej ct an article for its brevity ( one snt nice) and then another because of its extrvagance, how does one strike a happy medium

2: she has contributed not one, but several. In her cpa it's as a Beauty Columnist for the T2 Telegraph, which has a readership of lakhs. She was also the beauty columnist for Femina Bangla, and has written for Cosmopolitan and Good housekeeping, both leader no magazines in India. 3: yes, she was onY a participant in the event mentioned by you, but she has headlined several events in her capacity as hair master for FIAMA DI wills 4: he, she has only one poem in the Anthology but do remember that it was shortlisted in the last 50 from contributions both nationally and internationally. 5: the bit part you said she had in a film, was actually two songs sound no by her, one a solo, and the other a duet with the real owned singer Abhijeet. 6: she was the lead female int the film THE OUTHOUSE AND it was shortlisted for the panorama film festival as lwell as the winner of THE SRINIVAS FOLLAPUDI AWARD for best new film. 7: she was also chosen as one of BANGALORES 30 woman achievers.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gollapudi_Srinivas_Award http://www.wellnessindia.com/salon/speakers2015.php

http://www.bfi.org.uk/films-tv-people/4ce2b82a9e7a4 http://www.presentedbyp.com/femina-bangla-launches-at-itc-sonar-kolkata/s Kolkata786 (talk) 15:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC) remove PROD.as per wikipedia the telegraph newspaper founded and published in Kolkata since July 7 1982.According to the Audit Bureau of Circulation it has a circulation of 470020 copies as of July Dec 2015.The newspaper is fifth most widely read English newspaper in India as per Indian Readership Survey 2014.hope to write almost regularly for these newspaper as beauty columnist is not PR or endorsement or trivial.Kolkata786 (talk) 08:59, 27 August 2016 (UTC)https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Telegraph_(Calcutta).reomove PRODTonguetwister 79 (talk) 13:24, 28 August 2016 (UTC)iam new to these page but I read all guidelines of Wikipedia for living people listing and other fellow Wikipedia editor comment I strongly feel these case will not go for deletion.REMOVE PROD.[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 01:31, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson 5 TV Performances 1976[edit]

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

Unsourced affair, not enough for a stand alone article. The Banner talk 20:41, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - This could very well be notable but sans any sources it's hard to tell how. BlueSalix (talk) 01:24, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:21, 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 07:45, 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 03:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not denying a possible listing of Jackson 5 TV performances, but this kind of yearly listing doesn't work and the work put into this isn't much (comparing with the source I provided in the 1969 AfD) so it wouldn't take much for a general listing to be made with sourcing. Mr. Magoo (talk) 10:08, 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 01:31, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson 5 TV Performances 1975[edit]

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

Unsourced affair, not enough for a stand alone article. The Banner talk 20:41, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:21, 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 07:45, 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 03:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not denying a possible listing of Jackson 5 TV performances, but this kind of yearly listing doesn't work and the work put into this isn't much (comparing with the source I provided in the 1969 AfD) so it wouldn't take much for a general listing to be made with sourcing. Mr. Magoo (talk) 10:08, 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 01:31, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson 5 TV Performances 1971[edit]

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

Unsourced affair, not enough for a stand alone article. The Banner talk 20:39, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:21, 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 07:47, 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 03:32, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not denying a possible listing of Jackson 5 TV performances, but this kind of yearly listing doesn't work and the work put into this isn't much (comparing with the source I provided in the 1969 AfD) so it wouldn't take much for a general listing to be made with sourcing. Mr. Magoo (talk) 10:07, 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 01:31, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson 5 TV Performances 1970[edit]

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

Unsourced affair, not enough for a stand alone article. The Banner talk 20:39, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:22, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:22, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:22, 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 07:47, 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 03:32, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not denying a possible listing of Jackson 5 TV performances, but this kind of yearly listing doesn't work and the work put into this isn't much (comparing with the source I provided in the 1969 AfD) so it wouldn't take much for a general listing to be made with sourcing. Mr. Magoo (talk) 10:07, 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 01:31, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson 5 TV Performances 1969[edit]

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

Unsourced affair, not enough for a stand alone article. The Banner talk 20:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:22, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:22, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:22, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, please forgive my cynicism, ahhh what the heck! just trout me if you think i am being too harsh, but the creator of this article, and all the other jacksons tv performance articles, appears to be pumping up their article creation count for some reason, all of these articles could be made into a "List of The Jacksons TV performances" article if need be. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:49, 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 07:47, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Only source I were able to find was this page. Note that it has an unorthodox listing method of starting from the bottom. Mr. Magoo (talk) 08:10, 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 03:32, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not denying a possible listing of Jackson 5 TV performances, but this kind of yearly listing doesn't work and the work put into this isn't much (comparing with the source I provided) so it wouldn't take much for a general listing to be made with sourcing. Mr. Magoo (talk) 10:06, 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. Per WP:BLP1E concerns raised. Redirecting was discussed but no good target was found. If the content of the article is wanted for other purposes (such as a merge to Electoral fraud) ask on WP:REFUND Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:54, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Melowese Richardson[edit]

