Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 November 6

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 5 November	7 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 delete. The only keep !vote is a complaint about the nominator, not about whether the article topic is notable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:43, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sheridan Love[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. Recently created niche award has been determined to be non-notable, and therefore fails the well-known/significant standard by a wide margin. Negligible biographical content. Negligible independent sourcing. Even if the niche award is somehow seen as a technical PORNBIO pass, consensus has been established that a BLP falling so far below GNG requirements should be deleted. PROD removed by article creator without exsplanation or article improvement, just a rude edit summary. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 22:33, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep. The reason is your zeal for deletion of porn-related articles; and if you try to use your usual "casting aspersions" argument, well, you know what? Instead of that argument, prove me wrong. You've never actually denied an anti-porn bias. More importantly, if this article were to be even considered for deletion, the nomination should come from someone more objective. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 10:58, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - She has such lovely eyes .... but unfortunately we don't keep based on how lovely her ... eyes... look, Anyway non notable porno actress, hasn't won any notable awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 16:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WHYN -- no independent reliable sources sufficient to build an article. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:23, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable pornographic actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:05, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 23:02, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Religious Policeman[edit]

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

Irrelevant blogger who hasn't been active in 10 years. JerrySa1 (talk) 22:32, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While it's true that Alhamedi has not been active for some time he was a very early dissident blogger in Saudi Arabia, long before the Arab Spring or widespread social media use in those countries. He remains relevant for historical reasons - work doesn't need to be current or "fresh" to be notable, just notable. I can think of no good reason why this page should be deleted simply because of the passage of time. Mike (talk) 19:32, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:11, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:11, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:11, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notability is not temporary. Subject meets WP:GNG: [1], [2], [3], [4]. None of these sources are published from Saudi Arabia, 2 are from India, 1 from Pakistan and 1 from Germany. There should be more coverage in Saudi press (WP:NEXIST). Anup [Talk] 01:25, 9 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) JerrySa1 (talk) 00:22, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Powerpuff Girls: Relish Rampage[edit]

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

Un-notable page with no claims of any notability. JerrySa1 (talk) 22:25, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:24, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to List of The Powerpuff Girls video games. Not enough material for a stand-alone article. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:47, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and haste the close. Nothing sourced to merge, and no real reason to take this to AfD when there is a clear case for redirecting its title as a search term. czar 22:10, 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. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 22:56, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lion Guard[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Also does not seem to meet WP:GNG, and about half of the sources provided are not WP:RELIABLE, two even being from the group's own website. I highly suggest a merge of this article to another article relating to the Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 (possibly List of Donald Trump presidential campaign endorsements, 2016?). Parsley Man (talk) 21:26, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: Half the sources are major newspapers, the other online journalism sites (which I admit, I do not know the specific rules about their inclusion here). As far as this group not being notable, in the first month of their existence, they were reported upon and noticed by several major outlets including, as mentioned previously, several mainstream newspapers. Point of order note, as well, this group has the exact same name as a Disney series, so searching for sources on it using the defaults on Wikipedia might bring up the Disney show instead of the group. Typing "Lion Guard Trump" typically gives better results (55,000+ hits) [5] and demonstrates the coverage on this. In any event, a very notable group and one which will be remembered for some time after this election. -O.R.^Comms 01:38, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, at this point it is notable enough per the independent coverage and it does get a fair amount of Google hits; in the alternative, if consensus becomes one of not to keep as a stand alone article, it could be merged into one of several 2016 election articles with cites. Kierzek (talk) 15:13, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nominators rational. Not independently notable. Inter&anthro (talk) 03:47, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per O.R. above. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:49, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:44, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:44, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 08:41, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: this is a group who will likely recieve greater coverage in the immediate future and are notable due to current geopolitical matters. ☭ cmn ☭ ( ❝❞ /✍ ) 21:24, 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'm assuming the nom wasn't aware this was only closed at the end of September with consensus to keep... Obviously if the nom disagrees they should to go DRV, Also just wanted to point out the nom states "I'm not seeing anything that asserts what it does" yet the lede of the article states "Mixpanel is a business analytics service and company. It tracks user interactions with web and mobile applications and offers tools for targeted communication with them. Its toolset contains in-app A/B tests and user survey forms.[1]" - Anyway AFD is NOTCLEANUP and if anyone disagrees with the closure(s) then they should head to DRV, (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 16:24, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mixpanel[edit]

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

I'm not seeing anything that asserts what it does. The language used seems to be promotional in general. Pyrusca (talk) 20:28, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to meet WP:Notability (organizations and companies). Prominent company in business analysis field focusing on customer analysis accessed through web and mobile applications. Has received significant coverage in Wall Street Journal, Forbes, Business Insider and regular coverage in a number of tech media. The article does need expansion. CBS527^Talk 01:15, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An Afd on this article was just closed on 27 September 2016 as "KEEP". All seven responses were to keep. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mixpanel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbs527 (talk • contribs) 01:34, 8 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 closed, erroneous nomination. As discussed below, the nominator's intention was to nominate the article, not its Talk page. The nomination for the article itself can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul J. Morochnik. Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:47, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Paul J. Morochnik[edit]

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

No source given WP:V verifies the general notability WP:GNG of the subject of this article. It is therefore not a suitable subject for a standalone article. AadaamS (talk) 20:11, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as a malformed nomination. We should be discussing the article here, not its talk page, so the nominator needs to redo the nomination properly per WP:AFD. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:48, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have by mistake nominated the Talk page. Can we close this? I'll renominate the article itself. The AfD nominator, AadaamS (talk) 21:58, 6 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. And salt. All the keep !votes appear to be SPAs and furthermore, they are not giving evidence that the topic is notable. Please read WP:GNG and WP:WHYN as to what is actually expected from the sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:46, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Olagist[edit]

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

Re-created for the third time. Speedy deletion templates removed repeatedly. This is a non-notable website. I can find no references discussing the topic. Additionally. the article is written as purely promotional, advertising its services, i.e. "sure source for the latest news and all Genre of music and Musical Videos" (sic). 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:58, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per nom. I'd personally have gone down the route of WP:G11 – the article does sound quite promotional. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 13:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete - Articles on Wikipedia are subjected to edits as there maybe need to Edit due to change in the previous fact hence any registered member is free to edit any article provided it is not out of context . same goes for the Proposed article . if any wikipedian feels the article needs more citation to back its claim anybody is free to do so by editing , its a stub which means its open for contribution and expansion. for this reason i strongly Support that the article should not be deleted.

Foreman22 (talk) 14:48, 8 November 2016 (UTC) — Foreman22 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete and Salt Non-notable and promotional, where this is the third time this article has been re-created it and multiple i.p. and new unconfirmed editors removing deletion templates the article should also be salted. VViking_TalkEdits 14:56, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

it should not be Deleted though am still new here but have heard the name in question before , in my own candid view i will suggest the article be allowed and watched while the Creator be given a time frame to gather more material to backup the article claims.Anijames (talk) 15:00, 8 November 2016 (UTC) — Anijames (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Please do not remove other editors comments when you create your own comments as you did with VViking above, that is considered rude and disruptive. VViking_TalkEdits 15:04, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please lets be Civil in Handling issues and no sentiments please No body should take sides with anybody here we are all entitled to our own different opinion.

With All Sense of Responsibility i will humbly ask that this article should not be deleted rather it should be given room to be improved upon16:05, 8 November 2016 (UTC)Mikebilz (talk)

Please Don't Delete it am a Total Novice here was searching some stuff on google when i stumbled on this page with a Red Sign indicating it is being considered for deletion. i don't know how you guys operate here if this page has an admin or moderator i will like to pass this message direct to the Moderator that it should not be deleted. i won't be happy if i cant find this page again.217.151.98.13 (talk) 17:19, 8 November 2016 (UTC) — 217.151.98.13 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Speedy delete and salt; vandals removed adequately placed CSD tag for a recreated crap article. Blatantly non-notable blog. Delete and warn disruptive editors involved in repeatedly removing deletion tags. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 14:41, 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 delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:25, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Smith County Highway 14[edit]

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

This article fails basic verification, and the subject fails to meet the notability test. While state highways are generally assumed to be notable, county roads, and this is a county road, need to meet WP:GNG to have a stand-alone article. Also, it seems odd that a county road in Mississippi is named according to a nomenclature only found in Minnesota (county state-aid highway), leading me to think that the article creator lacks a firm grasp on what this roadway really is. Imzadi 1979 → 19:26, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I looked through the references given on the page and I couldn't find any mention of this road. And after reviewing maps of the area, I find it hard to believe that this road is notable. –Fredddie ™ 19:30, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:56, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:56, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I've also found zero RSes for this non-notable road. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 21:53, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As the author of the page, I can understand the reasons presented on why the page should be deleted. Well, most of the reasons. I do want to take a moment here to address a few of the issues I have seen here supporting deletion. First off, regarding the naming. Whether or not it is named "County State-Aid Highway" is, to me, irrelevant. All states have a program for state-funded county roads. If you want to get technical, this road is actually federally and state funded. I'll be happy to drive to the construction site and post the signs that show where funding came from. The name used for the article is a proposed name for the finished road. Secondly, I've seen several people claim that they cannot find the road on a map or any other "verifiable" source. In the history section of the article, it clearly says that the road is generally labeled as SCR 14. I can go to Google and punch in SCR 14 in Taylorsville, MS, and I will be presented with this road. Clearly it exists, the project bid plans are in the sources! Why would a county spend money on a non-existent road? Just my two cents to the discussion. MCIntoDarkness (talk) 04:59, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that the road doesn't exist, it clearly does exist. The issues are why this road is notable enough to have an article and the quality of the sources. Firstly, the relevant notability guideline (WP:USRD/NT) suggests "When writing an article on such a highway, it is especially imperative that the article make a claim for the road's notability," otherwise it should be a list entry. Claiming that the road is the primary access to an industrial park of a town of 1300 people does not meet that standard. There are thousands of county roads in every state. What makes this one notable enough to have an article here?
Secondly, two of the sources that you used do not mention CR 14 at all; if they did, you must tell us where they mention the road. Page F-3 of the Selected Statistics from MDOT is route descriptions of MS 23 through MS 39. So that reference fails. The other link from MDOT, once you get to Smith County, does indeed show CR 14 (unlabeled), but doesn't back up the claim that the road is maintained by MDOT. Lastly, the third link is merely an announcement that bids could be accepted to rebuild the road. It mentions that federal money will be used to pay for the road (and thus requiring contractors to follow federal guidelines); however, it makes no mention of securing a grant from the FHA. So that fails as well.
So we have a high bar for notability that I don't feel has been met and a sources that are used questionably or incorrectly. Those are the reasons why I !voted delete. –Fredddie ™ 05:45, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MCIntoDarkness: the TL;DR version of my colleague's comments, and part of the basis for my nomination, is that we have to follow WP:GNG, which says we need "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject" to justify an article on a topic. Purely existing does not meet that threshold, especially when it comes to a county-level road. (As I noted, we presume state highways are notable, but that presumption doesn't extend to state funding of county roads.) Add to that the verification issues, and we have a situation that calls for deletion. Imzadi 1979 → 13:53, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Imzadi1979: I see your point now. I do understand that Wikipedia has guidelines, and by all means, I want to follow them and be a good member here. I understand why you feel the article should be deleted, and I understand. It was my intention to create a county road list for Mississippi, similar to the one found in Minnesota, or at the least get a category going with the counties listed for other members to add to, very similar to how the current List of state highways in Mississippi page is set up. As a compromise to deletion, could some members that have commented on this thread possibly try to assist in getting that list going? Also, should the article be deleted, is there any way for me to preserve the work that I put into it? MCIntoDarkness (talk) 17:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless more sources can be found to verify why this county route is special enough to have its own article. Dough4872 15:49, 7 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. (non-admin closure) KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 22:11, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We are number one[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Contested PROD. Adam9007 (talk) 19:17, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is better than your guideline. In fact, it transcends your guideline. It's number one and your guideline is number two. WE ARE NUMBER ONE (talk) 19:18, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This may be a song for children, but we should conduct this discussion as adults. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:51, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied per WP:A7. Bishonen | talk 21:55, 6 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 Deleted as G12 (copyright violation). — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:48, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The northlines newspaper[edit]

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

This article seems very POV and doesn't have any sourcing. It looks like it was written only to promote the newspaper. Henry ^TALK 18:52, 6 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) 08:22, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Casey Messer[edit]

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

The main thing that Messer is notable for is being Miss New Mexico USA, and that is not enough on its own to establish notability. This leaves us to find other reasons to consider her notable. She has worked in TV as a host of various entertainement related shows, and as a local New Mexico TV host. However all the coverage I can find of this is from what amounts to a press release by her employer and some clips on YouTube. Nothing suggests her TV reporting is at a level to establish notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:29, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:29, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:23, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a state-level pageant win does not meet ANYBIO1, which the sources listed attest to. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not only has this topic achieved the title of Miss New Mexico USA, she has had a visible public career in front of the cameras, including local TV news shows, national network REELZ, TV network roles on shows such as on ESPN, and IMDB credits her with 19 movie credits, including an appearance as a local reporter in the 2016 Independence Day 2. Her current TV work on "Good Day" on New Mexico gets attention on Google searches. The evidence is that this topic is not a hoax and satisfies WP:N by having attracted attention from the world at large over a period of time. Unscintillating (talk) 18:05, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Adam9007 (talk) 18:50, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough to establish notability. Nothing on Google, and most of her filmography consists of bit parts ("Attractive Reporter", "Reporter #3", "Hot Blonde"). Fails WP:BIO. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 00:07, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is no notability. In agreement with User:Beemer69 and User:K.e.coffman above. "19 movie credits" on IMDb? I only saw three instances: On Odd Thomas (2013) she plays a "pool Mom", On Independence Day: Resurgence (2016) she plays a local reporter, and on Spare Parts (2015) she plays an ""Attractive Shopper". Although at least there are some credits these are bit parts. If we add those to the Miss New Mexico USA (2007) state title they just do not confer enough notability. Otr500 (talk) 17:23, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:47, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maqlu (artist)[edit]

