Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 October 2

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 1 October	3 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 speedy delete : WP:CSD#A10 - duplicate of Droughts in the United States Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:06, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

North American Drought[edit]

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

Propsed deletion template is removed Dirty Duck 16:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Wrong venue, WP:RM is thataway → (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:40, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Carter[edit]

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

One link disambiguation page — JJBers (talk) 23:32, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move Ian Carter (footballer) back to Ian Carter. Apparently, the page was moved after the creation of Ian Carter (entertainer), but that was deleted after a discussion here at AFD. The parenthetical disambiguator is unnecessary. After a search through Wikipedia, I can see there are no other notable Ian Carters. There is Ian Bonham-Carter, but the names are not likely to be confused. — Gorthian (talk) 00:46, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

move as above. This shouldn't be at AfD but at WP:RM. PamD 05:31, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move This could have been a {db-move}, uncontroversial. Boleyn (talk) 10:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:01, 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.

Keep but move to more appropriate title if the name is too common. If not common with more than 5 other Ian Carter entries on Wikipedia then perhaps keep it there as it is. Thanks. Regards Expressway232 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Expressway232 (talk • contribs) 05:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy Keep given there are now no suggestions of deletion (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 04:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brent Funderburk[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:ARTIST. No coverage outside of small trade magazines. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:22, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:50, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 00:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A distinguished professor would appear to pass WP:PROF criterion 5. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 00:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having a named professorship at Mississippi State University is enough to pass the notability guidelines for professors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:44, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If nominator withdrew the deletion nomination, it it time for Magnolia677 to remove the nomination tag from the article ? Brent Funderburk

Neuralia (talk) 21:41, 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 keep. seems to be the consensus DGG ( talk ) 06:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dikesh Malhotra[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to be a notable business person Uhooep (talk) 22:50, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep enough references to support the fact that the person is a notable businessman and a young entrepreneur from Nepal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.166.217.223 (talk) 12:20, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep can't deny the notability of the business person considering the substantial references cited. Abhishek Gurung (talk) 11:42, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there are a lot of sources (see WP:REFBLOAT) but nothing that shows notability for the person. It looks very much like a case of too soon for an article. --bonadea contributions talk 06:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ The issue of WP:REFBLOAT has been resolved, as per the citation overkill topic, two or three citations is good. Also there are many news which shows the person is notable if searched in Nepali language (दिकेश मलहोत्रा or दिकेश मल्होत्रा or डिकेश मल्होत्रा). Majority of the newspapers and articles in Nepal are in nepali language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.166.217.223 (talk) 07:32, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But there are only three such sources in the article at the moment (the sources have to be there for us to discuss them) and none of them shows notability. There has to be significant coverage, not simply trivial mentions of the person. Please note that per this guideline, editors who participate in a discussion are asked to disclose any conflict of interest they might have (such as representing the person, being related to them, being employed to promote their company, etc.) --bonadea contributions talk 08:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ the person is a notable businessman and is very well known. If there is doubt or confusion please explain what a businessman has to do from a small country like Nepal to be more notable. He is one of the very few businessman in Nepal with such huge media coverage and achievement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.166.206.110 (talk) 12:25, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ the person has more news than many person here in wiki, the business person has enough courage to be considered as a notable businessman. I am a big fan of Dikesh Malhotra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.166.206.110 (talk) 12:36, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this person has more than 6000 followers in Facebook and instagram.he is probably the only businessman in Nepal having so many followers without any sponsored posts. This should be enough to tell the person is a notable businessman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.253.254.39 (talk • contribs) 06:33, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Given the systemic bias issues here, I believe the sourcing is sufficient. Reliable Nepali sources like The Himalayan Times [1] confirm that he's the CEO of a major industrial group there, while the Kathmandu Post shows that Mr. Maholtra's business is the authorized vendor for Samsung in Nepal, [2] which would seem indicative of notability. Doing a quick search, Avenues Television also ran a one-hour interview/documentary on him profiling him as a "corporate icon". [3]. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:33, 10 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. Vanamonde (talk) 04:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sidney Cordle[edit]

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

Article on the leader of a group that is, to be blunt, utterly insignificant. The subject has never achieved national elected office and the sources are directories. Perennial losing candidates can be notable (Bill Boaks, for example), but there's no evidence that's the case here. His party? I am a Brit and have never even heard of them. That means they are less electorally significnat than the Official Monster Raving Loony Party. Quite a feat. Guy (Help!) 22:34, 2 October 2016 (UTC) Guy (Help!) 22:34, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks significant external reliable sources; basically all the sources are just listings which confirm that he was a candidate and that he lost. Doesn't meet the WP:BIO requirement for significant coverage. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:56, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 23:58, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN and no other claim of notability is made. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As Guy (almost) says, leader of a minor political party can be notable (Bez, for instance) but it doesn't make someone automatically notable. Yes, he's the leader of a national political party, but it's a party which polled 3260 votes nationwide in the last election—which is considerably less than half the vote won by Yorkshire First or Cannabis Is Safer Than Alcohol. As a former local councillor there's some press coverage, but not enough to remotely approach notability. As a glance over the many unlinked party leader names here shows, for these hyper-fringe pressure groups the presumption is that the party leaders aren't even worth redlinking. ‑ Iridescent 19:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep There are some dubious arguments here. "I am a Brit and have never even heard of them." Sorry, but ignorance is no excuse - I am a Brit and I have heard of them. "Lacks significant external reliable sources." That's not true, but if there is deemed to be insufficient sources that is no argument to delete but to tag it with refimprove. It "polled 3260 votes nationwide in the last election." No it didn't, it polled them in 17 constituencies out of 650, hardly nationwide. 3,260 is "considerably less than half the vote won by Yorkshire First or Cannabis Is Safer Than Alcohol". No, YF polled 6,811 in total, so it's marginally less than half, and YF did not campaign "nationally". CISTA polled 8,419 in 34 seats, an average of 248 compared with CPA's 192. Emeraude (talk) 08:51, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) — Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pao Pienlert Boripanyutakit[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO. A Google search does not give many results. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 22:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly satisfies WP:NPOL. Minister of Finance for about 4 years and Minister of Commerce for eight terms as well as general. Notability is not a concern: referencing is the problem but I suspect we'd get a better chance if we searched using the Thai alphabet. Pichpich (talk) 22:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, history shows that I created the article but that's not what actually happened. I categorized an existing article but saved my edit just after the article was deleted [4] under criterion A10. Unfortunately, the deleting admin did not record the article that the present one duplicated. Pichpich (talk) 22:42, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the article exists on the Thai Wikipedia and there are references there. Of course, I don't speak Thai so I can't evaluate the quality of the sources but it should be looked at before deleting the en.wiki article. (As should the results of a Google search for "เภา เพียรเลิศ บริภัณฑ์ยุทธกิจ"). I've added a link to a page from the Ministry of Finance of Thailand that confirms he served two terms as minister. Pichpich (talk) 22:53, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This list [5] from the Ministry of Commerce of Thailand is hard to read for non-Thai speakers but it certainly appears to confirm that he was the Minister of Commerce on multiple terms. Pichpich (talk) 16:36, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I note that a source published by a university was removed from this article with the edit summary "not a reliable source". We seem to have two cases here of people deleting an article and removing a source with inadequate explanations of those actions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 23:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Assuming the translation from the Thai source is correct, I cleaned it up a bit. Bearian (talk) 18:12, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly meets WP:NPOL: while sourcing is a little bit of an issue, a minister in a national government is so obviously notable that even keeping a one-sentence stub with the ministry source would be worthwhile. Vanamonde (talk) 04:43, 10 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 and redirect to The Cold Crush Brothers. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:06, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Easy A.D.[edit]