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

Textbook case of WP:BLP1E. Contested prod. shoy (reactions) 20:34, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Possibly while including mention of her in an article about Voter fraud in Ohio or something along those lines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:25, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:58, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:58, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:58, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, or a couple of lines at Electoral fraud under a new section - Examples of Electoral Fraud? Coolabahapple (talk) 01:01, 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 07:50, 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 03:31, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect I don't disagree that this should part of an article, not as a stand-alone article, but I am having difficulty figuring out where to put it. It cannot simply be deleted because although I never heard of her before stumbling on this AFD, this was a major deal incident. Problem is where to redirect. Electoral fraud, a dishearteningly inadequate article does not have an American sub-article. Is it too bold to suggest Moving this to a purpose-created article on Electoral fraud in the United States in the hope that such an article will grow (since there are other notable historical examples of this sort of thing)?E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:57, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Info should be moved into Electoral fraud article, perhaps into a new section specifying fraud in voting in the United States. CrispyGlover (talk) 20:36, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- at a quick search, I'm unable to find RS for the statement "She is often cited as an example of alleged widespread voter fraud in the United States", which appears to be OR / SYNTH. The rest is WP:BIO1E situation and an article in unneeded. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:34, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:BLP1E.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:46, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:31, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas Castel[edit]

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

PROD removed with absolutely no explanations and this was actually deleted at EsWiki, there's essentially nothing actually better and my searches are not finding better. SwisterTwister talk 18:04, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable YouTube personality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:21, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:48, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:48, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:48, 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 07:58, 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 03:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks notability and coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 03:26, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- this source calls him "YouTuber of the moment", which matches WP:TOOSOON precisely. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:59, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ARACNE[edit]

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

Non-notable. Ethanlu121 (talk) 17:17, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:36, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:36, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A handful of bona fide publications using it, but that's not enough for general notability.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:15, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Oh my - searching for sources is really science term overload. I found this source [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], among others, and plenty of papers written by a Mr. Louise Aracne. The sources are too impenetrable for me to feel confident voting, however, as I'm not familiar with the publications, but I'm leaning towards keep. Yvarta (talk) 03:08, 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 07:58, 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 03:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As Elmidae above, it does seem to be used but still non-notable for WP purposes. (And was tagged as NN well over 7 years ago now!) Amkilpatrick (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. czar 03:23, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Isle (video game)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Topic is lacking significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. The1337gamer (talk) 17:10, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 06:31, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Maybe a case of WP:TOOSOON, but doesn't meet WP:GNG at this point. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:00, 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 07:59, 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 03:19, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:24, 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 no consensus. WP:NPASR per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Toye[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:DIRECTOR and overarching WP:GNG. Prod removed to discuss notability criteria, which he looks to fail. GauchoDude (talk) 16:45, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:45, 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 08:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Television directors rarely get the credit they deserve or interviewed enough to merit standalone news articles written about them. I just added a source about his early career but rest of the article was about him speaking to a film class on technique. All that aside, Toye has enough television work, in some popular series, to pass the credible notability line, as some of his work is linked in his article, one of which ("Subject 13") is cited as being a critical favorite.[42] — Wylie pedia 05:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Isn't that kind of the point? If he's not getting interviewed enough to have stand alone articles, then that's a basic failure of the above WP:GNG. If any subject/topic/potential article fails GNG, as I'm sure you know, then everything else is irrelevant and they don't deserve an article full stop per the definition of GNG. Furthermore, I find it very hard to believe that a television director could be viewed as "important" when their entire career consists of him jumping from show to show directing a few episodes here and there as his iMDb profile suggests. GauchoDude (talk) 18:34, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@GauchoDude: I don't think you comprehend how television directing works, so I'll leave this here: (from the television director article) "In a television show composed of individual episodes, the television director's role may differ from a film director's in that he or she will usually work only on some television episodes instead of being the auteur of the entire production." — Wylie pedia 00:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@CAWylie: you're pulling a line from an article that has multiple issues, including no sourcing, to justify why Fred Toye's is notable? Ultimately, for me he fails WP:GNG, which is a notability guideline that "is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article." As Toye fails this basic standard, it stands to reason that he doesn't warrant having an article. If you can demonstrate articles and publications in which Toye becomes eligible under GNG, please let me know as I'm more than happy to reconsider. GauchoDude (talk) 20:14, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I used that article to show that there is a difference in film and television directing, which you believe Toye fails (WP:DIRECTOR). I'm not here to prove anything or to change anyone's mind, but if he is deleted, which this listing is for and not discussion, then Category:Television directors and its subs should be gutted to only have award winners. — Wylie pedia 00:55, 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 03:19, 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 01:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Persian Mastiff[edit]

