Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 November 10

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 9 November	11 November >

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 procedural close. This is essentially a request for a page move. I have performed a page move, renaming the article to Museo Nacional de Historia Natural Cubana per the title given at the organization's website here. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:46, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Museo Nacional de Historia Natural[edit]

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

Improperly named page Mikecap (talk) 23:24, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If that is true then the page needs to be renamed, or "moved" as it's called on Wikipedia, not deleted. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 08:51, 11 November 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. Cerebellum (talk) 19:32, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon Go Song[edit]

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

Non-notable internet meme. The only argument I can see to keep this is that it's part of the list of most disliked YouTube videos, but not all videos on that list have articles. ONR (talk) 19:39, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:A9 and WP:NOTNEWS. TheKaphox T 23:49, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep actually, let me discuss A9 and NOTNEWS, which you linked: First, the other thing I wrote on this page. It's on the bottom, see that. Second, about A9—The singer of the pokemon go song does have his on Wikipedia article, and the existence of it is well-deserved, considering all of his YouTube hits. Plus, the funniness, weirdness, and popularity of Misha, which allowed the Pokemon Go Song to become such a popular meme, those all indicate that the song is significant. Now, for NOTNEWS—The article does feature secondary sources and non-original reporting, first off. Second off, the article isn't really like a news report. Third off, the popularity of Misha from the Pokemon Go Song, and his other hit songs, do make both Misha himself and the song notable. Fourth off, the article is not a diary. And if you need more reasoning for the article not to be deleted (what I've said both here and the bottom of the page should be enough), having a Wikipedia article on the song can make the song even more notable, and those who would normally consider the article for deletion once they find it, they'd already know about and they'd no longer want the article deleted, they just made the song more notable by finding the article.

Also, I previously said this on the page, but it was striked:

The page wasn't deleted the first time it was being considered for deletion, and the song/meme was even less popular at the time. The video is very popular, it's one of the many most disliked videos on YouTube, the creator of the song (Misha) has his own Wikipedia page (yes, it's also being considered for deletion, but it's a different page, it's definitely less notable than the song itself), and Misha has made many other notable songs that have became memes, where the pokemon go song is one meme that is a part of one whole huge meme, that whole huge meme being Misha. Finally, don't forget, there have been multiple online news articles made on the song, most of those news sites being quite popular, and even writing articles about the song before it got as popular as it is now. --P4risAndStuff (talk) 16:28, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I think I should add: Articles that have survived AfD (like this one) ARE NOT eligible for speedy (or prod) except for newly discovered copyright violations. --P4risAndStuff (talk) 15:39, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Every time I try to tag this for speedy deletion as non-notable, it gets reverted by an editor citing a loophole in the CSD policy. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 02:14, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Don't delete.~~ The page wasn't deleted the first time it was being considered for deletion, and the song/meme was even less popular at the time. The video is very popular, it's one of the many most disliked videos on YouTube, the creator of the song (Misha) has his own Wikipedia page (yes, it's also being considered for deletion, but it's a different page, it's definitely less notable than the song itself), and Misha has made many other notable songs that have became memes, where the pokemon go song is one meme that is a part of one whole huge meme, that whole huge meme being Misha. Finally, don't forget, there have been multiple online news articles made on the song, most of those news sites being quite popular, and even writing articles about the song before it got as popular as it is now. --P4risAndStuff (talk) 05:12, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Misha's page just got deleted. Also, you created the article, and you made 2 !votes. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 21:56, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I just want to defend the article and it's existence. I've never discussed the possible deletion of a Wikipedia article before - And my first time doing it is for my own article. I could combine my two !votes. --P4risAndStuff (talk) 15:36, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~and this is my final say here. If there's nothing else to say, the article should be kept. --P4risAndStuff (talk) 19:03, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may only give one bolded stance per discussion. (Delete, keep, etc) I've fixed this for you. Sergecross73 msg me 22:29, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:25, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:25, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - to Pokémon Go's "Cultural Impact" section. The last AFD showed that sources have covered it some (even if editors have still failed to implement them into the article). However, there's no real reason for this to have its own article. It's popularity is entirely piggybacked off of the immense popularity of the game, and there's very little to be said here other than "Child sings song, YouTube watches, dislikes it." Its barely worth a sentence at the parent article, let alone a dedicated article. Sergecross73 msg me 15:59, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with the most disliked Youtube videos target as well. Sergecross73 msg me 13:32, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 23:17, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No WP:DEPTH or WP:PERSISTENCE in coverage, and the sources that there are fail to adequately indicate a credible claim to significance. Basically, unencyclopedic fancruft- not convinced it has sufficient notability to justify a redirect even, but no objections if that's the community verdict here. _Muffled ^Pocketed 07:06, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. It was a viral video that got some brief attention, but none of the sources show any type of ongoing notability. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 21:39, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:46, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tripoto[edit]

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

PRODed last month by K.e.coffman as an advertisement with nothing at all actually substantiating notability and substance and the sources themselves confirm this, the fact (1) these publications are notorious for accepting paid advertisments and (2) the sheer fact these said links contain nothing else but what the company would advertise itself which includes company activities, named clients, partners and investors, funding, financing and other triviality; literally none of the sources are independent and that's something to expect when it comes to these subjects. The user who contested the deletion has not stated how, why and where they will improve it and, considering literally everything is advertising, it's unlikely it can actually be fixed, simply take the sheer fact a massive number of different people solely focused with this one advertisement. SwisterTwister talk 21:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found review article and a brief mention in an investment book, but have not found enough in-depth coverage in reliable sources to satisfy notability per WP:GNG. I don't have a good merge target, either, hence delete. --Mark viking (talk) 00:16, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a promo page on an unremarkable business; I don't believe that sufficient sources exist that would enable building an encyclopedia entry, vs an entry in a "company catalog". K.e.coffman (talk) 00:42, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:42, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:42, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not yet. Company fails to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH standard. Anup [Talk] 11:53, 11 November 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. Redirects can be created at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:46, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zouk-Lambada[edit]

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

No evidence that this is in any way notable. No reliable references have been provided despite persistent additions by recently blocked editor. Fails WP:GNG. Also note Draft:Lambazouk created by the same editor. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 12:45, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:06, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:06, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (and possibly (merge with Zouk). It would also seem appropriate to rename this article as "Zouk (dance)", since "Zouk-Lambada" is not generally how people refer to it. The topic (the dance) is absolutely notable and is covered as part of the article about the musical genre in ptwiki. The Portuguese article is poorly cited, but if you search for "Zouk Porto Alegre" in your favorite search engine, you will find many sources. giso6150 (talk) 12:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC) (Changing my vote because of some compelling arguments below...) giso6150 (talk) 18:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was about to majorly clean up the page when I saw this entry. Considering that once all the unreferenced and external links (in article) should be deleted, all that would be left is 'Zouk is a style of music and dance originating in the Caribbean', which is not worthy of an entire article, plus, it's not even about 'Zouk-Lambada'. The sentence could be merged into Zouk, but I think it's hardly worth it. David.moreno72 22:34, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Zouk or simply delete. I don't think anybody is arguing that the "Zouk" article itself is not notable, and that article should definitely be kept – however, as giso6150 notes, the terms "zouk-lambada" or "lambazouk" are not widely used, so it's debatable whether a redirect would be useful as these are not likely search terms. Searching as suggested under any of the search terms "zouk", "zouk-lambada" or "lambazouk in Porto Alegre" simply brings up "zouk", except in a few non-RS cases. In my opinion both the musical style and the dance could be included under "Zouk", as in the Portuguese Wikipedia, as the dance is performed to the music, so a separate "Zouk (dance)" article shouldn't be needed. Richard3120 (talk) 18:36, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 07:53, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly insufficiently distinct from its notable cousin, and in any case an unlikely candidate for a search term. _Muffled ^Pocketed 08:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 21:44, 10 November 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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:28, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hinge (app)[edit]