Maqlu (artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Blood (Maqlu album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Black (Maqlu album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete. Poorly sourced article about a musician with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. This has existed in sandbox since 2010, but was moved into articlespace this year as a stale draft -- but that should never really have happened, as the strongest claim of notability present here is charting at Canadian campus radio. NMUSIC, however, requires charting claims to be tied to IFPI-certified charts on the order of RPM or Billboard, which !earshot is not, and airplay claims to be tied to national radio networks on the order of CBC Radio 2, not individual radio stations. And the only other thing here is that one of her songs got selected as "Track of the Day" on a podcast, which isn't a notability criterion either. As always, a musician is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because she exists -- but nothing stated or sourced here gives her an inclusion pass. Also batching her two albums, which will also have to be deleted per CSD A9 if this goes. Bearcat (talk) 14:25, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that a total of three articles are listed for deletion herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:40, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:40, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Adam9007 (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - No evidence of significant media coverage of the artist. The artist charted in obscure charts that aren't nationally recognized. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 22:53, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. References provided do not establish notability, and I agree with SomeoneNamedDerek on the charts that they placed on. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:48, 14 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:21, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where the Hills Are Greener[edit]

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

Unsourced, 38 Ghits, can't find in depth discussions Doug Weller talk 10:38, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:50, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Adam9007 (talk) 18:48, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Searches give no evidence that this would pass WP:NFILM. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 22:51, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm just not finding sufficient sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:01, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to be a run of the mill short doc, one of thousands produced annually around the globe. Bearian (talk) 17:29, 15 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. Sandstein 20:57, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cinema of Change[edit]

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

Not yet notable per WP:WEB: podcast has interviewed some notable people, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Can't find significant coverage online from WP:Secondary, WP:Reliable sources. There are many groups called "Cinema of Change" in several countries, so Google hits appear to be high, but all I can find on this one is primary sources and passing mentions in secondary sources. Evident WP:Conflict of interest by creator, who ~~appears to be connected with Rippberger~~ is Rippberger's partner, and has so far only edited about him and his work. Wikishovel (talk) 02:52, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 02:53, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 02:53, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above, cannot inherit notability from people interviewed on the shot. I could not locate significant third party sources for any additional notability verification. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 03:24, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now to a sourced mention in article of founder Robert Rippberger#Career, until it develops an independent notability. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:38, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Adam9007 (talk) 18:46, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete my search here: [6]. sources just not there.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:09, 14 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. Sources provided are either trivial mentions (Minnesota Public Radio, Nemanic) or local newspapers. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. No merge needed as the secession attempt is already covered in Kinney, Minnesota. Cerebellum (talk) 18:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Anderson (mayor)[edit]

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

Delete. While this was no-consensus-kept in a deletion discussion back in 2008, Wikipedia's standards for the notability of politicians, and the depth and quality of reliable sourcing required, are much stricter now than they were a decade ago. Her basic claim of notability is as the mayor of a small town with a population in the low hundreds -- and even that's wrapped in content-free biographical puffery like "she worked tirelessly to improve the lives of her neighbors". Of the three sources being cited here, one is a glancing mention of her existence in a book, which is being cited only to support her date of birth and the names of her parents; one is an article about her death which is being cited only to support her date of death and the length of her term as mayor; and the third is a deadlink whose content can't be verified at all. There's very little content here about anything substantive she did as mayor; her entire career is summed up as that she once sent an "unofficial" secession petition to the federal government which resulted in the town getting a new water system but never seriously approaching an actual secession attempt -- and that's sourced to the deadlink. Beyond the footnotes, there's an entirely contextless list of "other sources", all but one of which are articles about her death in local media where her death would be expected to be newsworthy. And the one exception is a history book about the secession attempt itself -- but (a) that book was self-published by its own author through a print-on-demand house, and (b) book author "Kuzma, Scott" + Wikipedia article creator "Sbk70" = almost certain conflict of interest attempt to advertise the book by increasing the encyclopedic visibility of its topic. None of this is substantive enough, or sourced well enough, to make the mayor of a village smaller than the average urban apartment building suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Bearcat (talk) 15:29, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:23, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:23, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to Kinney, Minnesota § History, which already has some content about the subject. I'm unable to access linked sources in the article's references section, and source searches are only providing mentions (e.g. [7], [8]). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:27, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SST flyer 07:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Just a glance at the sourcing and it seems to pass notability. Unfortunately, the article just needs a little TLC in order to appear more informative. Carbrera (talk) 00:06, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All we've got for sourcing here is obituaries in local media which would be expected to publish obituaries of a local mayor, and a self-published print-on-demand book written by the creator of this article in defiance of WP:COI. What about any of that type of sourcing "seems to pass notability"? Bearcat (talk) 17:05, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She was mayor of a place with 250 people, this is several oders of magnitude below the level of what we need for notability. We lack indepth, reliable source coverage of her.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:45, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The secession proposal leans towards notability. Orthogonal1 (talk) 12:14, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not a measure of how interesting any reader might find the claims; it's a measure of the degree to which reliable sources have or haven't covered the claims. And if all we've got for reliable source coverage of the secession attempt is a print-on-demand book self-published by the creator of this article, then no, it's not notable. Bearcat (talk) 02:04, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination states that a reference in the article, "is a deadlink whose content can't be verified at all". This is consistent with neither WP:V nor WP:AGF. Further, there is no evidence in the nomination, such as results from WP:BEFORE D1, that sources outside of Wikipedia have been considered. Unscintillating (talk) 01:15, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, WP:V most certainly does require that it be possible for somebody to verify that the content said what it's claimed to have said — if the weblink dies, the content still has to be retrievable from somewhere else, e.g. a printed book or a microfilm or a news archiving database. And the nominator most certainly did do enough WP:BEFORE to know that if any better sources exist out there to salvage this with, they most certainly aren't in any location where I can find them. If better sourcing exists in a database that you have access to and I don't, then by all means add it to the article — that's precisely why we discuss these things — but it needs to be shown, because I'm sure not finding it in any place I have the ability to search for it. Bearcat (talk) 02:04, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete cited information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer. Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published online.^[1]

References

^ English Wikipedia How-to Guide WP:Dead link, revision of 2016-11-14, Emphasis in original

Unscintillating (talk) 00:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that we do not have a requirement that the source is published online; we can source stuff to print content like books, for example. But we most certainly do have a requirement that the source be locatable from somewhere: a dead web link is still a valid source if the content is archived somewhere, such as a microfilm or a news archiving database, so that somebody can actually find that source if they need to for some reason. A dead link does not remain a valid source if it is archived nowhere, and all trace of its former existence has simply disappeared. The weblink doesn't have to be permanent, but the content most certainly does have to be verifiable, somehow, in perpetuity. It's like referencing a college essay: you don't have to hand in the essay on top of a wheelbarrow stacked with physical copies of every book you consulted in the process of writing it, but the professor does have to be able to locate and read the book if he has questions about whether you misunderstood or misquoted or plagiarized it. Bearcat (talk) 14:57, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

==Keeping dead links==

Shortcut

WP:KDL

A dead, unarchived source URL may still be useful. Such a link indicates that information was (probably) verifiable in the past, and the link might provide another user with greater resources or expertise with enough information to find the reference. It could also return from the dead. With a dead link, it is possible to determine if it has been cited elsewhere, or to contact the person originally responsible for the source. For example, one could contact the Yale Computer Science department if http://www.cs.yale.edu/~EliYale/Defense-in-Depth-PhD-thesis.pdf^{[dead link]} were dead.... Do not delete a URL just because it has been tagged with {{dead link}} for a long time.^[1]

References

^ English Wikipedia How-to Guide WP:Dead link, revision of 2016-11-14, Emphasis in original

Unscintillating (talk) 00:10, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That quote explicitly states that the main purpose of keeping a deadlinked weblink is to help people try to retrieve a live reference again, just like what I said. And at any rate, that just speaks to the question of retaining or removing a deadlinked from an otherwise keepable article — it says nothing about deadlinked references helping to make an article keepable if there are no strong references apart from the deadlinks. Bearcat (talk) 14:59, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That quote explicitly states what I've posted in blue...for example, "Such a link indicates that information was (probably) verifiable in the past". Compare that with the nomination, "the third is a deadlink whose content can't be verified at all". Unscintillating (talk) 02:05, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if the content appears to have been "verifiable" in the past. People can and do misrepresent what a source said, through both good faith misunderstanding and deliberate falsification, and people can and do change the content of our articles — but without the ability to reverify whether the content corresponds to the source or not, we have no way of figuring out what's right and what's wrong. So if it's impossible for us to remain able to verify the reference's content today and into the future, then that reference doesn't stay acceptable in perpetuity just because it used to exist — we have to permanently possess the ability to reverify whether the reference actually said what it's claimed to have said. Bearcat (talk) 17:52, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Verifiable" does not mean "verified". You don't know that the source no longer exists, rather you want to assume that as a fact (in logic the argument from ignorance fallacy) in order to assert "the third is a deadlink whose content can't be verified at all". Defending that with the argument from authority fallacy ("we have" "people can" "us" "we have") on tangential issues, stated also without references, might be relevant topics for discussion in the appropriate forum, but does not seem to address the core issue. Unscintillating (talk) 00:46, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mayor of a small hamlet who caused a bit of a local stir once - really not a suitable subject for an article. The secession proposal is already covered in the article on the tiny settlement concerned. --Michig (talk) 12:15, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Adam9007 (talk) 18:41, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per User:Johnpacklambert, being mayor of a very small town is not enough, nor is there anything else here sufficient to establish notability. MB 20:34, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep She does attract ongoing attention Minnesota Public Radio, [9], July 2016.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:24, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep - per sources, per WP:GNG,BabbaQ (talk) 21:13, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per what sources and what GNG? All we have here, yet again, is obituaries in the local newspapers where her obituary would be expected to exist, and a self-published print on demand book written by the author of this article. This is not GNG-satisfying sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 14:58, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being a mayor of a town of 250 people is not a credible claim to significance. The secession proposal is already covered at Kinney, Minnesota#Republic of Kinney. A blogpost at Minnesota Public Radio is hardly serious evidence of long-term notability. The self-published print-on-demand book certainly is not, either. Clear delete case AusLondonder (talk) 21:53, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia notability doesn't use "credible claims to significance" as a criterion. We have little interest in "claims". How is this "clear" with neither looking at the known sources nor assuming WP:AGF about them? That is an interesting objection about a book printed by Ohio University Press, printed in Athens, Ohio, given that university presses are generally reliable. How does someone self-publish with a university press? Again, is there evidence of a problem that needs the attention of AfD? Or is this claiming special rules that the sources don't count when they give WP:GNG-level attention to a small-town mayor? Unscintillating (talk) 03:03, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The self-publishing issue refers to "Kuzma, Scott (2007). Republic of Kinney. Fargo, ND: Forum Communications Printing.", not "Nemanic, Mary Lou (2007). One day for democracy: Independence Day and the Americanization of Iron." The problem with Nemanic is that it just namechecks her existence in one paragraph on one page, without being about her in any manner remotely substantive enough to count as "GNG-level attention" — but Kuzma's book, not Nemanic's, is the self-published one. Bearcat (talk) 18:04, 22 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) 18:20, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of salaries of royal family members[edit]

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

Delete, but open to alternative solutions. I'm not sure what specific purpose is or could be served by this Wikipedia entry. I don't want to assume bad faith, but at the moment, it seems like one person, apparently aggrieved by the height of royals' salaries, wanted to stress how much this money is, connected to the (mere) fact that they are given these salaries and subsidies based on their relationship to a particular (hereditary) monarchy. Otherwise this list could just have been about the salaries of heads of state in general (of monarchies and republics alike), or just about monarchs without their relatives. I see no other rationale, really. We're missing a context why the public needs to know the salaries of royal family members in the first place. And which ones, by the way? There must be hundreds if not thousands of royals around the world, why are only 16 from 4 European countries mentioned? (And why all their middle names? Does this merely serve to ridicule them? "King Philippe of Belgium" –or "Saxe-Coburg-Gotha" if you prefer– would suffice.) Thus, the way it is framed is rather dubious, and seems to betray a particular antimonarchist POV.

Now, this is not at all to say monarchies and their costs are above criticism (I've written about republicanism myself, and quite a lot at that), but writing about it here on Wikipedia should serve to objectively inform the public on a commonly discussed topic within a set context, not to spread a particular ideology (if anyone thinks I've unfairly portrayed republicanism, they're welcome and in fact encouraged to correct me, too). It seems to me that this article is created and framed to push a particular POV, and is based on incomplete and original research. Although I think a legitimate discussion can be had on the finances of royal houses, this is not the way.