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

No reliable sources mention this dog under any of the names. I note that a 2600 year old statue is claimed to be this dog (although the image file itself doesn't mention Sarabi). The sources fail WP:RS and one of them,[43] which has little information, has 3 photos but they are not the same breed (if they are breed dogs), note the paws and I think ears. The very tall dog shows up as an "Iranian Bear Dog" at another site. The page was created by a new editor I'm sure in good faith. Doug Weller talk 16:25, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable or a recognised breed, does not meet notability guide; references are to non reliable sources. SagaciousPhil - Chat 16:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:26, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:26, 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 08:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:01, 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 03:18, 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 no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:18, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Alagía[edit]

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

Non-notable living person. WP:BLPPROD does not apply because this article was created before March 18, 2010. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:24, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable record producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:49, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:20, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:20, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep fairly prolific producer with three Grammy nominations; a Google News search brings up extensive coverage including one Huffington Post article describing him as a legend. Article needs expansion and sourcing, not deletion. TritonsRising (talk) 06:34, 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 08:01, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Looking at the Google News listings is not much use and does not indicate notability. There is no reference to the Grammy Nominations. When were they established? There seems to be some link with Dave Matthews and Liz Phair. But it needs more sources. After doing a search on 'John Alagía interviews' I found a few mentions that indicate some notable contributions.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:18, 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 01:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Claudia Katz Minnick[edit]

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

This article about a British actress was originally PRODded but no longer qualifies as it has since been updated with a source. However: that single source is IMDB. The subject doesn't appear to meet the requirements of WP:NACTOR. The article seems to have been written largely by the subject herself, if one draws the obvious conclusion from the username User:Mrsminnick. A Train^talk 10:06, 10 August 2016 (UTC) A Train^talk 10:06, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline sorry to be wishy-washy here but there are clear signs that she is a working actor yet nothing much in-depth. If she married recently (2014) we might have name-change issues. Maybe I'm a weak keep or a weak delete.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:22, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:43, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:43, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:43, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, have created talkpage with women project so that participants are notified of this afd. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:45, 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 08:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON at best - David Gerard (talk) 00:12, 23 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, 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 01:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Haji Arafat Shaikh[edit]

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

Delete. Fails WP:NPOL. Has not been elected to any office. Not notable. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:55, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:19, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:19, 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 08:06, 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 03:16, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a vanity page for a non notable public figure who does not meet WP:NPOL. Sources insufficient to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:52, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Praveen Patil[edit]

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

Delete. Fails WP:NPOL. Deputy Mayor are not notable and the person has not been elected to any office. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:54, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unelected politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:15, 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 08:07, 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 03:16, 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 01:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Manisha Kayande[edit]

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

Delete. Fails WP:NPOL. Has not been elected to any office. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:51, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unelected politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:14, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:15, 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 08:07, 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 03:16, 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 01:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Attivio[edit]

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

Promotional tone, started by SPA, little evidence of passing WP:CORP, references are largely tangential, tagged since 2011. Google shows little in the way of non-press-release RSes actually about the company. PROD removed by Graeme Bartlett without addressing problems - but just waiting for someone else to fix it hasn't worked in five years. David Gerard (talk) 08:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I really love these "company is notable" prod removals without the slightest effort to justify the assertion. Let me help Mr. Bartlett out: there aren't any non-promotional, non-press release, non-fleeting/trivial mention reliable sources to be found, nor any genuine significant coverage. Pity he didn't do that work before the airy PROD removal, but then again, no one else seems to have found qualifying sources either. Ravenswing 19:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ravenswing: wp:PROD says: PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected. This article has been edited numerous times since it was created in 2008, this would suggest to a prudent nominator that PROD is not the correct channel (unless the nominator contacts all involved editors and they all agree it should be deleted). Ottawahitech (talk) 16:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC)please ping me[reply]