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

It's possible that an article could be written about this person; but this is not an article, it's an advertisement. Orange Mike | Talk 22:17, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:47, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:47, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment There's two musical sources here: AllMusic and HipHop Golden Age, assuming the latter counts as a RS. Somehow the article is longer than both put together. Not sure about the other stuff yet. He may well be notable, but the first thing to do would be to cut the article to bare well-sourced bones and rebuild it from the ground up - David Gerard (talk) 00:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable hip hop musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- AllMusic suggests he's a plausible prospect (not a slam dunk, but not impossible) for notability ... the main problem with this article is it's awful, it will if kept need rebuilding from the RSes up - David Gerard (talk) 09:59, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Cold Crush Brothers, of which Easy AD is most strongly associated. I found limited, local press on his current activities with the Hip Hop Public Health project in schools (e.g. [6], [7], and even a mention in the New York Times [8]), but the sources seem to be more about the project than Easy AD himself, and so any notability still comes primarily from The Cold Crush Brothers. I don't see evidence of solo releases to merit an individual article per WP:MUSICBIO, but a paragraph could be judiciously added to The Cold Crush Brothers discussing noteworthy current activities of all living members. Although the Cold Crush Brothers article has its own problems with sourcing and tone, quality sources exist including an entry in The Anthology of Rap by Yale University Press. --Animalparty! (talk) 06:47, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As being wildly promotional in nature. I came very close to deleting it under WP:CSD#G11. Even if it is determined that this individual is notable, WP:TNT would apply. Vanamonde (talk) 04:46, 10 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 23:44, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Wiener[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Could not find significant coverage in reliable, third party sources. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 21:43, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 05:11, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete uncited BLP of minor - David Gerard (talk) 09:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not sure this person even exists; could be a hoax. (There are Australians named "Jacob Wiener" who might be the appropriate age, but it's a common enough name.) If he does exist, there is a total lack of sources. The linked video is a thirty-second TV ad which doesn't mention him by name. 2602:306:3A29:9B90:D0F5:535F:71B1:CA8 (talk) 10:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of sources. —MRD2014 (talk · contribs) 17:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability. Vincelord (talk) 16:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete, per above. It simply fails. seanhaley1 (talk) 23:36, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Suspicious account: Please note that the above contributor has recently created an account, rapidly made 10 edits and then started !voting on multiple AfDs, many of which don't make sense. See Special:Contributions/Seanhaley1 for their edits. There is a possibility that this is an undisclosed paid editor/canvassed editor/sockpuppet who is probably voting on multiple AfDs to hide the actual target. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:52, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable; and no WP:RS sources. Kierzek (talk) 19:28, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an article on a 10-year-old who apparently often appears in "local stage shows". I have no way of telling from the article if these are even professional productions, but clearly that is not enough to make the subject notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:20, 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. postdlf (talk) 14:40, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of most career 300-yard passing games in the NFL[edit]

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

Big violation of WP:NOTSTATSBOOK, QBs have 300 yards pretty much every week so this isn't even a notable statistic, and is badly written and formatted to boot. We already have a List of NFL quarterbacks who have passed for 400 or more yards in a game article, so this is also redundant. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:31, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:17, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:17, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete my hat is off to the editor or editors who worked to prepare this information and source it. However, I have to agree with the nominator. I do find it interesting to look at the number of 300-yard games (as opposed to just a list of 400 yard games) as a potential, useful measure for those who study and follow professional football. I'll even go as far as to say I like it. Unfortunately, none of those reasons are enough to pass the muster of notability. Darn. Perhaps the enthusiastic editors may try another wiki with this information?--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:06, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 300-yard games is just not that notable or infrequent these days, unless you're Julio Jones. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:10, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, much too frequent an occurrence to keep track of. Lizard (talk) 02:30, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, aren't home runs too frequent an occurrence to keep track of. Lol, jk. Home runs are more important than 300 yard games. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 02:42, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:LISTCRUFT. WP:NOTSTATSBOOK apply as well. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:43, 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. Vanamonde (talk) 04:52, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orville Christianson[edit]

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

Mr. Christianson appears to not meet the notability requirements under WP:POLITICIAN. Dolotta (talk) 21:04, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTNEWS, passing local trivia as to a town mayor. Kierzek (talk) 21:29, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - mayor of a fairly small city (about 36,000 in the 1950s). Bearian (talk) 18:04, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable city mayor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:58, 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. Vanamonde (talk) 04:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Juliano[edit]

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

Non-notable person fails WP:GNG and WP:NHOCKEY. Yosemiter (talk) 20:22, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable player, at this time. Kierzek (talk) 21:31, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to any kind of notablity.18abruce (talk) 23:28, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not seeing evidence of notability, either through GNG or NHOCKEY. Rlendog (talk) 16:11, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:45, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) — Yellow Dingo (talk) 04:50, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Strassman[edit]

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

Biography of living person and academic. Works are on the fringe science with an extremely paltry amount of secondary sources mentioning the individual, let alone reliable secondary sources. Most of the article is primary sourced. Xcuref1endx (talk) 20:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:33, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:33, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:34, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. GS h-index of 25? in high cited field probably passes WP:Prof#C1. BLP needs to be pruned of promotional bloat. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:46, 2 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Strassman's non-fringe work appears to pass WP:PROF and his fringe work appears to pass WP:GNG, with enough independent sources found by the books and news searches linked above to balance the true believers. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 23:51, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm sorry but this proposed deletion is just ludicrous. Rick Strassman was the 1st man to start psychedelic research after a long hiatus of many decades. His book "DMT: The Spirit Molecule" is a bone fide classic, just because the title may make skeptics blanche doesn't mean his work is not notable. That book spawned the very well known movie of the same name directed by Mitch Schultz. I agree this page needs more secondary sources, but as it stands it is not a bad little bio of Strassman. Considering Wikipedia is a public resource, deleting his profile is insanity. He has carried out much research that is groundbreaking. There is a big difference between groundbreaking and fringe - fringe will remain unknown in the future, whereas groundbreaking research will be remembered in burgeoning fields like psychedelic research. Probrooks (talk) 11:51, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have reliable secondary sources to show that his research is groundbreaking? That is what wikipedia looks for. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 08:02, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I already said, Dr Strassman's work is very notable because his research kicked off modern day psychedelic research and it is the first extensive scientific study giving subjects DMT.

