Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 October 1

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 30 September	2 October >

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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:14, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Simon and the Oaks[edit]

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

This is the article on the book. The movie was hugely successful being nominated for multiple Swedish Oscars. But problems plauging the article on the book is no plot and lacks sources. For seven years, it has been tagged with expansion from the Swedish article. I don't know if it has been brought to the appropriate WikiPojects to get looked at. With the state the article is in, it doesn't merit being kept. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 03:12, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or at least Redirect for now, because it's held at 600 libraries worldwide and it was a film, so that's enough to suggest enough for an article alone. SwisterTwister talk 02:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:20, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:NBOOK as "3.The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable or significant motion picture," plus its a bestseller, here is a LA Times article on the film that states "the source material is a bestselling novel, in this case one by Marianne Fredricksson that has been translated into 25 languages and sold more than 4 million copies worldwide." - Review: 'Simon and the Oaks' an emotional wartime journey, also nom needs to remember Article content does not determine notability Coolabahapple (talk) 02:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. The poor state of an article does not mean that it should be deleted. It just means that it needs to be improved. It's fine if you don't want to do this, but this doesn't mean that you should delete the article. Redirection would also not be appropriate here, as the article does pass notability guidelines since the film is notable and per Coolabahapple, there are reviews for it. In cases like this the best course of action is to go to some of the various, applicable WikiProjects (WP:BOOKS, WP:SWEDEN) and ask for someone to improve the article. An article can be a stub and still be a valid article, especially if there's room for it to grow.

Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean this to sound harsh, it's just that deletion shouldn't be automatically judged based on the stubby state of an article or even if the article seems to be lacking in details. This tends to happen a lot and I mean a lot with articles where the topic is predominantly covered in another language. Captain Sabertooth and Kule kidz gråter ikke both nearly got deleted because their articles were fairly sparse, although the arguments there were notability rather that on the state of the article alone. Even so, it's just really a bad thing to get in the habit of doing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:01, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't take an AfD for an article to get some improvement. That's one problem with Wikipedia. If I was just strictly a reader of Wikipedia and I wanted to know more about this particular book, I'd get nothing from it. If one is going to create and article, you should at least put a synopsis in it. That is a no-brainer. I used to be like you and think the nominator should have done something to improve the article. But that's not the case.Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 17:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - since the nomination the article has been improved (thank you, Tokyogirl79! :-) ) and notability per WP:NBOOKS is shown. I started looking for other sources, and will try to add more information and sources to the article. It is not trivially easy to find such sources, because although it was very much talked about when it was published in 1985 (this review of the film in Dagens Nyheter refers to the book as "the major bestseller of the 1980s" - possibly an exaggeration, but it was certainly a very popular book), much of what was written in '85 in the papers is not available online, and since the film had the same title, searches mostly find movie reviews. Such reviews often mention the book, but I will try a bit harder to see if I can't find some reliable sources that discuss the book itself. In the meantime, keep. --bonadea contributions talk 11:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MER-C 04:56, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Allripe[edit]

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

I can't find evidence of notability. I would have PRODed if not for a previous PROD in 2014. Adam9007 (talk) 23:38, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. very minor copany; the refs are basically press releases for its various minor accomlishments. Not one of them is a RS for notability DGG ( talk ) 00:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt as this has essentially been deleted twice, once was worse than the other, but this current one is the worst of all given it's advertising, so considering all of thid together, I cannot confide someone would then restart it how it should be. This article is a PR campaign to simply advertise what the company wants to say itself. SwisterTwister talk 01:19, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:23, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:23, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:23, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete bordering on an advert. LibStar (talk) 08:16, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete- thinly veiled advertisement. Sources are advertorials mostly. Reyk _YO! 09:48, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see any claim of significance here and there's literally nothing available in reliable sources. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:30, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MER-C 04:55, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Al Nesbeth[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:NFOOTY as has not played in a fully professional league or at senior international level Atlantic306 (talk) 23:18, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nomination. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:23, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:42, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:42, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:42, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:56, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:05, 3 October 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) 14:10, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:22, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, again, unfortunately. There is significant disagreement on what should be covered and where, and little to no analysis of quality and availability of reference material. I imagine that there will be a third discussion at some point; if so, perhaps it can more directly tackle these issues rather than focusing on subjective perceptions of importance. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:59, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New York City FC 0–7 New York Red Bulls[edit]

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

Returning this highly contentious topic to AfD, where it belongs. First AfD ended in no consensus, but clearly this needs to return to AfD and now is as good a time as any. Safiel (talk) 22:11, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article should have already been deleted. The arguments for keep were not strong at all. This was one of 34 regular season games. It was not a playoff game, it was not a crucial game during the season. It only tied for the largest win in MLS, which means nothing. It should just be a part of the Hudson River Derby article. Last time a non administrator ended the discussion, this time only an administrator should decide.AllSportsfan16 (talk) 22:17, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:40, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:40, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:40, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:41, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Fenix's reasoning in the first AfD... also can the nominator not sound more salty. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 00:13, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where does the consensus for Fenix's argument exist. I haven's seen one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AllSportsfan16 (talk • contribs) 00:08, October 2, 2016 (UTC)

Keep per Fenix and SG on the first AFD. The match will have some staying power, given that the only comparable result was in 1998, at the very beginning of the league's history, and similar margins are rare to come by in modern soccer. Sounder Bruce 01:43, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's just one regular season game. Also Borussia Dortmund just destroyed a team in the Champions League 6-0. I don't see any articles about that game, which sounds more notable than this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AllSportsfan16 (talk • contribs) 00:08, October 2, 2016 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:59, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: we already discussed this. And it looks like a majority believe it should be kept per Fenix in AfD. Quidster4040 (talk) 16:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Discussed, yes, resolved, no. In the end, it ended in a no consensus, so another discussion is appropriate. Safiel (talk) 16:46, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I brought this back into AfD primarily as the result of an erroneous attempt to delete this via speedy deletion. Given that there is some contention regarding this article's existence, that would seem to me to be a good reason to return to AfD and get a final resolution of keep or delete, rather than no consensus, as happened in the first AfD. After some thought over the last day, I am going to go with a keep based on the arguments here and at the first AfD. Nevertheless, this AfD needs to go the distance and hopefully there will be enough of a consensus in either direction to get something other than a no consensus. Safiel (talk) 16:46, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to what was said on the previous Afd, this game did not receive that great of media coverage. When I googled it, all I really found were results from the New York media and ESPNFC. A game of this little importance should not have the same size article that the MLS Final has. I also looked up other NYCFC games and they were covered by the same media sources. Also the only reason this article was created was probably because a Red Bulls fan wanted rub the result in NYCFC's face. No I am not a fan of either team.AllSportsfan16 (talk) 02:07, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hudson derby, does not merit a separate article. Giant Snowman 07:06, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Categories such as this and this as well as articles such as this give clear indication that results which at one point in time are / were the highest scoring match in a given league's history are notable. Sources in the article indicate coverage going beyond mere routine match reporting. Fenix down (talk) 14:43, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Major League Soccer records and statistics#Biggest winning margin. There was nothing special about this game except for the score differential. Comparisons to Motherwell v Hibernian (5 May 2010) are not really on point here, as that was a record setting game for combined score, not score differential (and, for the record, the 11-point game that is the MLS recordholder in that regard doesn't have an article either, nor do I think it should). The AFD1 argument, raised by Fenix, that is being quoted by supporters here is that there is: "clear consensus that matches that are or were at a point in time the record winning margin in a nation's top competition are notable." However, examining how other games have been treated suggests that is simply not the case. For the MLS, the other two 7 point margin games do not have individual articles (not even redirects), but are merely included in the list I've suggested as the redirect target (and are mentioned, appropriately, in season articles). For the NFL, "largest margin of victory, single game" doesn't even seem to be a statistic listed in the giant NFL records list (highest total points in a game for both teams combined has its own list). Our coverage of the NBA mirrors that of the NFL; there is attention to the games with the highest total points scored, but no mention at all of the highest margin-of-victory. Now, I think margin of victory is a "useful" record to track, and it's pretty easy to find sourced information about that for the NFL (and probably the NBA, I didn't look). We should (and do!) include that in the MLS records list. But contrary to the assertion in the prior AFD, none of the comparable events in MLS -- nor in any other, similar sport -- have their own articles. There is a "clear consensus", but it is not one to retain. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:23, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is well sourced and seems significant in the context of the rivalry between the two teams. LCrowter (talk) 16:23, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and add some content to Hudson River Derby, in which its significance in the context of the rivalry between the two teams is apparently so great that it doesn't even get a mention apart from its entry in the list of results...
My comments at the first nomination suggested that existing articles used to suggest precedent weren't directly comparable, because they had features over and above the score. Some had been kept at AfD, e.g. Manchester United F.C. 9–0 Ipswich Town F.C. (albeit by no consensus), because they were receiving ongoing coverage many years after the event. This remains the case. This match tied a winning margin record: the existence of individual articles about matches that set winning margin records doesn't create consensus for the retention of all articles about sometime record holders. No prejudice against re-creation if it receives significant coverage; as yet, it hasn't. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's a record performance, and the fact that it's a rivalry (and thus could theoretically be merged to the rivalry page) makes it more notable if anything, and certainly not less notable that it should change anyone's vote from keep to merge (with the rivalry page). Just because we can merge it there doesn't mean we should. The performance gathered significant attention, and clearly satisfies all relevant guidelines, like I said before in the last AfD. Smartyllama (talk) 15:07, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It did not receive significant news coverage. It only received coverage from the New York area. Also it doesn't deserve an article that is as long as one for the MLS Cup Final or Another major international final. A simple google search refutes Fenix's claim from the last Afd. It's not a game that anyone is going to ever look back at and say that it was important.

Keep - If this was just a record performance, I would have said a redirect. But this is notable because its a club with a long history and a roster that has been consistant for a long time, coming up against a club who have a lot of money and marquee players, but really are a club with no real core, just really Khaldoon Al Mubarak's American branch. Any onlooker would look at the prestigious names in the NYC FC line up (i.e David Villa, Andrea Pirlo, Frank Lampard) and say it should be an easy win for New York City. But it wasn't. It was a caterstrophic loss. This is more than just a 7-0 loss. Its a massive rethink of the way the world looks at football. Many owners look at the disaster that happened at NYC and see that you cant just immediately spend a billion million dollars and buy a good team and expect to be champions in your first year, because that's just not how football works. Meanwhile you look at Germany and at RB Leipzig, that's an example of a team built from the bottom and that became very sucessfull, and in 8 years its now a major powerhouse in German football after coming from the very bottom, the semi pro leagues in fact. In 5 years I suspect it will be near on par with the Bayerns and Reals of the world. But in 5 years time NYC will probably still be getting smashed 4-0 at home in a stadium that's barely 10% full, and they have probably spent and lost more money. Its a lot more than just a result, you see — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnTombs48 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per Mr Tombs. This is a very notable result, but perhaps the page could have a name change? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:07, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nobody has been able to present any evidence to show that this game was notable. A consensus is not based on a democratic vote, so it seems clear to me that the consensus it to delete the article and add the content to the Hudson River Derby article. None of the users who have argued to keep it have provided evidence to support their reasoning. The argument to delete it is supported by facts. This game should not receive the same article length that the MLS Cup Final gets.AllSportsfan16 (talk) 19:01, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@AllSportsfan16: What evidence would satisfy you? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:25, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If it was featured on CNN's website (many notable sporting events are), sports illustrated magazine, USA Today, ESPN (not just ESPNFC). I've already researched it and did not find it mentioned through any of these sources.AllSportsfan16 (talk) 17:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable in comparison to articles like Doc Love being considered for delition. Why does the petty stuff matter and the important stuff doesn't? 2607:FB90:1E06:637D:0:3C:3594:5F01 (talk) 20:02, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The claim is special interest in this a particular game , and I do not see it demonstrated. DGG ( talk ) 00:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 original editor blanked the page, which would trigger speedy deletion under CSD G7, but I'm going to go ahead and say the article wouldn't have survived AfD. —C.Fred (talk) 17:32, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Diserpier[edit]

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

I considered this as a speedy delete under A7, but anyway, this an autobiographical promotional piece about a non-notable musician/photographer/engineer. As far as I can tell his musical career so far has been some remixes of other songs, some of which may not be official – there's no evidence on his social media that he has DJ'd at any major club, even within Colombia, at all. He's not mentioned by name anywhere in the links for the engineering prize or the French photography exhibition so we can't verify these claims. Good luck to the guy and I wish him well with his career(s), but there's absolutely no evidence of notability within any of his fields to date. Richard3120 (talk) 21:51, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 21:51, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 21:51, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:02, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom me neither. Looks like a bad machine translation from Spanish, leading me to suspect it's a copyvio too - David Gerard (talk) 08:55, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Gerard – no, I don't think it's a copyvio, I think it's written by the subject himself, and it's just that his English is a little shaky – the article states that Diserpier's real name is Cristian Javier Mejia, and the article author is CJMejiaB. I'd actually be really interested to meet him in person: we live in the same city, he plays exactly the type of dance music I love, and we both have family roots in the department of Nariño in the south of Colombia. But with my Wikipedia hat on, I have to be impartial and say this doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO at present. Richard3120 (talk) 15:57, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AlaTest[edit]