That it was clearly evidently terrible seemed sufficient. In any case, if removing a PROD (which of course may be removed at any time by anyone for any reason or none), please do consider addressing flagged problems - David Gerard (talk) 18:13, 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 03:13, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- TOOSOON; all coverage is PR or PR-like: news of funding rounds, interviews, mentions in CRN, etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:17, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: This is not a clear case, and it is right that WP:PROD wasn't applied. Some of the given sources do rise above the routine announcement / PR level, for example the bylined 2013 interview in InformationWeek and perhaps the 2014 IT BusinessEdge piece. In addition, Google Books shows the company's products being discussed in several books, though in relation to those from other vendors. The firm/product set is also prominently featured in last year's Gartner Enterprise Search magic quadrant: [44]. However, at this point I am inclined to think that it is still WP:TOOSOON for demonstrated notability, either as company or product, but without prejudice to future change. AllyD (talk) 07:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Soft delete Plenty of sources, userfy on request. Unscintillating (talk) 00:43, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hackerence [edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Hackerence

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

not notable, only passing mentions. There is a line about Hackerence in this, but that's about it. Prisencolin (talk) 03:06, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The party is mentioned briefly in a few book sources,^[1]^[2]^[3] but among online source I do not find any that makes it meet WP:NEVENT. — Sam Sailor 13:55, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Mark J. P. Wolf; Toru Iwatani (1 May 2015). Video Games Around the World. MIT Press. pp. 460–. ISBN 978-0-262-52716-3.
^ Daniel Goldberg; Linus Larsson (16 June 2015). Minecraft, Second Edition: The Unlikely Tale of Markus "Notch" Persson and the Game that Changed Everything. Seven Stories Press. pp. 39–. ISBN 978-1-60980-686-6.
^ Daniel Goldberg; Linus Larsson (5 November 2013). Svenska hackare: En berättelse från nätets skuggsida (in Swedish). Norstedts. pp. 216–. ISBN 978-91-1-303344-0. Ur 1980 och 1990 talens demopartyn bildades datorfestivaler som Hackerence, The Gathering och Dreamhack.

Delete -- no indications of notability and sourcing is insufficient to meet GNG. The article written as an essay; with vague language which is not back by sources or citations. Not quite WP:PROMO, but close. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:00, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clay Blaker[edit]

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

PROD removed by IP. Subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 02:37, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:01, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:01, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The IP who deleted all the tags really didn't do the article any favors, as those tags would have told people interested in saving the article what needed to be done to it. That said, I think Blaker is notable enough, and that there's enough out there to show he's notable. I'll try to re-work the article into something sourced and encyclopedic, as opposed to the fan-site stuff that is there now. ubiquity (talk) 13:38, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, done. Since I knew nothing about Blaker when I started, you can be sure that everything is sourced. ;-) ubiquity (talk) 14:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - One more point to consider: 18 other articles link to this one (all links from songs Blaker has written, recorded by notable performers) ubiquity (talk) 16:03, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ubiquity: Thanks for the constructive contributions and bringing this page up to quality standards! Meatsgains (talk) 16:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - After Ubiquity's edits cleaning up the page and providing additional references, the page looks much better and the subject clearly meets general notability requirements. Meatsgains (talk) 16:34, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nice job Ubiquity! Crow^Caw 19:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he's notable, and thanks to Ubiquity for doing all the cleanup. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 20:49, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 02:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Surface (magazine)[edit]

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

This article was nominated for speedy deletion by User:Randykitty as SPAM. Much to my surprise two brand new users removed the template (User:DesignGeek2016 and User:100.37.4.248. But I agree with the SPAM-verdict, so I nominated it now by the slow process. The Banner talk 14:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article was nominated for speedy deletion by User:Randykitty as SPAM. I noticed that the original article (prior to recent edits) was much more spammy and not well cited. It was flagged as a potential "advertisement" as well. Original content and notices were outdated. I believe that this page is currently written from a NPOV, but I'm willing to learn how to make it such. talk 14:19, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 14:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 14:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 14:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 14:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G11. --Randykitty (talk) 14:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This one has some more notable coverage than the page for the covers alone: Surface Magazine Covers. It requires heavy clean-up, but it does seem to have some coverage. However, the citations are really messy and hard to parse, because someone has pasted the same news multiple times under a different address. Capitalnewyork.com is the same as politico.com, for example. And that capitalnewyork.com is there twice. I think I'll try to clean this up a bit. Mr. Magoo (talk) 15:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I took a second look and found some more coverage atop the ones already in the article. I also found countless mentions of the magazine in articles by other magazines/newspapers, but these articles didn't really focus on Surface, so I couldn't use them as coverage. Also cleaned up a little. Mr. Magoo (talk) 11:57, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sourcing page is substantive.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:44, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Secondary coverage about the publication from SFGate, Politico, NY Observer, NY Post, WWD satisfies me. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:33, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shaquanda Cotton[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS, WP:1EVENT, WP:UNDUE and I'm sure there are many other policies this page would fall under. Quite frankly, I can't believe this page has lasted this long. Meatsgains (talk) 02:21, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. KGirlTrucker81^{talk what I'm been doing} 02:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:59, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:59, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Total violation of one event rules.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:BLP1E, unfortunately, or else Redirect to Racism in the United States -- if condensed content could be transferred there.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:29, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adam McCune[edit]