Graham St John's book "Mystery School in Hyperspace: A Cultural History of DMT" (which is the definitive book about the history of DMT) says this about Rick Strassman's research.

"Subtitled A Doctor's Revolutionary Research into the Biology of Near-Death and Mystical Experiences, Strassman's landmark study raised the profile of DMT, and represents a milestone in the history covered in this book. Triggering a tidal wave of interest in the pineal gland—seen more as a “lightening rod of the soul” than the brain's laboratory for hellish hallucinations—DMT: The Spirit Molecule shone a light on the profound implications of DMT's endogenicity (that is, its natural structure and function in humans)—all deriving from Strassman's observations of goings-on in Room 531 of the University of New Mexico Hospital Clinical Research Centre, Albuquerque, between 1990–1995."

From this article:

http://www.medicaldaily.com/psychedelic-drugs-mental-health-disorders-bad-rap-war-drugs-385946

"It ultimately took two decades for psychedelic research to begin again, when Dr. Rick Strassman studied DMT in 1992. DMT is a psychedelic compound that can be taken on its own, but it is also the psychoactive component of ayahuasca, a psychedelic tea brewed by the indigenous population of Peru. Unlike the more widely known psychedelics, DMT had much less of a stigma, allowing Strassman to get his studies approved far more easily. In the same year, the FDA also passed the Prescription Drug User Fee Act that year, which encouraged new drugs to be researched."

and another:

http://www.phillymag.com/news/2012/05/18/psychedelics-new-pot/

"The psychedelic faucet began to drip again in 1991 with the start of Rick Strassman’s famous Dimethyltryptamine (DMT) study at the University of New Mexico, which served as the first human trial of any psychedelic since they were made Schedule I. From there, the full-blown psychedelic renaissance that we now find ourselves in began to develop."

Probrooks (talk) 11:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Comfortable passes WP:PROF, given the citations to his work. Vanamonde (talk) 04:50, 10 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) 05:47, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

YourGrocer.com[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Nothing significant but another company. For being in Wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become a directory. 1000s of startups happens every day. Just another one. Notability required repeated significant coverage by media as well as significance in itself. building Wikipedia page for their publicity.Popular media used only for Press or news for company. Nothing significant coverage by these media. Once in a lifetime coverage. Nothing notable to be here. Merely for misleading. Thousands of online stores are there. Wikipedia is not store directory. Light2021 (talk) 20:14, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:34, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:34, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete two bits of startup churnalism then nothing. (The third source does not mention the article topic.) No evidence of WP:CORPDEPTH - David Gerard (talk) 21:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is essentially actually speedy material but it may simply be boldly removed with the listed NYT source is which of course thin and not substantial to support and save this article, nothing here is anything but advertising what the business and services are hence PR, and therefore something we delete with no questions asked. SwisterTwister talk 22:18, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- strictly a WP:PROMO; with no indications of notability or significance. Close to A7 material. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:51, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:51, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The New York Times articles doesn't address WP:CORPDEPTH, and the CBS article doesn't even mention YourGrocer. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lack of sources and also parts of it look like advertising. —MRD2014 (talk · contribs) 17:19, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no claim of significance here, much less coverage, and this can be speedy deleted per A7, G11. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:50, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete – Does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH at this time. It may in the future, though. Here's a couple of sources that are not in the article: [9], [10]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:40, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:04, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peapod[edit]

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

Non-notable company till date. It is old but no significant nature. Covered once in a lifetime, merely promotional in nature. For being in Wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. 1000s of startups happens every day. Just another one. happend a long time ago but could not make any impact to become encyclopedia. Notability required repeated significant coverage by media as well as significance in itself. building Wikiepdia page for their publicity as it still exist. covered mostly by Startup blogs not the notable media. Popular media used only for Press or news for company. Nothing significant coverage by these media. Thousands of online stores are there. Wikipedia is not store directory. Light2021 (talk) 20:05, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:35, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:35, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if cut to actual RS-backed claims this would be very short indeed and eminently deletable - David Gerard (talk) 21:05, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep The text of the article is bad, but this is one of the largest grocery brands in the largest market on earth. They aren't a start-up at all, and based on their service territory they seem no less notable than Carrefour or Aldi. 2601:14D:8300:2CE0:54B1:4A3F:7E1E:3A53 (talk) 21:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am unable to find the history or talk page of contributor. it is owned by Ahold Delhaize, the new big group formed in Europe. This new thing can be big. The sources are media coverage for this one are press release. the real thing is being old or size of customers does not make a company encyclopedic notable. There are lots of companies now part of big company or were there in existence from over 50 years. It can be good and notable for a business entity but for encyclopedia need to be more than this. Light2021 (talk) 21:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Fundamentally, yeah - we need the RSes to have anything to base an article on - David Gerard (talk) 21:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is all advertising in that it clearly only states what there is to advertise about the company, there's literally nothing else, the sources are not convincing at all, and that's not surprising if this is all PR to begin with. None of this would suggest hopeful and meaningful substance therefore there's nothing to save. SwisterTwister talk 22:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- long-established company, was at one time WP:LISTED, owned by a major brand. I am seeing reasonably WP:SIGCOV in RS, such as:

New Era of Management by Richard L. Daft (a full page discussion, in what looks to be a college textbook)
Management by Richard Daft (2007). Cannot see a preview, but here's a snippet: "... But Peapod, the online grocery service founded in 1989 by brothers Andrew and Thomas Parkinson, is succeeding on all three fronts. Peapod introduced a new concept 15 years ago: the convenience of shopping for groceries online. Plenty of ..."
Applications of Supply Chain Management and E-Commerce Research from Springer Publishing, an academic imprint. Reasonably extensive discussion.