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

Nothing significant but another startup company for being encyclopedia. For being in Wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become a Startup directory. 1000s of startups happens every day. Just another one. Notability required repeated significant coverage by media as well as significance in itself. building Wikiepdia page for their publicity. Light2021 (talk) 21:17, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:59, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:59, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:59, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete Red Herring 100 is nice, but doesn't swing it for notability. Before I culled it just now the External Links was literally every national URL they had. A basic WP:BEFORE turns up not even unreliable sources. The nicest thing I can say is that this a startup that hasn't unleashed a flood of promotional churnalism - David Gerard (talk) 09:27, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. as David Gerard says, there is insufficient evidence of notability, at lest not yet. DGG ( talk ) 04:13, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam, and nothing else at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:20, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MER-C 04:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

99.co[edit]

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

Nothing significant but another startup company for being encyclopedia. For being in Wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become a Startup directory. 1000s of startups happens every day. Just another one. Notability required repeated significant coverage by media as well as significance in itself. building Wikiepdia page for their publicity. Light2021 (talk) 21:09, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I find funding rounds and a bit of promotional churnalism. The only non-promotional third-party coverage is the passing controversy over an employee - David Gerard (talk) 09:25, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Part of an extensive promotional campaign for the founder. Eduardo Saverin is notable, but not all the various firms in which he invested his money from Facebook. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darius Cheung, the only other article by this contributor. DGG ( talk ) 13:18, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON and WP:MILL. This is one of many start-ups from the last two years, and it is too soon to know if it's notable yet. Bearian (talk) 17:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete as completely an advertisement with both the information and sourcing, none of it suggests otherwise better and this was clearly a PR-initiated campaign, therefore thr concerns largely outweigh any likely chances of acceptance. SwisterTwister talk 18:22, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Speaking as a local, this company is just one of the many property websites here. We don't create article on each of them. There are very less sources to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 21:18, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Article has been speedied G11 by Jimfbleak, so there's nothing left to discuss. Bearcat (talk) 16:54, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Urbery[edit]

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

Nothing significant but another startup company for being encyclopedia. For being in Wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become a Startup directory. 1000s of startups happens every day. Just another one. Notability required repeated significant coverage by media as well as significance in itself. building Wikiepdia page for their publicity. saga written like advertising. news is just blogs and press. Light2021 (talk) 21:07, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Currently, this service is only available in the downtown Toronto core..." To me this highlights the lack of notability the startup has, Per nom, delete. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 21:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:03, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:03, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:03, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (A7) by RHaworth. (non-admin closure) Anup [Talk] 10:33, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delhivery[edit]

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

Nothing significant but another startup company for being encyclopedia. For being in Wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become a Startup directory. 1000s of startups happens every day. Just another one. Notability required repeated significant coverage by media as well as significance in itself. Definitely getting funded by VC, and building Wikiepdia page for their publicity, releasing articles on major media about discussing future plans, investments other press material. covered mostly by Startup blogs not the notable media. If seen then left only 1 paragraph to say. Just because they belong to elite group of funded startup does not mean they are Encyclopedia notable. Definitely the article is written by close associate or company itself. Light2021 (talk) 21:03, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:05, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:05, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is not even a claim of significance here. It shoulc have gone to speedy in the first place. DGG ( talk ) 13:25, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Foodist[edit]

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

Nothing significant but another startup company for being encyclopedia. For being in Wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become a Startup directory. 1000s of startups happens every day. Just another one. Notability required repeated significant coverage by media as well as significance in itself. building Wikiepdia page for their publicity. 1 paragraph to say Light2021 (talk) 21:01, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:06, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:06, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:06, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete doing a basic WP:BEFORE I can find only funding rounds, someone bought them and a bit of churnalism - David Gerard (talk) 09:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MER-C 04:50, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis & Hayes[edit]

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

Nothing significant but another startup company for being encyclopedia. For being in Wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become a Startup directory. 1000s of startups happens every day. Just another one. Notability required repeated significant coverage by media as well as significance in itself. Definitely getting funded by VC, and building Wikiepdia page for their publicity, releasing articles on major media about discussing future plans, investments other press material. covered mostly by Startup blogs not the notable media. If seen then left only 1 paragraph to say and other are non-notable history and discussing business models. Just because they belong to elite group of funded startup does not mean they are Encyclopedia notable. Definitely the article is written by close associate or company itself. Light2021 (talk) 20:59, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:07, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:07, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:08, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete two of the "RSes" are literally a reprinted press release, one is a slight rewrite of the same press release - David Gerard (talk) 09:22, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:PROMO. Fails WP:NCORP. Anup [Talk] 07:28, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- corporate spam on a non notable entity. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:10, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MER-C 04:59, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hector Delgado (record producer)[edit]

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

It fails to meet the expectations of WP:MUSICBIO, WP:GNG and WP:MUSICIAN. DBrown SPS (talk) 20:35, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:09, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:09, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:09, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:09, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom, there's nothing here and I couldn't find anything in a basic WP:BEFORE. Most music-related hits are to unrelated producer Héctor el Father - David Gerard (talk) 08:54, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no indications of notability or significance; notability is not inherited from more notable entities. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:54, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OUTCOMES and WP:MILL. We almost always delete articles on producers, mostly because they are so run of the mill common. I don't see any evidence this is an exception. Please ping me if you find anything. Bearian (talk) 17:52, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources indicate existence rather than notability. ShelbyMarion (talk) 16:44, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:33, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Giulia Gwinn[edit]

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

fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 20:32, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom and WP:NFOOTBALL. Has only three years worth on stats - none of which have been with a professional club or National team (while a U-17 may be affiliated with a National team, it is not the actual, notable National team of any country). Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 21:14, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:42, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:42, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:42, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:57, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:59, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Keep - Cursory U.S. Google search yields numerous articles to reinforce WP:GNG. Good starting point; I'm sure German search would yield even more. Hmlarson (talk) 20:25, 2 October 2016 (UTC) Thanks for help integrating the references. Hmlarson (talk) 17:06, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - multiple references were added 07:59, 3 October 2016‎
Keep - clear GNG currently noted in the article including:

Footballer from Ailingen aims high - lengthy article on player in preparation for U17 world cup
Giulia Gwinn Wechselt zum SC Freiberg - Article on move to SC Freiberg
Giulia Gwinn is nominated relativley breif but nonethelesss useful article on player when aged just 13
Janine Minge and Giulia Gwinn create Penalties - article on performance for German U15 team
Gwinn and Minge face EM-Quali - specific article on this player and one other in preparation for the U17 European Championship
Gwinn and Minge draw attention to themselves - further article on player's youth international performances.

My German is not that strong, but these don't seem to be routine match reports and the reporting seems to be done by news outlets at least at a regional level, so seems to me to have received sufficient coverage to satisfy GNG. Additional primary sources in the article such as this can and are used to provide additional detail. Fenix down (talk) 14:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - fulfills GNG. MbahGondrong (talk) 19:38, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - per the logic of the other keep votes. The coverage of this article appears to be of higher significant level. Inter&anthro (talk) 05:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plays in a top-level league in her country. The fact that women's football is underpaid as compared to men's, and therefore are officially "non-professional" is a ridiculous notion for notability. As long as a player who plays 5 minutes in a dead rubber top-level men's league is notable for an article, so should be a woman of the same. --SuperJew (talk) 17:07, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:GNG. Another in depth article on FIFA website today. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 11:13, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:GNG per previous comments--John, AF4JM (talk) 12:26, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG per Fenix down's sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 01:56, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly meets WP:GNG with only half of sources provided. Nfitz (talk) 18:15, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MER-C 04:45, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Easy Data Access[edit]

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

unreliable sources for notability.Only article from creator so it seem possible that there is some conflict of interest. DGG ( talk ) 20:06, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject lacks notability. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 20:41, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article itself was unbelievable and unwisely accepted from AfC, and I know I myself would not have accepted this, the sources and information are PR, and it's also clear this was part of a PR article campaign, because of the mere sheerness of specifying what there is to advertise about the company. It's not surprising the involved user was, not only persistent about the company, but then had no other contributions or activities at all. This is a company who noticeable seeks PR and that's of course why this article would exist, because there's certainly enough suggesting this is neither a convincing article or actually improvable. SwisterTwister talk 20:45, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:18, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree, as usual a little more care allowing articles to be created meeting style guides would have much trouble. After thirteen years the company might be notable, but this article is close to the usual litany of "awards" that mean someone took a poor journalist to lunch. W Nowicki (talk) 22:57, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete per above - David Gerard (talk) 19:10, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Delete all post-hijack revisions and restore original article to its intended location. Deletion or merge of that one is for a separate discussion. Favonian (talk) 19:40, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BEHR Group Holdings[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. One ref is a project brief involving the company is the other is a dead-link unrecoverable through Wayback machine which would have attested to other US operations owned by the company's vice president. Even if available , this would not have conveyed any notability. Searches yield even less - facebook pages Linkedin pages and Vimeo pages but nothing of any substance Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:30, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 19:31, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:19, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This was formerly an article on the German engineering firm Behr GmbH & Co. KG and part of the text and the references pertain to that firm. In a process begun with this edit in May and later with this move the article has been repurposed as one on a US financial firm BEHR Group Holdings. I am not seeing an association between the two firms and @Niaguru1968: I am unclear why this was done? A newly-created article on BEHR Group Holdings would probably not survive CSD A7. Were it not for this AfD, I would suggest this should be reverted to the original title and revision as of 18:07, 3 March 2016; that said though, I am not sure the German firm is notable either (though it does have a German Wikipedia article). @Velella: thoughts on how to proceed at AfD on either/both firms? AllyD (talk) 09:28, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as proposed. The article's previous incarnation as the equivalent to de:Mahle Behr may or may not be a worthwhile subject on EN Wikipedia. but we do have Mahle GmbH, the English version of de:Mahle (Unternehmen), so interested editors can incorporate material relating to Mahle Behr there. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:37, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the research. If this is a hijack article then it should certainly be reverted to its original form and moved back again to the old name and re-evaluated there. I would be content for this AfD to be struck out in the event that the old article is restored. Regards Velella ^{Velella Talk} 10:51, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An edit conflict has confused the time line of thread slightly, but the comment by Michael Bednarek looks to be the better way forward. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 10:53, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Michael Bednarek. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 20:12, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Revision Delete to point of hijacking and then rename to Behr GmbH & Co. KG. Then think about notability/merging ect of those two articles. Agathoclea (talk) 20:39, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am fully aware of BEHR Group Holdings and do not understand why it is requested to delete it. I was a former client of the firm and it has been around since 1999 and this AfD should remain as is, it is preposterous that you are making an arbitrary decision without looking at facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.29.40.219 (talk) 03:31, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Discussion is a bit light on policy based arguments, but rough consensus is to keep. No prejudice against ongoing discussion to merge/redirect.Mojo Hand (talk) 14:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Auli'i Cravalho[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E that fails WP:NACTOR. If and when Cravalho receives coverage for other significant roles sometime in the future, the article of course can be recreated, but at this point in time, she notable only for starring in just one not yet released film. Sro23 (talk) 18:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 19:08, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 19:08, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The coverage is not sustained enough to pass the general notability guidelines by most interpretations. Since the film has not been released the one role is not enough for Cravalho to be propelled to fame that way. Anyway the main acting way to notability requires 2 films, not just one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:51, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The guidelines I was thinking of primarily apply to people involved in live-action film. A voice role like Cravalho will have in the film Moana does not even add towards notability as much as a live action role.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I respectfully disagree with the above comments with regards to the actor's notability, for two main reasons.

- It has been noted that she has only starred in one as-yet-unreleased film. I would like to direct the other commentators' attention to the likes of Peter Ostrum who appeared in only one film (Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory, a big budget film, which featured Gene Wilder. Ostrum has never appeared in another film but has a reasonably long Wikipedia article. His film and Moana can be seen as having similarities, as in both cases a large budget is involved and the younger actor is in a film featuring someone very famous. In Cravalho's case, it is Dwayne Johnson, in Ostrum's it was Gene Wilder.

- Secondly, despite the fact Cravalho is currently an "unknown" actress, her Wikipedia page itself has been getting many daily views. On average, the Auli'i Cravalho page seems to be receiving ~700-900 views per day. In the week following the most recent trailer release for Moana (16th September - 23rd September 2016), the article was viewed 21,682 times. I also reject the idea that she should not have a Wikipedia because she has not appeared in other major productions. Actors such as Paul Reeve (of Superman fame) was relatively unknown until he received his role in Superman. There is clear evidence from the views on this page alone that there is a lot of interest in her as an actress. Moana is a major Disney film which will be released in around a month's time. To refer to the numbers of article views again, I note that the Moana (2016 film) is currently receiving ~ 5000 views per day, though it has received ~ 15,000 per day in the last few weeks.