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

Blatant WP:SPAM and WP:PROMO created by user who has since been blocked for disruptive editing. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 04:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 04:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Shame admins are not policing such spam better. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:00, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What speedy deletion criteria do you propose to use? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: WP:G11... --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. There's a dedicated piece in the New York Times, TechCrunch and Business Insider (I like the last one particularly as it suggests the company is in trouble, the hallmark of a neutral and independent source). There's some lovely dirt dished from the Daily Mail, but I wouldn't go near that with a five foot pole. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The referencing in the article along with the references provided by Ritchie333 indicate notability. G11 wouldn't apply, it's not written in a promotional manner (anymore, I've cleaned it up a bit). Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per sources stated above by Ritchie333. The NYT and TechCrunch articles meet WP:CORPDEPTH in my opinion. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:20, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I meant to comment sooner, we ourselves at AfD have established that TechCrunch is in fact simply a webhost companies use to advertise themselves and this is obvious in case where literal specifics such as business plans, financial numbers and contact plans are listed, and the one above is shown in that ("Hinge is buildings", "[founder] hopes to have", "McLeod spent $25,000 on a huge 2,000-person launch party to kick-start its growth. The company only had $32,000 left in the bank at the time...." (no one would care at all about the money plans he paid aside from his own clients and investors), etc.

Literally nothing from TC can be confident as both substantial and non-PR simply because the website itself opens to all PR use, hence the fact all articles listed there are the equivalent to PR. None of that establishes any actual substance especially if no actual journalism happened if it's simply the company advertising itself; as mentioned, the DailyMail is not usable at all and the NYT would still be too bare. Now, another important part is keeping to mind such blatant advertisements as these and we never compromise with them therefore deleting them is best to ensure we're not damned as a PR webhost as other websites have become. Once again, the TC itself once again always cares to begin with every "He said", "says the businessman", etc, hence not independent and not notable.

As it is, the Keep who supplied these links was not confident about it simply given the bareness of actual substance. Also note the former article and now the current one, and it shows there's literally been no substantial changes of confident significance, let alone actual notability. As it is, the author behind this article has been involved in a notorious PR campaign which involved several multi-used accounts, and this is simply one of the articles in that advertising campaign, case closed. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Coverage in the NyTimes and WashingtonPost and in addition to what @Ritchie333: has stated above shows the subject meets notability. Seems the nom wants to use this deletion as a way to punish the disruptive editor which I think should be handled in another forum. $Tushi Talk To Me$ 13:58, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I literally listed my concerns above about this two sources and how they are only PR-focused and consisting of what the company wants to advertise about itself, the Keep comment who stated these sources said "weak" considering there still was no actual substance, apart from these bare sources. SwisterTwister talk

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 21:33, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to closer - Note that as what the nominator said here, the author user has now been kicked out permanently for massive advertising and using several accounts for this, including to harass others, therefore it not only emphasizes what a blatant advertisement this is, but what a damning effect of this being kept would have for Wikipedia. Therefore, it's not going to matter whether this would even be notable or not, and it clearly isn't given the fact everything available is either PR or trivial, but the nature of this article is enough to delete. SwisterTwister talk 00:32, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only reliable source for notability here is the NY Times, and it's part of the GNG that one such source is insufficient in most cases. This is one of the provisions that art least partially guards against an article based on the fact that one journalist has decided to write it up, once. It's part of our defense agains articles mbased on "human interest" journalism. DGG ( talk ) 05:08, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree - I think Business Insider is also a suitable source, and I feel it's more important we make sure what we do include is factually accurate, which tends to get glossed over too much (see numerous threads at WT:DYK for evidence). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:23, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The NYT piece is a commentary from users in the "Style and Culture" section of the paper which tends to comment on fashion and trends (which come and go). By itself, it is not enough. The other sources all either rely on interviews with the founder and are therefore Primary sources or are not independent. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 20:45, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON; the app / company is not yet notable per available sources. NYT is not enough, and the rest are primary sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:00, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:00, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per sources stated above by Nytime. The NYT and TechCrunch articles meet WP:CORPDEPTH in my opinion. --192.173.153.25 (talk) 06:29, 23 November 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:03, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek Mishra[edit]

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

Promotion Only Highedit (talk) 16:55, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reinstate and protect: Prior to this edit, the page was about the Uttar Pradesh MLA and Minister of State, who clearly meets WP:POLITICIAN. It then became a crude amalgam of surviving material about the MLA overlaid with insubstantial stuff about a blogger. It has since been overwritten multiple times, sometimes by children boasting of their exam marks I suggest closing the AfD, reverting to the version at 01:13, 22 May 2016, and protecting the page against further incursions by the vain. AllyD (talk) 18:37, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 18:39, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep: It is sad that an article was vandalised for more than a year no one noticed. While I was looking into page's history, I didn't find any good revision to restore. Even when it was about M.L.A Mishra, it didn't adhere to NPOV (stunning vicotry ). Replaced all contents with 2-sentence stub. It should be snow kept because subject is an elected politician (WP:NPOL). Anup [Talk] 21:51, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I didn't look at article's history but judging from its current state, it doesn't look promotional. Current subject is an Indian MLA and they are notable per WP:NPOL. Pratyush (talk) 08:43, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whatever the past flaws of the article, the current one is on a person who clearly meets the criteria for articles on politicians. Especially since Uttar Pradesh, where he serves as a member of the legislative assembly, has almsot 200,000 people, thus more than most countries.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:27, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:47, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Test cricket matches played between Australia and India[edit]

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

per WP:NOTSTATS articles which are primarily lists of statistics or sports results need to be put properly in context. This article, and the ones bundled below, are driven entirely by statistical lists with minimal context. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:53, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because [insert reason here]:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:09, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. WP:NOTSTATS. Jack | ^{talk page} 16:45, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 19:02, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. WP:NOTSTATS, WP:NOTMIRROR. Wikipedia is not espnCricinfo. Ajf773 (talk) 20:14, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 20:15, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Per above, and my comments on similar discussions. Joseph2302 08:39, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. WP:NOTSTATS.Why people confuse WIKIPEDIA with cricbuzz,cricinfo etc.? Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 09:25, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:50, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sabrina Misseri[edit]

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

Unremarkable crim. TheLongTone (talk) 15:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:38, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:38, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the crime is notable, but I don't think that also the criminal needs a separate article. --Pampuco (talk) 21:03, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appalling, but does not appear to be notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:28, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not news, we do not create articles on every person convicted of murder.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:55, 13 November 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. I agree that the nominator has advanced an argument that does match the first criterion of WP:SKCRIT. I'm closing this so the article can be tagged for a merge and the matter discussed on the article talk page -- if that is still what the nominator wishes to pursue. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:58, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Borders of Azerbaijan[edit]