I've recently tried to give the right example in the article Monarchies in Europe#Costs. This has a clear context and limited scope, namely Europe, and it is about the total expenditure (not just the royals' salaries) of Europe's monarchical systems government compared to each other and republican ones (one should not simply critique one thing without reasonably considering the alternatives). This is an issue that is occasionally studied by experts such as the Belgian professor Herman Matthijs, and sometimes reported in (generally) reliable sources such as national newspapers or magazines, which are the kind of citations a Wikipedia entry needs. I would personally suggest the issue that the creator of this article tried to raise is best discussed there, and that this article be deleted. I would have proposed a merger of this article into Monarchies in Europe#Costs, but none of the sources provided seem to be reliable, and I think that the revelant issues pertaining to royal houses' finances are already covered in the latter article, making this one redundant. I'd like to hear other people's views and suggestions on how to solve this. Greetings, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:47, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:22, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:22, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:22, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:22, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because, as the nominator says, the sources do not appear to be particularly reliable, or measure the same criteria. The overall figures will be adequately covered by Monarchies_in_Europe#Costs and it is likely to lead to all sorts of WP:OR to conjure up figures for individual members of royal families. Sionk (talk) 16:47, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Members of royal families in many countries receive payments and subsidies of various kinds from national tax revenues, but in most cases this is not in the form of a salary, and the form of these payments varies widely between countries, so such a comparison is meaningless. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:29, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is obviously incomplete at the moment and thus overly selective - but it seems to provide useful content, and the content that is there is sourced. Overall cost comparisons between monarchies would be meaningless since such overall figures are stated without relation to the numbers of persons receiving those sums or what the sums are for. So, the contrary to the above delete assertions is true - the narrowly targeted data that is presented in this article is likely to be more meaningful and more accessible for comparison purposes. That someone might, in the future, OR in additional figures to the article is obviously not a delete reason: every article risks OR by their very existence. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 18:57, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that this list is in any way meaningful for comparison purposes. Here in the UK nobody in the royal family receives a salary by virtue of their royal position, so we could list Queen Elizabeth II in this article against a figure of £0.00, but some of them receive other payments from the public purse, such as from the Sovereign Grant. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:57, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep List of salaries and Category:Wages and salaries show plenty of articles like this. It is clearly notable to see what people make, you helping to understand the situation better, and ample coverage about such things in each nation's media. List should be expanded, and proper references found. Dream Focus 23:07, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Category:Wages and salaries has about two articles that are very vaguely comparable (Heads of State and US Judges), the remainder are general articles about wage related issues. Sionk (talk) 10:04, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Salaries of elected offices in France, Salaries of Members of the United Kingdom Parliament, Salaries of members of the United States Congress, Salary of Government Officials in India, Federal judge salaries in the United States, List of player salaries in the NHL, List of salaries of heads of state and government, MSPs' salaries, expenses and allowances, etc. I see a lot on the List of salaries which need to be added to that category also. My point is, a lot of articles like this exists, since they get ample media coverage, and its encyclopedic to list this information. Dream Focus 18:31, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's preferable to cover this subject in articles such as Monarchy of Belgium, Monarchy of Denmark, etc., rather than in a list covering royals from all countries with monarchies. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:57, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a notable, interesting and sourced list, even though it is incomplete. My very best wishes (talk) 20:53, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. In addition, this list itself is illogical: it claims to focus on the costs of constitutional monarchy without the financial nor social benefits accruing to those countries with that system of governance. As the waggish former Queen of Netherlands once said, her role is to increase tourism and provide free media for her Holland: "It's like selling oranges." The United Kingdom keeps its royalty in part for the chance to sell stamps and to further increase the flood of American tourists. It's the net worth or net cost that matters; the gross cost of a system of government is a meaningless statistic, hence, this list fails. Bearian (talk) 18:08, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While agreeing that this should be deleted, I'm not sure about your reasons. I'm sure that we in the UK could sell just as many stamps and attract as many tourists with another national treasure, such as Bruce Forsyth or John Lydon, as head of state, so judging the net cost is not something that we can reasonably do. My objection to this article is that salary is only a small part, or no part, of even the gross cost to a nation of a royal family. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:33, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Adam9007 (talk) 18:37, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Trying to compare the salaries of royals from different countries may be misleading because not only are they (often) paid in different currencies, but there may be great variations in the additional perks, subsidies, benefits, etc. that the monarchs of different countries receive, which may be difficult to convey in a list like this. If non-European royals were added to the list, as they probably should be if the article is kept, the differences in comparability will be even more significant. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The list could list many smaller lists that show the information per country. Its just easier to keep everything here until the list grows too big, then divide it as necessary. Dream Focus 14:33, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- this data is not meaningful as it does not take into account subsidies or perks. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:13, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps that could be added. Dream Focus 19:12, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete coverage in articles is preferable to here. The list as currently exists seems to focus on a few European countries (possibly because of lack of reliable sources elsewhere) and at worst could be read as not having a neutral point of view by emphasizing those monarchies listed in Western Europe. This last point is especially concerning given the political controversy in some countries around salaries and subsidies for royals. Right now it focuses on such a small group of countries that those not familiar with how Wikipedia works could assume that these are the only countries that subsidize royal family members, which is not true, and has potential BLP and POV issues in my opinion. Delete it. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:45, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:47, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RedVoice, LLC[edit]

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

Not notable Rathfelder (talk) 08:52, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 10:57, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 10:57, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 10:57, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete – Source searches are only providing passing mentions in non-reliable sources; fails WP:N. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:59, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 17:57, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Falls short of WP:CORP. And Adoil Descended (talk) 23:14, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:48, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aamir Ali Sultan[edit]

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

It is asserted in this article that Mr Aamir Ali Sultan is a "well known playback singer". The references - such as they are - do not support this assertion.

reference 1 is an About.me website, one that anyone can write about an autobiography without any editorial oversight.
reference 2 is a ReverbNation website, one that anyone can write about an autobiography without any editorial oversight.
reference 3 is a link to the Gaana.com website, which apparently provides streaming of music of any of its subscribers.
auddi-aamir-ali-sultan.html reference 4 appears to be a link to a website that might contain music files of questionable copyright status.
reference 5 is simply a YouTube video. Anyone can post a YouTube video.
reference 6 is about an iTunes audio file. I don't know anything about iTunes.
reference 7 is again simply a YouTube video.
ad-757897s/Ye-Hindustan-Aamir-Ali-Sultan.html reference 8 appears to be a link to a website that might contain music files of questionable copyright status. Shirt58 (talk) 13:25, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 13:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 13:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 13:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. I had originally nominated it for speedy deletion, but thanks to the nominator for spelling out the problems in such detail. I can find nothing online in WP:RS in English to suggest that he meets the guidelines for WP:BIO or WP:CREATIVE. Wikishovel (talk) 14:02, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 17:56, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As documented above, the given references are poor. My searches, including the tailored Wikiproject India search, are not finding better. Fails WP:MUSICBIO, WP:BASIC. AllyD (talk) 18:32, 6 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. czar 05:57, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Summer Breeze (film)[edit]

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

non-notable Film. Fails WP:NFILM also provided citations are not from independent sources. ronaz ^Talk! 10:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:52, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFILM, as Starvision is not a reliable source. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 23:36, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 17:51, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 22:16, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It actually helps if you explain why. AFD is not a vote. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:22, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:48, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel “Sandy” Kahn[edit]

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

Despite all the claims made for him, including building a car park that might catch the wheels of landing aircraft, nothing here suggests any notability. He appears to have been involved in a great deal of construction but none seems to reflect very well on him , or indeed reflect on him at all. If he has done so much, it would seem that he has hidden his star well. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 18:28, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable real estate developer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:55, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:23, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:12, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 17:49, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a case of inherited notability. Most of the news coverage is not about the subject, but tangentially related. The subject cannot inherit notability from these. Other sources which talk about the subject are in context of the family. However, these are not useful for showing why the subject is independently notable. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:38, 9 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) 08:19, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Faiz Mohammad Khoso[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO. There is absolutely zero inherent notability in being ambassador even to a "major country ", despite this weak argument being recycled in ambassador AfDs. The sources merely confirm he held the role rather than in depth. LibStar (talk) 14:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - All references are dead. Nothing supports assertions made or notability.--Rpclod (talk) 16:12, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dead links are valid references that are harder to find. Unscintillating (talk) 05:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:25, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:25, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as he was ambassador to several countries including Norway, and diplomats are generally notable. Some further mentions for WP:V include [10], [11], [12], [13] and more. Mar4d (talk) 17:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

there is no inherent notability of being a diplomat, nor is there a free notability pass for being ambassador to Norway. LibStar (talk) 00:52, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

references are hardly indepth, is merely a one line mention, this is 2 lines in a broader article not about him, this is the same as the article you mentioned with a one line mention. WP:V is not the same as WP:N. 00:54, 6 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LibStar (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:43, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:29, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Nom that this fails WP:BIO. This also fails ANYBIO. The added references have only one line references to the subject - this is not significant coverage. Also, WP:BLP requires coverage of the topic in agreement with the core content policies, of which WP:V and WP:NOR are not fulfilled. In this case, WP:V requires that the person have significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, and this requirement is not satisfied. Without adequate coverage, presenting this person as notable is original research. There is no specific standard that applies to diplomats in WP:BIO and notability is not automatically conferred. Also fails GNG. Steve Quinn (talk) 01:50, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk 11:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Express Tribune has had a couple of good articles, one of which no one has located recently, but was used to supply the birth date, which indicates depth. The second from April 24, 2012, shows that he had retired and had been hired as a consultant for developing a Mandarin language program in a school district. [14] is short but what is there is in-depth. Even without the sources from the article we know that he was and is a prominent figure in the country. We also have two more sources from the article that were good in 2012 and for which the WP:AGF is not disputed. Naturally it would help to have a champion to search for Urdu sources. At the same time, if editors want to find a suitable merge target, it may be that no one would object. Unscintillating (talk) 04:23, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

it has been listed as a Pakistan article for deletion since 5 October. Over 3 weeks for a Pakistan Urdu speaker to come to this discussion. LibStar (talk) 15:47, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to think highly of the importance to Pakistan Urdu editors of your deletion discussion. Did you consider looking for Urdu sources yourself, and avoid the possibility that they might have other priorities? Unscintillating (talk) 16:37, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

have you looked for sources in Urdu? I've seen urdu speakers enter other AfD discussions. "Might have other priorities " indeed, perhaps they don't consider this a priority to save. Nice try. LibStar (talk) 16:54, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So the idea of looking for Urdu sources is a "nice try", but not something you'd want to do? Why is that? Unscintillating (talk) 17:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you not looked for sources in Urdu? LibStar (talk) 17:18, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't refused to look for sources in Urdu, so the premise is incorrect. The statement to which you are responding is, "Naturally it would help to have a champion to search for Urdu sources." And you decided it would be a good idea to start talking about hypothetical Pakistan Urdu editors. Since they are not here, one way you could solve your own concern is to look for Urdu sources. I continue to not know why you are talking about the need for Urdu sources, but won't look for them. The starting point for anyone to do this is this topic's name in Urdu. Can you provide that much and set it up as a Find sources AfD template? Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 17:47, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

you certainly love directing people to do what you want in Wikipedia. LibStar (talk) 17:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is hardly any significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. There is also no inherent notability in just being an ambassador. Per WP:WHYN for a standalone article, we specifically require coverage in reliable secondary sources so that we are able to write an NPOV article. If we look at the third party sources, the coverage is limited to brief mentions. I do not see any suitable merge/redirect target so I will go for a delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:19, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many things wrong there. (1) WHYN is rationale, not part of the guideline, and appears to be a leftover from a long-running attempt to add it as part of the guideline, an attempt that failed. (2) WP:N does not require the existence of sufficient NPOV material to write an article. It can't, because WP:N is not a content guideline. It says this several times, for example the WP:N nutshell says, "The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article." (3) This particular article adds value with the material that it has. (4) There were additional sources in the article. Have you looked at all of them? Unscintillating (talk) 14:45, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the rationale is why we have the guideline and I use it because it helps to follow the spirit of the guideline. While WP:N doesn't determine the content of the article, it does stop us from having an article if a content policy cannot be adhered to from existing sources. In this particular case, there is little coverage in the way of secondary sources. If we go by GNG alone, the subject wouldn't pass it
Tribune 3 sentence coverage + a quote. Another tribune is very brief, is actually in the context of programme and the actual content about the subject is limited to 3 sentences
Nation.com.ok One line mention
Dawn One line + quote

There is very little over here which could help us write an article. The useful content that the subject was an ambassador to 3 countries could be simply mentioned in the respective bilateral relations articles. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just what did you think I meant when I said "the sources in the article"? In addition to the three in the current article, there is a fourth reference used to create the article.

Ambassador to Tunisia MOFA, Pakistan. Retrieved 27 March 2011
Ambassador to Tunisia MOFA, Pakistan. Retrieved 20 September 2012
"Faiz Mohammad appointed ambassador for Tunis". PakTribune. October 4, 2006. Retrieved 30 October 2012.
Staff (July 3, 2010). "Ambassador-designates call on Zardari". Daily Times (Pakistan). Retrieved 30 October 2012.