To conclude, my position is that while Auli'i Cravalho is not yet famous, she is a notable person. There is a lot of interest in the movie and the actress which I believe will only increase in the weeks to come. I am not sure I understand the sense of deleting the article when it will likely be recreated by someone else when the film is closer to release (i.e. most likely within a month or so from now). The film is currently set to be released in at least 32 countries by the end of the year. Currently, it serves to compile information about a rising actress, who, in the next three months, is likely to become very well known. EmWinn —Preceding undated comment added 09:28, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom, as well as the lack of WP:DEPTH or WP:PERSISTENCE of coverage. Also Note the completely non policy based nature of the 'keep' !vote. _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is directed at Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi and any others who believe my points to be not based on policy. I made my comments in relation to what had already been said by Sro23. If you read WP:BLP1E, you will see that the policy states all three requirements must be met for there to be a violation. My comments relate to the second requirement outlined, namely that the person is likely to remain widely unknown after the event. As I have already stated, I believe this is unlikely to be the case.

I would also appreciate someone (preferably Sro23) explaining how under requirement three of the above mentioned policy is violate by the article. I fail to see how the event is one of low importance (at least as far as films go). Cravalho plays the main character in the film. It seems to me that neither requirement two nor three is violated by this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmWinn (talk • contribs) 13:04, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cravalho does not "play" the main character in the film, she "voices" the main character in the film. There is a very large difference. Also, the film has not been released yet, so comparing it to films that have already been released is flawed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Moana (2016 film). Any interest in Cravalho at this point would have to be related to her role in this film, which is not even going to be released more than a month. If and when there is more to say about her that isn't related to her role in Moana, the redirect can be turned back into a proper article about her. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:27, 8 October 2016 (UTC)'[reply]

CommentJohn Pack Lambert Thanks for your contributions. I think you misunderstood what I meant by play (perhaps a difference in the types of English we speak). I meant it as per the Oxford Dictionary online https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/play under the 4th heading, play is defined as to "represent (a character) in a theatrical performance or a film", i.e. assuming the role of Moana, rather than that she physically appears in the film. You may also be interested in the video Walt Disney released on their YouTube channel "Casting Moana- Introducing Auli'i Cravalho" which features footage of the actress and currently has ~ 4 million views. It can be viewed here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pylCYlsjEK0

This will be my final comment on this AfD and I would like to comment generally on it. Firstly, thank you to everyone who commented or made suggestions. One thing I would like clarified (and maybe a more experienced Wikipedia editor can assist here) is why the Moana Auli'i page is up for deletion and the Moana (film) page is not. It seems many of the points that have made here could also apply to the film's page (notability, crystal ball etc).

I will watch this topic with interest when the film is released in ~ six weeks.

Again, thanks to anyone who contributed. Enjoy the rest of your weekend/upcoming week (depending on where you are in the world). :-) EmWinn (talk) 10:04, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or failing that redirect to the film. BLP1E is for otherwise non-notable people, but actors are public figures; substantial coverage of them is sufficient for inclusion even for just one role. Sandstein 12:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I guess WP:BLP1E doesn't apply since the individual is a public figure, but my concern remains that she doesn't meet WP:NACTOR. I would be willing to support redirecting to Moana (2016 film) at this time. Sro23 (talk) 14:14, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment She clearly does not meet NACTOR point 1, which requires Multiple roles, however point 2 "has a large fan base of a significant cult following" does have some potential. However that will be hard to justify before the film is released. It does explain why we have an article on Ostrum as mentioned above.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:43, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have become convinced that we have a wide enough number of articles from reliable sources to pass the GNG. Also, I think there is enough evidence of pre-release following that this one role will propel Cravalho into some level of significant following. Maybe not quite the level of Idina Menzell and what voicing the role of Elsa in Frozen has done for her career. OK, that is a horrible example, because Menzell had the lead role in rent on broadway back in 1996, and even in film had not only held that role in the film adaptation of rent but had also had the second highest female role in Enchanted. Frozen was her 8th role in film. So it is not comparable. Also, I doubt that Moana will reach the level of popularity of Frozen. Still, I think Cravalho has enough coverage to date to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:54, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Moana as per Metropolitan90. -rayukk | talk 22:59, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Voice acting is acting. She's the lead in a Disney film soon to be released! Bearian (talk) 21:59, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect She is currently only notable for the movie. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:08, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - She's somewhat notable at this moment, but only in the narrow and specific context of a movie that's not even been released yet. This is a crying example of being 'too soon'. I'd rather we wait to see what her actual career shapes up to be. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:29, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's fairly clear that a new major Disney film will be notable, and that the star of it will be also. Refusing to recognize this is an illustration of the overliteral misuse of NOTCRYSTAL. Some things don't need magical devices or guesswork, just obvious analogy. Pragmatically, the work involved in discussing it, removing it, and rewriting itis much greater than the work in letting it be and just keeping track of it. This is deletion process being used for the sake of deletion process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
Keep She's in a major movie with a lead role. Even if she only has this for her entire career, it's still a major role. Peter Ostrum had only one role, yet we have an article on him. Puget Sound (talk) 00:09, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:30, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Genki Ishisaka[edit]

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

The football player never played in a fully professional league and thus fails WP:NFOOTY. Ymblanter (talk) 18:08, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 19:26, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 19:26, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 19:26, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 19:26, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of independent notability. Eldumpo (talk) 06:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:59, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:07, 3 October 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) 14:47, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete did not play in a fully pro league does not meet the inclusion crietiria for footballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:44, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MER-C 05:03, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elephantosauripus[edit]

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

Needs references for verification. ubiquity (talk) 17:38, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could not locate reliable sources for notability verification. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 18:02, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing on Google Scholar or my university library search. FourViolas (talk) 18:39, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 19:09, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The source provided is something like the Korean version of answers.com, and so is very far indeed from being a reliable source. Like other -ipus genera, this is intended to be an ichnotaxon (a trace-fossil "genus" based on dinosaur tracks). Others are indeed valid. Ultrasauripus is a substub, but at least minimally referenced. Megalosauripus is currently no better than this article, but has a complicated history that could easily be fleshed out into a real article. Elephantosauripus, on the other hand, doesn't seem to have any currency in academic literature; all references to it that I can find are from dubious Korean sources. Google Scholar returns a big fat goose egg. I suspect this ichnotaxon was proposed by someone, probably in a dissertation or maybe a minor conference poster, but never received any traction nor acceptance. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:43, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:40, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 15:05, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Un-convention[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) 17:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:29, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:29, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, no significant source coverage. Very vague as to what the significance of this type of event is. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro
Speedy Delete Just advertising. Theroadislong (talk) 18:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 18:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Going to AFD is a courtesy, because this stub does not make a credible claim of significance. As long as an AFD is running, I won't CSD it. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:39, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Searching for reliable, independent sources is difficult since all the hits are about United Nations Conventions on various things. But lacking any such sources, we must delete the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:06, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only source provided doesn't even support the content of the article. As Cullen indicates, the topic is pretty much un-Googleable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 20:37, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to creation via AfC draft process, with clear notability. Per nom and all above. Good luck to them on ever SEO-ing their way above a gazillion pages talking about the "United Nations Convention" on everything. I'm not certain, but I think this article is basically an advert for a probably not-yet-notable startup company that possibly didn't think through their name in terms of search engines. It might not be an attempt at an advert, as there's too little there to reach much of a firm conclusion other than on lack of notability. It does meet CSD A7, but I'm content to just let the AfD run. Murph9000 (talk) 21:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MER-C 05:04, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Activate, Inc.[edit]

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

nn business - üser:Altenmann >t 16:59, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:19, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete on balance - the principals are both notable, which is why the news coverage I've been able to find is all "gosh, Wolf and Dash doing something!" Nothing actually about the business though - David Gerard (talk) 09:29, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I have doubts the principles are notable; at least not according to wikipedia guidelines. - üser:Altenmann >t 15:35, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - They both have articles which I would judge as very unlikely to be deleted at AFD - David Gerard (talk) 18:15, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The coverage provided and found is a mix of routine announcements and material/mentions of presentations by one of the firm's principals. Notability is not inherited and, as other have said above, this is more appropriately covered on the existing pages on the individuals. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 07:19, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there are a couple of good sources, but whether they are "in depth" is open to interpretation. Bearian (talk) 17:47, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO; no indications of notability nor WP:ORGSIG. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:35, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:51, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kyaram Sloyan[edit]

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

Death of youth in a war is tragic, but not necessarily notable by Wikipedia's definition of notability. The article does not meet WP:BIO1E. Furthermore, it does not seem to meet notability as an event based on it's lack of demonstrated lasting effect. Further I cannot see how it can be said to have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group. A tragedy yes, but Wikipedia is not a memorial. EricSerge (talk) 16:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. EricSerge (talk) 16:45, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Don't see why this should be deleted. This article was sent to deletion in the first week or so of the conflict and even then it garnered nine keep opinions as opposed to just four delete. With that said, I don't know why it was closed as no consensus when there was an overwhelming consensus to keep. At any rate, my opinion hasn't changed. His life and tragic death are covered by many notable news media outlets including The Sunday Times [1], Regnum [2], EurasiaNet [3], EKurd Daily [4], Agos [5], openDemocracy [6], RFE/RL Armenia [7] and many others. His death is being investigated by the International Federation for Human Rights [8] and the case is currently a pending lawsuit at the European Court of Human Rights ([9]...this needs to be added to the article). It is also compliant with WP:SOLDIER which considers a soldier notable if s/he is "awarded their nation's second-highest award for valour". The Order of the Combat Cross is Armenia's second highest honor, and he received its first degree. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The quotation from WP:SOLDIER is "awarded their nation's second-highest award for valour (such as the Navy Cross) multiple times". How did you manage to miss the "multiple times" requirement? I have no personal axe to grind about any ethnic conflicts in the Caucasus region, but it's pretty obvious that there are several editors distorting the truth according to their personal nationalist prejudices in recent deletion discussions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:54, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if this is part of an investigation of a war crime, then perhaps coverage of the case against an accused individual could use some of this material. However, in reading WP:CRIME this article fails by that inclusion standard as well. EricSerge (talk) 03:57, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

People don't get awarded the Navy Cross multiple times, they receive stars. In the case of the Order of the Combat Cross, that would mean getting a 1st degree (and not merely the 2nd), which is why I mentioned it. Besides, per TonyBallioni's comment below, there's good reason to believe that this is the highest medal granted for military valour. So my vote still stands. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:00, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stop the sophistry. A star is a second or subsequent award of a Navy Cross, but a first degree of the Order of the Combat Cross is not a second award, but simply the level of the first award. Maybe, as said below, this is actually the top award for valour in Armenia, but that doesn't take away from the fact that you misrepresented WP:SOLDIER above, and so may also be misrepresenting that information. Why do you (Personal attack removed) insist on overstating your case when you have a perfectly good case even without such misrepresentation? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 00:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now you're just showing signs of disruption, and that's pretty concerning. Ease up on the personal attacks, will you? No one here is an Armenian nationalist. Hell, I'm not even Armenian. And I did not say he received the order twice, I said he received its first degree, which is much more significant than receiving its second degree. To clarify: getting a star for a Navy Cross is, in my opinion, more or less the same significance as it would be when receiving the Combat Cross. And again, in light of TonyBallioni's comment, which provides a pretty good conclusion as to this medal's significance, my vote still stands. Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:25, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:25, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the highest honor in Armenia seems to be the National Hero of Armenia award. Taking a look at its recipients it looks something like the Presidential Medal of Freedom more than a military award such as the Victoria Cross or the Medal of Honor. The medal he was awarded seems to be the nations highest military honour for enlisted soldiers, and combined with what looks to be widespread media coverage, I think he passes WP:GNG. Also, just as a note, I also have no opinion one way or the other on any of the ethnic conflicts in the former Soviet Union. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:08, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is well sourced, sources are RS, the subject of the article is not simply the beheading but the aftermath of it. It is the aftermath that makes the subject notable - and there is demonstrable lasting effect. Many sources commented on it, notable politicians commented on it, international bodies commented on it, cases were raised at other international bodies that are still ongoing, the beheading and the related atrocities are now used as a reason to argue against Azerbaijan ever again having control of NK, etc. Note, this AfD almost certainly started because I mentioned this article in another ongoing AfD [10], giving this article as an example of what that other article would need to have to avoid deletion. Has this AfD been started in order to influence deletion of the other article? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:52, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The first degree of the Order of the Combat Cross appears to be the highest award for valour in Armenia, giving a pass of WP:SOLDIER. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:10, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't qualify WP:SOLDIER. All the citations are either Armenian propaganda or websites distantly talk about him. We can not have articles for each soldier died in a conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.140.194.48 (talk) 10:54, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Keep -- the subject was indeed awarded the "nation's highest award for military valour" (Awards and decorations of Armenia#Order of the Combat Cross 1st Degree), and thus this is technical WP:SOLDIER #1 pass. (The Hero of Armenia is a civil award.) The coverage is sufficient to pass GNG at this time. Moreover, the award was presented by Armenia's president personally, so the subject is likely to become a propaganda icon. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:56, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to pass WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:07, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination's withdrawn and no votes for deletion. Further discussion on contents can of course continue on the article talk page. Cavarrone 08:01, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