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

Is there any pssible content here that does not belong in Azerbaijan? TheLongTone (talk) 15:51, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The removal request of the Borders of Azerbaijan article is completely unfounded, because most importantly of all, the article is sourced with credible reference and there are articles about the borders of specific countries in English Wikipedia such as Borders of Russia, Borders of Poland etc. which I used as examples for the creation and content of this article. Sondrion (talk) 16:02, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:45, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:45, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are articles about border of specific countries. So why not Azerbaijan? --Aabdullayev851 (talk) 18:38, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - AFD is the wrong venue for this discussion; this seems to be a request for a merger rather than deletion, and should be discussed on the article's talk page. Should also be noted that according to prosesize, Azerbaijan contains 68kb of readable prose and is already borderline WP:TOOBIG (> 60 kB: Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material)). Antepenultimate (talk) 23:03, 10 November 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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:35, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

QuiBids.com[edit]

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

Nothing actually substantiating both a significantly substantial and non-PR article, the listed sources are either PR or PR-motivated or simply trivial and unconvincing overall, and my own searches of looking at pages and pages at News is showing this; the history itself also shows the PR advertising motivations, especially see the first 2 accounts at the start who were clearly either employees or paid agents for this company. Therefore there's no compromising when it becomes to such blatancy. SwisterTwister talk 23:31, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:27, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:27, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:27, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete purly PR--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 08:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How does the article have a promotional tone? I'm not seeing any promotionalism at all in it. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:38, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes GNG as a major "penny auction" site that has been the subject of news coverage, positive and (mostly) negative. Carrite (talk) 15:26, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Tone of the piece is an editing matter, not a notability matter. Carrite (talk) 15:27, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Not a notability matter" but that's exactly why the article only contains company webpages and the other half being trivial PR and mentions; regardless of names, this is still an advertisement and we never compromise with that. SwisterTwister talk 21:04, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:55, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:24, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can't see how its PR, it is kinda negative towards the company i.e saying that its claims on prices of items were inaccurate and the article is critical of the websites currency. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 19:40, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

None of that establishes actual notability, since not only half of the listed sources literally the company website, the few supposedly independent sources listed are then in fact only trivial PR or mentions, none of that is substance. Also, as for the "I can't see how its PR", the lead paragraph and "auctions" are the largest parts of this article, outweighing everything else; with that, the lawsuit section is literally only 2 paragraphs with trivial information. Therefore there's no notability (this is emphasized by my nomination above).

In the time this article has existed, no one has ever to actually put meaningful contents and sources, and that's considering the history literally consisted of apparent company employees. SwisterTwister talk 21:04, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Delete per G11 Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 21:36, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How does the article consist of unambiguous advertising or promotion as per WP:G11? I'm not seeing any promotionalism at all in it. Rather, the article provides a neutrally-worded overview about the company. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:47, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article may have intended to be, promotional, but its current state is not anything of the sort--it is perhaps closer to an attack page. There are however very few usable references--the only two are WSJ and ABC, and they discuss this as only one among many similar sites. There's no reason to think it's notable. The other references are company PR, blogs, and other unreliable sources. DGG ( talk ) 05:05, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH per a review of available sources, one of the core bases of topic notability. In addition to those in the article and discussed above, see the following examples below. Also, the article does not have a promotional tone, but concerns about such matters can be addressed by copy editing, rather than blanket deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:21, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

"An Empirical Analysis of Quibids' Penny Auctions. Agent-Mediated Electronic Commerce. Designing Trading Strategies and Mechanisms for Electronic Markets. Springer. pp. 56– . (subscription required) (Extensive study, Gbooks preview goes to page 64, but the content is cut off mid-sentence, so more is there)
"Quibids: Can you buy electronics for a penny? (No.)". The Christian Science Monitor.
"How To Win at QuiBids Auctions—Which Might Just Mean Stay Away". Business Insider.
Freeland, Bridget (December 2, 2010). "QuiBids Online Auction Faces Class Action". Courthouse News Service.
"Dissatisfied customer sues Oklahoma City-based penny auction website". The Oklahoman.
"Auction site faces class suit". The Chronicle Herald.

Analysis - The sources above are not convincing, especially the ChristianScienceMonitor, as not only is it starting with pricing and costs, but it continues and even contains the blatant I use this website and it cost me $60 for a starters package, all of the packages will cost .60 standard price....after that, I purchased....where I bid on....where it cost me $7.80 where I then got...the buy it now was $23.20 and $1.99 shipping....the real winner here is Quibids, they are able to sell a lot at normal retail price online....win for 0.01.... The more the users use QuiBids, the better it gets for them....My recommendation for shop and gambling is QuiBids! It would not even matter if it was necessary or relevant to the website, because it only cares to go to the company's pricing and costs of their website and services hence advertising. A publication like this and such a blatant "advertising pitch" like this cannot be taken seriously, regardless of publication name, because the contents themselves are only focusing with what the company's own words are and in this case, it's service costs and features, not actual substance and independent coverage.

Now the second news website then also says the same sales-pitch items which is a confirmation sign that the company's own costs and services are involved, charges $0.60 for each bid—and I'm not talking winning bids—I'm talking every bid....You may get some good deals.... Now what is QuiBids exactly? You get this [cost] and [this cost]....Now let's look at their website....If you're new to QuiBids, the [costs are]...." Even though this contains a few slices of "unpleasant things about them", it still noticeably focuses with flashy costs and features, so it's imaginable to state the company likely put that themselves in attempts to make it a "non-advert or uninvolved column". Even then, it's all simply a guide given how it, not only shows you how everything works, it coaches you about everything else as it is. When there's such questionability like this, there's nothing to suggest better. Inviting commenters Dcheagle and DGG about these updates.

What about all of the other sources? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:49, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even then, the other sources are still only about what the commenters noted above, how it's only attempts at negative and unpleaant coverage, but this is by far not outweighed by the sheer fact there's still an enormous amount of solely costs and pricing information, even websites such as Amazon and EBay would never contain such blatancy, and the difference is that it's clear this specific is not an established company therefore they enlarge their own advertising efforts. Once we become a compromising and advertising-negotiating encyclopedia, we're damned, and we can only save ourselves by removing such advertisements (including for policies WP:SPAM and WP:NOT which are not co-negotiable with WP:GNG or BASIC at all). SwisterTwister talk 01:37, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Christian Science Monitor and Business Insider articles go into detail about specifics about the website and company because at the time the articles were published (December 2010 and April 2011, respectively), such online penny auctions were a relatively new phenomenon. As such, this is objective news reporting. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:26, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The source examples I provided are convincing because they demonstrate that this company meets WP:CORPDEPTH. More sources in addition to these are available. My keep !vote stands. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:43, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ref one is an article in a symposium published by Springer: Agent-Mediated Electronic Commerce. Designing Trading Strategies and Mechanisms for Electronic Markets Volume 187 of the series Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing . The pagination is 56-69. According to Google Scholar, it has never been cited. DGG ( talk ) 20:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- insufficient claim of notability or significance per available sources. Sources presented at this AfD do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:42, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- We have whole articles on the subject. Hobit (talk) 18:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Entire articles about topics are certainly typically pertainable toward meeting CORPDEPTH, as are entire book chapters. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:12, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep per sources meeting WP:N. Hobit (talk) 18:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:45, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pancakes![edit]