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

Disambiguation page with only one link remaining after the Adam McCune (columnist) article was deleted (and then removed from the page). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:18, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:18, 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 01:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1Sale[edit]

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

Lacks significant coverage in a variety of reliable secondary sources. Many of the references appear to be sponsored content, i.e. "shopping channel" type appearances on American daytime TV, or blog-like websites. Started by a COI account that only ever created this page. Content is solely puffery. Citobun (talk) 15:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not sure, as there are some strong sources inbetween, like the NY Times one. I'd also rather suggest a redirect to the owner's page if delete is the choice. Mr. Magoo (talk) 15:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The NY Times reference is not actually the New York Times. It is an independent blog post that has simply been republished to the NY Times website. This blog post also feels suspiciously like a puff piece – i.e. opening sentence that seems to be trying to pique readers' interest in an otherwise unnotable website: "1SaleaDay, a daily deals company that seems to be flying under the tech press’s radar" and the lofty and vague claim that the company has raised "tens of millions" with no figure provided and the only source being the company itself. Hence this is an unreliable primary source – the company itself, which has its own interests in mind. Citobun (talk) 15:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:35, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; I'm leaning towards delete at the moment. Only coverage I could find is very minor and pointless (e.g. "go to 1Sale.com to find this deal") or not about the site but rather its founder or products which are sold on that platform. No evidence this passes WP:CORP, WP:WEB nor WP:GNG. I couldn't check the lots of Korean language sources available, but they seemed to be of the latter type based on GTranslate results. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 20:10, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete per above - puffery - David Gerard (talk) 10:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- sources are all PR like or trivial mentions. Insufficient to meet GNG and CORPDEPTH. I am not in favor of redirect to Ben Federman as the founder may not be notable either. The article has been tagged "notability" since 2012 and could stand to undergo an AfD as well. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:35, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up! I've endorsed your PROD. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 02:56, 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 as there are no Delete comments (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 17:49, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gaylord Graves[edit]

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

Unable to verify this person existed - fails WP:NOR. No indication that this person is considered notable or of historical significance - fails WP:BIO. FYI, I didn't affix the BLP tag Steve Quinn (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Graves was a member of the state legislature, such people are default notable. No original research is not a license to exclude notable people who have not been mentioned in recent publications. The source given is not a primary source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep State legislators are notable-thank you-RFD (talk) 11:50, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment State legislators are notable if their existence can be proved and they were in fact state legislators. There is no source in the article which demonstrates he existed and he was a legislator. The "Political Graveyard" is not a reliable source because it lacks editorial integrity per WP:RS - please see these for the determined value of Political Graveyard as reliable sourcing on Wikipedia: [45], [46] Also, It looks like a hobbyist website. It is known to have a lot of typos. This does not demonstrate notability of the topic and neither do the other two sources.

In any case, having mention as a legislator on that website is not proof of existence, nor proof of having been a legislator [47]. So, how can this source have any weight regarding this person's existence? So, yes indeed WP:OR applies as well as failing WP:V, which is a cornerstone of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, as well as a policy. Talking about a source that is not a primary source, which source do you mean? And asserting state legislators are notable does not make them notable, as is happening with the second Ivote.