VIEW Conference[edit]

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

Promotional, (tagged for 5 years) non notable event, supported by a single reference to their own website. Fails WP:GNG Theroadislong (talk) 16:22, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If others are happy, I am willing to withdraw the AFD after Cavarrone's re-write with secondary sources, albeit IIalian ones. Theroadislong (talk) 14:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will keep on expanding the article and adding sources in the next days. --Cavarrone 14:41, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 19:10, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 19:10, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 19:10, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 19:10, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 19:10, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I need to look more in depht through the sources but at first glance there are 6,760 "recent" news articles in Google News and several additional hundreds or thousand articles in Google News archives. Surely the page needs a strong cleanup or even to be stubbified, but apparently there is enough material for a claim of notability and for writing a decent article. Cavarrone 20:19, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It's plausible that there could be an article about a notable thing at this title, but if the present page at this title were "rewritten" to focus on RSes it would literally not exist. If you're volunteering to write the article ... - David Gerard (talk) 08:49, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello You can find all the references of this page here: http://www.viewconference.it/ and View Conference has also an Italian Wikipedia Page: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/VIEW_Conference , that I used for writing the English page. Can you explain why you want to delete this article? This is not a promotional page, it is an informative one, and I was trying to update it for the current year (2016). I understood that Wikipedia is a space to inform people and make them learn something. Thank Elisa C —Preceding undated comment added 11:12, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not concerned with what the conference says about itself, only what the secondary sources say. Theroadislong (talk) 14:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add some information that is possible to find in this articles:

* http://redchilliesvfx.com/rcvfx/#!/news/view-conference-2016
* https://twitter.com/Cinetvlandia/status/780664801215311872
* http://variety.com/2016/film/global/trolls-directors-view-conference-1201861829/
* http://escapestudiosanimation.blogspot.it/2016/09/escape-studios-is-going-to-view.html?spref=fb
* http://www.guerrestellari.net/2016/09/28/roger-guyett-effetti-speciali-risveglio-della-forza-view-conference-2016/
* https://vfxblog.com/2016/09/28/the-vfx-supe-who-doesnt-really-think-about-vfx-and-how-you-can-learn-from-him/
* http://www.quotidianopiemontese.it/2016/09/26/i-maestri-del-cinema-e-del-gaming-digitale-a-torino-per-view-conference-2016/
* http://moonbotstudios.com/news/adam-volker-view-conference-24-28-oct-2016/
* http://www.afnews.info/wordpress/2016/09/26/non-spingete-alla-view-ce-posto-per-tutti-dal-24-al-28-ottobre/

But how can I do it without make any mistake? Thanks a lot Elisa C talk Elisa C (talk) 15:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that blogs and Twitter accounts are not considered to be reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 15:50, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, articles are not indescriminate collections of links. As noted above, there are thousand sources available about the subject, but we only care about the ones which are reliable, relevant and useful to back the contents. Cavarrone 16:20, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MER-C 05:05, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Karunasena Hettiarachchi[edit]

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

The only coverage that seems to be available is trivial mention in press releases, routine announcements, photo ops, and primary sources. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources seem to be available, and these are required for WP:BLP. Fails ANYBIO, BASIC, and GNG. Wikpedia is not a platform for promotion and is not a directory. Additional criteria says that holding office is not a guarantee of notability per NPOL. The lack of available reliable sources strongly indicates this subject does not meet BLP standards requiring high quality sources ---Steve Quinn (talk) 16:11, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 23:05, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 23:05, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the subject is clearly not notable - no sources available that establish any indication of notability. Dan arndt (talk) 23:05, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

a simple [Serach] turns out 800 results --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 02:13, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment none of which is significant coverage, just trivial mentions in passing. Fails WP:GNG. Dan arndt (talk) 02:47, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have tried to find sources to expand the article, but there is nothing beyond the subject's appointment to the post and subsequent trivial mentions in relation to the role. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 03:03, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:36, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:53, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David "Kawika" Maszak[edit]

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

David "Kawika" Maszak is an excellent personal CV but lacks any notability. The subject has never been more than an unremarkable business executive. sirlanz 15:50, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 October 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:09, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO generally and, since he was a writer, WP:NAUTHOR specifically. He never did anything notable according to our guidelines which would warrant an encyclopedic article here. There is zero reception of him as person in reliable sources or anywhere. The sources in the article for the most part don't even mention him or are non-RS and trivial. The article is basically written as résumé for him per WP:PROMO. It should therefore be deleted. Dead Mary (talk) 18:06, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable individual in marketing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:22, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 19:58, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peekshare[edit]

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

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

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

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

Sources are mainly PR. But, Silicon Week and Phone Arena are enough, in my opinion. Faintly passes WP:GNG. Please discuss. Nairspecht (talk) (work) 16:08, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my PROD here stated all of the concerns, I also noted that this was clearly part of a PR article campaign, given there were other articles involved about this; the sources are all PR and PR-focused and that alone, no amounts of planned improvements would help still, because the company is hoping for such funding, it shows it has not even established itself. SwisterTwister talk 16:35, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Google is really not helpful when it comes to searching news. This compares the app with Snapchat and Instagram and shares the info about the app's USP being "targeted to users who do not want their apps to drain phone data." This is certainly not PR. Hence, faint keep. Best, Nairspecht (talk) (work) 17:01, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Sources like El Universal and PCWorld indicate notability, but there's not a great deal of coverage beyond PR. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:42, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Google is the best source however for searching for news, aside from searching at every single major new source itself, and even the L2Inc being questionable as a convincing source, it's only merely a limited number of sentences, finishing with some interviewed information. The two sources later listed aboce, are then simple guides showing what the company is and what it offers, it's not substantial coverage and the vote itself states it's PR. SwisterTwister talk 18:29, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I want to note that not only is it clear this article is part of a PR article campaign, it shows in that it has been contributed by several SPA accounts, the last one then actually removing the AfD nomination template with "Citing journalists who choose to cover an app in response to press releases where the journalists took the time and effort to interview the company's founder are not "mere press releases", which is not in fact convincing because simply stating that journalists talked about it, is by any and all means not a defense or guarantee that no PR or PR intentions were involved, quite the contrary, it shows it is all PR in that none of the sources go anywhere else but PR and also what the company would only say about itself. SwisterTwister talk 19:37, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it's a publicity campaign, but it seems possible there is some COI involved. Certainly two SPAa are not experienced with WIkipedia. The article creator did not correctly use the translated article template, and now a second SPA does not seem to understand minor edits, the difference between a PROD and an AFD, where to use or how to fill in a PRODFULL template, or where to contest an AFD. Meters (talk) 20:11, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Nairspecht (talk) (work) 20:04, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Nairspecht (talk) (work) 20:04, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Nairspecht (talk) (work) 20:04, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I removed the proposed deletion/dated tag. This article complies with Wikipedia's noteworthiness criteria. The articles cited show the app Peekshare has been covered in the press. Journalists from several publications have taken the time to interview the app's creator and write original articles covering the app's features and customers. This has been critiqued as a "PR campaign." This concept is not relevant to the criteria for noteworthiness. Mbridge3000 (talk) 19:54, 1 October 2016 (UTC) — Mbridge3000 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Moved from Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Peekshare by User:Meters

Please read your talk page. For the 4th time, you were removing the AFD notice, not contesting a PROD. Meters (talk) 20:16, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The comment of stating that removing the template was necessary because it complies with notability and is convincing is questionable because the concerns have been listed as it is, including with my own PROD which was extensive and specific about it; this article, along with a closely linked article which has since now been deleted, all suggest this is simply a PR campaign, since the comment itself goes as far to state "that journalists interviewed them!" Also, saying that this is in fact a PR campaign is a fact, because it shows the concerns, one of which is getting largely noticed in that this is only being touched by SPA users. Once we start making excuses and compromising about accepting such PR, Wikipedia is damned as an ad-free encyclopedia. SwisterTwister talk 20:22, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ I am new. Isn't one of the wikpedian principles "don't bit the newbies?" I am learning how to contribute to this AfD process and apologize for my incorrect deletions. I am attempting to use the correct AfD process. I thought this was a PROD because that is mentioned in the first comment on the AfD page: "Delete as my PROD here stated all of the concerns, I also noted that this was clearly part of a PR article campaign, given there were other articles involved about this; the sources are all PR and PR-focused and that alone, no amounts of planned improvements would help still, because the company is hoping for such funding, it shows it has not even established itself. SwisterTwister talk 16:35, 1 October 2016 (UTC)"

Why are some comments suggesting that interviewing the subject of an article contrary to good journalism practices? I am deeply confused as to what point about noteworthiness that comment is trying to make. Please help me understand. Peekshare has been covered by multiple independent sources. These sources are verifiable and have been cited in the article. The terms PR and Public Relations do not appear in the notability page. Please explain how these concerns relate to the notability of AfD process. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies). Mbridge3000 (talk) 20:45, 1 October 2016 (UTC) — Mbridge3000 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration.

Delete per WP:PROMO; no indications of notability or significance. Strictly a corporate blurb. Separately, I created an AfD discussion for the founder: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Idzkowski, who appears to be even less notable than the company. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:41, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete anything in a soi-disant RS is churnalism, i.e. promotion, at best - David Gerard (talk) 00:57, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete concur with nom; promotional article, sources are routine press-release type pieces on the one app offered by this company - no significant in-depth coverage. MB 16:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ "K.e.coffman cited WP:PROMO but this article does not violate that policy. The article has a neutral point of view. The information is written in an objective and unbiased style. All article topics are verifiable and independent. Those in favor of deletion on PROMO grounds need to explain how this article violates the terms of the policy. "Self-promotion. It can be tempting to write about yourself or projects in which you have a strong personal involvement. However, remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other. This includes the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which can be difficult when writing about yourself or about projects close to you. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical sources is unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.

Advertising, marketing or public relations. Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify notable organizations which are the topic of the article. Wikipedia neither endorses organizations nor runs affiliate programs. See also Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for guidelines on corporate notability. Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so. See also Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and WP:Paid." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbridge3000 (talk • contribs) 03:06, 3 October 2016 (UTC) Mbridge3000 (talk) 03:07, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a real product, and whether or not the article is intended for publicity purposes I don't see the article content as being excessively promotional. However, I'm not finding sufficient independent, reliable sources to establish notability. The sources in the article and others I've found are generally blog and press release type coverage of a company's new app and do not establish notability. Meters (talk) 04:25, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. both JohnCD (talk) 22:33, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dale mandela[edit]

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

I know that if I speedy this somebody will say there is a claim of notability, but imo the sources used show that this slim claim is....well, slim. Fails WP:GNG, in the jargon. TheLongTone (talk) 15:38, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because its a duplicate;

I also think that there is a Slim Claim, but I would like to do a little research myself because there are some sources that show very little authentic facts but they do exist.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:28, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have absolutely no idea why he is supposedly associated with Gucci Mane and Waka Flocka Flame, as it says in the infobox. Certainly supporting N-Dubz on tour doesn't make him an "associated act". Richard3120 (talk) 18:02, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:28, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:26, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- an unreferenced BLP on a insignificant subject. Strictly a vanity page. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:30, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article lacks sources. References are the subjects own website and social media. ShelbyMarion (talk) 18:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 04:54, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy People (Herreys album)[edit]

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

Article does not assert any WP:NMUSIC or WP:NALBUM criteria. All we know is WP:ITEXISTS. — JFG ^talk 15:34, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article is updated and meets Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Recordings: "The single or album has appeared on any country's national music chart." --Bensin (talk) 16:32, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:28, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:28, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to the rather sparse article on the group. As a top 10 hit in Sweden it has sufficient significance, and likely enough coverage in Swedish sources, but could probably be covered in the group article. --Michig (talk) 06:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 19:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mazen Khaddaj[edit]