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

Does not meet notability guidelines Wasabi,the,one (Talk Contributions) 23:31, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable youtube video. Meatsgains (talk) 23:37, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per 1st AfD. There are lots of weird stuff stubs on Wikipedia. Bearian (talk) 21:55, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- You know that's a satire essay, right? It's sarcastically arguing in favor of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to show how ridiculous that premise is. 157.235.66.80 (talk) 18:46, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:00, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:24, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It's a trivial pop-culture event covered only by tabloids. The previous AFD was an embarrassing example of editors judging contributors instead of contributions. 157.235.66.80 (talk) 18:46, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It got a few fluff pieces about it when it was a current news item, but has not demonstrated any lasting notability. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 21:47, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Internet phenomena can be notable, but this one doesn't seem to be. There doesn't seem to be anything which shows lasting coverage after the video was released. It's also not clear what impact this video had. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:45, 17 November 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 02:33, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Lulu[edit]

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

Non-notable director. He has done only one film that too as an assistant director. Clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT. Can be deleted per WP:TOOSOON. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:10, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:11, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:11, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment have corrected the article as he was the main director, but only of one film which is a hit. Atlantic306 (talk) 05:03, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:14, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:24, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Omar Lulu is a Film Director; not an assistant director. He made his debut Happy Wedding that too successfully completed 100 days. Only less than 50 directors crossed 100 days in their first direction venture in the Malayalam Film industry(Mollywood).Otnaesehgrav —Preceding undated comment added 21:16, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Happy Wedding. Lacks in-depth coverage needed for general. One notable film doesn't satisfy WP:DIRECTOR. Gab4gab (talk) 15:39, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as one of the 50 fastest directors in Malayalam films. Alternately, redirect as suggested by Gab4gab. Bearian (talk) 20:55, 21 November 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. (No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation herein.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:53, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Lorsch[edit]

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

A WP:PROMO page on an unremarkable businessman; significant RS coverage cannot be found. Sources listed in the article are not convincing. The 2013 AfD closed as no consensus; three years on it can be revisited. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:22, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:22, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:23, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm on the fence for keep or delete. From the Philanthropy section it seems as though he could meet WP:GNG. I will say that adding some in-line citations to the WP:BLP wouldn't hurt. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 02:52, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:24, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:50, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brand infiltration[edit]

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

Article does not explain what the topic is about. A "practice", a "campaign", that's utterly vague. References mentioned in the article don't tell anything about the subject. I can't find any meaningful information on internet about the term except [[1]], here the term appears in the title of what looks like a sort of advertisement for a marketing company. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:36, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If this is a real marketing term, rather than just a trademark used by one marketing agency, it needs a much better article than this. This article looks like a bunch of buzzwords strung together without proper sourcing. (Of the three citations in the article, the first doesn't mention the term and the second is a broken link.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:48, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:24, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:24, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:22, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as "business spam" and an apparent personal essay. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:20, 11 November 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 21:57, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article spinning[edit]

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

fails GNG. The 1 reference isn't even about it. CerealKillerYum (talk) 14:48, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 11:36, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the article needs inline refs, I found it defined in at least two print sources, which suggests it passes GNG: Tim Frick (26 April 2013). Return on Engagement: Content, Strategy and Design Techniques for Digital Marketing. Taylor & Francis. pp. 50–. ISBN 978-1-136-03026-0., Oscar Castillo; Patricia Melin; Witold Pedrycz (26 March 2014). Recent Advances on Hybrid Approaches for Designing Intelligent Systems. Springer. pp. 674–. ISBN 978-3-319-05170-3. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:35, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:24, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:21, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Draftify This is definitely a real thing, because I've seen it in practice, but I don't know anything about it other than that it exists. Let's not shut down the page just because it's poorly sourced right now. Maybe someone with SEO experience can cite some papers or guides that explain this process in action? 157.235.66.80 (talk) 18:51, 11 November 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. Sam Walton (talk) 17:42, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ousseina Alidou[edit]

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

No indication of notability. The awards are not significant national awards. Her twin sister's achievements do not confer notability by proxy. The references provided are not independent sources. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:53, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked User:HighKing on the talk page to indicate other people who have done work in the field of the study of Muslim women in Africa, whether on WIkipedia or not. The criteria for notability in Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Criteria is:

"1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." If you can identify other people whose contributions dwarf her attempts, you may well have a point, but until you have done that, then the current list of award indicates a sufficient level of acclaim.

Thus I feel the article clearly has sufficient indication of notability Leutha (talk) 18:07, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources" (my emphasis). I've pointed out that the articles sources are not independent or are primary. If better sources can be provided, please add them to the article. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 19:12, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:29, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:29, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:29, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Some good cites on GS but with an h-index of 8 probably WP:Too soon. Off to a good start but not there yet. Try later. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:44, 16 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Keep based from the fact she's held in over 2,300 libraries and that's enough, since another note is it was a university publisher. Overall, there's enough for an article. SwisterTwister talk 07:15, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The way I cut this: Is there regular name-drops in academic works to show notability? This helps us tell places where her argument is being singled out ("Alidou argues...") and focused on as opposed to merely cited (Alidou 2014). While it isn't my field (which seems more stingy with name-drops), I put a bright line on 10 independent name-drop references in Google scholar to tell me that her ideas have received "significant impact in their scholarly discipline." Passed that number fairly quickly. So, Keep. AbstractIllusions (talk) 15:42, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Way out of my area, but indications seem positive that Alidou is highly regarded in her field. She is Director of the Center for African Studies at Rutgers University;[2] and she serves on the Board of Directors of the African Studies Association. [3] Her single-author book Engaging Modernity... is well cited & has received multiple reviews/discussion (eg "Linguist Ousseina Alidou's tour de force..."[4], and several via JSTOR eg [5],[6]) and there are also reviews of other books (eg "The book's contribution to the existing knowledge of peace-making in Africa cannot be overemphasized" JSTOR [7] for Postconflict Reconstruction in Africa, which she co-edited but doesn't seem to be mentioned in the article). The article is in need of expansion to reflect her career/publications. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:35, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree, meets WP:PROF. Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:20, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Of the 9 criteria listed in WP:PROF, none is concerned with publications or the number of libraries holding the publications. Criteria 3 concerns being an elected member of a "highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association". Neither the African Studies Association or the Center for African Studies at Rutgers meets this criteria. The best argument put forward (IMHO) is for Criteria 1 - that Ousseina has made "a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources". Espresso Addict states that her book is well cited and AbstractIllusions states that she is "name-dropped" in Google Scholar. It is difficult to measure whether someone has made a significant impact in their area of expertise. Another editor has stated "Some good cites on GS but with an h-index of 8 probably WP:TOOSOON" and that begs the question of what h-index would put her over the line? The index works properly only for comparing scientists working in the same field and given that Ousseina is working in a relatively small field, perhaps an h-index of 8 is good enough? Perhaps Xxanthippe could give an indication of what would be an acceptable h-index? -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:54, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a note about my !vote, I was thinking she fits under WP:PROF criteria 7, "The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." for her work with the Committee for Academic Freedom in Africa and the related anthology A Thousand Flowers. I'm interested in the use of h-index in !votes, but I think it is a hard measure to use. In particular, I think it understates notability in many cases including this one where an academic's area of study involves close association with political or social movements which do not lead to citations but do lead to impact. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:45, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. But how would we independently verify that she has made substantial impact outside academia? Are there some references we could use? -- HighKing⁺⁺ 19:24, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Before today I hadn't heard of the CAFA, but I can attempt a reply. From my looking (for instance: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q="Committee+for+Academic+Freedom+in+Africa" <- can someone tell me how to get wp to link urls like this corectly?), I am not finding much independent discussion of the impact of the CAFA, but there is certainly some. I can guess this lack is partially because inside countries where academic freedom is not discussed, the activities of CAFA would not be easy to report on or publish about and outside of those countries, interest is not very great among people not involved in CAFA. But that is supposition. The history of CAFA in the Journal of Higher Education in African in 2008 (Alidou, Ousseina, George Caffentzis, and Silvia Federici. "‘We no go sit down’: CAFA and the Struggle Against Structurally Adjusted Education in Africa." Journal of Higher Education in Africa 6, no. 1&2 (2008): 61-76. [8]) is not strictly an independent document, but I think lends quite a bit of support to its influence and to Alidou's influence. I apologize if that I do not have a stronger source.Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:52, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's been infinite discussion of the imperfect application of Criteria #1 on the talk page of PROF. There seems at this point no great way to compare Criteria #1 across disciplines. An H-index of 20 in some fields is low, in others it would be exceptional. As the page reads: "Measures of citability such as the h-index, g-index, etc., are of limited usefulness in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied. They should be approached with caution because their validity is not, at present, completely accepted, and they may depend substantially on the citation database used. They are also discipline-dependent; some disciplines have higher average citation rates than others." We could contact field experts anonymously? But short of that, we gotta try the best we can with imperfect metrics. (My solution is imperfect at best, but I like it better than h, quite frankly. But that may be disciplinary blinders). AbstractIllusions (talk) 01:13, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Straw man (or woman). There has never been any suggestion that citation data should be used to compare achievements across different fields. It is used to compare achievements within similar fields. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:31, 18 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Xxanthippe, is this your academic field? If so, that would be good to note, it would help me to know how the field works. If not, then you are comparing achievements across different fields by saying that an h of 8 is too soon. That's your impression based on your field, but that might not be relevant for her field. So....um.... AbstractIllusions (talk) 02:37, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is much on the matter of how citation rates vary across fields in the archives of WP:Prof talk and similar. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:52, 18 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