Unscintillating (talk) 16:37, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I had looked them up already

Ambassador to Tunisia MOFA, Pakistan. Retrieved 27 March 2011 - This is short CV on MOFA embassy sub-website and the source is not a third party source useful for notability
Ambassador to Tunisia MOFA, Pakistan. Retrieved 20 September 2012 - One line coverage
"Faiz Mohammad appointed ambassador for Tunis". PakTribune. October 4, 2006. Retrieved 30 October 2012. - Website doesn't seem to be a reliable source (online only news site with no indication of editorial control). Also a routine announcement with brief information about the subject's previous posts
Staff (July 3, 2010). "Ambassador-designates call on Zardari". Daily Times (Pakistan). Retrieved 30 October 2012. - One line coverage

None of these helps either. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:57, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Government webpages of a democracy are not primary the way that the same page would be for an employee bio in private industry. And as for writing an article, this is a wealth of reliable material. And, it has not been considered in this AfD up until now. Unscintillating (talk) 18:47, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Doesn't seem to be a reliable source?" Do you have evidence? Unscintillating (talk) 18:47, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are the only editor at this AfD that claims to have seen this webpage. Please verify that you can see this webpage. For reference, see [15]. Unscintillating (talk) 18:47, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On a separate note, I prefer that a list of ambassadors be kept on the article about bilateral relations. For example Pakistan–Tunisia relations could mention the ambassadors listed here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:20, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This could work as mini-bios cross-linked as needed as the career diplomats move from post to post, if editors want to do it. The pattern has been discussed recently at WT:Deletion policy. Unscintillating (talk) 14:45, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an under-sourced vanity page. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:29, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@K.e.coffman: Unscintillating (talk) 23:00, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article has had nine inline citations for six sentences since the start of this AfD. With 1.5 citations per sentence, IMO that statistic is an unusually well-sourced article. For four of those citations, Lemongirl1942 is the only one to have claimed to have seen the article. Have you? Unscintillating (talk) 22:59, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This topic is a diplomat for one of the world's nuclear powers, and in one case was the representative to another nuclear power, neighboring China. Why do you think this is a vanity page? Unscintillating (talk) 22:59, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources discuss why the subject is notable; i.e. the subject knows Chinese -- so what? There's no inherent notability for ambassadors. If there's disagreement about that, this should be discussed at the WP:NPOL page. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:22, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is still no answer to the question of why this is supposedly a "vanity page", or the relevance of that assertion to this discussion. Nor is there an answer to the question of why 1.5 inline citations per sentence is an "under-sourced" article. Wikipedia notability does not require that an article discuss Wikipedia's opinion of "why" a topic is notable...rather that is for talk page discussion. Wikipedia notability is not a content guideline, as per WP:ARTN. Nor do sources have to discuss "why" Wikipedia considers a topic notable. Unscintillating (talk) 19:05, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This topic is a diplomat for one of the world's nuclear powers, and in one case was the representative to another nuclear power, neighboring China. this is not a criterion for notability. LibStar (talk) 01:33, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is neither a criterion for notability nor is it not a criterion for notability. Unscintillating (talk) 19:05, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 17:47, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Well, he exists. And that's just it. Nothing in the article and none that I see in sources submitted above and on Google.com.pk suggests that he is anywhere nearer to WP:GNG or any other notability criterion. Anup [Talk] 14:35, 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 redirect to Danny_Dyer#Personal_life. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:48, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dani Dyer[edit]

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

Non notable actress, No evidence of notability, Fails NACTOR & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 17:32, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not yet notable as an actress. Roles have either been minor or in low budget films. Mainly known simply for being her father's daughter, with a fair bit of tabloid/celebrity mag coverage, but nothing that convinces me that an article is justified at this time. --Michig (talk) 18:36, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Actress who has not yet had enough roles to make her notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:53, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:34, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:34, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:34, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, added women project to article talkpage so participants are notified of this afd. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:36, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Danny_Dyer#Personal_life. So far all she's had are minor parts here and there, but none that have led to her getting any sort of recognition for said roles. It seems like the entirety of the coverage out there about her is about her being her father's daughter, so it would be reasonable enough for this to redirect to the personal life section of her father's page, with maybe a sentence about her acting in some of his films. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:17, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops sorry not sure why I hadn't stated it above but I have no objections to redirecting if preffered, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 14:53, 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 speedy delete. G4, recreation of Primary water. Randykitty (talk) 18:51, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Primary Water Institute[edit]

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

The first, entirely unsourced, part of the article is about a non-notable company - I can only find a handful of press releases and a few passing mentions in WP:FRINGE sources. The rest of the article seems to be the recently deleted article on "primary water" in its entirety. Kolbasz (talk) 17:08, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a thinly-disguised attempt to replace a recently-deleted article that was discussed to a figurative and literal death under a different title. Consider speedy delete under WP:G4 or WP:SNOW. Lithopsian (talk) 17:23, 6 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) 06:49, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Johansson (professor)[edit]

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

declined prod. Looking at his CV, nothing to suggest he meets WP:PROF LibStar (talk) 16:05, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:25, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:25, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zero indication of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:41, 9 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as I'm not finding better, and there's nothing here for WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF. SwisterTwister talk 20:21, 9 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. The sources added by Bogger demonstrate notability. Cerebellum (talk) 18:27, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joe (website)[edit]

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

non-notable website; someone removed the speedy because why? --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:43, 6 November 2016 (UTC) Tagishsimon (talk) 14:43, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Niall McGarry. The website is not totally non-notable, but appears to be mentioned mainly in sources about its founder. Adam9007 (talk) 15:01, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 15:11, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 15:11, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 15:11, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

have added a number of references. Could you re-assess? Bogger (talk) 11:27, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Niall McGarry. A couple of lines of sourced content in that article is sufficient. Joseph2302 15:12, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

have added a number of references. Could you re-assess? Bogger (talk) 11:27, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notablility: Mentioned in 150+ other articles as a source. Employer of (semi-)notable people Dion Fanning, Tony Barrett, Ledley King. Clicking on reference with Joe.ie as a publisher should not go to Niall McGarry no more than clicking on a reference from The Sun should go to Rupert Murdock. Adding references today. Bogger (talk) 15:16, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have anything approaching meeting Wikipedia:Notability (web)? --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:23, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It is used as a source without explanation by newpapers, broadcasters and other news sites. On the first 3 pages alone of [this google search] which excludes joe.ie, joe.co.uk, Her.ie and Sportsjoe.ie, Joe.ie is cited by Newspapers:Irish Times, Evening Echo, Broadcasters:TV3 Ireland, Sunday Business Post, Other websites:Irish Central, and by its direct rivals DailyEdge.ie, BreakingNews.ie and The42.ie Bogger (talk) 15:56, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be confusing being a reliable source (if we charitably suppose that it is such a thing), with something that has been written about ... which is what the notability guideline calls for, and which we also see in WP:GNG. That you can find weblinks pointing to it does not establish its notability. Still. Good luck with making the case. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:14, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, these are just quotes of things they've said, not in depth coverage about them, as required by WP:GNG. Joseph2302 18:45, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Article with in depth coverage about Joe.ie from the "paper of record" in which the founder is mentioned only in passing Bogger (talk) 02:06, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The most interesting thing anyone can find to say about this purportedly notable site is "The Advertising Standards Authority for Ireland upheld a complaint about an ad for Sprite featured on the site". Why has this not just been A7'd? ‑ Iridescent 22:20, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You'll be wanting to take that question up with Adam9007, Iridescent - [16] - though see also User_talk:Adam9007#Notability_is_not_inherited and probably weep. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the last time, that is not relevant because A7 is not about notability. Adam9007 (talk) 22:58, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Astonishingly enough, I'm aware of what the deletion policy says. If you seriously think "hosted a Sprite advert" is a credible claim of importance and significance, I respectfully suggest that your opinions are so out of sync with Wikipedia policy and custom & practice that you should probably stay away from anything related to deletion. ‑ Iridescent 23:03, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Iridescent: I said "hosted a Sprite advert" is a claim of significance?????? What???? Where did I say that? Adam9007 (talk) 23:33, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as Bogger has more than established notability, which, to answer the nom's question, is why the speedy tag was removed-nom should check edit history before asking simpleton questions.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:31, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, because edits after 6 November were viewable on the 6th November, Kintetsubuffalo. Do nyou go out of your way to be stupid, or does it come naturally. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:31, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The guy who removed your speedy tag left the reason why in his edit summary. Those show up immediately, dipstick. Also, "you" has no "n" at the beginning, and questions end in question marks. Who's stupid after all?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:35, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, I remember: "Founded by a notable person". That's a sure fire keep, isn't it, given Wikipedia:Notability_(web)#No_inherited_notability. But don't let a little thing like a notability guideline get in the way of your self-righteous sanctimony. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:41, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tagishsimon: You need to understand that removing a CSD tag is not the same as !voting keep on an AfD. It is not uncommon for someone to decline CSD and use another deletion process, or !vote delete if someone else takes it to AfD. Also, the notability guidelines do not apply to A7, as A7 actually states. Adam9007 (talk) 22:17, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Niall McGarry. Notability independent of McGarry not established by sources I can find.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:59, 14 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. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 22:44, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SF12 (Judith Merril anthology)[edit]

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

No references provided to demonstrate notability of this compilation. While the title includes some notable authors and has a notable editor, the compilation itself doesn't appear to meet WP:NBOOKS or WP:GNG. I'm not finding substantial third-party coverage to deliver references that demonstrate notability. Mikeblas (talk) 15:04, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is the greatest science fiction anthology ever complied! DominicCapuano (talk) 15:16, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. ISFDB shows contemporaneous reviews in leading genre periodicals; it was also reviewed in National Review. Merril's anthologies were regularly reviewed in general newspapers and magazines, which are note readily indexed online. It's discussed in books like Judith Merril: A Critical Study, The Oxford Handbook of Science Fiction, and Better to Have Loved: The Life of Judith Merril. Tracking down relevant print coverage from the time of publication is difficult, but what turns up in even a cursory online sweep is enough to assure the subject meets the GNG. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 00:42, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:51, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:51, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, added women writers project to article talkpage so participants are notified of afd. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:53, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG, [this shows] it was reviewed by The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction, Analog, National Review, and the Saturday Review - "This is one of the best of the annual anthologies that Merril has edited, her cogent and informative notes on the authors adding to the pleasure of reading fresh and inventive science fiction."[17], and Bud Webster wrote of SF12 "This book was, as I look back on it now, a turning point for me."[18]. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, have notified the article creator, DominicCapuano, of this afd (naughty nominator, and an admin too! tsk, tsk) Coolabahapple (talk) 03:19, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you Coolabahapple Wait till you see the other volumes in the series! DominicCapuano (talk) 15:16, 9 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. MBisanz ^talk 16:45, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Bleitrach[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACADEMIC: Has a small number of academic citations per Google Scholar, and no other criteria of the guideline are apparently met—nor is there support for notability for her political activities. —swpb^T 13:05, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 13:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 13:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 13:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The nomination baldly states, "nor is there support for notability for her political activities". I am mystified as to what nominator means.
Practically none of the individuals the wikipedia covers in standalone biographical article have had their wikipedia notability established with a single notability factor -- like winning a Victoria Cross. For practically all these individuals their notability is established by adding up all their notability factors.
This nomination cannot make a blanket dismissal of the fact Bleitrach was a long-serving member of the French Communist Party's Central Committee.
I don't know if she fully measures up to WP:NACADEMIC, or merely comes close. But, if nominator claims she doesn't why does a google books search on "Danielle Bleitrach" trigger over 2000 hits? Geo Swan (talk) 18:23, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We do, in fact, use single factors in the sense that we identify a notability guideline that one satisfies, and yes, there is one for WP:POLITICIAN. Her position would not seem to satisfy it per se. I have not done any homework on this article yet, but a quick glance shows that there are some obvious warning flags, especially that it is entirely self-sourced. Agricola44 (talk) 18:58, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Everything you've said about the politics angle is correct (nothing about party committee membership, no matter how long, satisfies WP:POLITICIAN), and as for the academic angle, I would point out the near-worthlessness of a GBooks search that doesn't exclude the subject's own works. This search cuts the results by 3/4, and reveals some more academic citations, but no apparent biographical coverage. And I don't know what guideline this "adding up of notability factors" concept comes from. WP:BASIC allows for combining sources, but so far we have no independent sources offering biographical coverage to combine. @Geo Swan: I'm getting tired of seeing "keep" arguments that ignore the guidelines—I hope it's not something you make a habit of. If you disagree with the guidelines, there are venues to address that. —swpb^T 19:52, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not yet met WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:35, 20 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Does not meet any notability guidelines for academics and her political roles are not enough to meet the guidelines for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:38, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Had a chance to take a closer look. Agree that political roles do not confer notability per se. She has published quite a few books, but a WorldCat search indicates that none have more than double-digit holdings, which is pretty small by our conventions. It is true that these are in french, so that may affect the numbers, but another factor that we usually count significantly in such cases is whether any books have been translated...I don't see that. GS shows a few citations (h-index 5), but that is far below our academic threshold. Don't see anything in newspapers and such, so probably no real argument for GNG either. Agricola44 (talk) 15:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Daniel Bleitrach is a noted French marxist academic and sociologist, of Jewish origin, born in 1938. Her Wikipedia biography does her no credit and needs to be cleaned up, rewritten, expanded. I have only just started editing it and will continue to do so in the following days. --Elnon (talk) 02:46, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The WorldCat numbers are actually pretty low by our AfD convention. Agricola44 (talk) 23:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Keep -- appears to have decent library holdings per WorldCat: link. I'm not an expert in using WorldCat Identities, but it was explained to me at User talk:DGG#Worldcat holdings that WC does not do a good job of indexing non U.S. based libraries and works that are not in English. With this in mind, this appears passable. Sources also possibly exist in French or off line. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:24, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WorldCat is the most comprehensive book database there is. I already commented above that the French language of her publications may slant a little low, we would look for something to have been translated...that would definitely help for notability. I have not found such yet. Agricola44 (talk) 23:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the balance of things, the subject appears to be notable. It also helps that a French Wiki article exists: link. The article is not in the best of shapes, but the fact that someone bothered to create it suggests to me that there are possibly enough sources out there to support an en Wiki article. I would be hesitant to delete an a page on a subject that is covered in an inter language Wiki (other than English). K.e.coffman (talk) 07:50, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To state the obvious, the "possible" existence of better sources, and the existence of an article on another wiki (which is itself tagged for lack of sources), carry zero weight (see WP:MUSTBESOURCES, WP:OTHERLANGS). Please do not use these or any of the other flawed arguments laid out in Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions; as ever, better sources need to be demonstrated if the article is to be kept. —swpb^T 12:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@K.e.coffman: Are you now saying that Wikipedia internal references to itself and speculation that there may be "possibly enough sources out there" are your arguments for "keep"? I have done some checking an could not find any such sources. You might be able to find them, but absent that, your bald speculation alone is not convincing. Agricola44 (talk) 15:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

I have expressed my opinion via my !vote based on my prior experience at AfDs and I would appreciate not being badgered. As far as coverage / sources are concerned, here's a 200+ book apparently dedicated to the subjet: Une Vie pour lutter: entretiens avec Danielle Bleitrach (1984) ("A life to fight: inteviews with Danielle Bleitrach"). Again, this is indicative of the subject being notable IMO. I will let the community decide on whether this is indeed so. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:43, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You seriously need to revise your interpretation of "badgering". Taking apart faulty reasoning isn't badgering, it's exactly how AfDs are supposed to work. Maybe you've seen reasoning like that on other AfDs, but now you know better. Now to the new case: that book appears to list Bleitrach as an author, which rather undermines its independence. —swpb^T 17:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Debating is not badgering. Indeed, substantive debate (what is going right now) is the very purpose of AfD, not just !voting and prancing off to the next task. As for the book just mentioned, Une Vie pour lutter, WorldCat and Google Books likewise list Bleitrach as an author. It's a little strange, given the title, but the fact that she seems to have had some role in authorship and that the book is held in <50 libraries worldwide would seem to be another non-starter. Sorry. Agricola44 (talk) 18:59, 24 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SST flyer 12:12, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment OK, let's calm down everyone. It is bad for Wikipedia if some of the people who actually critically evaluate notability at AfDs start sniping at each other. Coming back to the topics, here are some of my thoughts

For notability, any one criterion has to be fully satisfied. Half of one and half another doesn't help. Coverage can be added up for GNG but we do not add up notability criteria itself.
GNG is hard to satisfy here, although it might be worth looking into French newspaper archives
It is true that the subject won't pass WP:NPOL. Notability has to be demonstrated using another criterion
WP:PROF is harder to satisfy here considering the low citation rate. None of the other criteria at WP:NACADEMIC are satisfied as well
The best bet is WP:AUTHOR. WorldCat holdings do not guarantee notability, but are a good indication that the subject might be significant. Over here the fact that the subject's books are in French but are still kept in multiple libraries is an indication of significance. I would prefer to research more at this point rather than go with a keep or delete. There is a good chance that reviews of her books might exist. Some of them were also in the pre-internet age, so newspaper archives need to be looked into. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:09, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I don't think google scholar/books searches for her name does justice to the number of citations she has and her impact. Consider a books search and a scholar search for her book, "Classe Ouvriere et Social-Democratie", which google scholar thinks is cited 33 times. Reading through the results of that google book search as well as google book searches using other works of hers, I feel she is notable. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:53, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Normally one looks for many hundreds of citations to pass WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:46, 28 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

I suppose in hard sciences, but I'm not sure. In any case, I think the point that her impact is understated by google scholar citations stands, whether it meets your criteria or not.