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

Prod removed by article creator. I see nothing here to convince my that this person meets WP:Artist. Au contraire. TheLongTone (talk) 15:12, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:29, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:29, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:29, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- After looking for citations, shows, and collections, there does not seem to be evidence that this person meets the criteria of a notable artist WP:ARTIST or public figure. Netherzone (talk) 01:27, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- with a special section "TV Interviews selection", this is a WP:PROMO article only. No indications of notability or significance; strictly a vanity page. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:28, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He might actually have received some local coverage; see [11]. I'm conflicted as to whether this is significant since other sources seem to be quiet; I don't know if that's a major paper or not. FalconK (talk) 07:28, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What should I improve in this article so as to have more evidence and not be proposed for deletion ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfarhat (talk • contribs) 07:39, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable artist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Opinions are divided about whether the coverage is sufficient to pass WP:GNG, irrespective of whether or not a more specialized guideline's requirements are met. Sandstein 12:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Henderson[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Also fails WP:NFOOTBALL, hasn't played in a tier 1 international match or in a fully professional football league. Hack (talk) 13:38, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plays in the top-league in Australia, a country in the top 10 women's football teams in the world. It's ridiculous to apply the same WP:FPL rules to women's football when there are currently only 3 fully-pro leagues in the world. --SuperJew (talk) 21:07, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:29, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:29, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:29, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Completely agree with @SuperJew:. WP:NFOOTBALL excludes the majority of top division women's leagues around the world. Time for the requirements to be updated in line with other projects. Hmlarson (talk) 23:51, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – To those voting to keep (@SuperJew: and @Hmlarson:), you need to provide some evidence of Henderson's notability (even aside from the appropriateness of WP:NFOOTBALL). Just did a quick google, and I can't find anything except match reports and previews. I'm all for promoting women's football, but that doesn't alter the need for more than WP:ROUTINE coverage. If you want to claim that the subject is notable you need to prove that is so, rather than just arguing that a guideline (which is a mere presumption) is incorrect. With the current sources out there, is there much prospect of this article being anything more than a basic stub? Macosal (talk) 01:25, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. Are these same standards expected of men in top division leagues around the world? Hmlarson (talk) 01:31, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They should be. The unfortunate reality is that WP:NFOOTBALL is too often used as a be-all and end-all, with players satisfying the reqs for "presumed" notability rarely being questioned, whilst those who don't fulfill them are often challenged, even in the face of significant coverage. But of course all subjects should satisfy WP:N in order to justify an article. Macosal (talk) 01:39, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Macosal:, and a male player whose only appearance in a top-division league is a five minute cameo at the end of a dead rubber match is notable for an article? The notability baseline should move from fully pro leagues to top division + fully pro. --SuperJew (talk) 09:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, as I said above. WP:NFOOTBALL has become over-observed, with people ignoring WP:N. Again I'd ask, are there enough non-routine sources to make Henderson's article more than a stub? I can't see evidence of that, and without that no article should exist, irrespective of gender or professionalism... Macosal (talk) 10:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok your talk seems consistent. When you start nominating players like Jais Malsarani and Tom Slater for deletion I'll support your AFD's for women footballers playing in the top level league. --SuperJew (talk) 10:58, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In what sense is this "my" AfD? To be honest I don't like to see material deleted from Wikipedia, and have never nominated any article for deletion (note I didn't even vote delete here, just a comment...). The reason I joined this discussion is to reframe it, because I believe WP:NFOOTBALL shouldn't be treated as the silver bullet it too often is (and was being by those contributing before me). Keeping on topic, what point is there in this article remaining when there is literally no specific information (non-routine) on its subject on the internet? Do we have evidence of notability? The WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS example you give is not a good one... Look up Tom Slater and you will find plenty of info about his time at the Mariners, his relationship with his father etc, whereas I can find literally nothing on Henderson anywhere (and seemingly nor can anyone else?). Macosal (talk) 12:00, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:59, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFOOTBALL failure. The reason there are only three fully-pro women's leagues is because there is less interest in them, and therefore the players don't have the same level of notability. Number 5 7 20:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:07, 3 October 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. Editors arguing keep would do well to review this current AfD for an example of a female player whoc has not played in a fully professional league nore at a senior international level, but still has a number of dedicated articles written about her. Having done so, if possible, they should observe where similar articles exist for this player. Fenix down (talk) 14:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Fenix down: Please, I'd love to see all the dedicated articles about Jais Malsarani for example. --SuperJew (talk) 17:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SuperJew: Well, completely ignoring the fact that you are trying to compare a full senior international with a routine club player, let's have a quick look. Now, my Vanuatuan is not strong but a two minute Google search throws up this which seems to me to be at least one article of reasonable length and of a non routine nature that seems to focus on the player. Now could I ask you to refrain from the creation of further pointless, not to mention incorrect, strawmen and concentrate on this player. Perhaps you might be able to show an example of some significant third party coverage she has received? Fenix down (talk) 20:37, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me more a routine announcement of his addition with other players to some squad, but also not strong with my Vanuatuan so we're just guessing here. My point is that this double standard between genders is ridiculous. The majority of top men's leagues in countries are considered FPL because the sport currently pays them more. The extra payment leads to more advertising, branding, more fans, more money etc. While the women's leagues are underpaid if at all. If you want money to be your deciding factor in writing a free open encyclopaedia, that seems counter intuitive to me. --SuperJew (talk) 21:04, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well money is an easy, though not perfect way of indicating notability. No one is going to pay if they don't get something in return if there isn't the attention on a league it won't attract money and if there isn't attention on the league then the players aren't notable and that has nothing to do with gender . That said GNG still trumps everything and there are many many female footballers who meet NFOOTY having played senior international football who have no article or justa stub. It always confuses me that those who talk of gender bias always seem to discuss it in AfDs for minor club players rather than getting on and creating content for the genuinely more notable female international players. Fenix down (talk) 21:57, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There seems to be some recent precedent 1 2 for giving the "benefit of the doubt" in these sorts of borderline WP:GNG cases. Obviously it's a systemic bias issue. The delete votes here apparently cite WP:NFOOTBALL almost as a reflex, even though, as others have said, it's proven itself inapt in the case of articles about women. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 23:29, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How does the subject pass WP:GNG? Hack (talk) 03:12, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nice attempt to distract from the points raised in regards to (the Men's) Football Project. Hmlarson (talk) 03:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It clearly fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. I'm not deflecting anything. Hack (talk) 03:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FOOTY fails women's football. Yep, that's the point. Hmlarson (talk) 04:31, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is not the place to have this discussion, but I don't think it does. At a base level, you need to have some way of presuming notability or not - there are simply too many footballers in the world to make constant, individual assessments on each one. So WPFOOTY has created a set of indicia for players who are likely or can be presumed to be notable. Pro leagues is not a bad way of doing this, but if you have an alternative you should raise it at WT:FOOTY or Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports). However, the question I would ask is: is it accurate to say that playing W-League football is a good indicator of notability? Both in the sense that there is demonstrable public interest in and sufficient non-routine coverage of each player to create an article? I think my conclusion is no - and this article is a good example - there is no non-routine information about this player on the internet. WP:FOOTY guideline or not, I believe this article fails WP:N. Macosal (talk) 06:01, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please, Pro leagues is not a bad way of presuming notability for men's leagues. It's a terrible way of presuming notability for women's league. In what way are the Dutch, Swedish and U.S. leagues different notability-wise to the Australian, English, French, German, etc. leagues? Playing at a top-level (+non-top-level pro leagues) seems a better way to go for all genders. Also add to the fact that many women play in two leagues during the year (because they need to eat), so therefore twice as likely to have notability. --SuperJew (talk) 10:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And you avoided the question about why it makes sense that any male player who plays 5 minutes in a dead-rubber match in the top-level league of the main football countries is considered notable, even if they have the same amount of coverage as a woman player in same position. We should either apply this coverage question to all footballers, regardless of gender, which would bring to deletion of many fringe male players, or go with as I suggested above, change the presumed notability to top-level leagues (which I prefer, since I prefer not to go around deleting articles). --SuperJew (talk) 10:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are fundamental issues with the viewpoint of the core of editors and these are as follows:

The whole "top-level league" argument is routinely raised and routinely rejected for the simple reason that no one in their right mind would consider a player, of either gender, sufficiently notable for a standalone article because they have played in the Niue Soccer Tournament.
Subject-specific notability guidelines must be equal for all genders.
Women's football, like it or not, is far, far less popular on a global basis than the men's game. It has much lower tv audiences, it has much more sparse television coverage, there is only a fraction of the money in the women's game than the men's, attendances are much much lower. These facts are all a function of the popularity of the sport and therefore of its notability.
This factual discrepancy is reflected in WP:FPL, it is not perfect, but, noting the "all player's in top-level leagues should be notable" argument above, no one has come up with a workable alternative that doesn't results in a lower notability for the women's game based solely on gender.
The solution to the gender bias is not necessarily to change notability guidelines but to actually get editor's writing about female footballers. There are hundreds of female footballers who pass WP:NFOOTY already due to having made full international appearances (see Egypt as an example) and this only includes current players. Additionally, there are many female footballers (see this AfD for example) who fail NFOOTY, but pass GNG who do not have articles written about them.

What needs to happen is for these gaps to be filled first, let all GNG satisfying female footballers have articles, then there is purpose in discussing the subject-specific guideline. The way this argument is being presented at the moment is always to my mind about quantity of articles not quality. Anyway, like Macosal said above, here is not the right forum; why does someone not start an RfC on this and get some third party input? Fenix down (talk) 11:17, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. As I said at the start of this discussion, WP:NFOOTY doesn't confer notability, it creates a presumption (or not). Of course there are broader issues here, but I can't see how anybody can argue to keep an article about a player with seemingly 0 non-routine coverage in reliable independent sources, regardless of NFOOTY. Macosal (talk) 13:08, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Therein lies the problem Macosal. It presumes notability. For men, any man playing at the top club level he can be playing at (meaning a top-level club in a one of the football countries who are top of the rankings) is presumed notable, while for women not any woman playing at the same level is presumed notable, as the top leagues in Germany (ranked 2nd worldwide), France (ranked 3rd), England (ranked 5th), Australia (ranked 7th) or Japan (ranked 8th) are "not professional enough". Does it make sense that a player playing regularly in the top-league of the 2nd or 3rd ranked country worldwide does not have the same presumed notability as a player who plays even one minute in a country ranked 143rd worldwide (even in the second league)? --SuperJew (talk) 16:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SuperJew, you seem to be making a major error here there is no guideline that states that a man playing in a top level league is notable, only those in leagues that are deemed to have reliable sourcing to fully professional status.

Furthermore, the notion that simply playing one minute in a qualifying league is sufficient is also not true. You may wish to review these AfDs: Oscar Otazu, Vyacheslav Seletskiy, Aleksandr Salimov, Andrei Semenchuk, Artyom Dubovsky, Cosmos Munegabe, Marios Antoniades, Scott Sinclair, Fredrik Hesselberg-Meyer, Matheus Eccard, Roland Szabó (2nd nomination), Metodija Stepanovski, Linas Klimavičius, Takumi Ogawa, Nicky Fish and Andrei Nițu, amongst others. They are all examples of male footballers scraping over the NFOOTY line, but never really progressing and then being deleted as GNG failures. Undoubtedly, there are many more out there and I would encourage you to nominate them.

Finally it obviously makes sense that we don't assume notability for players in the top ranked women's leagues in the same way we do for the men, because they are inherently less notable. A simple analysis of key statistics shows that. For example, The FA WSL may be ranked 5th in the world for women's leagues, but this from the FA shows an average 2015 attendence of a mere 1,076. On the other hand , this shows the premier league to have had an average attendence of 35,324 for the same season, 33 times higher. Even if you look at the HK league you cited above, for the same season shows average attendences essentially equal to the WSL.

This is the reason in microcosm why WP:FPL, although not perfect works in the main: the 148th ranked men's league is just as popular (and I note in a country with a much lower population) as the 5th ranked women's league. There is no getting around this fact: the women's game, globally, attracts far less interest than the men's and is comparably less notable as a result. I reiterate though, for the millionth time, there are hundreds, if not thousands of female footballers who are notable not just through GNG, but also through NFOOTY via senior international appearances. I don't understand why no one picks up on this and starts writing articles for them. Fenix down (talk) 17:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. When you actually take the time to learn about the history of women's football / soccer, contribute to articles about women's football / soccer players, and earn some deserved authority, let us know. Here's a clue: DO NOT RELY ON WP: FOOTY. Women players are largely excluded by the project in every WikiProject-related regard, it should really be re-named Men's Football. Maybe the growth of women's football is threatening in some way despite the first FIFA Women's World Cup occurring in 1991 vs 1930 for the men. You can find plenty more of this type of thing and numerous conversations just like this re: notability in the project archives. Hmlarson (talk) 18:17, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See also this kind of IP hilarity: [12], 2.