Compared to churnalism coverage we so typically see in company articles, this is a significant step up. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:56, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per sources listed by K.e.coffman above, a well as per WP:SIGCOV found via WP:BEFORE in New York Times. According to another NYT article, this company "pioneered the online grocery business." There is further significant coverage in The Atlantic, Wall Street Journal, more Wall Street Journal, The Economist, which says that as of 2013, Peapod was the "largest online grocer in the U.S." Further evidence of WP:CORPDEPTH in Chicago Tribune and Bloomberg. There are many more sources out there as well, as there are for FreshDirect and AmazonFresh, which are on the same level as this company, and which I doubt anyone would recommend deleting. Safehaven86 (talk) 23:21, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This particular one is a mjor company. (most of the other similar articles nominated aren ot, and should be deleted). WP:BEFORe is important, because it can distinguish between these two categories. K.e.coffman removed most of the advertising;what is left is acceptable by our usual standards. . DGG ( talk ) 00:34, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Comfortably passes WP:CORPDEPTH per a review of available sources, and the article does not have a promotional tone at this time. Here's some sources to qualify my !vote; more are available: [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appalling lack of WP:BEFORE; easily meets WP:GNG. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily meets WP:CORP, ad copy removed from page and page reads much more neutral now. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very significant grocer. Passes WP:GNG and WP:CORP.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just mentioned in the Washington Post today as a venerable example of online grocers. [19] BlueHorseshoe —Preceding undated comment added 01:44, 6 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 to delete (and close to consensus to keep but calling it "consensus to keep" wouldn't appropriately deflect the whole debate IMO).

This is clearly a case where different editors have different standards about company notability and inclusion vs. promotion, and both sides of the argument can be somewhat supported by different interpretations of the wording and/or spirit of WP:CORPDEPTH -- which is a problem with policy more than with the editors trying to work with it. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Honestbee[edit]

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

Non-notable company till now. comparatively new and funded vy investors. Nothing significant but another startup company for grocery delivery. 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. covered mostly by Startup blogs not the notable media. Popular media used only for Press or news for company investment plans. Nothing significant coverage by these media. Thousands of online stores are there. Wikipedia is not store directory. Light2021 (talk) 19:57, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and essentially actually speedy material because it's all simply advertising the company, actually also going as far to then mention about the clientele methods, clearly PR, and the sources, no matter what they are and what about them, are all republished PR and that alone. None of this is substance, and for a company looking for PR at any and all costs, it's something we delete. SwisterTwister talk 22:19, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes WP:CORPDEPTH per a review of available sources. Source examples include, but are not limited to those listed below. Also, the article does not have a promotional tone; it does not extol the benefits of the company, use peacock language, or encourage readers to do business with the company. Rather, it provides an overview about the company based upon what reliable sources state. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

"Honestbee's Joel Sng Sets Big Regional Goals for Grocery Delivery Startup". Forbes.
"Freelancers for honestbee feeling the sting". The Straits Times.
"Food fight: New challengers spice up Singapore’s online grocery war". Tech in Asia.
"Honestbee’s exotic meats sale: an April Fools’ prank gone wrong?". Tech in Asia.
"Buy from different stores through honestbee". The Straits Times.
"Grocery Delivery Startup Honestbee Launches In Taiwan". TechCrunch.
"‘Sale’ of panda meat, koala sausages part of endangered animals awareness campaign: honestbee". Today.