Citations compare like-with like, i.e. with people engaged in the same activities. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:19, 28 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

I did notice that her seven books from her bibliography is included in a book which is in its entirety a collection of social science bibliographies of 378 authors [19]. I can't exactly judge how good of a source that is, but it seems somewhat reliable. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:27, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I clicked all the way through the GoogleBooks link you supplied and counted 24 citations. As Xxan said, this is a very small number according to our long-established AfD conventions for PROF. I think you have the same problem as criticizing WorldCat as not being representative of institutional holdings of her books. GB is the most comprehensive source for this information. Is it just possible that she doesn't have as much impact as you think/like? Agricola44 (talk) 22:53, 28 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

I agree that it is hard to judge whether or not an academic has had a notable impact. I'm not an expert in Marxist sociology, and can't say for sure whether or not Bleitrach has had an impact. It is possible that she hasn't had a notable impact, but my reading of works referencing her is that she has. I agree, I could be wrong. It is possible that she hasn't had a notable impact. Smmurphy^(Talk) 23:25, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All you have to do is look at her GS citations and compare them with those of other Marxist historians for example Eric Hobsbawm, who has around 50,000. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:58, 29 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

AfD isn't about comparison, per se, and !votes aren't ignored because someone's reasoning is opposed. It looks to me like the article continues to improve (which is a great outcome, I hope you agree), and I still !vote keep. Smmurphy^(Talk) 23:37, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. 24 is minuscule. —swpb^T 12:39, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me Danielle Bleitrach is a sociologist, not a historian. --Elnon (talk) 19:32, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sociologists get higher cites, so the comparison is worse. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:32, 1 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Keep - There are numerous notability guidelines. Cursory Google News search indicates WP:BASIC met to start in addition to WP:ACADEMIC. Don't badger. Hmlarson (talk) 03:57, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it doesn't, as thoroughly broken down above. Unless you have some new argument to add, the closing admin will ignore your vote. —swpb^T 12:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article does not establish that there are adequate reliable independent sources about her to sustain an article. French academics tend to generate a lot of more or less superficial printed matter by and about them almost as a matter of course, so a closer look at the quality and nature of the sources is indispensable, and the discussion above does not really do that. Sandstein 23:07, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've found and am adding to the entry ~~four~~five reviews of books she co-authored--one longer one from an academic journal and three shorter ones from Le Monde Diplomatique, ETA: and a fourth middle-sized one from Le Monde Diplo (Innisfree987 (talk) 16:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)), all of which I found without delving into paywalled or pre-Internet-era sources. Le Monde Diplomatique only counts for one source for notability (rightly, in my opinion, as I'd like to see more perspectives represented in the entry), but if LMD has reviewed (at least) ~~three~~four of someone's books, to me it's a foregone conclusion that other reliable sources have reviewed some of them too. The entry needs more work but I don't think it's a deletion candidate. Innisfree987 (talk) 16:03, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh goodness. I seem to have missed completely that there was already a list of independent, reliably sourced "Reviews of the author's contributions" within the entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Danielle_Bleitrach&oldid=747485357 It included two I mentioned and four more I hadn't found yet. Work reviewed in Le Monde Diplo, La Voix du Nord, La Pensée, Les Annales, and still more clears the notability hurdles easily to me, whether GNG or AUTHOR. As an editorial matter I think it's vastly preferable that we convert these refs to inline citations match with the entry text they support (since, clearly, it was too easy to overlook them as they stand!), and inadvertently I've already started on that while reffing up the entry from my google search, so I'll continue to delete dupes as I go and then delete that subsection, but in the meantime, I am more than satisfied we have plenty to found a solid entry. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:35, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: clear indicia of notability. Article needs work, but quality issues are independent of notability. This article passes GNG. Montanabw^(talk) 19:58, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete For 2 reasons. The first is the claims that she is important as a political figure, but she held only minor offices in a Party that was in marked decline in the decades when she participated. The second claim is the impact of her scholarchip,but that impact of her scholarship has not been demonstrated. She appears to be a good example of the phenomenon of Francophone scholars whose work has impact only within the French language scholarly community. There are, of course, Francophone scholars whose work has impact on scholarship in other language communities, including English. But Bleitrach appears to write within a French Marxist tradition that forms a walled garden encompassing a community of French Marxists, and her work appears to be of near-zero interest to economists, political scientists or historians elsewhere. (When the work of French Marxists journalists/politicians/scholars attracts outside interest, it gets translated) Article was created in 2011 by translating the French article; only 1 article links to it. Before the AFD, article got 2 or 3 page hits per day. Therefore, it seem appropriate to have a French article about her, but no an article on the English Wikipedia.E.M.Gregory (talk) 07:56, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That she is of interest in"the Francophone" community is adequate, we don't require international stature, or at least if we do not require it of American or British people, we do not want to hold someone who is French to a double standard. If she's notable enough for you to argue there should be an article on fr. wiki, then there also should be an article on en. wiki; I do not agree with your logic on that one. Montanabw^(talk) 05:33, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Will press on this point a little because it's relevant to some work I'd planned, so I want to make sure I understand policy here--I did not understand any of the guidelines to require international attention; my experience at AfD is that national stature is regularly viewed as sufficient. Likewise I actually thought en-wiki encouraged the writing of articles on topics outside the anglophone world (hence WMF's big investment in the translation tool: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Content_translation), as long as it's sourced to our usual standards of reliable secondary material. Sum of all human knowledge and all that jazz. No? Innisfree987 (talk) 14:22, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article is relevant, but you might want to go dig up more source material per WP:HEY to make a stronger case. The "notable for France but not for English wiki" argument is, IMHO, not an accurate statement of the guidelines. Montanabw^(talk) 05:33, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Subject seems to miss NACADEMIC, NPOLITICIAN, and NBASIC, but perhaps the book reviews might make this a ppass of NAUTHOR and this aspect should perhaps be discussed in more detail. Randykitty (talk) 11:58, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 11:58, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject may fail all four SNGs mentioned by narrow margins (or may pass them), but the cumulative coverage appears to satisfy the GNG, and the delete !votes focus on the SNGs and don't make a solid case against her meeting the GNG. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 22:41, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to note the significant number of secondary sources added to this entry since the last delete ivote; and also mention three more I've found engaging her commentary on Dieudonne, from Rue 89 (and again a year later), FranceInfo, and the New York Times. Mine are all things I found without delving into paywalled or pre-internet sources.

While I'm here I'll also reiterate that I think it imperative we take non-anglophone sources and perspectives as seriously as we do those in English. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:30, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources provided show she passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:40, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The subject appears to fail WP:ACADEMIC, WP:NAUTHOR, WP:POLITICIAN. I am not very convinced at the idea that someone can be a little bit of all of these things, and therefore pass some combination. In any case, that seems to be a radical interpretation of policy. I could easily be convinced with better secondary sources that she passes GNG, but those in the article do not. The few independent secondary sources cited in the article do not rise to the level of "significant coverage". Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:44, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Some of her books translated into Spanish [20], [21]. The Berthold Brecht and Fritz Lang in French and German, held by major U.S universities [22], [23] . Also on Open library [24] and a number of databases worldwide [25] .--DDupard (talk) 11:29, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Google Book search gives 1,550 hits, tons of other books reference her. --Soman (talk) 16:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. That she's a Frenchie commie pinko doesn't matter. What matters is her books are well-read and held in many libraries. That is good for either WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR. Bearian (talk) 18:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Touché!--DDupard (talk) 07:51, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:10, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Weak delete: As per User:Sławomir Biały above. Overall, the subject fails WP:BIO and appears to be a little bit of everything without meeting any specific criteria. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:21, 24 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. Wizardman 15:50, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1992 Toronto Blue Jays broadcasters[edit]

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

Broadcast information is already in the yearly article 1992 Toronto Blue Jays. So are the game logs. A split just to show what station broadcast which isn't necessary. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:55, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:56, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:56, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:56, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:56, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely unnecessary and unwarranted of an article. User has also created 1992 Toronto Blue Jays Spring training and 1993 Toronto Blue Jays broadcasters, which I think could be grouped in this deletion. Penale52 (talk) 12:16, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unnecessary, the information can be put (if not already there) on the main season article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this and the one mentioned by Penale52 Should be and already is in the season article. Created by a block evading editor. -DJSasso (talk) 16:55, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 1992 Toronto Blue Jays season. It's a plausible search term, but the information belongs in the season article. One of the two articles mentioned by Penale52 has already been redirected there. Smartyllama (talk) 20:00, 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. Sandstein 20:56, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Strawberry 100% characters[edit]

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

It's been a while but the article has no references and contains a ton of characters that could easily be summarized and merged into the main article. Or just deleted as the main article has the five main characters. It's a medium-length manga series (167 chapters) with anime (about 12 episodes) but not much notability to cross over to other media so it would be difficult to write up individual character development, reception and legacy. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:52, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: according to anime cast & staff list, only 5 main characters: [26] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:20, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:53, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seeing this is fully un-sourced WP:OR I would say WP:TNT applies. I see five adaptations for the series so it shouldn't be too hard to try and sum them up via the main characters on the article Strawberry 100%. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:28, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 22:42, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:13, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 11:12, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:LISTN. N. GASIETAtalk 18:38, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How does it meet LISTN? There aren't any articles that discuss this particular listing of characters. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 07:22, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Content wise this is completely unsourced and if there are only 5 main characters they can be discussed on the franchise article. No case made by the article as to why it should exist independently of the parent article.SephyTheThird (talk) 20:03, 14 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) –Davey2010^Talk 00:34, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PATENTEM[edit]

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

Article about a product for which there seemz to be no available independent sources. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 12:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A link to the article with video from Ukrainian TV chanel about PATENTEM is added. Is it an independent source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JJUlysses (talk • contribs) 12:49, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Probably yes. However, we need more sources to estabilish notability. I found nothing about this Czech company (and its product) in Czech media. Certainly not good sign... Sources like newspaper/magazine articles (eg. product reviews), books (not published by said company) etc. can be considered independent and reliable. Sources published by users (user reviews) or sites without editorial oversight aren´t reliable sources for Wikipedia purposes (we may use these for verifitability, but not notability). Pavlor (talk) 09:19, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 15:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:16, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 11:06, 6 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:22, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Roxy Suicide[edit]

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

Previously deleted article that fails WP:GNG and is self promotion. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:47, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources to show notability. {MordeKyle} ☢ 20:28, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are indeed sources to show notability with all due respect. I am only getting started with this article but even at this early stage, it is noteworthy and the references are credible--Thank You Penny. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penny Rocklane (talk • contribs) 21:18, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have reviewed some of the links for references in my article and discovered a few were not linking properly. I have since corrected this and hope this help to get my article verified. Thank You! Penny ([[User talk:Penny Rocklane#top|talk] —Preceding undated comment added 23:16, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:25, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 11:04, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete perhaps a case of WP:TOOSOON but the few published sources I can find are insufficient to establish notability for this band. Mere PROMO.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:56, 14 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) 06:49, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Business Expo Center[edit]

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

Non-notable warehouse/banquet hall with COI and promotional issues. Only coverage found is local coverage, fails general and organization notability guidelines. James (^talk/_contribs) 06:10, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:56, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:56, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:56, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Very promotional in nature and non-notable place. -- Dane2007 ^talk 14:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 10:59, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concur with nom. Non-notable conference center. Refs are either dead, don't mention, or just routine mentions that some event was held there. MB 22:36, 6 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) 06:49, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Billy J. Smart[edit]