OK, no answer to my question (or HighKing's original question). That's cool. I'll maintain that you are comparing across disciplines and that's not a legit thing to do without knowing standards in the particular discipline. As HighKing noted "perhaps an h-index of 8 is good enough." I certainly wouldn't want to delete a scholar using a poor metric and applying it incorrectly. But, that's just me. AbstractIllusions (talk) 14:10, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looking through the names listed at African studies, it seems like a low-citation field, so I don't think a low h-index relative to other areas is sufficient evidence of WP:PROF failure. It's hard to avoid apples-and-oranges comparisons, particularly with regard to her various directorships, but I'm inclined to err on the side of keeping the article. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:59, 18 November 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Jack | ^{talk page} 20:45, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of National Cricket League Twenty20 records[edit]

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

I am also nominating the following related pages because they fail the same criteria:

Delete all per WP:NOTSTATS. Straight crib from a specialist online source that adds no value to WP:CRIC. Jack | ^{talk page} 13:13, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the first one but hold off on the others. Using the Test records as an example, it's a further breakdown of List of Test cricket records, with is a Featured List. I think the top-level country records have the potential to meet a FL criteria at some point in the future. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 15:20, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can see a rationale for deletion based on the lack of context prose in the articles - they have been created purely as lists of statistics which is certainly contrary to policies cited. But - with decent prose and careful culling of statistics (at present, there's just too much emphasis on stats for stats sake) some of these could be developed into half-decent articles/lists along the lines of English county articles. The first nominated article is more questionable (possible delete for me) and personally I would delete List of Bangladesh ODI cricket centurions - it will only grow into a massive list of stats. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:37, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close - these articles have very different scopes, and can't really be bundled together like this; more appropriately, the NCL T20 list should be one its own, as should the centurions list, while all three Bangladesh cricket records can be bundled. We're looking at very different lists, and it's unfair to bundle these together like this. Harrias ^talk 17:05, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing the nomination. I agree, the bundling here has gone awry. I'll close this and have a rethink about the articles individually. Some or all might be nominated again. Thanks, all, for pointing out the problems. Jack | ^{talk page} 20:43, 16 November 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. Sam Walton (talk) 17:42, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh and Kenya in Twenty20 Internationals[edit]

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

I am also nominating the following related pages because they fail the same criteria:

Delete all. Information is more readily available in specialist online cricket sites and should not be repeated here per WP:NOTSTATS, WP:DIRECTORY. Jack | ^{talk page} 12:27, 10 November 2016 (UTC) Jack | ^{talk page} 12:27, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and several similar lists at AfD that all are along the same lines. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 15:17, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all for the reasons given here and elsewhere. Again, if the team v team articles were prose driven without the emphasis on statistical lists only then I could see a situation where articles might be worthwhile. Not now though. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:32, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The argument that it is available on CI or CA doesn't hold good. Also if prose is missing so we should categorize it as stub as Wikipedia is collaborative effort and it improves with time. Incomplete article doesn't mean to delete. GreenCricket (talk) 13:32, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. WP:NOTSTATS, WP:NOTMIRROR. Wikipedia is not espnCricinfo. Ajf773 (talk) 20:17, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Per above, and my comments on similar discussions. Joseph2302 08:40, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per above and previous discussions, thanks Jack for your diligence in finding all these. IgnorantArmies (talk) 10:35, 16 November 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 Red kite#Observation. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:20, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Red kite feeding in Wales[edit]

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

Having initially reviewed for a merge into the main red kite article, I propose that this article should be deleted as all information of note is covered in the 'Observation' section of the aforementioned main article. The information here contains a significant amount of original research and relies on primary bare references. Mountain^cirque 12:21, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:44, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:44, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:44, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as in, port over one or two of the refs to Red kite#Observation, discard the rest of the article. A couple of primary refs is acceptable, particularly if the subject matter isn't controversial stuff.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:48, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Elmidae, The bare refs might be useful someday and keeping the link blue will minimize drama of a clickbait redlink. Montanabw^(talk) 07:49, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:26, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh and Hong Kong in One day Internationals[edit]

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

I am also nominating the following related pages because they fail the same criteria:

Delete all. Information is more readily available in specialist online cricket sites and should not be repeated here per WP:NOTSTATS, WP:DIRECTORY. Jack | ^{talk page} 12:18, 10 November 2016 (UTC) Jack | ^{talk page} 12:18, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and several similar lists at AfD that all are along the same lines. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 15:17, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - on balance need to be deleted for the reasons given above. If the prose sections of the two team ones were expanded significantly then I could foresee a situation where I might not feel that way, although I imagine that the content might be better stuck on the relevant tour or year pages anyway. At the moment it's far too statistically driven in a completionist fashion - exactly what we shouldn't be about per the policies cited. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:30, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. WP:NOTSTATS, WP:NOTMIRROR. Wikipedia is not espnCricinfo. Ajf773 (talk) 20:13, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Per above, and my comments on similar discussions. Joseph2302 08:40, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:20, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:NOTSTATS and WP:LISTCRUFT. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:21, 12 November 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) Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 17:47, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Screen Award for Best Cinematography[edit]