Your ad hom adds nothing to the discussion. I'm not sure why you can't engage with a simple statistical analysis. Some sort of refutation of the observation that relative notability is perhaps indicated by simple statements such the FA WSL attracting as many spectators as the HK League would be more useful in supporting your argument. Anyhow, to me the best way to deal with gender bias is not to criticise other editors in AfDs on minor players but to get on and create articles on notable women. I already pointed out Egypt above. There are more than 25 articles on female senior international footballers in the current squad just waiting to be created and the rest of African women's football is just as neglected as far as I can see. Fenix down (talk) 18:42, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get right on that statistical report to summarize how many times this type of thing occurs and is "managed" by most of the same WP:FOOTY editors here, despite a project that is made up of approximately 400+ editors. Hmlarson (talk) 18:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want those listed, just add sources as requested Fenix down (talk) 19:20, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For an essay? Ok. I'll also add {{cn|date=October 2016}} tags for "fully professional" mentions in WP:FOOTYN and WP:FPL. Hmlarson (talk) 20:02, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Politics aside, it seems that there is only one example of non-routine coverage of this player on the internet (from when she was 14). Unfortunately, simply not notable enough to warrant an article at this point. Macosal (talk) 00:42, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:48, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maurishka[edit]

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

No indication of meeting the notability guidelines at WP:ENT. According to her IMDB entry, her entire acting career consists of one episode each of two TV shows, two uncredited roles in films, and two credited bit parts in films. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:48, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 13:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, not enough to meet notability guidelines. nyuszika7h (talk) 13:35, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:48, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:29, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of demon lords in Dungeons & Dragons. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 13:05, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obox-ob[edit]

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

This article does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 11:58, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:58, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:58, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of demon lords in Dungeons & Dragons. BOZ (talk) 13:01, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per BOZ. Jclemens (talk) 04:51, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:00, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of demon lords in Dungeons & Dragons. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:16, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prince of Demons[edit]

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 11:57, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:57, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:57, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of demon lords in Dungeons & Dragons. BOZ (talk) 13:01, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Demon lord, which seems kind of more appropriate than the list. I'm not sure why demon lord has a list of demons, as that seems completely redundant to List of demon lords in Dungeons & Dragons. There are some trivial mentions scattered throughout TV show websites thanks to a mention in Stranger Things, but I don't significant coverage. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:14, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and I think NinjaRobotPirate found a more optimum destination. Jclemens (talk) 04:50, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:00, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The "keep" opinions merely assert the existence of sources, without addressing the "delete" side's concerns about their quality and the promotional nature of the content. Sandstein 12:53, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nannyshare.co.uk[edit]

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

Nannyshare.co.uk is unbridled, blatant advertising by a firm with no notability. A plea for improvement was made four years ago with no one interested in doing anything about it. sirlanz 11:29, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick search turns up notable sources like Guardian, Financial Times etc. The article needs a overhaul.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:31, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:31, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:31, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete Google hits aren't enough, you have to actually look at them. I see press releases, passing mentions and promotional churnalism. That's apart from the blatantly WP:PROMO nature of the article - David Gerard (talk) 09:18, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam, likely written by a paid editor. No point in wasting volunteer editors' time in re-writing is; pls see WP:BOGOF. So delete. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:44, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not seeing the problems that overtake the policy WP:PRESERVE. Evidence of notability has been provided. Unscintillating (talk) 05:45, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- "Evidence of notability has been provided" - where? - David Gerard (talk) 07:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a "keep" !vote above, and I also found references in the article. Unscintillating (talk) 11:58, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 22:30, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Lovelock[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer. Does not meet WP:NBOX or other criteria. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:49, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:49, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable boxer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:34, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:34, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable boxer who's currently ranked #332 in the world by Boxrec. Just fought his 18th fight--against someone with one previous bout. I found no significant independent coverage of him that couldn't be considered routine sports coverage. Papaursa (talk) 01:11, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no claim to notability; no meaningful bio content & no RS offered or available. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:37, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable boxer....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:55, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus for a particular action has emerged within this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:46, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Se-jeong (singer)[edit]

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

no notable work yet, she have not any notable solo work to need separate page in wikipedia such cast member in tv ,actng drama,album etc,delete and redirect to her bands.(Pikhmikh (talk) 02:13, 1 September 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 02:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 02:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 September 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:32, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She is presenter of TV show Talents for Sale and also winner of reality program. -- Kanghuitari (talk) 07:38, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delte non-notable television personality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A TV presenter that by sources verified presents notable shows are not non-notable. IDONTLIKEIT does not apply.BabbaQ (talk) 06:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show us the notability guideline that says that TV presenters that present notable shows are notable, BabbaQ? As a general rule, notability is not inherited by affiliation with other notable subjects. This is also fundamentally against WP:GNG. In order to pass GNG, there needs to be significant coverage of the subject, not significant coverage of related topics. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:27, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article is about a TV presenter, per sources that verifies she is presenting notable shows. per WP:GNG.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:51, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:53, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete she is not notable at all, actually i do not know anything about her but this wikipedia article is not standard page for living people also i can not find any notable work in her career "Filmography" its cameo and too short (no notable at all) even she is notable, this article can not show this to us, delete and redirect to Gugudan. TULIm (talk) 09:37, 17 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.82.4.46 (talk) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:22, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Apparently an editor thinks "redirect" is not a correct closure SST flyer 10:26, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SST flyer 10:26, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She's done a lot more than just present for a television show, and meets WP:MUSICBIO #6 by being a part of two notable groups. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm finding some sources that suggests the subject passes the general notability guideline.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:15, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MER-C 05:06, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Hankinson[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer. Does not meet WP:NBOX or other criteria. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:24, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:24, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable amateur that boxed for 2 years and lost 2 of his 6 fights. Yintan 10:38, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 10:54, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:34, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:34, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet the notability criteria for boxers and lacks the coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 01:04, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:45, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MER-C 05:08, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

E. D. Marshall Jewelers[edit]

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

Not significant or important for anything. Having been robbed happens to plenty of jewelery stores even if there was some local news coverage. Fails WP:ORG and WP:NOTNEWS. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There are millions of shops like that. Yintan 10:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It might well be of some local interest, but nothing that's gone on there that is mentioned in the article or anywhere else seems to be all that notable. FalconK (talk) 10:29, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:28, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:28, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by all means as PR and that alone, let's not kidding ourselves into thinking otherwise simply because a section about law troubles is listed, because the sources and information themselves still show this article only exists to state what the company is about and what the services are. The fact this article suggests it's part of a company PR campaign says alone, in that nothing else has happened aside from these sole contributions themselves. SwisterTwister talk 18:54, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete concur with nom. No notability, one of millions of stores/shops in the world. MB 20:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:36, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 04:52, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Zein bint Hussein[edit]

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

A non-notable royal. Notability isn't inherited. Perhaps redirect to her fathers' page. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:50, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I'm not sure that there's any formal declaration of where we draw the line for "presumptive notability" for members of the royal families of reigning monarchs, for whom, after all, their potential notability literally is inherited. In this case, the article's subject is the daughter of a reigning king (rather than any of the more obscure relationships that can nevertheless lead to someone being a "Princess"), and I'd be inclined to consider that sufficiently significant; certainly so in comparison to the British Royal Family, where grandchildren of the monarch have articles. That said, I can't imagine that there hasn't been some minimally sufficient amount of coverage of her in the Jordanian press, although that's poorly represented online (and largely in Arabic, naturally). I know that, at the very least, there has been mention of her in the context of her own immediate family. Her son, Jaafar, is a successful Jordanian singer (with international coverage; he is probably notable in his own right). Her daughter Joumana is involved in the fashion industry and has apparently received some coverage in the Jordanian fashion magazine Layalina. From sources I wouldn't deem particularly reliable, I know that her husband is the brother of Princess Alia bint Hussein's second husband, and that Princess Zein has an adopted daughter in addition to her two biological children. I find it fairly implausible that such topics did not receive coverage from JRTV or any of the Jordanian newspapers. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:43, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I do believe her husband is the brother of her brother in law. This is surprisingly common in Arab culture. More importantly the coverage appears to be trivial to me, but then again the language and online bias that you mentioned could affect that. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've cleaned up the article a little, culled the content that was sourced from obvious non-RS, and added what I could find from English-language sources. Jordan Times only has searchable archives back to 2006 (and their search engine leaves a bit to be desired as well), and most of the newsworthy events involving Princess Zein predate that. If one believes that more significant coverage exists in Arabic, offline, then it is likely that she would pass the threshold of notability. If one believes that the easily available English sources are all there is to find, then this AFD is largely a question of whether the daughter of a king (and sister of his successor) crosses the bar of notability more easily than would similarly-sourced non-royalty (because I'm not even going to pretend that the cited sources would be otherwise sufficient). I'm still inclined to keep, citing the readiness of inclusion of members of the British royal family, systemic bias, and so forth. YMMV. I'm also fairly certain that her son Jaafar is notable on his own, but that doesn't speak directly to this deletion proposal. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:51, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:07, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Thanks for both your work on the article and your opinion. I'll keep the AfD open and see what others think. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is the English Wikipedia and there's people who flock to keep articles on royal fetuses of the United Kingdom. Having this helps balance things out. This article can be improved with Arabic sources. Here is one I found.

[13] According to an online translator, the sentence with her native name (زين بنت الحسين) says, "And for women from Friday at the home of the deceased object in Amman or sumac southern area next to schools Manthoor girl Princess Zein al-Hussein Street Building No. (8)." So she might have a street named after her. BigGuy88 (talk) 01:04, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks notable enough.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:45, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 22:28, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tomas Karpavičius[edit]

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

Contested speedy deletion. Article on a civil servant, which does not qualify for inherent notability and must pass WP:GNG. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be the case here. Just a good, solid civil servant, who was selected as a "civil servant of the year" in Lithuania in 2015 and received some coverage for it(1 and 2). Unfortunately, that coverage is either very shallow (source 2) or not independent (source 1 lists his employer as an author, so it's effectively a PR piece). Finally, the article reads like a CV, the sources in the article are not independent and the article seems to be edited entirely by a COI editor (the username of the contributor and the username of the uploader of the photo suggest they are related to the Ministry of Communications, the subject's employer). No longer a penguin (talk) 10:51, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:38, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:38, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with nom. COI author, reads as CV, nothing special to stand out among 1000s of other civil servants. Renata (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO; a weakly sourced vanity page. No indications of notability or significance. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. K.e.coffman (talk) 09:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:43, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shuhei Matsubara[edit]

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

The football player has never played in a professional league, hence fails WP:NFOOTY. Ymblanter (talk) 08:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:34, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:34, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:34, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:34, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:36, 2 October 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) 14:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 22:27, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rhythmicru[edit]

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

Delete. Band with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC, and very little quality sourcing to satisfy WP:GNG -- of the five sources here, the two that are reliable ones are both local to the band's own hometown and offer no new information that would boost their passage of WP:NMUSIC at all, while all of the other three are user-generated discussion forums or blogs which are never valid support for anything at all. Wikipedia is not a free PR platform on which any band is entitled to an article just because they exist; RS coverage supporting a claim of notability that would pass one or more NMUSIC criteria is required. Bearcat (talk) 03:58, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:39, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:39, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Local or user generated sources only. No other sources exist that I can find. Delete. Fieari (talk) 04:50, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs a bit more input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:21, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:21, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO; strictly a vanity page with puffed-up language such as "They were known^{[by whom?]} for their guerilla marketing,[1] live shows,[2] and passion (!) for supporting the hip hop community.[3]. Nothing to salvage here. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 22:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heron Recordings[edit]

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

An unremarkable music label. The article lists two citations (one is inaccessible, and the other does not mention the subject). In any case, the citations appear to be about The Ballad Of Britain not the subject. Likewise, I cannot find significant RS coverage to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:26, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:26, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:21, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:06, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom - sources unrelated to the subject and additional reliable sources could not be found. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 05:38, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs a bit more input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 09:52, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a few notable bands, but does not seem to have been active "more than a few years" according to NMUSIC#5. I could find no reliable sources to justify keeping via GNG or any other notability guideline. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:25, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Materialscientist (talk) 08:53, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mighty Fighters Gym[edit]

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

The notability for this article is being disputed. To be fair given this was created by a new editor I am going to use AFD rather than CSD. I was able to find the business and improved the article accordingly. ^[1] Now I'll leave it to the community to decide whether the business is article-worthy. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 07:59, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://mightyfighter.com

Delete. As far as I can see this gym doesn't meet WP:CORP. Yintan 08:32, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I originally nominated this for CSD A7 from RC patrol. I couldn't find any significant coverage for WP:CORP and the name of the account that created the page makes it look a little like self-promotion. FalconK (talk) 08:35, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Purely promotinal with no inherent notability. Should have been speedied but since it is here.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:41, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, with the caveat that serious concerns have been raised about the tone of the article. If these issues are not addressed, deletion on the grounds of its promotional nature becomes a more justifiable option. Vanamonde (talk) 07:18, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OurCrowd[edit]