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

This inventor doesn't satisfy WP:BIO. Gets a minor mention in a BBC article,[27] to go with the existing Daily Mail reference, but that's about it. This may be the same guy as the Billy-Jay Smart who has a few unnotable patents,[28] as the article mentions an automated boat docking system. He can't WP:INHERIT notability from his father, Billy Smart Jr., or his grandfather, Billy Smart Sr. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:27, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one source is never enough to pass GNG, which requires multiple sources. His grandfather is probably notable, but that article needs more and better sources, but is a different issue than this article, half of which is a coatrack to talk about his grandfather.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 12:19, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 10:56, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, willing to reconsider that if anyone differs and can find more sources than I did. in addition to the lone source already in article, my search found only [[29]]. In sum, he appears to be what the article claims: a guy who inherited a fortune and is a real estate investor. for all I know he could be an extraordinarily wealthy and powerful investor, the sort we should have an article about. It is, however, hard to say much about him since when it comes to seeking press coverage, he's no Donald J. Trump.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:26, 7 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:17, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Silence[edit]

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

~~This would be more suitable for a draft, that can be later moved into an actual article. See WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL.~~ TheKaphox T 12:05, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by nominator - new info about album released (WP:WDAFD). TheKaphox T 20:44, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The album title was announced by the band and the release date. I did move the page but I think that now the article is suitable. User:Murilo_Grillo 19:51, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:39, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the renaming of the article has meant it has fallen off the deletion sorting lists – this AfD now needs to be renamed to Golden Silence. Richard3120 (talk) 23:03, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Richard3120: I have now moved the AfD from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Upcoming The Narrative second studio album per your comment. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 23:59, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources in the article appear to be fine for WP:NALBUM, and WP:CRYSTAL does not apply. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:02, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 10:54, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Seems to have media coverage on the announcement of the new album. With a confirmed release date, this article can stick around, and we can see if it is still notable in December. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 23:09, 6 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 to delete, ignoring anything by the blocked user:AManInWikipedia. I don't think I have seen so much vote manipulation. Many thanks to those who saw the vandalism and sorted it out. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 15:42, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Brittain (entrepreneur)[edit]

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

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

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

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

The subject is primarily notably for his alleged association with IsAnybodyDown? (which he has from time-to-time denied). This "revenge porn" website is notable for a number of reasons, the subject of *this* article is notable primarily for his association with IsAnyBodyDown and not for any other reason. On the flipside, there is a mention of his new venture Dryvying which certainly doesn't fit notability guidelines by itself. I think that either Craig Brittain or IsAnyBodyDown is notable, probably not both, and given apparent claims that Mr Brittain is not connected with the revenge port site, then I would suggest deleting THIS article. Shritwod (talk) 21:39, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: there is nothing that this individual is notable for that is not better covered by IsAnybodyDown? (which has already survived its own AFD attempt, and text copied from which formed the basis of this article.) Dryvyng is not a functioning rideshare company at this point; its website is a redirect to an investor pitch deck, and what coverage there has been has basically been of the "look, the folks who did IsAnybodyDown are trying another business, but their rep is following them" sort. We can redirect this to the company article if need be. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:52, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong, speedy keep and merge: Plenty of sources indicate that the subject has achieved personal notability, and that the old article IsAnybodyDown? should be merged with the new article Craig Brittain (entrepreneur). As the subject has received coverage from Business Insider, Fusion (TV channel) and Adland as has his company Dryvyng, the body of sources mentioning his name (plus the fact that the subject is being mentioned in the present) indicates that he meets the criteria for notability. The old article IsAnybodyDown? should be redirected to the new article Craig Brittain (entrepreneur) and all of its contents should be retained. AManInWikipedia (talk) 21:54, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a point of fact, no, the Adland source (which has a half-paragraph on a tweet from Dryvyng) does not mention his name. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:44, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It establishes Dryvyng, the company, as a separate event without mention of any other events. Involvement in multiple, sustained and ongoing events means the subject meets WP:GNG, WP:NOTPROMOTION, and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. AManInWikipedia (talk) 23:06, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An aside: Does "Dryvyng" actually exist as a legal entity (apart from its Twitter account)? Seems to me that there's a fair amount of WP:CRYSTALBALL going on re:"Dryvyng", it was announced in 2015 (a year ago) but hasn't launched. Yet.

In my opinion Brittain has little notability apart from IsAnybodyDown? Merge the pertinent content into the IAD article. If Brittain becomes notable enough for a standalone article, his article could then be resurrected. And "mentions" are not an indication of notability - in-depth content in multiple reliable sources is. Shearonink (talk) 01:29, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (I initially proposed a redirect -- after delete -- to IsAnybodyDown?, but apparently the subject has denied the connection at times, so it does not make sense to redirect). There's no need for two articles covering the same material. The site is more notable than the founder. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:46, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The "site vs. founder" is a false argument being used to slander the subject of the article and squat by potentially paid editors and ArbCom needs to investigate the potential of paid editing/conflict of interest regardless of the results of this vote. At this point anyone who is voting "delete" is suspect. Don't take it personally, ArbCom just has work to do to investigate paid editing/CoI/article-squatting.AManInWikipedia (talk) 21:04, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not taken personally at all - any editor having concerns about this alleged slander and asserted "squat" and paid editing/conflict of interest should take their concerns to whatever WP noticeboard they deem appropriate. Shearonink (talk) 22:01, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, by all means :-) . K.e.coffman (talk) 22:07, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, please, trot out the evidence! --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:49, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the majority of edits to the article are made by the same 5 editors is a huge red flag. ArbCom needs to investigate, personally, and all editors involved should be required to present their personal details, including their login information for the email addresses associated with their accounts, so that Wikipedia can look through all of their emails to see if a conflict is occurring. After all, the current news cycle has shown us that the best way to expose collusion and conflict of interest is by revealing all of the emails of the parties involved. AManInWikipedia (talk) 13:47, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There is currently a WP:CANVASS attempt for keeping this article going on on Twitter. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:06, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There is currently a WP:CANVASS attempt for deleting it going on right here. AManInWikipedia (talk) 13:39, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I am unaware of any on-wiki or off-wiki contacts regarding "deleting it going on right here". I have not been contacted about this article by any other editor asking for me to edit a certain way or whatnot - I edit as I wish and I comment as I wish. Shearonink (talk) 15:28, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No paid editor would openly say they're being paid to edit in a biased way, so your statement is pointless. AManInWikipedia (talk) 19:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show any evidence of said canvassing? --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt (was comment) - ~~I'm not taking a view here, since he does seem to have been covered in media a lot, but~~ He doesn't seem to be notable for anything other than IAD and doesn't seem to have been extensively profiled in his own right. Also, calling him an "entrepreneur" is absurd given lack of evidence of (legal) business activity. As a second choice if this is kept, move to a different title, like "Craig Brittain (revenge porn)". Given how childish AMIW has been and is being, 100% chance that this article will be promptly recreated by some troll, so salting is called for. Anyone who wants to recreate this article should start by convincing an administrator. Blythwood (talk) 03:17, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You should not be allowed to squat an article for multiple years. There should be a fixed limit to the number of edits a single user can make to a single article, that would solve many of the agenda-based left-wing problems Wikipedia has with Hillary Clinton voters, to include Jimmy Wales who is a Clinton Foundation donor, ruining the platform with their left-wing agendas. AManInWikipedia (talk) 19:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AManInWikipedia, why don't you pop over to Conservapedia and create your article there? You don't even need NPOV or reliable citations there. Much more your thing, I would suggest. Shritwod (talk) 20:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He has been covered in media a lot. Clear evidence of notability. Blythwood (talk) 03:17, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is well-sourced and the person in question is notable. Brozozo (talk) 18:33, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above two keeps were added by AManInWikipedia, here. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 20:37, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Both Blythwood and Brozozo had their comments manipulated by AManInWikipedia. This isn't just some newbie making a mistake but a very clear and calculated attempt at subverting the AfD process. Notably, Brozozo's vote was changed from Delete to Keep. This is Brozozo's original comment before it was changed. Shritwod (talk) 09:04, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. It is my opinion that the subject of this article is not notable enough. I believe the page for IAD can adequately contain any discussion of Brittain. Brozozo (talk) 18:33, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. (1) Brittain isn't even mentioned at all in a cite here that mentions somebody else as a founder. (2) WP:BLP1E clearly is involved in the revenge porn brouhaha, since he worked on it but is not known as a founder. (3) His only other venture is not verifiable. Bearian (talk) 17:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your point (1) is actually discussing a different, earlier website, of similar name and texture. IsAnyoneUp? is not IsAnybodyDown? --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:46, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bearian, yes, this guy ran a ripoff of that website. Blythwood (talk) 00:40, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, Blythwood, Brittain is not even creative? Bearian (talk) 19:06, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is my opinion that the subject of this article is not notable enough. I believe the page for IAD can adequately contain any discussion of Brittain. Brozozo (talk) 18:33, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and block the obvious Chance Trahan sockpuppet. Why is anyone wasting their time on this? Please delete and salt Dryvyng too so we don't have to deal with that one next. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 00:36, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- seconding the suggestion to delete & salt Dryvyng. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is not a vote on any article but the one in question. Unrelated requests to salt other articles should be started elsewhere. Clear evidence of paid editing being employed in this article now - obvious conflict of interest. AManInWikipedia (talk) 19:39, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And yet somehow you have failed to raise any of this "clear evidence" with administrators, Arbcom or indeed anyone else. Please present your clear evidence somewhere. I'm sure I will find it fascinating. Shritwod (talk) 20:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a "vote" on anything. This is a discussion.
As Dryvyng is not an article but currently just as redirect to this page (a redirect, it should be noted, that you directed here), then a result here is likely to have an impact on that page in any case, and this is the appropriate place to be discussing that. It is far from unrelated.
You are, of course, welcome to trot out any evidence you have of paid COI editing on the appropriate noticeboards. I would suggest, however, that you find some evidence beyond that people are doing edits you don't like. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:37, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's consensus policy makes everything a vote. So that 'not a vote' thing is a Red Herring - most neutral people know that Wikipedia has been dominated by biased and agenda-based editing on the platform. If you do away with the consensus policy, the editing quality on/of Wikipedia would get much better (and AfDs like this wouldn't happen).
The best policy would be if only Wikipedia admins/ArbCom could edit/delete lines upon request/review. That would stop a lot of the edit wars and a lot of blanking by agenda-based users.
You just said that Dryvyng was unrelated, yet somehow it is related to your other article. That is a logical contradiction and a clear example of your agenda.
In this case, you're not doing 'edits', you're squatting a page that you've been editing for 4+ years and there needs to be a policy against squatting. The point of Wikipedia is that pages are edited by multiple editors, not the same 3 people who just happen to show up when a NPOV article that meets Wiki guidelines appears, to try and sack/salt NPOV.
It's entirely obvious what your agenda is when magically your article qualifies but an almost identical article with only the headline properly changed to meet Wikipedia's NPOV standards doesn't qualify, and a clear logical contradiction which can only be tied to an outside agenda or motivation. Since I doubt you have a personal grudge against the subject of the article, the logical conclusion is that you're being paid to negatively edit/shape the article and its discussion (4+ years is a long time to edit an article for free!). AManInWikipedia (talk) 16:29, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding points 1, 2, and 4, if you wish to change Wikipedia policy, the midst of an AfD discussion is not the best place to do so effectively. The pages for the various policies and guidelines have talk pages, which might be a better place to start. As to point 3, I said Dryvyng was "far from unrelated"; that's actually the opposite of saying it was unrelated. As to point 4, yes, the point of Wikipedia largely is that the articles are edited by those who happen to show up; that's the volunteer editing system. And on point 5. if I'm getting paid for every article that I've done fewer than 20 edits on over fewer than 4 years, then I'm far richer than I realize. There are now a number of editors here that are disagreeing with you as to how the Wikipedia standards apply. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:46, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I find it amusing to see AManInWikipedia attempting to lecture people on how Wikipedia should be run, given that they manipulated the comments in this AfD discussion to change "Delete" votes to "Keep". Forgive me if I ignore that lecture. If you think that there is wrongdoing afoot then perhaps you should contact a lawyer? I wonder if David Blade III is available? Shritwod (talk) 08:19, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As best I can tell the sources are weak, one for example is a blog that happens to be hosted on a web news source, but as a blog does not meet our reliable source requirements.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:35, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. WP:FOC is such a useful and valuable policy to keep in mind when commenting on Wikipedia talk pages. Shearonink (talk) 02:15, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk 10:47, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it does seem to me that a clear consensus was reached. I do not see the point of it being relisted. Shritwod (talk) 14:47, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)*Comment. Agree with Shritwood. Consensus according to Wikipedia policy & guidelines seems clear to delete this article, I don't quite see the need for relisting? Shearonink (talk) 15:45, 6 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) 14:02, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Israel at the 2014 FIFA World Cup[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:SPORTSEVENT, the article is about Israel's failed qualification campaign, not their actual participation in the final tournament. Participating in qualifying campaigns is routine and lacks notability. Match information can be included in the national team's result pages, like England national football team results – 2000s.

In addition, I am nominating the following articles for deletion, as just like the 2014 World Cup, Israel did not qualify for the final tournament:

Secret Agent Julio (talk) 21:07, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 21:11, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 21:13, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 21:16, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See here for the talk from the first time it was nominated. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel at the 2015 FIFA Women's World Cup. - Galatz ^Talk 13:18, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note, the previous nomination resulted in keep due to the poor nomination process of a user. This nomination is much more concise and includes fewer articles. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 14:03, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One of them was also renominated and it was unanimous to keep that one, so it wasn't just the way it was nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel at the 2016 European Baseball Championship (2nd nomination). - Galatz ^Talk 18:41, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all These qualifying campaigns are amply covered in the main qualification articles, e.g. 1934 FIFA World Cup qualification, 1999 FIFA Women's World Cup qualification (UEFA) etc . Number 5 7 21:20, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Redundant; delete per nom; offering nothing more than what is already in other qualifying tournament articles. Simply put, we don't want to set a dangerous precedent whereby we have articles for every country's failed attempts at qualifying for each tournament that they are eligible for. Spiderone 22:05, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. The information is already covered in articles such as 2014 FIFA World Cup qualification – UEFA Group F. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:52, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all the same information is already included and easily accessible in several other articles. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:12, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - as above, subject does not merit separate articles. Giant Snowman 08:03, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - entirely unnecessary forks which contain nothing but stats that are already contained within the relevant continental qualifying articles. Fenix down (talk) 09:44, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all/Procedural close - Per WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Also tagging those who voted last time: Nfitz, Montanabw, Matt294069, doncram, Fenix down, Pharaoh of the Wizards. Additionally the user did not link to the discussion from last time, due to an issue with how the issues with how the person nominated it last time, therefore when initially voted upon no one could see who the original discussion. - Galatz ^Talk 13:21, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- — Note to closing admin: Galatz (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. . Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:41, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the reason for a procedural close last time had nothing to do with the volume of articles, but was to do with the fact that articles were nominated across multiple sports. In this instance WP:NSPORT is not really relevant. I suppose, that WP:SPORTSEVENT can be stretched to apply here, but I would note the specific comments there that state:

Articles about notable games should have well-sourced prose, not merely a list of stats. For a game or series that is already covered as a subtopic in another article, consider developing the topic in the existing article first until it becomes clearer that a standalone article is warranted. Although a game or series may be notable, it may sometimes be better to present the topic in an existing article on a broader topic instead of creating a new standalone page.