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

Article is unsourced and provides no context for significance or identification. Does not even include the name of the award's granting body. Article was also created by User:Genuine films, which has since been blocked as a sockpuppet account of User:Rajesh-barclays, which has been blocked since October 2015. Article may be a candidate for speedy deletion under CSD criteria G5, A1, and A3. FitzJD (talk) 20:52, 25 October 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 October 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:13, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:13, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:00, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment --this article is part of the larger article Screen Awards which admittedly needs some work, but appears to be a notable award in India, cited in the Indian Express news. This short article certainly needs expansion and sources. Looks like all the different awards in that larger Screen Awards article spin off into their own articles instead of sub-headings. I'll take a closer look before I !vote. ABF99 (talk) 03:57, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Star Screen Awards, now called Screen Awards, does seem to be an important and notable Bollywood awards series with online reliable sources. Format here is similar to the Academy Awards, with each award getting a separate page. ABF99 (talk) 04:10, 4 November 2016 (UTC) I've added/updated some refs on both articles. ABF99 (talk) 15:52, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:27, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:24, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Defective script[edit]

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

Procedural nomination on behalf of an IP:

Fails WP:N. The term "defective script" is used only by linguists to label a writing system as defective if it doesn't represent all the phonemes of a language. Since language changes, the concept is fundamentally flawed and cannot be used outside opinion. Lastly, a lack of indepth, reliable, secondary, and independent sources exist for the concept.68.150.86.232 (talk) 19:41, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

– Uanfala (talk) 10:12, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 10:17, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Regardless of any Wikipedian's judgement of its usefulness, the concept is used in scholarly literature, as the citations show. Cnilep (talk) 04:59, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any quotes from those references?68.150.86.232 (talk) 19:11, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure: "Some people feel that such a highly defective script could only possibly have been used for very restricted purposes in which the physical context of written inscriptions could be relied on to resolve the ambiguities of the writing system" (Sampson 1985: 74). [He's discussing arguments concerning Linear B.]

"So it is exactly the defectiveness of the Arabic script which makes texts readable more according to the reality of the living language, enabling one to avoid the artificial effect of case-endings and other obsolete Classical rules without violating the symbol-sound correspondences. [...] Moreover, a more lexicalized script, as defective Arabic writing in fact is, permits not only quicker writing but quicker reading as well" (Bauer 1996: 563).

Cheers, Cnilep (talk) 02:00, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cnilep. This is a linguistic term, not a pejorative [9], although some do regard vowel ambiguity as a defect in a pedagogical context.[10] --Mark viking (talk) 20:25, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neither reference discusses "defective script" in detail nor do they treat it as the topic of their papers.68.150.86.232 (talk) 00:10, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of RS's; anon just doesn't seem to like it. — kwami (talk) 02:23, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't irregular script an article then?68.150.86.232 (talk) 21:16, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A clear consensus for deletion has occurred in this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Creed[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO on WP:TOOSOON grounds, and appears to lack WP:A7 and WP:GNG anchors, which results in a puff promo piece. Editor wants the article back though so I'm game. Its in the community's hands now... TomStar81 (Talk) 08:56, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:40, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:40, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:40, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As a candidate, he's not notable, since he has yet to win office. No other basis for notability. agtx 20:43, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He has announced as a candidate for the LA City Council. The election he is running in is not until 2017. It is too soon to know if he will even be on the balot come next November, and he would have to win to be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:43, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being a candidate is not enough to be notable. No other basis for notability. No references from reputable sources about anything but the election. (COI notice: I met Jesse Creed at a recent event, and I know his main opponent. I have not taken a position in the race and do not live in the district.) RichardMathews (talk) 04:55, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While Los Angeles is obviously large enough a city that he'll qualify for an article if he wins his city council seat, a person does not get a Wikipedia article just for being a candidate in a forthcoming election — if you cannot demonstrate and source that he was already notable enough for an article for some other reason independent of his candidacy, then he has to win the seat, not just run for it, to become notable on the basis of the candidacy. No prejudice against recreation next year if he wins the seat, but nothing here gets him an article today. Bearcat (talk) 00:01, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes, I agree with Bearcat here. Winning would probably make him notable, but at the moment, no. The coverage is routine coverage, which is expected during elections in the US and notability has to be demonstrated independent of simply contesting an election. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:04, 18 November 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 Refugees of the Syrian civil war. Sandstein 15:37, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Syrian refugees in South Korea[edit]

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

Should be redirected to Refugees of the Syrian civil war instead. cyrfaw (talk) 08:31, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - I agree. Not really notable. The Ninja5 Empire (Talk) 08:32, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 13:33, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 13:33, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 13:33, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the comment about moving it. This was ridiculous. Nate Rybner 22:50, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Philg88 ^♦talk 08:12, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The_Block_(Australian_TV_series)#Season_13. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:20, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Block (season 13)[edit]

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

Just announced season with no substantial detail as yet. Simply WP:TOOSOON -- Whats new?^(talk) 05:40, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The_Block_(Australian_TV_series)#Season_13. I'd suggest a delete except that this is going to probably be a fairly likely search term, so it'd be a viable enough redirect. Other than that, I can't find anything to show that this passes notability guidelines just yet. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:51, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah good suggestion. The page will exist in time, so a redirect (for now) is a good idea -- Whats new?^(talk) 10:35, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Whats new?^(talk) 02:14, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Whats new?^(talk) 02:14, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The_Block_(Australian_TV_series)#Season_13. WP:TOOSOON. Ajf773 (talk) 05:00, 11 November 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 a hoax, as there's nothing reliable to prove that season three is going to happen at all. I've also salted the page - it's been recreated several times, so I'm protecting it until if/when there's an official announcement verifying that the show is going to air. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:06, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Girls All-Star Battle (season 3)[edit]

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

Article is about TV show season that has yet to occur. It has received no coverage in independent reliable sources, and has not been even announced by the network. It only exists as speculation in the minds of fans. Whpq (talk) 05:03, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This looks like it could be deleted as a hoax. There's not a whisper that this is going to be made at all, not even anything on the official website. The only thing I found was this YouTube video, but it doesn't seem to back it up with anything reliable - and the video is also from 2015, so if this announcement had been made back then, there would've been far more news and chatter. As it is, this show hasn't had a new season since 2014 and with reality shows of this type, they tend to like to churn out new seasons as soon as possible, to keep up interest. In other words, all we have is a rather unreliable source to back up this claim and absolutely nothing that confirms that it's being made, let alone that it has a set cast list. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:02, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:22, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy O.E. Lang[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 04:57, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - Looks like WP:PROMO, orphan article, nothing notable about it. --FuzzyGopher (talk) 11:57, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree. Self-promotional. Don't these people know about LinkedIn? EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 19:57, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Worth keeping - Service and leadership serves hundreds of thousands and he is notable in Canada. likely will continue to be Lang in news on most youth stories in national news: so worth having wiki page to see who and what. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmitch098 (talk • contribs)

Fails to meet the requirements of WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 22:10, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even the organization he's president of is not notable. FUNgus guy (talk) 21:24, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SAVEOrganization serves hundreds of thousands since 1968 and Lang on national news on mots youth related stories (Globe, Star, CBC, etc.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.83.177 (talk) 19:25, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how this meets any of the notability requirements in WP:ORG. reddogsix (talk) 01:09, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He is well known across Canada and involved in several high profile Boards and politically, and the organization serves hundreds of thousands of youth and thus as leader he is recognized in national media and information and bio's sought regularly. This is the most effective and efficient means to disseminate this information. He will also continue to be recognized int he future. I think it is worth keeping and helps many people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbmetall (talk • contribs) 17:04, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