Also, how long was he a legislator? How many terms did he serve in office? Did he retire from the state legislature or someplace else? What was his wife's name? What was his children's name? Where did he attend high school or its equivalent? What college degree did he obtain? Did he apprentice in a trade? So, far nobody knows. I think this person is WP:MADEUP Steve Quinn (talk) 19:21, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This link, to a book published by the Wisconsin State Assembly about its past members, does verify that he sat as a state legislator. Yes, the article needs improvement — but a state legislator is deletable only if his existence proves entirely unverifiable. If verification is available that he did hold the office he's claimed to have held, then the article is kept and merely flagged for reference and content improvement. For a legislator who lived and died and served in the 19th century, it'll obviously take more work to dig out quality referencing than it would for a current incumbent who's getting current news coverage — one has to actually dig into books and microfilms and archives and such, rather than just laying down a link to a brand new article on a newspaper website — but for a state legislator, the article's basic keepability is dependent solely on whether his holding of office can be verified and anything beyond that is a matter for the normal editing process. Bearcat (talk) 20:03, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a verifiable member of a state legislature. Any content or referencing issues, beyond basic confirmation that he held the stated role, are for the cleanup crew and not AFD. Even with only spotty access to 19th-century US newspaper coverage, I've already been able to add one reasonably substantial clip of a newspaper article about him, so more coverage clearly will exist if somebody with better access to newspaper content from that historical period can take it on. Bearcat (talk) 20:03, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-I found an article in the Northern Vindicator, September 13, 1889 about his death; the Legislative Manual of the State of Wisconsin 1877 also mentioned that Graves served in the Wisconsin Territorial House of Representatives in 1846 and in the Wisconsin State Assembly in 1848. Thank you-20:27, 25 August 2016 (UTC)-Forgot to sign my name-RFD (talk) 20:31, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you Bearcat and RFD for providing this information. I agree this person is notable. I will be withdrawing my nomination shortly. Steve Quinn (talk) 01:02, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you-RFD (talk) 12:45, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:34, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Suleiman (Imam)[edit]

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

I fail to see the importance or relevance of this guy. I have looked up coverage on him on Google and a good number of the top hits that appeared in my search originate from what I assume to be unreliable sources (forums and such). Most of the very few sources used here are either local or unreliable. This article has been around since late July and there have been no attempts by the creator or anyone else to improve the article, so I can only assume there's nothing more to do.

As Saheehinfo once said in an edit summary, this guy's notability only seems to stem from him speaking at an event dedicated to the five police officers killed in Dallas. In that case, any reasoning for notability is very poor in accordance to WP:ONEEVENT, as he seemed to have only a minor role in the aftermath of that shooting. Parsley Man (talk) 01:12, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:57, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:57, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:57, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete speakers at memorial events very rarely if ever become notable for doing so. Nothing about Suleiman suggests otherwise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Other claims to notability (see the edit war) amount to being mentioned as an example of hate speech, with no actual discussion that gives the basis for any reasonable article that isn't essentially a BLP violation. Damnatio memoriae, already. Revent^talk 19:12, 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 redirect to Jim Wynorski. Never close on one !vote however participation has been extremely low here and I don't think relisting for another week will gain any new !votes, The Keep isn't exactly compelling nor strong and last but not least Redirect is always prefferred over deletion so with all this in mind I'm closing as Redirect. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:52, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme Limits[edit]

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

No evidence of notability meeting WP:NFILMS; content largely uncited; closest to RSes are a pile of reviews saying it's a not very good to bad film (but no evidence it's significant as a bad film). I'm willing to be convinced, but this doesn't David Gerard (talk) 19:17, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:16, 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 01:34, 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 01:09, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It should stay as would any other film Wasabi,the,one (talk • contribs) 02:22, 25 August 2016 (UTC) Wasabi,the,one (talk) 02:27, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jim Wynorski, who directed it under an alias. Wynorski makes cheap B movies that struggle to establish notability, though a few have cult followings. This seems to be one of the more obscure ones. Yes, it's fun to rip on Wynorski's films, but a bunch of self-published reviews from blogs can't satisfy WP:NFILM. Looking over this solicitation for writers at the most cited source, digitallyobsessed.com, it sounds like they recruit from their readership. I found this review from DVD Talk, but that's about the best that seems to be out there. The other sites that I usually check for direct-to-DVD reviews don't even have this cataloged. Deletion is also acceptable, but if that happens, I'll probably just create a redirect, anyway. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:19, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:35, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semantic advertising[edit]

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

Non-encyclopedic and ill-referenced essay that appears to have been created as content marketing to support now-deleted articles on companies selling this stuff. Many attempts to clean up the spamminess over the years. Ottawahitech dePRODed without addressing the concerns. David Gerard (talk) 07:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 10:01, 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 01:06, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:06, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT and WP:PROMO. There may be a notable subject there somewhere by this article ain't it. Best to delete without prejudice to creating a new, encyclopedic article. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:04, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still advertorial and there being nothing easily suggesting the needed and convincing improvements. SwisterTwister talk 23:23, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:35, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eden Mobility[edit]