Comment - None of this is "corp depth" because the sources are laced with PR; take the first one, every single paragraph has quoted interviews, meaning that article was not entirely substantially independent so none of it can be taken as guaranteed as no PR, especially since the article is heavily an interview to begin with; the second then starts and contains several paragraphs of information about shopping, so it's not actually about the company, then it starts with interviewed information, which is not independent of course, every single sentence from there to the end is an interviewed quote, which is outstandingly outrageous because each part was thinned out to span several single-form sentences, instead of paragraphs, this shows how thin the article is, itself, that they attempted to make the "article" seem larger by thinning the sentences. The third source simply starts with trivial information about other matters until starting information about the company, and then eventually mentions the outrageous comment " it’s eager to prove it can deliver the goods", that means the company intentionally listed their own thoughts, and that's not independent of course, the next sentences all bounce between showing how the business works and how it can be used to then starting with heavy interviewed quotes, none of that is independent of course, because it's all coming from the company itself and only that; another example is "The company can also nudge shoppers towards picking time slots", the last few sentences show this themselves that the article was largely of course an interview because he never stops talking until the end, and even a footer at the end shows how he supplied information, that's not independent and it's not surprising to see. The fourth article is also still blatant with advert parts, such as the overspecific "On March 30, the grocer asked its users to “sink your teeth” into the meats supposedly from Explorer Joe Exotic Meats (the website is apparently fake) and place orders until March 31. It said deliveries would be made on April 1", which no would be as passionate about this than either the clients and investors, who want to make sure they're getting their partner packed with all of the company information; the next sentences weave between interviewed quotes before, going to the next one, which is not only an interview quote....but a requote of an interview quote from somewhere else, after a few other sentences of interviewed quotes with the man, it ends exactly there, showing there was no actual journalism since the man took all of the articlespace, hence no substantial or significant. The fifth article then advertises the facts of where and how you can buy from the company and it makes these messages clear....but not actually containing news, but instead grocery and task lists, literally! This sixth source is then simply announcing mere trivial coverage about what the company's business plans which, in this case, are about business overseas, but it's actually only a mere 6-paragraph (and they're thin, I'll note, hardly ever consisting of information past 2 or so sentences, so it's not actual substance), and then with this one article, you have a 20 to 50% of it simply republishing what the company says about itself, that's not substantial and it hell sure as is not if it's basically company-supplied information. The next and last source is still rather thin since it only talks about the "meat events" and the worst blatant part may actually be the fact it lists its costs, which may or may not have been a planned PR plan. Yes, although it's not a flashy PR piece like the others, what still stays is the fact it's still not actually substantial and significant, especially if it's as thin as simply a company controversy. About half of this last article is simply repeated company quotes as it is. All in all, there was not actual significant or substance, especially if it's simply republished company materials. SwisterTwister talk 03:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: sources listed above by North America demonstrate that company meets WP:GNG. WP:ALLBUSINESSCOVERAGEISPR is not yet a policy. Safehaven86 (talk) 03:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The only interest Safehaven86 (talk) is to "keep" anything that is covered by any sort of media, and whatsoever they have written without analyzing the actual notability or significance for Encyclopedia material. I have been analyzing the keep vote mechanism for articles submitted for AfD. that is the reasons some of them are nominated various times, but for Vote for participation or comments, they had been restored. Still it does not make any of them encyclopedic genuine. thanks for giving your opinions. Light2021 (talk) 06:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Non-trivial coverage from Forbes, TechCrunch, etc. Easily passes WP:GNG. Nominator appears to be using their own personal idea of what constitutes notability vs Wikipedia's policy. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not News or PR host or Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia should not be replaced with Daily News paper or the blog-spot. Just something is covered once in a time in a notable news paper does not make anything Encyclopedia notable. Every articles that is covered by daily news will make this Wikipedia irrelevant and will lose all its credibility. Techcrunch and Forbes? Highly commercial so called news platform, that covers anything that can make money or either funded by huge investment? misuse of WP:GNG. Light2021 (talk) 17:05, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't know how to respond to this, as it's utterly incoherent. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jamie, and apologies if I was inappropriate to you. Light2021 (talk) 04:48, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The Keep comment above this one explicitly actually stated that there is not yet a policy about PR, yet we will have WP:NOT and its closely linked areas such as WP:NOTADVERTISING, and thst is enough, especially considering the largely obvious PR initiatives here which suggest nothing else, and a comment merely repeating what a Keep comment suggested including about sourcing, means nothing if the comment is not actually acknowledging and considering the anaylsis of said sources, therefore claiming Keep is still not the same thing. Once we start making excuses for keeping advertisements, we're completely damned as an encyclopedia. SwisterTwister talk 18:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - after reviewing the lists of sources in the !keep votes above, it is clear that enough significant coverage exists in independent reliable sources to pass WP:CORP. The verbose commentary above is also acknowledged, however it is entirely unconvincing. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 21:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was a little amazed to see this even being discussed. How can one defend an article on an insignificant $15 million new company whose principal output to date has been a flurry of press releases? I wouldn't suggest going entirely by size of the company, because sometimes a small company really is innovative enough to justify real news coverage, but a me-too company like this is another matter. Blind reliance upon the GNG without considering the actual reliability of what are no longer honest sources (or areh onest sources only in part, which is the case for essentially all business newspapers) is destructive to the encyclopedia . DGG ( talk ) 03:59, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- It is definitely passing the frontiers of WP:CORPDEPTH...On lighter side...DGG and SwisterTwister have little high levels of standards when it comes to articles related to companies... I have never seen them vote keep... Hitro talk 21:43, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is because it's advertising , regardless of whatever has been noted above, because the analyses have had larger weight of shoeing the concerns, so it should not and will not be expected for any of us to vote Keep for an advertisement. Suggesting we "change" our standards for advertising is going to largely damn us as an encyclopedia because it will show that we cannot even control the simplest advertising that needs removal. Please state where, how and why this is not advertising, without citing anything of PR and unconvincing information coming from company-supplied words. SwisterTwister talk 22:19, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it is an advertisement then we should rewrite it or we should place an advert tag there, we shouldn't discuss deletion.... question is whether it is notable or not.. Techcrunch and Strait Times are covering this company.. I guess it is notable and it deserves to stay here...Plus it has been covered in other reliable sources... Hitro talk 22:32, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One question...what do you mean by "Our Standards"? I believe there is just one standard Hitro talk 22:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the meaning is WP's standards. Or at least what WP's standards are supposed to be, instead of the current very low levelfor these articles. FWIW,I !vote keep a little over 1/3 the time. DGG ( talk ) 00:46, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the only truly independent sources that I was able to find discuss the company's labor practices (misleading advertising to potential contractors). This does not rise to the level of encyclopedia notability. The article was created by Special:Contributions/Karentho who is currently indef blocked for abusing multiple accounts. The article was also extensively edited by an account bearing the company's name. Thus paid editing is about 100% certain, which is against policy. Pls see WP:BOGOF: let's not encourage the spammers by keeping promotional articles on non notable companies. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:07, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources presented in article and at this AfD meet WP:CORPDEPTH. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:15, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now, maybe redirect to Formation 8. The main claim to notability seems to be its funding, so a redirect to the funder seems appropriate. My reading of the sources is that the company has ~55 employees and ~500 contract grocery purchasers/"runners" - not sure why this sort of information isn't in the wp page, but it doesn't sound terribly notable. The funding sounds notable, but it isn't clear the notability there belongs to the company or to the funder, given that there are few independent details about the firm in the article.Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the significant sourcing available from reliable sources such as the Straights Times and Forbes. As far as I know, the number of employees or contractors has not been a per se requirement for WP:CORP. All start-ups engage in PR, although many will deny it. Bearian (talk) 18:37, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not being clear. I was thinking about how the small number of employees fit with DGG's point that the funding wasn't so large (I don't know anything about what is or isn't a big amount of funding) and together implied that the company might not necessarily be receiving significant attention aside from the press release based reports SwisterTwister discusses above. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:53, 18 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) 05:48, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grocery Gateway[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Nothing significant but another company. For being in Wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become a directory. 1000s of startups happens every day. Just another one happened a long time ago. Notability required repeated significant coverage by media as well as significance in itself. building Wikiepdia page for their publicity. covered mostly by Startup blogs not the notable media. Popular media used only for Press or news for company. Nothing significant coverage by these media. Once in a lifetime coverage. Nothing notable to be here. Thousands of online stores are there. Wikipedia is not store directory. Light2021 (talk) 19:50, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and this was actually PRODed nearly 5 years ago and it actually got worse, with PR sources being added, but fortunately we now have the choices and images to show why we must delete these; everything listed is so overspecific about the company, this is clearly an article that was started for PR and was likely part of a PR campaign, nothing listed comes close to actual substance, and is simply republished PR and what the company says itself, it's all trivial. SwisterTwister talk 22:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too promotional to consider. "the team approached a number of independent grocers around Toronto to be their supply partner. Anthony Longo and his team stepped forward and were exceptional partners. They provided access to the stores for the team to take pictures of all of the products, record the relevant information and start to build "picking route maps". " if that's not an example of a not very impressive web page, not an encyclopedia article. We could of course remove absurd puffery, but if we removed it all there ere would be nothing left. DGG ( talk ) 13:23, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with fire as corporate spam. The project should not be allowing WP:BOGOF articles, written by paid contributors. This wastes volunteer editors' time and results in articles on non notable subjects in the bargain. This only encourages spammers. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:06, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:49, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

77 Diamonds[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Nothing significant but another startup company. 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. covered mostly by Startup blogs not the notable media. Popular media used only for Press or news for company. Nothing significant coverage by these media. Once in a lifetime coverage. Nothing notable to be here. Merely for misleading. Thousands of online stores are there. Wikipedia is not store directory. Light2021 (talk) 19:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. advertisement. no need to check notability for something like this, which is irredeemable, as promotionalism by itself is a good reason for deletion Each diamond comes with a certificate of authenticity, which the company’s founders, Kormind and Weinig, say is key when it comes to customer confidence. They also believe diamonds will rise above the inflation index." along with an absurd account to trace the company's inspiration from 1477. DGG ( talk ) 00:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the sources themselves are PR and the information itself, also in that it only focuses with what the company about itself and that then emphasizes the PR campaign here. SwisterTwister talk 01:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Very little WP:CORPDEPTH; most of the articles are related to a publicity stunt the company was involved with. I amended this from a "delete" to a "weak delete' based on this Reuters video, though even the video kind of feels like a press release more than anything else.OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam. The project should not be allowing WP:BOGOF articles, written by paid contributors. This wastes volunteer editors' time and results in articles on non notable subjects in the bargain. This only encourages spammers. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:05, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:49, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Instabuggy[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Nothing significant but another startup company. 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. covered mostly by Startup blogs not the notable media. If seen then left only 1 paragraph to say. Light2021 (talk) 19:41, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: SwisterTwister tagged it for speedy deletion per CSD A7. —MRD2014 (talk · contribs) 23:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I removed the A7, because there are some non local sources. But these sources are promotional writeups in trade publications, and these are not really under the usual sort of editorial control we require for reliable sources for notability . DGG ( talk ) 00:08, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt as this has been deleted twice before, and this one contained nothing at all actually subst anf significant, simply PR and the intentions are clear. SwisterTwister talk 01:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nearly all of the sources are brief mention in industry journals; a large bulk of the article is simply a list of competitors, which is never a good omen for notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- A7 material; nothing to see here. The list of competitors indeed looks desperate. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:32, 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. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:21, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Malaysia–Thailand football rivalry[edit]