I would ask you to demonstrate how you have attempted to follow these suggestions first and how any of the articles above are necessary per WP:SPINOFF and are not simply wholesale copy and pastes from wider continental qualification articles. For example Mandatory Palestine at the 1934 FIFA World Cup is a total C&P from 1934 FIFA World Cup qualification. The only addition is the copying of the team line up (which we would never normally show bar for specifically notable games) from the reference provided.

Essentially, there is no additional content in any of these, let alone sourced prose, so there is no need for any of these articles per WP:CFORK, nor any attempt made to follow WP:SPORTSEVENT to demonstrate the need for standalone articles prior to their creation. Finally, given that Israel have only qualified for the world cup once, the article titles are inherently misleading. Fenix down (talk) 14:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While I do agree that certain content will be duplicated , it certainly is not all duplicated. The roster is one example. While I do agree many of the articles need expansion, the fact that it does I do not believe makes it a fork. You can go into much more detail than any other article would have.

Additionally there are tons of other examples on WP that this is a consistent formatting. For example, what makes this different than Israel at the 2002 Winter Olympics? Why is that needed if all of the information is available at Figure skating at the 2002 Winter Olympics and Short track speed skating at the 2002 Winter Olympics. That article is also just basically statistics so do you think it should be deleted? What makes the Olympics deserve their own page but not the World Cup? - Galatz ^Talk 14:18, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The issues I see with you view are as follows:

Firstly these are all forks whether you like it or not.
Secondly, the mere addition of rosters is not sourced prose and is just more stats.
Thirdly, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. However, the difference between the Olympic articles and the ones you have created is they have clear overlaps but also clear elements which. Israel at the 2002 Winter Olympics, covers only Israel, but all sports in which they competed, whereas Figure skating at the 2002 Winter Olympics covers one sport, but all the nations that competed at that sport. Although related, they demonstrably cover different subjects. In the cases above, 1934 FIFA World Cup qualification covers qualification for the 1934 world cup for all countries, whereas Mandatory Palestine at the 1934 FIFA World Cup merely copies an element of it and adds nothing bar a list of players.

There is no useful new content in any of these articles with the possible exception of Israel at the 1970 FIFA World Cup because in this case they did actually qualify and so the overall article is a useful synthesis of information from multiple places to provide an overarching view. In all the others, this is simply not necessary, since all the information is already contained in one place. Fenix down (talk) 14:38, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, Israel actually participated in the Olympics, but these articles listed are only about their failed tournament qualifications. As for the 1970 World Cup, I did not include it in this AfD, but I accidentally tagged the page, should be removed now. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 15:37, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the difference between them, however the way I am reading this, correct me if I am wrong, but you are attempting to use this AfD to draw a line the qualifying is notable but losing in the qualifier is not. If you look at Template:Brazil at the FIFA World Cup you can see Brazil has a page dedicated to each World Cup appearance since 1970. Lets say they don't qualify for the 2018 World Cup, would you say that automatically it cannot have its own article? That would be huge news and for sure would meet the criteria for WP:GNG. All I am seeing is an argument saying they didn't qualify so its not notable, but clearly that logic doesn't apply. If you read WP:MULTIAFD it says "bundling should not be used to form consensus around policy decisions such as "should wikipedia include this type of article". Bundling AfDs should be used only for clear-cut deletion discussions based on existing policy." To me that sounds exactly what you are trying to do, unless I am missing something. - Galatz ^Talk 16:54, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All your doing here though is copying and pasting information from one article to another new one without adding anything of substance that is new. WP:SPINOFF is already an established guideline, there is no consensus shaping here at all. I would recommend that your time is better spent trying to show wider GNG for these articles and populate them with sourced prose to support this assertion. Fenix down (talk) 16:59, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If Brazil failed to qualify for the 2018 World Cup, it would be huge news since they're Brazil, and they've qualified for every World Cup ever, and I'm sure there would be mass suicides or something because soccer's just that big over there that that kind of thing would happen. You can't say Israel failing to qualify for the World Cup is all that newsworthy, seeing as they've only been to one in their history. It would be considered one of the biggest tragedies in national history if Brazil failed to qualify - not their sporting history, but their nation's history, period. So yes, that would probably be notable. But Israel is not Brazil in terms of their football team, or anywhere close to it. Brazil failing to qualify would be notable not in spite of, but because of the fact that they failed to qualify. That's not the case with Israel. Smartyllama (talk) 20:49, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree they need more expansion, but I do not believe the WP:GNG has not been met. I have already been compiling a list of RS to use to expand 2018 once it has enough games played to at least complete the first round. First example: Game 1 [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] Game 2 [36] [37] [38] [39] Game 3 [40] [41] [42] [43]. Like I said, I don't disagree with them needing expandsion, you can call them stubs and I wont disagree with that, but I can't see them not meeting WP:GNG. - Galatz ^Talk 18:23, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so before you go down that route too far, finding a load of match reports and synthesising an article from them is not GNG. You need to find sources that discuss their world cup journey as a subject in itself. Match reporting is considered WP:ROUTINE as it is ubiquitous at almost any level. I'd also urge you to consider what multiple sources add that a single match report does not and whether that adds to any level of notability. why would you need to provide detailed match summaries in a bespoke article when a single sourced sentence in the national team article would cover it? Anyway, that is a discussion for another place. Fenix down (talk) 18:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some are results, some are previews where they discuss match ups and go more into the details and put it into context, which shows notability. At least the first 2 for each game I have listed above are the preview, not that results. Showing a wide variety of RS discussing the game more than just reporting on it, its not just a preplanned schedule, its more in depth, which makes it not WP:ROUTINE. - Galatz ^Talk 18:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete most but keep Israel at the 1970 FIFA World Cup because they actually qualified for that. The rest are non-notable forks as I stated in the first nomination (which was procedurally closed for being cross-sported) but that one they actually qualified for, so it meets WP:GNG even if it doesn't meet WP:NSEASONS or whatever the appropriate sports policy is. Delete all as the 1970 article was not nominated for deletion and therefore its status isn't at issue. Rationale still stands. Smartyllama (talk) 17:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Shouldn't the 2018 article be discussed at Redirects for Discussion rather than AfD because it's a redirect? Smartyllama (talk) 17:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - These all fail WP:SPORTSEVENT and WP:GNG. I concur with Smartyllama that the 2018 should not be included here since it is a redirect. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 06:09, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I invite an uninvolved administrator to review this relisting, and also the relisting habits of Democratics. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 01:01, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have undone my relisting but I am open for investigation as what Jkudlick said.Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk 11:03, 7 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 due to change in circumstances. Kurykh (talk) 00:25, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fue Lee[edit]

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

Outside of running for office, Lee is not notable Meatsgains (talk) 22:34, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 22:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:10, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Normally, I would recommend deleting an article about an unelected political candidate. This case has some unique features. Lee defeated long term Minnesota Democratic–Farmer–Labor Party incumbent Joe Mullery by 11% in the primary election, and given the voting history of the district, is highly likely to win the general election in ten days. Why delete the article now and likely create a new one in ten days? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:59, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Draft Until he gets elected. Thanks, JohnTombs48 (talk) 09:29, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. See update below. A person does not get a Wikipedia article just for being a candidate in an election, not even one who defeated a longtime incumbent in a primary — and as Wikipedia does not deal in the realm of election predictions, his notability is not bolstered by anybody's advance read on his chances of winning. And the rule also cannot have an escape hatch whereby the article is exempt from AFD consideration just because the election is only a week or two away — because if we had that exemption, then every candidate for every elected office at the federal or state level across the entire United States could just suddenly flood Wikipedia with their campaign brochures in October as a last-minute publicity push right when they want it the most to help sway the late deciders who could finally put them over the top. So even if it does seem kind of stupid to delete the article now and then possibly have to recreate it again within days, the rule still has to remain the same as it is at any other time: if you cannot demonstrate that he already had preexisting notability for some other reason besides his candidacy, then an article is not appropriate even as long as one minute before he's been declared the winner of the seat. We have the ability to restore deleted articles if necessary, so the length of time remaining until the election is not a reason to suspend the normal rules. Bearcat (talk) 16:02, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The discussion remained open as of election day, and Lee did win the seat as Cullen predicted — so this now needs to be kept, and merely flagged for referencing repair. My overall point about the length of time remaining before the election not being a relevant consideration still stands, however — that would be an escape hatch that could be too easily gamed for campaign publicity. Bearcat (talk) 13:32, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ I am in agreement with Bearcat here. It should not matter if an entry for an individual who does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion is deleted months before the subject becomes notable or days before a subject becomes notable. If on November 8, the subject wins his election, the article can be recreated. - Enos733 (talk) 17:32, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: At the time of the nomination, the subject was not notable. In the intervening period, the subject met Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. I stand by my comment that notability should not be predicted based upon the liklihood of winning a future election. - --Enos733 (talk) 16:43, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unelected canddiates for state legislature are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:22, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think that Cullen328 is right here... We are now 5 days away from an election that will, in all likelihood, result in this subject moving from unelected to elected status, that is, moving from the grey area of possible notability to auto-keep status per WP:POLITICIAN. So let's just hold this one over for another week at this point. Carrite (talk) 09:03, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk 10:16, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for the record, now it's a moot point, as the no-consensus relist means that by definition, the election result will be known one way or the other by the time this is actually closable again. That said, strictly as a matter of principle I remain unconvinced that either the proximity of the election or anybody's opinion of the candidate's chances of winning it should be factors at all in an AFD discussion — because if we set a cutoff that articles about unelected candidates cannot be AFDed until after election day if they're caught X or less number of days before, then (a) what's to stop the next person from arguing that the cutoff should be upped to X+1, X+2, X+10, X+50 or X+365, and (b) what's to stop 50,000 election candidates across the country from suddenly flooding Wikipedia with their campaign brochures exactly X days out if there's no chance of the articles getting deleted before E-Day anymore? Nothing's going to make a difference here anymore, since the election results will be known before anything can actually be done at all, but in future the rule has to remain "if there's no preexisting notability for other things, then no article until the election is won", no exemptions, no deferrals, no loopholes. Bearcat (talk) 22:00, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: Since you are going on the record with your reasonable opinion, I will also go on the record as reminding you that WP:Ignore all rules is a Wikipedia policy while WP:POLITICIAN is a guideline. Of course, we should not ignore rules blithely, but rather when specific circumstances override our normal, everday interpretation of guidelines. In most cases, an unelected candidate whose biography is up for deletion has never won an election. In this case, Fue Lee has won an election, defeating a five term incumbent by ten percentage points in the primary election. Let's take a closer look at those primary results: Fue Lee got more than ten times the number of votes as the woman who is now his Republican opponent. As for the notion of "campaign brochure", I have supported deleting large numbers of such articles. This article is not a campaign brochure. It contains no promotional language, does not describe his policy positions in glowing terms, and contains no non-neutral language. If there was campaign brochure-style language in the article, the edit button was there to allow you to remove it during the course of this debate and the final days of this election, right? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:51, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Winning a primary election counts for exactly squat in and of itself toward making a person notable enough for an encyclopedia article, and every candidate for any office in the entire country (except the independents) advanced to the general election precisely by winning a primary — so what we have in this instance is not a situation that's in any significant way different from any other candidate whose name is on a ballot today. Winning a primary doesn't make his candidacy more notable in and of itself than the 50,000 other candidates in the United States who also won primaries; it makes him a normal participant in the process that candidates have to participate in to become candidates. And any article which exists because candidate, with no claim of preexisting notability for anything else besides being a candidate, is by definition a campaign brochure regardless of whether the language in the article is promotionally skewed or relatively neutral — it is entirely possible to write a campaign brochure in neutral-sounding and not overly "glowing" or advertorial language. If the candidacy itself is the single solitary reason the article exists, then it's still a campaign brochure regardless of what tone issues do or don't exist. The base notability claim of being an unelected candidate is what makes it a campaign brochure, not the writing tone that is or isn't used to express the fact. Bearcat (talk) 07:11, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update Fue Lee was elected with 81.3% of the vote. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:02, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good grief, could somebody close this already now that the WP:SNOW has fallen? Bearcat (talk) 22:14, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:10, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ETouch Systems[edit]

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

Delete and Salt considering the 2 deletions in 2006, which were both G11 and G12, before the AfD happened which actualy says something since it was 2006. Literally a damniningly blatant advertisement with none of it actually convincing notability, actual significance or substance, and I believe I myself had been watching this for some time, and the history is self-explanatory with clear advertising, not the "Etouch.india" account with another user, Vivek, all clearly some apparent overseas set of employees.