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

This group has brief mention in some sources. Fails basic notability criteria. Marvellous Spider-Man (talk) 09:31, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Um it's a business. There is a surprising number of news articles about them being ripped off in UK papers (link wont format correctly)--Savonneux (talk) 09:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:32, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:32, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:32, 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 10:17, 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 01:05, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a non notable scooter company. My searches do not reveal coverage sufficient to pass GNG and CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:01, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice - they are a well known name to those who need their products, but there's not a lot in sourcing about them - David Gerard (talk) 10:17, 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 no consensus. Insufficient participation after relist. Non-admin closure. Safiel (talk) 05:22, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joox (music streaming)[edit]

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

Page is copied almost entirely from the Spotify page (lead section anyway), and there are hardly any sources. And according to the website for Joox, Joox isn't isn't a "podcast and video" service. Kamran Mackey (talk) 04:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 06:54, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 06:54, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 06:54, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 06:54, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 06:54, 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 01:03, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete -- unambiguous advertising. Creator Special:Contributions/Willy2000 repeatedly removed AfD template from the page. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:50, 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. Consensus is clear after relist. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:42, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Levy[edit]

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

fails WP:N. Page was created by a SPA [48]. CerealKillerYum (talk) 05:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 06:49, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 06:49, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 06:49, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 06:49, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 06:49, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 06:49, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable in any of his many roles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:37, 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 00:57, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is clearly punch-packed with PR, it's not even easily navigable to suggest what could be convincing substance.... SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam and used for promotional purposes only. Clearly a non notable individual. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:13, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination: this article appears to have been created to advertise Mr Levy. While the article appears to have many sources, none provides in-depth coverage of him and many are actually by him so WP:BIO is not met. Nick-D (talk) 07:36, 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 redirect to 888 Holdings. MBisanz ^talk 01:36, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Millionaire Genie Slot Machine Game[edit]

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

Non-notable game. Brianga (talk) 19:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:09, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ I found mentions of a win here: [49] & [50], but that's it. Doesn't cover notability. Mr. Magoo (talk) 23:51, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to 888 Holdings is probably the better option after all since the game is exclusive to them. Mr. Magoo (talk) 23:54, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 00:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Promotional and lacks coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Not opposed to a Redirect to [[[888 Holdings]] if it's added there (if the sources justify adding it there, that is -- I don't know what coverage of the company is like such that the scant sources about this would establish WP:WEIGHT). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:56, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A similar AfD was resolved with a redirect to Slot Machine (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quick Hit). I would be OK with that result here, too. Brianga (talk) 16:01, 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 speedy deleted by David Gerard per WP:G7. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:12, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Serpas[edit]