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

I couldn't find any verifiable sources supporting the existence of this claimed rivalry. Paul_012 (talk) 19:30, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unreferenced, no evidence of notability. Eldumpo (talk) 22:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing suggesting a substantiated independent article with its own informational substance. SwisterTwister talk 03:33, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 18:01, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 07:06, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NRIVALRY, no indication of GNG required, two countries / clubs located near each other, simply playing each other does not create a de facto rivalry. Teams appear to only have played each other a handful of times as well. Fenix down (talk) 08:39, 6 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) 05:49, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tracey Lain[edit]

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

An unremarkable actress. Per recent AfDs, the awards listed (UK Adult Film and Television Awards & UK Adult Producers Awards) do not satisfy WP:PORNBIO. Sources provided include non RS directories and self-published material. Significant RS coverage cannot be found. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:20, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, apparently has won some "amateur" awards but not seeing where the article subject passes GNG. Kierzek (talk) 21:19, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as all of the awards are trivial and as is the information, none of this suggests anything meaningful for improvements or convincing overall. SwisterTwister talk 22:35, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete more or less per nom. All sources are essentially promotional or are unselective databases not supporting notability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 10:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:28, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article seems promotional and I couldn't find anything with a simple google search. Fails wp:gng. seanhaley1 (talk) 23:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Suspicious account: Please note that the above contributor has recently created an account, rapidly made 10 edits and then started !voting on multiple AfDs, many of which don't make sense. See Special:Contributions/Seanhaley1 for their edits. There is a possibility that this is an undisclosed paid editor/canvassed editor/sockpuppet who is probably voting on multiple AfDs to hide the actual target. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:52, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to UK Adult Film and Television Awards - The "Best Female Performer in an Amateur Film" Award was a minor award category at this "well-known" (within the United Kingdom at least) award ceremony. BTW, it appears that the "UK Adult Producers Awards" may be one in the same as the UKAFTAs. Guy1890 (talk) 06:10, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 15:20, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:11, 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) 05:50, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Albanese[edit]

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

Non notable actress, Found a few trivial mentions but nothing substantial, Fails NACTOR & GNG –Davey2010^Talk 18:47, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. She's only mentioned once from some news blurps and therefore failing NACTOR. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 23:03, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as all trivial and unconvincing works therefore, not only not convincing as an actress, but also nothing for anything else closely better. SwisterTwister talk 22:08, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete. All of the information can be verified and has been taken from several reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.167.193.131 (talk) 22:21, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:50, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edible oil india[edit]

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

Clearly WP:NOTADVICE, wirtten like an essay with trivial information. PROD was removed by author. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 18:05, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: appears to be totally WP:OR, no evidence of encyclopedic notability. Safehaven86 (talk) 03:23, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: At the very least, it qualifies for WP:TNT. Anup [Talk] 07:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The reliable sources I can find tend to discuss edible oils in India in terms of trade, whether historical or modern. It looks to me as if the author is reaching for a history of the development of edible oil processing in India, something that existing articles like Cooking oil fail to address. If that is the case, then blowing it up and starting over is probably the best course for this article. And/Or expanding the cooking oil article to include the history of the development of oilseed and nut oil processing throughout the world, to include India. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 15:06, 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 speedy delete. G5 created by sock of User:Kingshowman. Favonian (talk) 19:26, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump tax scandal[edit]

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

Newly created article on extremely recent event, serious WP:NPOV violations and potentially WP:OR. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 18:01, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 18:01, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 18:01, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 18:11, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Incredibly well-sourced, crisp, adventurous prose, important current event that is a must-have for any encylopedia worthy of the name. We need this article.Political Animal (talk) 18:38, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the nominator, this article is extremely biased and it hasn't even been 24 hours since this information has been made public. We do not know the lasting effect of this yet partly because this campaign has had a scandal or some sort of controversy every other week. I suggest including this is Donald Trump presidential campaign article in a neutral way however. JayJay^{What did I do?} 18:49, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "...one of the greatest political scandals of all time..." - Really? Even if this is kept, it will need to be fundamentally rewritten. This is pure sensation. Very early to determine lasting notability. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:50, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sammy Scaff[edit]

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

Boxer best-known for losing badly to a young Mike Tyson. As far as I can tell, however, he does not meet the notability requirements of WP:NBOXING or WP:GNG. Pichpich (talk) 17:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 17:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 19:26, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator.Peter Rehse (talk) 19:58, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteper above. Fails WP:NBOXING. seanhaley1 (talk) 23:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Suspicious account: Please note that the above contributor has recently created an account, rapidly made 10 edits and then started !voting on multiple AfDs, many of which don't make sense. See Special:Contributions/Seanhaley1 for their edits. There is a possibility that this is an undisclosed paid editor/canvassed editor/sockpuppet who is probably voting on multiple AfDs to hide the actual target. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:55, 6 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]

Delete a non-notable boxer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:23, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the mere competitions are trivial and not at all close for the applicable notability, there's essentially nothing else to actually suggest better. SwisterTwister talk 22:46, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) — Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:05, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Karolcia[edit]

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

Non-notable children's novel. The article was previously deprodded by Piotrus. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 16:55, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 17:38, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And would the nominator care to address the reason for Piotrus's deprodding, which is substantiated by a source in the Polish Wikipedia article? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:55, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly notable, although it's an annoying and silly girly book, most Poles have read it. Laforgue (talk) 16:54, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I appreciate User:GeoffreyT2000's ping, but I can simply repeat anon's point: in my deprod, I clearly explained why this is notable: "In the Poland The book is required reading for classes I-III schools". Seems like a clear cut case to me. Until the nominator explains his counter-argument, I consider this AfD moot.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:14, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:43, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:NBOOK, ie. "4.The book is, or has been, the subject of instruction at two or more schools,[6] colleges, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country." as it is required reading in Poland classes I to III, see here, tks to Piotrus above and Polish wikipedia, their article on the book is here.Coolabahapple (talk) 10:49, 6 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. And salt. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeri-KO[edit]