None of this meets any of the notability requirements in WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk)
It does meet the notability requirement and he is cited, quoted, represented or mentioned in thousands of articles under different areas: youth employment (globe and mail, toronto start, cbc), politics (durham, liberal), business, family and so much more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbmetall (talk • contribs) 15:41, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just saying he does does not make it so. Please cite specific examples of how the article meets WP:BIO. Let's face it, the article also lacks in-depth, non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 15:54, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To say he is more notable than tens of thousands of others on Wiki I realize is not an adequate reason, although it is true, but by the Wiki definition: "worthy of notice"[1] or "note"[2] – that is, "remarkable"[2] or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" Lang easily meets the requirement and is in many circles very noteworthy and well known. I also realize this is somewhat subjective as to what is "note worthy" but in our industry and region he more than adequately meets that requirement. Well known, strong leader who affects thousands of people, inspiring, connected by family and other to hundreds of other Wiki "note worthy" people or places, and has an interesting bio and will continue to be important in many ways in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.83.177 (talk) 16:20, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:21, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Isla Falta Calzado[edit]

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

Almost all the information in the article is false or unverifiable. Some examples:

There are no independent hits on Google for the name, only links or references to the Wikipedia page. There is an actual tiny island at the location specified, but it is nameless on maps.
There are no citations for the history of the island. It is claimed that the name is based on an indigenous custom, but there were no indigenous people living in the area when the island was formed in 1913, and there are none there now. The indigenous Embera communities on Lake Gatun are at the opposite (eastern) end of the lake, and were founded in the 1950s.
The article claims the island is a nature sanctuary for the "Galledemia Woodpecker." No such species exists, and the link goes to the general Wikipedia page on woodpeckers. The island is only about 100 m long and much too small for a nature sanctuary.
It is claimed that a research center on the island was destroyed by Hurricane Mitch in 1998, but Mitch never came near Panama, but hit Honduras, Guatemala, and Nicaragua instead.
It is claimed that the University of Panama has a center on the island to test solar power and water purification systems, but the article cited makes no reference to the island.
In the section on Wildlife, the article claims that the Isthmian Alligator Lizard was once found there. This species has only been found in Costa Rica and westernmost Panama, and has never occurred in the region. It also claims the island has nationally important numbers of Harpy Eagles, Dusky-capped Flycatchers, and Blue-winged Teal. The island is much to small to support any population of Harpy Eagle, and the latter two species are very common throughout Panama.
The section on Further Reading cites "Falta Calzado: the Island of lost shoes by T.A. SultaZ (part of the Islands of Panama series. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt; 1996)" This reference does not exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeorgeAngehr (talk • contribs) 03:50, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: indeed nothing to be found anywhere about this topic. See also User talk:DVdm#Isla Falta Calzado - DVdm (talk) 08:04, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Seems to be entirely fabricated. Note that the two users who collaborated to create this article concentrated their work almost entirely here and on Isla Tres Perros. That article may also be worth investigating for the same reason. Neither user has edited since 2012. Gricehead (talk) 14:07, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, user GeorgeAngehr already left a message at Talk:Isla Tres Perros. This island has a least this in the further reading section as evidence that it does indeed exist. - DVdm (talk) 14:14, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are false claims in the article but the island does seem to exist in Panama.[11]--Oakshade (talk) 01:26, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Google Maps does not seem to be a reliable source, given that anyone can add a missing place. I have never done it, and I don't intend to sign up and try it, but can anyone just add anything anywhere? - DVdm (talk) 10:10, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Increasingly clear that we've been hoaxed. Name of island not found in Ref 1^[1] or Ref 2^[2] (in which Pages 50-55, referenced, are in a chapter about "The Culebra Cut", which is at the other end of the canal). In the case of Tres Perros, though, if this has indeed been seen on a (pre-internet) map of 1976 and if the map was published by a reliable source, this should be referenced and the article kept as a real geographical feature, with unverified and dubious content dealt with by editing processes: talk page, tagging or outright removal: Noyster (talk), 14:40, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Kevin Buckley (15 August 1992). Panama. Simon and Schuster. ISBN 978-0-671-77876-7.
^ Lesley A. DuTemple (1 September 2002). The Panama Canal. Lerner Publishing Group. ISBN 978-0-8225-0079-7.

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:16, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Twirl (album)[edit]

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

Aslo nominated here

Grow Wild

...and Love Rages On!

Hokulea (album)

Part of a promotional walled garden created by a pair of single purposes accounts. Non notable albums. Claimed charting is on a bad chart. Albums lack coverage in independent reliable sources. Current sourcing is not good enough.

michaeldiamondmusic.com is a wordpress blog.

muzikreviews were reviews for hire. [12]

allmusic does have a capsual review for Grow Wild [13]. A search found nothing better. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:44, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's nice to see someone going to trouble of checking the NALBUM criteria. I see no reason to doubt the nom this fails N. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:15, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as they are all trivial and unconvincing including for their own articles, especially given there's no actual contents beyond what's listed. SwisterTwister talk 00:55, 11 November 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 02:33, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger & the Helix[edit]

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

Part of a promotional walled garden created by a pair of single purposes accounts. Non notable band. Only claim to satisfying WP:BAND seems to be two blue linked members but their notability is dependent of the bands they are part of, including this one. So the are not "independently notable musicians". Has a lot of sources but they are listings, PR or about others. A search found nothing better. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:36, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find any evidence of notability. Sam Walton (talk) 17:45, 19 November 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. Sam Walton (talk) 17:51, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shataramarie[edit]

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

The article don't have any reliable sources. Interview is not reliable sources for living people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newbiewiki123 (talk • contribs) 02:29, 10 November 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 November 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:26, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. 'The problem with this is that it may meet WP:NMUSIC. Or may not. Checking whether the albums are on the rankings or such is time consuming, and I don't know how to do it quickly, which is why I don't usually even comment on MUSIC and SPORT related deletion requests. Ít would be much easier if the nom has explained that they had considered NMUSIC criteria and confirm that the subject is failing them. As the nom is written, it is just complaining about WP:RS, and that does not mean that the subject is not notable. Unreliable sources do not merit deletion. Ping me if there are new arguments. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:36, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't meet WP:NMUSIC. There are no rankings at all – the supposed "number 2 R&B hit" was on a non-notable, non-national online radio station, and their chart is based on a combination of radio play and listener requests, so it would certainly be WP:BADCHARTS. Article is pure WP:PROMO. Richard3120 (talk) 21:02, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's in fact nothing at all for actual notability and no signs this career has any signs enough for current improvements hence delete. SwisterTwister talk 04:08, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 18:00, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 18:00, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find much past what's on the page aside from self-promotion, and certainly nothing that appears to be in-depth reliable coverage. Primefac (talk) 18:29, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there's a generic "I fixed it" post on the talk page of this discussion, from what I am assuming is the creator of the page. Primefac (talk) 22:26, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 04:00, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article does have resources added. There is NO reason for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.254.77.233 (talk • contribs)
Administrator note I've reverted a page move to project space by the page author, who also blanked the page and replaced it with "Page deleted". I would delete this as WP:G7 if not for the significant edits by other good-faith contributors. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 07:30, 16 November 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 - Moved back to draft. - If MFD wasn't so useless I wouldn't of needed to do this in the first place but whatever someone else can deal with this draft or it can stay abandoned for the next 5 years. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 15:44, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Cutforth[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Like the other AFD this too was abandoned so had taken it to MFD however I've the article to articlespace and renominated here, Anyway this has been deleted more than once at AFD and I believe via CSD too, Non notable youtuber - No evidence of notability, Fails GNG, If anyone can find any substantial sources I'd be more than happy to keep, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 03:18, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong procedural objection - This situation is very similar to the practice put forth for evaluation by the community at B3 and B4 of WP:UP/RFC2016, which the community expressed strong condemnation towards. Pages should not be moved to the mainspace to test their suitability for it, rather only if one believes them to be suitable for it.— Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 05:26, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is different to what was considered there, as this was in userspace, was deleted, undeleted to draftspace for improvement, slightly improved, and then abandoned. The only reason that this page is not to be deleted as a copy of deleted material is the slight improvements. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:41, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Me & SJ at times have very different opinions at MFD and although on this one he didn't say keep I didn't think he was sure and similar to the other AFD I didn't want him in 2/3 days time saying Keep and then that's it ...it's kept ....., I did this because at the time I thought doing it this way would keep everyone happy - I didn't want this sneakily deleted or to be a "backdoor deleted" - I simply disagree with MFD and instead of essentially wasting everyone's time there I thought I'd bring it here where a much better discussion could happen, I do admit however this perhaps shouldn't of been moved and I apologize for doing so, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 14:49, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify with a trout to the nominator for misuse of the move process. Drafts that are not ready for mainspace should be left in draft space or deleted as drafts. Moving a draft into mainspace when its deletion as a draft is being considered is an abuse. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:35, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - G4 might have been in order and might still be in order, because I can't see the deleted drafts. But AFD is not the way. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:37, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have read the RFC, and I agree that there was strong community disapproval of dealing with unsustainable drafts by moving them into mainspace for deletion. I concur with the objection by User:Godsy. If User:Davey2010 admits that he made a mistake by doing this, then move this back to draft space for a snowball closure. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:41, 10 November 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 locations of the DC Universe. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:52, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blüdhaven[edit]