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

PRODed, prod removed by IP. No evidence of notability, blatantly promotional post. References are literally all bad, zero third-party RSes. Eminent BLP hazard, if it was cut down per WP:BLP there would be no article left. David Gerard (talk) 00:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind - blanked by author, so speedied accordingly - David Gerard (talk) 00:51, 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 It's Showtime (variety show). Consensus is clearly that this isn't suitable as a separate article per lack of notability (but it would be nice if the sources mentioned by PogingJuan were addressed) and WP:NOTADICTIONARY, and the updates to the page apparently didn't convince people. There were suggestions of either redirecting or deleting, the precedents cited for redirecting carry the day here albeit narrowly. Not salting this unless it keeps being inappropriately recreated. Finally, the clapping craze may be notable by itself but the article as-is is more about the catchphrase. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:50, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amending close as I accidentally redirected to the disambig. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:51, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pak Ganern[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Nothing more than a dictionary definition. Does not fall under any suitable speedy deletion criterion. Safiel (talk) 00:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTADICTIONARY and "According to Urban Dictionary..." Meatsgains (talk) 00:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Same as what Meatsgains mentioned. Nickrds09 ^{(Talk to me)} 05:21, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Why was this article not speedy deleted? This is more like a dictionary item. --- Tito Pao (talk) 05:26, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's already been speedy-deleted twice, on August 15 and 22, see the log. wbm1058 (talk) 12:49, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- I'm trying to develop the article, to become an encyclopedic one. ~Manila's Poging Juan 11:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Anyone is welcome to work on this in their user space or in draft space, then submit a technical request asking an administrator to install their encyclopedic article. wbm1058 (talk) 13:11, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Don't worry. I'm serious about wiki editing, so I have improved/developed the article already. ~Manila's Poging Juan 15:26, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination -WayKurat (talk) 15:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and WP:SALT per nom, as the article lacks encyclopedic purpose. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 23:40, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not actually the creator of this article. When I saw this nominated-to-be-deleted article because it was like a dictionary item that was not allowed here in WP, I tried my best to make the article an encyclopedic one. So I think, in the article's state now, it must be kept. The article now shows the origin, uses, and other uses on popular culture (specifically Pak Ganern Challenge). The contents are strongly supported by primary news sources (ABS-CBN News, GMA News, etc). The article really took under metamorphosis from being vandalized. So now, I think, you guys, must not reason "delete per nomination" because the article was developed. That's the reason we're here in the Wikipedia world, to develop its articles. Now, can you guys give me more specific reasons why it should be deleted, and we'll try to work about that. ~Manila's Poging Juan 10:14, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think, the article must be semi-protected for an 'indefinite' time of period, so the one who vandalizes (the IP address users) would not be able to vandalize the article again. ~Manila's Poging Juan 10:32, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We must focus on the article on its current (developed) revision, not the older, so the consensus would be justifiable.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~Manila's Poging Juan 10:36, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the additions make it no more notable. The previous version that I tagged for deletion is in approximately the same condition as the current article. It was deleted and this is an almost immediate re-creation. Please salt Velella ^{Velella Talk} 12:20, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The catchphrase itself fails WP:NOTADICTIONARY, but the clapping game craze may be worth keeping, under Category:2010s fads and trends and Category:Internet memes.1 2 3 4 If it can be rewritten to focus on the trendy game itself, with its definition and word origin being placed under an Etymology subsection instead, then i would vote to Keep the article.--RioHondo (talk) 13:03, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PING @Meatsgains, Nickrds09, Titopao, Wbm1058, Waykurat, and Yamaguchi先生: Notifying users who posted in this AfD prior to the relist. Safiel (talk) 00:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PING @WayKurat: Notification to user that I messed up on the above ping. Safiel (talk) 00:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No change Despite the improvements to the article, I still do not see it as satisfying WP:GNG. Safiel (talk) 00:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Most items in Category:Catchphrases redirect to the topic known for the catchphrase (their titles are shown in italics on the category page). Since this page seems to have resulted from recent programming on the variety show It's Showtime, perhaps this could redirect there, and this topic could get a brief mention in that article. – wbm1058 (talk) 01:06, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No change - Even after the expansion, the "catchphrase" still ins't quite notable enough. Meatsgains (talk) 01:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Still delete. Very unencyclopedic. If you want to create an article about this catchphrase, might as well create another one for "Edi Wow" and all of those catchphrases popularized by Vice Ganda. -WayKurat (talk) 02:34, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You should already vote once. Oripaypaykim (talk) 03:09, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is apparent to me that this person was responding because they were pinged to reconsider. Likewise, I have no change of mind and continue to endorse deletion as per my earlier comments. Thank you Safiel for the notification. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 20:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. It seems that at best it can be redirected to It's Showtime --Lenticel ^(talk) 09:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is still not notable enough to warrant an article of its own. With regards to the pak ganern challenge it can just be mentioned in the It's Showtime page. --Nickrds09 ^{(Talk to me)} 05:02, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there really doesn't seem to be enough for an article here. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This term doesn't even have a concrete definition to be in a dictionary, let alone to have it's own wikipedia article.Jpogi (talk) 00:31, 4 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:36, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Berta Jayo[edit]

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

Already deleted twice, this article with its source-bombing has all the appearances of being determined to be in Wikipedia. The multiple sources - that are not already dead - are mainly exhibition listings and do not add up to notability. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA biography which previously included uncited detail about the subject's early school days, indicating primary knowledge. The Spanish Wikipedia has multiple deletions of articles on the subject as promotional: [51]. Aside from the group show name-checks in the stack of references, the May 2007 El Diario exhibition review is relatively substantial, but neither these nor my searches are indicating that the subject meets the WP:ARTIST or wider biographical notability criteria. AllyD (talk) 07:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It also looks pretty promotional. ubiquity (talk) 15:44, 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.

[WolfIwatani2015-1] Mark J. P. Wolf; Toru Iwatani (1 May 2015). Video Games Around the World. MIT Press. pp. 460–. ISBN 978-0-262-52716-3.

[GoldbergLarsson2015-2] Daniel Goldberg; Linus Larsson (16 June 2015). Minecraft, Second Edition: The Unlikely Tale of Markus "Notch" Persson and the Game that Changed Everything. Seven Stories Press. pp. 39–. ISBN 978-1-60980-686-6.

[GoldbergLarsson2013-3] Daniel Goldberg; Linus Larsson (5 November 2013). Svenska hackare: En berättelse från nätets skuggsida (in Swedish). Norstedts. pp. 216–. ISBN 978-91-1-303344-0. Ur 1980 och 1990 talens demopartyn bildades datorfestivaler som Hackerence, The Gathering och Dreamhack.

[1]

[2]

[3]