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

Extensively informed PROD removed with an overpersonal comment yet I clearly and staunchly stated my concerns in that not only is everything listed here PR, but the searches such as this one are exactly finding PR itself, simply because a major news source publishes something is not actually saying the contents themselves are convincing; because in this case, not only are there actually press releases, there's then other trivial and unconvincing news such as what funding and financing the company has and how it's seeking additional funding and investors-clients (there's even such blatant PR as the company then talking about its locations and offices!), and as past AfDs have shown of course, that's a classic sign of a company, not only not being actually notable, but they haven't even established themselves with financing. Once we start accepting such blatant PR and advertisement "articles", we're completely damned as an encyclopedia because of such trivial sources being passed as "news", the article itself only ever actually focuses with things the company would only say of itself, not what an actual encyclopedia publishes. SwisterTwister talk 07:36, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:30, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:30, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:30, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's notable. The coverage I found shows it's notable: [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26]. The prod rationale may have been a lot of things but it showed no evidence of finding easily available coverage from a Google search. --Michig (talk) 08:57, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- uh, those sources are not good, and are precisely the sort of thing the nom is talking about. [27] is a promo piece for the Wired Money conference (and just read the text), [28] is a Forbes Blogs piece by a random blogger and not an RS, [29] is a reprinted press release ... are the rest actually any good? Please reread the objections in the nomination - David Gerard (talk) 10:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, I don't see it. Are most if not all of these reliable sources? Are we going to second guess every article to try to find promotion everywhere? If someone has put their name to something copied from a press release, fair enough, we can discount it, but I don't see all of these falling into that category. --Michig (talk) 10:28, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some relevant sources:
- OurCrowd Raises $72M for Crowdfunding Gambit in The Wall Street Journal. It's behind a paywall, but there's a copy online here if anyone wants to read it.
- Israeli equity crowdfunding platform OurCrowd launches in Australia in The Australian Financial Review.
- With Plans of Investing $100M Next Year, Israel’s OurCrowd Forges Its Own Path in Equity Crowdfunding in TechCrunch.
- OurCrowd, Bayer set up $15 million agtech fund in The Times of Israel.
- OurCrowd draws 3,000 to Jerusalem Global Investor Summit in The Jerusalem Post.
- Singapore's UOB and Israeli crowdfunding company team up in CNBC.
- Israel’s OurCrowd Raises $72 Million to Boost Crowdfunding Deals in Bloomberg News.
- UOB partners Israeli startup OurCrowd for equity crowdfunding, in The Straits Times.
- OurCrowd: Crowded house on investment, in The Australian.
- Forget Brexit, this startup is eyeing "Brentry" with London expansion plans, in City A.M.
- OurCrowd has closed Australia’s largest ever equity crowdfunding round for $1.5 million, in Business Insider.
WP:GNG says that notable articles should have "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". All of these articles have OurCrowd as the primary subject of their writing, so their coverage is substantial. All of them are from large, well-known, professional media outlets, so they're reliable sources. And I went and looked up every one of the authors on LinkedIn, to confirm that they were serious, experienced, professional journalists, and not "bloggers" or "contributors" or OurCrowd marketing people who weren't independent. Nevertheless, I'm sure people will be able to make up some excuse for why they don't count. Sigh. 2602:306:3A29:9B90:218F:3CEA:6D46:D5E9 (talk) 10:57, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's quite noticeable that the sources consist of mere republished PR, including the ones above where the company is talking about their business plans and thoughts about funding and financing, something that is clear to be PR and that alone, because no one else knows better about the company's plans....than itself. Now, as the for the comment above as "LinkedIn shows these journalists are honest and serious", thst means absolutely nothing because not only are these their own websites and job listings, a PR agent is going to be as surreptitious as they can about PR actions, in attempts to make it so obvious. It's happened here at AfD Deletions thst then closed as Delete, with that. None of the Keep votes are actually substantiating themselves by what I said aboce, including where I explicitly noted these concerns, and this shows by the fact they are simply tossing links and calling them news, yet they are as my analyses and comments had shown, they are simply churnalism PR, certainly not PR-immune (again given the closeness of stating the company's own funding, financing and business plans). Despite that I explicitly showed where the sources are unacceptable, but then stating they are acceptable, is completely contrary. These Keep votes were so quick to list these links, it's clear, looking at them, there was republished PR, so then stating Keep because of sources, is not the same thing. The IP then actually states how "if they are significant news", yet this automatically means nothing if they are, again, republished PR; thisbalso shows by then stating "but someone will make excuses about these sources" is thin in itself since, again, the IP simply tossed some links but never either acknowledged and considered the concerns listed above, or, the PR concerns that laid in those listed sources. Once we start accepting PR campaign articles, we're damned as an encyclopedia. SwisterTwister talk 16:48, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable, but joins the big basket of "notable article invaded by advertising PR agent" type ones we have.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ SwisterTwister. I agree completely with "Once we start accepting such blatant PR and advertisement "articles", we're completely damned as an encyclopedia because of such trivial sources being passed as "news", the article itself only ever actually focuses with things the company would only say of itself, not what an actual encyclopedia publishes." We should not accept such PR and advertising. But we also can't throw out any article which gets edited by a PR agent. It's a big problem because we lose a lot of notable content because on the surface the articles look like non notable cruft. What we need really is an official team supported by Wikimedia to patrol the site looking for advertising or articles threatend with deletion and get them to rewrite the articles and salvage them.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:51, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That's exactly the thing: accepting articles that were touched and overall contributed by the company and its PRvagents itself, is then actually hosting said advertisements, and it shows the need sources above clearly simply republished the company's own contents, therefore unacceptable. There is no compromise to accepting advertisements. SwisterTwister talk 17:53, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When the RSes are clearly running churnalism, I have no problem calling that "promotional" and not considering it reliable sourcing to base an encyclopedia upon. While it's possible to interpret our RS rules such that things that are clearly barely-processed press releases would be treated as A+ first-class carefully-verified information you can absolutely rely upon, that does not mean that doing so is a good idea, and I really don't see that we're obliged to do so - David Gerard (talk) 00:46, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lots of sources from around the world listed here. Note that rewarmed press releases are secondary coverage, carrying the reliability of the secondary source. Churnalism or not, attention to the topic occurs when a rewarmed press release is printed. Newspaper's corporate lawyers remain just as responsible for what gets published, churnalism or not. And Wikipedia's verifiability should never be confused with Truth^TM. Unscintillating (talk) 03:27, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There is no "truth", especially not an encyclopedia, if we accept press releases, which are essentially contents all by the company itself, simply stating there are sources, yet not specifying which ones are the ones which would be used, considering the consensus above shows and states otherwise, also "rewarmed press releases are secondary coverage, carrying the reliability of the secondary source" is not the case at all since republished PR is still PR, no matter where published, that's what exactly we should not be accepted, not finding excuses to actually use them. If any attention to churnalistic PR occurs, it's because it's been carriaged as PR, and that's still nothing we would actually accept. In the case of "verifiability", that is exactly why we would not accept PR because we are simply using the company's own words, not what an encyclopedia should use itself. SwisterTwister talk 03:42, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Our policies and guidelines are not "excuses", they are the rules by which we operate as a community. Unscintillating (talk) 05:09, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Yes, and one of the best policies we have is not accepting advertisements, and this is something we will always use should we continue as an encyclopedia, that's exactly why the sources above are unacceptable, because they consist of PR. SwisterTwister talk 05:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:NOTADVERT is a policy, but where does it say anything like what you suggest? Some specific words are "content hosted in Wikipedia is not for:". So your claim that "notadvert" applies to sources has a direct refutation. Unscintillating (talk) 13:51, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH per a review of available sources. Some sources provide coverage that is a bit on a routine level, but others provide more in depth information, such as overviews about the company, its history, present activity, etc. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:50, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When the RSes are clearly running churnalism, I have no problem calling that "promotional" and not considering it reliable sourcing to base an encyclopedia upon. While it's possible to interpret our RS rules such that things that are clearly barely-processed press releases would be treated as A+ first-class carefully-verified information you can absolutely rely upon, that does not mean that doing so is somehow a good idea, and I really don't see that we're obliged to do so - David Gerard (talk) 09:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage like this [30] profile/interview in Forbes make this Keep a slam-dunk. Notability is supported by coverage in RS. It just is.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:37, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum I hit that article by running a google news search on "Jonathan Medved" + "Our Crowd" as a way of checking whether coverage is as shallow as a user above asserts. in addition to that Forbes article you get stuff like this in Fortune (magazine): "OurCrowd, based in Jerusalem, has helped 100 companies raise $300 million since 2013. It has a network of 15,000 investors from 110 countries, about 2,000 of which are active in deals, says Jonathan Medved, the platform’s founder. Half of the site’s investors are based in the U.S.Not only has OurCrowd helped startups raise hundreds of millions of dollars, it’s enabled many to do so quickly. For example, Medved says OurCrowd helped one fintech company raise $4 million in 48 hours about two years ago. While that’s not the norm, Medved says, it isn’t unusual for companies to raise large sums of money in a matter of weeks, or a few months.“We can consistently raise millions of dollar for companies,” Medved says.Much like a venture capital firm, OurCrowd has created four investment funds that focus on sectors, regions, or the phase of a company’s growth. When investors invest, they also do so through so-called special purpose vehicles, or SPVs. Those are limited partnerships that gather together the investors as a single entity, which solves the problem of having too many stray investors in your company.OurCrowd also rejects 98% of the companies that come to it for financing, Medved says, and its vetting process plus its investment structure has garnered the interest of VCs. Well-known venture capital funds, including US Venture Partners, Spark Capital, Menlo Ventures, and Charles River Ventures, have invested alongside OurCrowd in its platform companies.“My biggest concern, and reason for not doing [Title III raises] is that in its current format, it does not allow for the SPV structure,” Medved says. “When you can aggregate everyone and represent them, you can act like a VC investor." [31]. This is not mere recycling of press releases. Next I searched "Jonathan Medved" in the Wall Street Journal [32]. Just keep and tag for improvement.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:46, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That Forbes link is not an edited RS Forbes article, it's one of their third-party blog posts. It's just a blog post, not RS coverage of any sort. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Has_anyone_written_up_something_referenceable_on_the_problem_with_Forbes_blogs.3F for a discussion of the Forbes blog problem. If the writer is a notable expert whose opinion is relevant, then the source should be judged under WP:SPS - however, anything on forbes.com/sites that doesn't explicitly say "Forbes staff" or "From the print edition" is just a blog - David Gerard (talk) 19:18, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not realize that, I asssumed that it was akin to being a "contributor" on a number of other reputable publications where a number of "contributors" are invited to post, but invitations to beocme a contributor only go to a limited number of recognized authorities in various fields. In this particular case, of source, Amy Guttman is a highly regarded journalist, not at all akin to the individuals who post on Huntington.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:35, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note the other sources that I brought. I am still firmly persuaded hat this topic passes WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:35, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and analysis - The Forbes is not an independent source because it's not only a mere interview where he is going to specifics, which of course includes what he wants to advertise about the company, the "journalist" is not n actual staff employee, she's a "contributor" from another place, so if she's not even an actual employee, there cannot be confidence of substance and convincing, therefore that's not a "Slam Dunk", because both people (the CEO and journalist) could be said to be a paid position to find and obtain PR, especially since she lists herself as a freelance journalist, a job that is noticeably heavy with PR. The own questions simply consist of "What's the company? How's it work? How can people invest? "What number of people can invest? What's the minimum a client can invest (of which they then list exact numbers of money (clear)), How's it work (a repeated question), etc. " This actually goes to continue for 4 pages, that shows the passion and efforts of advertising the company, therefore it's not guaranteed to be non-PR, especially considering the CEO saying everything. SwisterTwister talk 19:59, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Im honestly not impressed by this article. The language written itself does not show proper notability. It reads as if it is a new startup who just got funding. Regarding its sources, 2 are of its own site and 1 is in Hebrew. sigh. the others are weak. Pyrusca (talk) 20:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Notability is defined outside of Wikipedia. Articles don't have to show any evidence of notability for the topic to be notable. Unscintillating (talk) 21:09, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For more information, see WP:NEXIST, "The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article." North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:26, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- per WP:PROMO and no indications of notability or significance. With content such as:

As of November 2013, OurCrowd raised over $25M for its 30 portfolio companies.^[1] Contributions were raised from accredited investors in over 19 different countries. In January, 2016, OurCrowd brought together 3,000 investors and entrepreneurs for their annual summit in Jerusalem.^[2] In March, 2016, OurCrowd raised $10 million from Singapore's United Overseas Bank, with the stated goal of expanding into Asian markets.^[3]

References

^ http://www.geektime.com/2014/04/28/ourcrowd-gets-25m-for-its-own-funding-which-it-will-pass-on-to-its-portfolio/
^ "OurCrowd Global Investor Summit 2016". summit.ourcrowd.com. Retrieved 2016-01-24.
^ "Via Singapore, OurCrowd brings crowdfunding platform to Asia". The Times of Israel. Retrieved 2016-04-05.

this article is not in compliance with WP:NOT, and only serves to promote the company, rather than provide encyclopedic content. Sources brought to the AfD are equally unconvincing. They are only about funding, partnerships and corporate events, with no indications of why this company is significant:

OurCrowd, Bayer set up $15 million agtech fund in The Times of Israel.
OurCrowd draws 3,000 to Jerusalem Global Investor Summit in The Jerusalem Post.
Singapore's UOB and Israeli crowdfunding company team up in CNBC. Etc

The statement "Note that rewarmed press releases are secondary coverage, carrying the reliability of the secondary source. Churnalism or not, attention to the topic occurs when a rewarmed press release is printed is very odd, for two reasons:

Wikipedia requires reliable secondary sources, not just any secondary source. When publications redress press releases, they lose their reliability on this topic.
I completely disagree that "attention to the topic occurs when a rewarmed press release is printed", given that Wikipedia has a policy on WP:PROMO. When companies run ads in the same publications, this would also attract "attention", but we don't base articles on ads, do we?