I myself in the past have largely simply not considered any AfDs from that time to be convincing unless they actually showed and noticed a blatant advertisement (even in that's time's standards), because simply actually looking at the 2006 comments shows triviality such as "Notable - has a large client list" or "Article has sources - notable". SwisterTwister talk 23:28, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The G11 and G12 have no relevance. A delete for copyvio tells nothing about the topic, and the G11 was a mistake that was reverted. Unscintillating (talk) 23:26, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:46, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not seeing a problem here. Article has existed since 2006, and the company has existed since 1998. It has already passed muster at AfD. It is not an advertisement, and nomination has not provided examples of problems. There is a version of the article on the talk page that better describes its role with NASA. Topic is covered by Bloomberg, which in my experience is a good correlation with Wikipedia notability. Here is an in-depth review about a failure of the company. Unscintillating (talk) 00:46, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The fact this has been deleted before as G11 and G12 is serious enough as it is and the fact this has persisted as a blatant advertisement is a concern alone, suggesting the company has existed for 10 years is not relevant for countering the cocerns, and simply being a stock-listed company means nothing, because there have been numerous AfDs for stock-listed companies closed as delete. The fact there was literally a company-named account and a company employee are the exact concerns, and there's nothing to suggest we should accept it as such, especially if that would only influence and encourage such blatancy. When we start considering advertisements as acceptable articles, we're entirely damned.

Because I myself have also noted the listed information and sources are not convincing either and should not be mistaken as such. Noted that it worked with NASA is also not convincing because there's no connections, regardless of who it is, to inherit automatic notability, and once again, considering the company literally used this article as advertising, that alone is damning enough, as is the fact people in the past actually called this article acceptable because of sheer claims of "company has clients, notable", "at least it has sources, that's enough" and "we can keep articles because of their clients".SwisterTwister talk 05:49, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk 10:06, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While the idea that anyone would come across this article and be minded to go and buy something from this company as a result is ludicrous, the subject simply does not appear notable enough for inclusion. --Michig (talk) 10:46, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't find this company meets WP:CORP. A small private company with little coverage in reliable independent sources. I didn't find anything I would consider in-depth. MB 05:16, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:50, 8 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) 06:49, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apply Zimbabwe[edit]

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

Per WP:ORG, no significant independent source coverage. Infinity Knight (talk) 08:15, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:47, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:47, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:ORG and it has some fragments of adevertisement. $Tushi Talk To Me$ 13:03, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - spam. . . Mean as custard (talk) 14:29, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a notable company, and it has promotional concerns. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:50, 14 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. WP:CSD#A11 -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:12, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My Musical 2016[edit]

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

Non-notable musical —teb728 t c 07:37, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A11 (by nominator). The musical is clearly madeup by the author. The song and character pages for the musical were all speedily deleted per A11. —teb728 t c 08:38, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:23, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: Nothing much needs to be said, this needs to be deleted asap. Scorpion293 (talk) 03:26, 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. Michig (talk) 09:03, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Haywire[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Current article is mostly things that she wrote, or passing mentions of her. I searched my library's database (which has access to newspapers etc) and it came up empty for sources on her. just to add detail in the form of specific searches; nothing in the NYT; some weird bloggy thing here in Wired. nothing in LA Times. Google-searched out ten pages, bunch of fringe-y blogs. Just plain fails GNG. Jytdog (talk) 06:56, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. To establish notability, sources must be about the subject. These are not. Guy (Help!) 08:13, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG. I just wasted ten minutes of my life trying to find something substantive. -Roxy the dog™ bark 09:04, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of sources about the subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:26, 9 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) 08:08, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All India Educated Unemployed Youth Party[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to be notable per WP:ORG. Couldn't find coverage in any sources, let alone significant coverage in secondary sources. Search for sources only turned up this indication that the party was in an election once. Ajpolino (talk) 05:26, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Ajpolino (talk) 05:32, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ajpolino (talk) 05:32, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:37, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

N.B. User:Soman recently turned up this ref. I'm not familiar with the source but I'd be much more comfortable with a keep vote knowing that there's at least some other coverage of this party out there. Would like to get some thoughts from more-experience editors... Ajpolino (talk) 18:47, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: One of about thousand non-notable political parties of India. Fails WP:GNG. Anup [Talk] 14:38, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:Per comment of Anup.Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 11:03, 9 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, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Beau Schmitz[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 05:24, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom - not enough notability for his own BLP. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 05:53, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:45, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:45, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass our notability guidelines for hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:44, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He fails NHOCKEY and GNG. Can be recreated if he ever passes either. -DJSasso (talk) 16:42, 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. Michig (talk) 09:00, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Udayana (king)[edit]

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

Very little sourcing and doesn't seem to pass WP:N

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 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:16, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This guy appears to be a mythological character in the Brihatkatha rather than a historically attested person - see Brihatkatha#Udayana. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 11:49, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:49, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:49, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:49, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to Vatsa#Udayana. Udayana was a notable, if semi-legendary, king of Vatsa and contemporary of the historical Buddha known largely from several literary sources. One comparison of sources from 1935: [44] (starting at page 10). Currently, the account at the Vatsa article is more comprehensive, though there is probably enough material in books to ultimately expand this to a standalone article. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 17:11, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with, as always, the option of merging as an editorial decision. The information provided by the editor at 24.151.10.165 leads to some more fruitful searches that disentangle this Udayana from the philosopher Udayana:

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

86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:15, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge -- Whether historical or only legendary, he is notable. Udayana, king of Vatsa might be a better article name, if kept. The lack of multiple sources is probably to be expected with a legendary figure. A merge to Vatsa#Udayana would also be a good solution, as I guess the sources and content for the two are much the same, Udayana being the one king of whom anything much is known. (This is slightly revised from my original Keep vote). Peterkingiron (talk) 10:35, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP as standalone piece: Not a mythological figure. He did exist in real. He was a notable ruler of Vatsa kingdom (one of 16 kingdoms of India that time). He is more notable for his love story with "Vasavadatta" (and losing his kingdom for love). In addition to ancient book mentioned in nomination; there are many more which discuss him in detail. Here is what I found on Gbooks: [45], [46], more. This kind of coverage in Times of India for a 6th century B.C. ruler in 2016 is extra-ordinary.

There are however one or two more rulers of ancient India that I know of shares this name, so it can be moved to suggested title above. Anup [Talk] 15:28, 7 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, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Malay Mishra[edit]

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

Non-notable person. No evidence to support claims of notability in article. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 04:43, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources do not support claims made in the article. Additional sources could not be located that support the claims. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 05:52, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:49, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:49, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Can't find any reliable source for the said awards. Anup [Talk] 15:01, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only reliable sources I could find were about an Indian diplomat with the same name. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:52, 14 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 Already deleted as G12 (unambiguous copyright infringement) by User:Ronhjones. Michig (talk) 08:56, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Axiom-man[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete. Completely unsourced article about a series of novels by a non-notable writer, written entirely as a plot-summary and offering no real-world context to get it over WP:NBOOK for anything. The article was previously kept in a deletion discussion in 2009 on the basis of purported reliable source coverage existing, but (a) I'm certainly not finding hide nor hair of any coverage outside of Blogspot blogs, and (b) the article has never seen any actual improvement since 2009. This has also been flagged copyvio, but I don't consider it speediable on that basis -- apart from one sentence that was obviously copy-pasted, the "vio" is otherwise entirely on three-word phrases like "mysterious black cloud" and "author A.P. Fuchs" that one could hardly patent as a unique turn of phrase. But even if not speediable, it is entirely deletable. Bearcat (talk) 03:41, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:39, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:39, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:39, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A very oddly-written plot summary of a non-noteable book. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 05:55, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NBOOK and WP:NOTE, possible csd material and per nom Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 20:48, 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. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 05:09, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tenrehte Technologies, Inc.[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This page was clearly created by the business owner to promote his own business. A look at the article creators history shows more pages with a similar genesis, all having one individual in common. Tr0gd0r (talk) 03:35, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:40, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:40, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:40, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and not only was the 2011 AfD basically closely available for a Delete, the sheer fact it was an advertising-only account is sufficient and there's literally nothing else suggesting better, so we should not mistake it as such; there's honestly nothing else because that's all there is to say, therefore that alone also seals the fact this only existed as an advertisement. SwisterTwister talk 05:32, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a promo article on an unremarkable company. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:53, 8 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 nomination withdrawn [47]. No other opposition. Merge discussion can be initiated on article talk if desired. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 23:44, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Polemic[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

~~Deletion and disambiguation entry proposed for deletion per WP:NOT#DICTIONARY.~~ This is not a noteworthy topic in its own right. Opposition to deletion isn't expected. KSci ^(talk) 02:56, 6 November 2016 (UTC) KSci ^(talk) 02:56, 6 November 2016 (UTC)|pg=Polemic}}[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Debresser (talk) 15:55, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Twinkle seems to have glitched in the making of this page as none of the links are formatted correctly. Feinoha ^Talk 02:58, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Fixed. Feinoha ^Talk 03:13, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:05, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:41, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:41, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Debresser (talk) 10:33, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand with tactics of polemics, historical examples. Noteworthy and interesting topic in Category:Rhetoric. "Opposition to deletion isn't expected." is definitely one of the most conceited nominations I've ever seen. Debresser (talk) 10:26, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I have added 3 reliable sources with brief details of the history of polemic from ancient times to the 18th century. This article should not have been brought to AfD. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:36, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if it stays in its current form; Wikipedia is not a Dictionary; adding sources is not the problem. To be kept, it would need expansion as Debresser states; ..."with tactics of polemics, historical examples". Which is not there. Kierzek (talk) 15:11, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is the beginning of a "History" section. Debresser (talk) 15:31, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Not sufficient at this point. Still reads like a dictionary. Kierzek (talk) 15:34, 6 November 2016 (UTC)~~[reply]

I agree that there should definitely be more, but we judge articles by their potential, not their present state, and since this article does have the potential, it is not fit for Afd (per WP:SURMOUNTABLE). Debresser (talk) 15:54, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Justly said. Notability is judged by whether reliable sources exist in the world, not by whether they are already in an article; and the potential of a topic is judged by what is in those sources, not by what facts have already been added to the article. I've demonstrated that sources exist for a history, so we can see (and each verify for ourselves, if we choose) that such a thing could be written. That in turn shows that the subject is not limited to a dictionary definition. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:32, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An article is "judged" by whether it meets certain criteria, and it is a matter of opinion whether it meets it or not. Kierzek (talk) 19:00, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Readers do that with whatever they read, but what is in an article at any particular moment has no bearing at all on WP:Notability, as you will find if you check the policy for yourself. I have however added more text and sources to show what shape the article might take. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:04, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now that substantial work has been done since the original nomination and my comments above, I will change to keep as it now meets GNG. And notability is based on the evidence and now you have met it. Kierzek (talk) 19:24, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Position changed from delete to merge

The addition of examples of polemic recently added provide the beginnings of the substance needed for a WP topic. This article was previously little more than a stub definition and an apparent magnet for poorly written and unsupported POV additions that depreciate WP's reputation as a viable information source. Thank you, @Chiswick Chap, for your efforts to improve this article with supported additions!

Additionally, this AfD has garnered much more interest than its long history of neglect suggested. To preserve the new content and recognize the existance of interest in the subject, I withdraw my position 'delete' and move instead that this topic be merged into the article Rhetoric. The rationale for merger is point #3 at WP:MERGEREASON and is based on the articles previous poor quality, history of neglect, and failure to develop over many years. Thank you all for your thoughtful replies. KSci ^(talk) 17:56, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thank you. Article history, however, has nothing to do with notability. And since we agree that the topic itself is a worthy one, there is no reason to merge it with anything else. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:53, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per the numerous rationales given above. Safiel (talk) 19:11, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, now meets GNG. Kierzek (talk) 19:24, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Still keep, see above. Debresser (talk) 19:44, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A simple WP:BEFORE style search shows many sources on the topic of polemics amongst books (GBooks shows 144,000 hits), encyclopedias, and scholarly articles (Gscholar shows 162,000 hits). This is a highly notable topic. Although it was not needed to show notability, Chiswick Chap is to be commended for improving the article, adding further sources, and explicitly refuting the assertion that this topic is only a dicdef. A highly notable topic and an article with WP:SURMOUNTABLE problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 22:25, 6 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, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Parahat Jumanazarow[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the articles creator on the grounds that the Turkmen top flight is fully pro, an assertion not supported by reliable sources at WP:FPL or elsewhere. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:12, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:13, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:41, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:41, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:41, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the fence He has played in the AFC Champions League. WP:NFOOTY is a little unclear on whether or not this warrants a pass.AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 09:53, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the past, consensus has been that matches in national or continental cup competitions do not confer notability per WP:NFOOTY unless both clubs involved play in fully pro leagues. (For recent-ish examples see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rolandas Baravykas and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lewis Page). Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:51, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:38, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hasn't played at professional level for club or country and therefore fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Can always be recreated in future if subject does meet requirements. Inter&anthro (talk) 14:17, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 16:34, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Eldumpo (talk) 18:59, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL.Simione001 (talk) 21:51, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of passing GNG Spiderone 21:47, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Joseph2302 09:44, 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 delete. Per G5, as this was created by a sock of a blocked user, though there's also a consensus to delete it on its merits. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 05:11, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1993–94 New York Rangers broadcasters[edit]

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

Broadcast information is already in the yearly article. The rest of the article is a blank section of things already in the yearly article. Duplicate article that isn't necessary. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:40, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:42, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:42, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:42, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:42, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not necessary to split. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 02:26, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Should be and is included on the season article. Article created by a user that is block evading and whom was blocked for disruptive edits. He is well known for his edits to 1994 New York Rangers topics. -DJSasso (talk) 16:57, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 1993–94 New York Rangers season. It's a plausible thing that people might be searching for, but not worthy of its own article. Smartyllama (talk) 19:58, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: better kept within context of the season article. isaacl (talk) 05:40, 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.

[1] English Wikipedia How-to Guide WP:Dead link, revision of 2016-11-14, Emphasis in original

[2] English Wikipedia How-to Guide WP:Dead link, revision of 2016-11-14, Emphasis in original

[1]

[1]