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

"a fictional city in the DC Comics Universe". Next to no references, the two present are for primary material, and nothing that indicates significance. Yes, it appears in a number of DC-related media, but there is no non-primary in-depth coverage. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) as far as I can tell. I'd suggest redirecting to List of locations of the DC Universe and if possible, transwiki merging to http://dc.wikia.com/wiki/Bludhaven . Thoughts? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:07, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of locations of the DC Universe. Maybe merge some of the fictional geographic location and its use as a location in television shows. Either way, both articles are outdated by several years. The most recent information in "fictional history" is from 2010. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:21, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

redirect (after delete) to List of locations of the DC Universe. not notable on its own. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:55, 16 November 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. Sam Walton (talk) 17:55, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Codeproof[edit]

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

Promotional article about a non-notable company (almost no 3rd party coverage) written mainly by a COI editor. It's struggled with promotional content since its inception and is currently effectively a promotion. Cleanup tags unresolved since Jan. 2016. Nominated here because my WP:PROD was contested by the COI editor. FalconK (talk) 02:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I couldn't find sources to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. The Redmond Reporter interview is the longest source out there, but it's free a weekly community newsletter with a circ of about 25,000, which gives it little weight, per WP:AUD. Interviews are also poor for notability in general. This GeekWire puff is slightly broader, but it's super softball: less an interview and more a platform for the founder's musings on the industry. It's also a column which invites any startup in the region to "Apply for Startup Spotlight" which undermines any claim of neutrality. I looked, but found nothing better. Grayfell (talk) 02:53, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 20:37, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 01:36, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 01:36, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on a improved article here in my sandbox. I have added genuine third-party references and more. Please provide me feedback. i look forward to working with community. Shilpacs (talk) 03:06, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the sources all listed, including in the Draft linked above, are all still published-republished company advertising and it's clear since they all have the same focused consistency, therefore only one person authored that and it's the company, this is also quite clear speedy material, so that says a lot as it is. SwisterTwister talk 04:50, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@User:SwisterTwister: The sources mentioned in the article are not advertisement. They are from a neutral third-party genuine sources. Are you saying we can't have this article anymore? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shilpacs (talk • contribs) 17:41, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article on a small firm (the Redmond Reporter reference indicated founder plus one sales employee in 2014) edited by at least one WP:COI account. (The article lacks the necessary WP:DISCLOSE by each such account.) The sources in the current article are a combination of primary plus local. Those in the Draft are better (though its promotional text is more appropriate for the company website where they can sell their wares) but are still routine appointment announcement and product announcements/reviews. Clearly enough to verify that this is a firm going about its business in its chosen field, but I am seeing nothing to indicate that it is of encyclopaedic notability, whether by WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 12:27, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. No indications to establish notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:56, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AllyD: Codeproof software is completely "online" and company has built a great contents around mobile device management and mobile security area since 2011. You can see the blogs at http://blog.codeproof.com and http://www.codeproof.com/blog . i honestly think that Codeproof deserves a recognization for their contributions to internet. This Wiki article page exists since about 4 years now. Do you really want to delete it now? I personally have a great respect for Wikipedia and it's community. I am hoping to improve the article and make it even better. Shilpacs (talk) 23:15, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it fails WP:GNG (and those blogs don't help to establish notability - see WP:RS) then it should be deleted. Try to find some independent secondary sources. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:14, 19 November 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 Thinlas Chorol. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 10:25, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ladakhi Women's Travel Company[edit]

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

If I'm reading this right, this is a prostitution service of no historic import. I have no idea what criteria this should be deleted under, but I sure don't see WP:N, and I do see plenty of WP:PROMO John from Idegon (talk) 01:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as per nom. I also removed this promo-prostitution(?) page as an [[internal link]] from the pages Tourism in Ladakh, List of social enterprises, and List of social entrepreneurs, where it had been promotionally inserted. --FuzzyGopher (talk) 01:29, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:18, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:18, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:18, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is NOT a prostitution service, but a travel agency. I can see where did the word came from - Vandalism from an IP. Anup [Talk] 22:00, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Thinlas Chorol: There is no substantial coverage of the company itself. Almost all sources are about the founder. Going through sources, it appears that the company has received media coverage because it was founded by a she, who we already have an article about (a female breaking through male-dominance). Plus, there is a lot of space of space available in target article where reliably sourced information about this agency can adequately be covered. Anup [Talk] 22:44, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then redirect given the current article is literally a blatant advertisement caring to literally list "The company wishes to say" or "The company sincerely thinks", that alone is sufficient for deletion as an unacceptable advertisement. SwisterTwister talk 06:40, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Thinlas Chorol and any additional information in the article about the company that is significant should be added to her article. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:12, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Thinlas Chorol and any necessary notable information in the article.Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 09:22, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:52, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sturvs[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. There is one ref on traffic numbers but all the rest are either domain for sale sites of blank pages. Recent edit summary says " Sturvs is now a new company. New website is set to go live in few weeks" which is contrary to the content of the page. Probably way too soon . Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 00:01, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I concur with the nomination, everything listed here is only fitting for a business listing and the sources themselves are in fact only published PR, certainly no substance. There's essentially nothing else beyond that. SwisterTwister talk 04:18, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing close to notability could be found. 07:25, 10 November 2016 (UTC)—Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me)

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

[1] Kevin Buckley (15 August 1992). Panama. Simon and Schuster. ISBN 978-0-671-77876-7.

[DuTemple2002-2] Lesley A. DuTemple (1 September 2002). The Panama Canal. Lerner Publishing Group. ISBN 978-0-8225-0079-7.

[1]

[2]