Likewise, the Fortune article extensively quoted above is based on the interview with the founder. This is not an acceptable RS for the purpose of establishing notability. Note how many quotes from the founder are there. These are all potentially unverifiable claims, such as:

"Medved says OurCrowd helped one fintech company raise $4 million in 48 hours"
"“We can consistently raise millions of dollar for companies,” Medved says"
"OurCrowd also rejects 98% of the companies that come to it for financing, Medved says"

We'd literally be able to use nothing from the article as far as encyclopedic content is concerned. I thus advocate deletion. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:25, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per numerous sources such as this one and per Michig and EMGregory.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:28, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS to be basing its article on uncritical news coverage. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:35, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and analysis - To ensure there was a consensus about all this, I will note that the source above is exactly unconvincing since it merely lists the company's own plans including how it's achieving and planning to get money, that's not news, that's an attention listing for clients and investors, and is what happens to any company, particularly the staunch ones that are avid about money. The first sentence itself goes to actually then state what the company's plans are and the second paragraph goes to a quote before taking patterns between interview and funding quotes again, that shows alone it was not genuine journalism, if the company itself is occupying the space. SwisterTwister talk 01:34, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some editors have becomes notorious for unwillingness to reconsider their initial opinion on notability, doubling down even in the face of evidence like "OurCrowd Aims to Widen Pool of Angel Investors to Main Street," Wall Street Journal article by Yulia Chernova, a journalist on tech and venture cap employed by the Journal [33] I linked to it above, but many editors only consider articles that support their own intransigent position. Here is the link again, although WAJ is password protected [34].E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:11, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources provided in this AfD show that it meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Any concerns with promotional tone should be fixed by editing, not deletion. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:59, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I agree with the above notion about tone, which can often be corrected by copy editing articles. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:09, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- if the article were copy edited to remove intricate detail of no interest to the general public, as well as promotional content, it would be reduced to one or two paragraphs, resulting in a WP:DIRECTORY listing, which Wikipedia is not. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:20, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- As the extensive analysis has shown here, we cannot actually improve an article whose sole intentions were advertising to begin with, claiming it can be fixed when it in fact cannot is simply making an excuse to say "well, we can see if it can be fixed" instead of actually facing the facts and seeing it's not, because it's an advertisement with advertising sources therefore there are no sensible solutions to that. Also, it is not the same thing to literally say "There are sources! That must be enough for WP:CORPDEPTH" if the specific analyses here have explicitly shown they are all still trivial and unconvincing PR. As a note, the Keep votes here themselves have either tossed in some sources but not responded to actually substantiate themselves especially after the sources were found to be trivial and unconvincing PR, the other ones that have then commented are in fact acknowledging they are still PR and "puffery". When we start making compromises and keeping blatant advertisements, we're completely damned as a serious website. SwisterTwister talk 02:31, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SOAPBOX Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 02:33, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the only place in WP:NOT that discusses "soapbox":

3. Opinion pieces. Although some topics, particularly those concerning current affairs and politics, may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (for example, passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced to put entries, especially for current events, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete. However, Wikipedia's sister project Wikinews allows commentaries on its articles.

Unscintillating (talk) 04:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not read as an opinion piece, in my opinion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:33, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article indeed reads like a promotional WP:SOAP for the company. Hence, I advocated deletion. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closure comment - I'd closed as Keep however the nom disagreed so am reopening. –Davey2010^Talk 04:04, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per WP:SIGCOV in Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg, as well as other sources listed above. Safehaven86 (talk) 05:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These are news pieces that talk about what the company aspirations are "OurCrowd Aims to Widen Pool of Angel Investors to Main Street" and how it raised money: "OurCrowd Ltd., a website that connects investors to a pool of mostly Israeli and U.S. startups, said it raised $72 million to expand its operations and invest in other businesses." This is routine coverage of venture capital deals and does not rise to the level of encyclopedia notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:40, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:31, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tofusquirrel[edit]

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

I honestly would've PRODed but it may be drive-by removed so we'll go with something heavier and AfD instead; none of this comes close at all for actual independent notability and substance, the listed links are trivial and unconvincing, certainly nothing for actual improvements and certainly nothing for convincing, searches quite noticeably found nothing, aside from a few other trivial and unconvincing links of course. I have never seen an actually convincing article for a "poster illustrator" but if there are some, which I believe I may have actually, they have certainly been better than this article. This was actually PRODed before, which I was going to use but it was boldly removed citing the "apparent sources", yet ironically, there's still nothing suggestive of improvements and they are not going to happen since it seems nothing major has actually happened in her career. SwisterTwister talk 07:08, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:29, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:30, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:30, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom - nice pictures, got work, nothing actually about her - David Gerard (talk) 09:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing much to be found apart from the usual MySpace, Instagram, etc. Refs mentioned in the article (sources that might have carried more weight) are all dead links. Yintan 10:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Deleted by Materialscientist under speedy deletion criterion A7. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:12, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gerrard Jonas[edit]

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

Non-notable, no refs, vanity page of 18-year old. Should be speedied but since the 3(?) editors working on the article keep removing the speedy tags, I have to bring it here. Yintan 07:01, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as per A7. FalconK (talk) 07:10, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged, will do everything to keep notice up. Clubjustin ^Talkosphere 07:36, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, closing. Clubjustin ^Talkosphere 07:50, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:56, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moshe Begim[edit]

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

This is a poorly sourced attack ad. It boils down to "this guy was head of a company and accused of money laundering." It is riddled with "citation needed" links, and is written as an attack. Its presence in Wikipedia adds nothing, especially since the claim of conviction is to a non-working link that looks to not be a reliable source. John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:09, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Johnpacklambert is 100% correct in this matter, and he knows that I do not hestitate to disagree with him. I did a good faith Google search and found no evidence of notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:32, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:32, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:32, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:32, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- not something one would expect to find in an encyclopedia; a strange mix of "crime blotter" and WP:PROMO. No reliable sources to be found. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:01, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Nick-D (talk) 01:13, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:SNOW and also speedy deletion criteria WP:A7. Please see my comments below. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:10, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Codenamed bob[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a notable film. Searching for sources results only in profiles and not significant coverage. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:12, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reliable 3rd party references found. Speedy delete seems appropriate. WP:TOOSOON at best. Cotton2 (talk) 03:25, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There was another article created at Codename Bob. I've merged the two histories together since they're by the same person. Offhand this looks like it might be speedyable as A7 because it's a YouTube video. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:54, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD A7 as noted by Tokyogirl. This is web content that doesn't assert significance. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:53, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm just going to stick a fork in this one. It's a viable A7 candidate and I don't think that this would survive even if it lasted a full week. I'll also note that I had to block the editor that created the article, Sunnyrocks31 because they kept trying to stop the AfD by creating the article elsewhere, removing the AfD template, and even moving the AfD'd article to Wikipedia:Codenamed Bob and marking it as speedy deletion per user request - and then trying to create the article sans AfD template in the old location. It's all so deliberate and disruptive that I don't think that a temporary block would stop this type of disruption. Since there were so many attempts to evade AfD I'm also going to salt the various entries to hopefully avoid recreation - although I do believe it's likely that the user will come back under a new account name and try to recreate the article in some form or fashion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 22:24, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amit Kleinberger[edit]

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

Business leader, but doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO. Can't find enough 3rd party, non-trivial coverage. A few interviews, but nothing substantial. Mikeblas (talk) 03:10, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:28, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:28, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:28, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:28, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - David Gerard (talk) 10:02, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as puffery advertorial words for a non-notable CEO of a barely to unlikely notable company itself, I have removed some of the puffery listed at the company article, there's certainly nothing at all convincing how he himself is acceptable for an article when it's all simply showers of company PR. SwisterTwister talk 20:16, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are many independent reliable sources that cover the subject to a significant extent. Passes WP:GNG. --Mr. Guye (talk) 20:30, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BLP requires the sources to be right there in the article - WP:NEXIST is not sufficient. Please detail the sources you believe support your opinion - David Gerard (talk) 21:04, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - [35] --Mr. Guye (talk) 21:13, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 20:31, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- The LA Times source offered is a puffed-up article based on the interview with the subject. It's not an acceptable RS for establishing notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, promotion, puff piece of non-notable businessman. Reads like a company press release. Kierzek (talk) 13:54, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:11, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Sankara TV[edit]

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

No reliable sources cited to establish notability per WP:BROADCAST. Also, article appears to be a WP:DIRECTORY. Ayub407^talk 09:07, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:13, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:02, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:21, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep and Close I don't know what the issue is here. This seems to be a mistaken nomination. The nominator quotes WP:BROADCAST as a deletion reasoning. BROADCAST itself mentions, "national or regional cable channels are presumed notable....most television stations that produce original content should be presumed notable for Wikipedia purposes." The nominator is encouraged to follow basic search before nominating. It is not the number of citations inside the article, but the RS that exist in general that determine notability in deletion discussions. On just a simple Google News query, I ended up with a few hundreds of reliable sources on this channel's original programming and reach: Times of India, The Hindu, News Today, Times of India, Times of India, Times of India... I've added some sources to the article too. Well, I actually got tired of the number of sources. There you go. Lourdes 01:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This wasn't a mistaken nomination and secondly, I do conduct searches before nominating any article for deletion whether it is CSD or AfD. All the search results found tells about what new shows or specials the channel will air. There's no search results found that talks about the channel itself. Anyways, I withdraw this nomination. Ayub407^talk 08:22, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per above. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 02:42, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:38, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fusion Jonda[edit]

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

Subject does not meet general notability requirements Meatsgains (talk) 02:03, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:23, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:52, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:39, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ghermez[edit]

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

The film fails WP:NFILM while is not notable. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 00:30, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:40, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:40, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're just the one opposite !! Irbox (talk) 15:29, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:24, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the means for obtaining refs for iranian hurdles tend to be more difficult due to transliteration issues not always being amenable as well as a lack of coverage by wester sources. In light of that, desite the article by and large containing no secondary sources, it is nonehteless on a footing similar to other iranian films, hence I'm hesitant at setting a new precedent. Pwolit iets (talk) 21:33, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:52, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Effigies. MBisanz ^talk 19:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bloodsport (music group)[edit]

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

Admits in article that "They don’t receive significant consideration at a time". I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 15:49, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 15:49, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 15:49, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG. Alan Hardest (talk) 16:12, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Effigies since three of the four members went on join that band. --Michig (talk) 14:05, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:28, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:52, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Merging that unsourced BLP won't help, but clearly fails GNG and BIO, because I found zero results for this. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 11:02, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Michig - Better off merged than deleted. –Davey2010^Talk 03:20, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and then Redirect to The Effigies; there's nothing to merge as the contend is uncited. K.e.coffman (talk) 10:17, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Forgotten Realms deities. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 13:04, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talona[edit]

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

This article does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 00:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 00:48, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 00:48, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Forgotten Realms deities. BOZ (talk) 03:31, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BOZ. Jclemens (talk) 04:37, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:59, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Forgotten Realms deities. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 13:04, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Auppenser[edit]

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 00:45, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 00:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 00:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Forgotten Realms deities. BOZ (talk) 03:30, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BOZ. Jclemens (talk) 04:36, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:59, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I'll restore and move to the draft space on request if someone can demonstrate there are paper magazine sources for this band that weren't online, and they can commit to incorporating those into the article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:11, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yacøpsæ[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:MUSIC. MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 09:13, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nice layout but fails WP:MUSIC. --RexPatricius (talk) 09:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:13, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:13, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete barring reasonable evidence of sources. Paper magazines are still significant coverage in Germany, so I'd accept those. Did they get in the DAC at all? - David Gerard (talk) 17:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't two albums on Slap-a-Ham Records and Power It Up Records and two shows on the Maryland Deathfest and several reviews in Germany's 27-year-old indie mag "Ox" enough? Well, you will know. Kind regards, Grueslayer Let's talk. 21:51, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The guideline is WP:NMUSIC. If they have lots of reviews in lots of papers that might count, and particularly if they toured internationally and there's proper third-party review coverage at the WP:RS (so, not blog) level. A band of this history surely left a paper trail behind them ... but it needs to be detailed in the article, not just be possible - David Gerard (talk) 19:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:04, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to criteria #1 and #5. Kind regards, Grueslayer Let's talk. 08:30, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:11, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttp://mightyfighter.com

[2] ttp://www.geektime.com/2014/04/28/ourcrowd-gets-25m-for-its-own-funding-which-it-will-pass-on-to-its-portfolio/

[3] "OurCrowd Global Investor Summit 2016". summit.ourcrowd.com. Retrieved 2016-01-24.

[4] "Via Singapore, OurCrowd brings crowdfunding platform to Asia". The Times of Israel. Retrieved 2016-04-05.

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]