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

Procedural nomination. Was previously deleted at AfD on WP:TOOSOON grounds, but after a search, I'm seeing sources dated after that AfD, so I think the circumstances have changed since then and this is not G4 eligible. May or may not now be notable. Adam9007 (talk) 15:38, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 17:17, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Do we have any wrestlers appropriately named so that WWE can create the team of "Jeri-Tol"? Seriously, the deletion arguments of the previous AFD still apply. This is further evidence of cherry-picking news sites to the point where Wikipedia resembles another news site and not anything one could remotely call an "encyclopedia", ignoring that their goals aren't exactly compatible with our intended goals. Indifferently creating articles on every new middling tag team to appear on television while we lack articles on countless other tag teams with real accomplishments, or only covering those teams by filling up content with match results (which has been a basis for deletion in other wrestling-related AFDs) will only harm the encyclopedia in the long term. I didn't even point out that the article was recreated by a new user who did little but slap together an infobox with a blatant copyvio photo and that subsequent edits amount to going through the motions, mainly because AFD isn't cleanup. Still, looking at the past history, I fail to see where you can go from that without engaging in blatant puffery. All that may change if they accomplish more than appearing on television together and/or having a page on certain websites. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 23:00, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and Salt Piling on more recent WP:ROUTINE match results doesn't make this any more notable than it was last time.LM2000 (talk) 01:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - this is no better than it was. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:57, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt Per all of the above. Nickag989^talk 18:20, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt Per nom, currently fails WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.188.136.234 (talk) 01:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt Per Nom. ~ Junior5a (Talk) Cont 22:35, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per above seanhaley1 (talk) 00:00, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Suspicious account: Please note that the above contributor has recently created an account, rapidly made 10 edits and then started !voting on multiple AfDs, many of which don't make sense. See Special:Contributions/Seanhaley1 for their edits. There is a possibility that this is an undisclosed paid editor/canvassed editor/sockpuppet who is probably voting on multiple AfDs to hide the actual target. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:55, 6 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. This is a WP:SNOW deletion: there is no point wasting any more time on this, as it is clearly going to end up being deleted. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Khawaja Mohammad Kazim Banday[edit]

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

This article has been recreated on multiple occasions by someone who simply does not get it. There is no sense to be made of the thing and I am getting nowhere with my own searches. We can keep CSD'ing it per criteria A1 or bring it here, get consensus to delete and then salt the thing. Sitush (talk) 15:07, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and also because the article has no content, only a series of pictures. --Dэя-Бøяg 15:10, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication of notability and possible copyright infringement. That uploader might own the copyright to the images, but we don't know the status of the books being photographed, nor the country. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:34, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per everything above. Does note meet WP:STYLE guidelines as well. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 16:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Per Nom, looks like test page or so. ~ Junior5a (Talk) Cont 16:50, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per above and the nom. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 16:57, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete This article was already deleted once today - it hasn't improved this time around XyzSpaniel'Talk to me 17:04, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crowd Analysis & Crowd Management and Optimization[edit]

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

The history of this article is shown at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ATeahouse%2FQuestions&type=revision&diff=742233481&oldid=742219241. As noted, this is a personal essay and is not written in an encyclopedic style, and overlaps other articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:38, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's an essay, it cites no references, and it's not even clear from the opening sentences what it's meant to be about. Maproom (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:29, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—if it were sourced some of this might be worth moving to Crowd control, but with no inline references it's impossible to see what's salvageable. ‑ Iridescent 20:57, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With no disrespect to the student who has created this article. The professor who initiated this project seriously needs to read up on Wikipedia's polices! Theroadislong (talk) 21:56, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: agreeing with nomination. This is a misguided article and does not follow Wikipedia convention for creation, tone or style. The professor, just as any other editor, should have done due research. Sorry. Fylbecatulous talk 14:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Crowd Tracking just appeared from a user who belongs to the same class, going by their respective user pages. Largoplazo (talk) 00:23, 6 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 procedural close. This is pretty much a duplicate of the FIFA Mobile article, and has been deleted as such. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 23:18, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FIFA MOBILE[edit]

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

Non-notable game lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 14:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only primary sources, doesn't appear to be notable with 3rd party coverage. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:38, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 17:18, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The real FIFA Mobile is definitely notable, but this one (in all caps) was a sloppily written duplicate, and has been deleted as such. Sergecross73 msg me 22:20, 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 Withdraw. I will look closer. I didn't see anything of interest the first time, but I don't have time right now to look closer, so taking it on faith. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:33, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thrissivaperoor Kliptham[edit]

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

WP:CRYSTAL, doesn't seem to meet criteria for inclusion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:03, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 17:43, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Dennis Brown: the film was already released. Jim Carter 17:49, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 17:51, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- The phase "will be" is used a lot in that article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:20, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Dennis Brown: Hi, did you checked the subject on the web before nominating it here? Since you reasoned WP:CRYSTAL for the deletion, I get an idea that you might haven't checked it on the web; nominated purely based on what the article said. Jim Carter 19:57, 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 redirect to Royal Rumble#Dates, venues and winners. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Rumble (2017)[edit]

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

Advertising article which violates WP:PROMOTION, advertising event for January. Single ipv6 SPA account came in and removed CSD G11 speed tag, which sympathetic admins failed to remove. Article has been updated since with real date of event, 3 months hence. Advertising page. Scope creep (talk) 13:34, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thr article is going to just go back up when we get closer to the event anyways. This isn't something that is random and has no usefulness. In fact, there is already another match announced for it.User:Jbl1975
I don't think this is promotional, it seems to be written in a neutral way. However, I think this should be redirected to List of WWE Network events, as currently the only information we have is essentially the date and location, which can be included on that article, and the fact there will be a Royal Rumble match, as there is every year. Until there is more substantial information, confirmed by reliable sources, to include, I don't see the point in having a separate article for this, and it will probably be a target for vandalism and unsourced information, as it already has been since it was it was changed from a redirect on September 27. For example, an unsourced match between Kevin Owens and Brock Lesnar was added. Silverfish (talk) 19:07, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it is about as promotional as Super Bowl LII, it's an article on a recurring event (since 1988) where the location etc. have officially been announced. MPJ-DK 20:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Royal Rumble The result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clash of Champions (2016) seemed to agree that articles in this state should redirect to the main article until there's some build for the event. This stub offers nothing that can't be found there.LM2000 (talk) 20:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I know these types of events may be dear to your hearts, but at the end of the day, WP is neither an event nor scheduling engine. There is plenty of sites on the net that will tell you exactly when an event is going to occur. It's misuse of Wikipedia purpose. It egregious advertising plain and simple. I guess the admins will be looking at the SPA account coming in and deleting the G11 tag, possibly as a suspected sock or meat puppet. Scope creep (talk) 22:38, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Generally agree with Scope creep on this. There was a WrestleMania edition article which wound up on my watchlist within the past few years. Once the event was over and done with, I went back to that article. It was chock full of rehashings of press conferences, press releases and other pre-event posturing and painfully short on details of what actually happened at the event. We shouldn't be, but have been, encouraging the use of Wikipedia as a dumping ground for this sort of thing, the existence of reliable sources or not. In the United States, we have the presidential election going on (and on and on and on...). See Political positions of Hillary Clinton for perhaps the worst example of a dumping ground I have ever seen on Wikipedia, an article that's of use to no one except drooling fanboys. There's a reason for such a comparison: with elections as with events of this sort, we're demonstrating that "enduring notability" are merely two words one throws together to score brownie points in a particular discussion and nothing more when we give so much weight to events which haven't happened yet versus events which have happened. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 23:27, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A few years ago we discussed redirecting WrestleMania articles until after the Rumble. It's a proposal we should probably look into again, but there has always been opposition against changes like this.LM2000 (talk) 23:53, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Royal Rumble per LM2000. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MPJDK. Location and venue have been confirmed. If the result is retarget though, it should go to the Royal Rumble page. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:19, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your point being what, exactly? Your rationale merely affirms the nominator's rationale. Contrary to prevailing opinion, we're not here to serve as another social media site for current events. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 20:04, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it's about an event that will generate profits for a company doesn't mean that it's promotional. The page itself is neutrally written. It's a recurring event that will get its own page and which already has verifiable information about it. (EDIT: Added information from Sky Sports source [20], so the page doesn't just use WWE sources -- 20:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC))This seems like the wrestling equivalent of Super Bowl LII or the 43rd Chess Olympiad. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:29, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'm not following your reasoning. When you say "neutrally written", I don't see that as a problem. Rather, I see yet another article that's slavishly devoted to a particular manual of style and/or particular sources, but doesn't exactly deliver much in the way of information value and won't until the event or something besides announcements of various minor details actually happens. Keep in mind that we've been in a billion-website world for quite some time. Regardless of what Alexa may say at any particular point, Wikipedia's stock in terms of public perception has been falling for years. Offering only the same content you can find at thousands or millions of other places on the web or the equivalent of clickbait to a cherry-picked list of other websites isn't going to help that any. Notice that in my original comment, I reference the use of the term "enduring notability" in various discussions elsewhere on the encyclopedia, specifically whether the term is misused or whether editors only give lip service to the concept. I'm reminded of something from Bobby Heenan's autobiography where he had a conversation with Eric Bischoff during the Monday Night Wars. Bischoff was bragging to Heenan that "I've been on top for 36 weeks", to which Heenan replied "So what, I've been on top for 36 years". That quote sums up my attitude in general about our coverage of future events when contrasted with our non-coverage or trivial coverage of countless notable past events. While the Sky Sports source was helpful, I'm perfectly capable of finding their website without having to use a Wikipedia article as a portal. That falls under WP:NOTNEWS, but I'm tired of constantly having to make that argument. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 23:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through past Royal Rumble articles, we have an article for everyone one of these events since the first one in 1988, so it seems that these events do have enduring notability. If someone has a problem with the quality of sourcing in older articles, it seems counterproductive to delete/redirect articles on upcoming events, since that makes it harder for people to add good sourcing. If this had been a redirect, I never would've added the SkySports source, and looking at the quality of older Royal Rumble articles, it may never have been added.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:55, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - fake wrestling event that doesn't even take place for months. WP:FRINGE "sport", and show is not notable. 2A02:C7F:8E43:2F00:188:2A2C:35E4:AD97 (talk) 23:45, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Nickag989: – I really get tired of seeing bitey Twinkle warriors polluting my watchlist with dubious edits such as this and this all the time. You appear to be taking a position in this discussion by effectively striking someone else's !vote in the form of repeatedly reverting their edits, all the while making no contributions of your own to the discussion apart from trying to demonstrate your fondness for and/or mastery of Twinkle. This was especially made clear in your last edit summary. If there's evidence to support the notion that the IP is a sockpuppet, then and only then could I see some justification for what you're doing. Otherwise, it's highly improper to delete someone's !vote simply because you don't care for the opinion they're offering. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 19:32, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot, why this should be deleted? Because of that IP user claiming this is a "fake wrestling event that doesn't even take place for months. WP:FRINGE "sport", and show is not notable?" Yeah, I think so. However, if I take step back, and look through the previous RR events, it should not be deleted. It takes a while to organize a major sport event (venue, location), like this one or even the Super Bowl. Take the Royal Rumble (2016), for instance, which was announced and created in April 2015, months before it took place in January 2016. Any arguments? I think so. My vote, will remain as keep. Nickag989^talk 20:22, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I restored that !vote until more compelling reasons can be given to remove it. At any rate, if need be, ~~striking it like this~~ and offering a rationale for same is typically preferred. If you don't follow WP:ITN/C, until fairly recently, the rationale the IP gave is barely removed from the reasons many editors had for why pro wrestling-related content doesn't belong on the main page. Don't get me started on the compatibility of that stance to NPOV; as I refer to above and elsewhere, the vast majority of our coverage of the current U.S. presidential election is a bad, bad joke, but I'm not on a crusade to do something about it (yet). RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 22:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Royal Rumble per the precedent set by the conclusion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clash of Champions (2016). --Orange Mike | Talk 00:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect - This hasn't happened yet, and there's no urgent or pressing need to discuss it until it does. That's my view. The above arguments make a lot of sense. After it happens, we can work through notability concerns, sourcing concerns, neutral point of view concerns, and the like. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested. Right now, we don't even know the line-up, nor even the countries/ethnicities represented. Unlike the Olympics, this is sponsored by a for-profit entity, and is subject to cancellation. Bearian (talk) 18:40, 18 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 Ming Li. If the notability of the company may form in the future, people will probably want to restore the article, so leaving the history for now. Currently though the company cannot have an article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:52, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RSVP Technologies Inc.[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability for this start up. Press releases and a statement about funding from the government doesn't add up to notability. Probably WP:TOOSOON too soon for this company. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:25, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete as all of this is simply being claimed as "notability" because of the founder being a notable professor but notability is not inherited, and the information and sources are simply PR stated from 1 to 10, because it's all about what the company wants to talk about: funding and how and where the money is. None of this actually comes close to actually establishing both a substantial and a no-PR article, that's because no company will be willing to say no to advertising, especially if it's a newly started company like this hence this is not acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 03:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or at most redirect to Ming Li - David Gerard (talk) 10:03, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ming Li; should the company become more notable in the future, the article could be reinstated. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:03, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ming Li Not notable at this time, but it may be in the future. I guess a redirect is a safe option here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:03, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ming Li; valid search term. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:18, 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 keep. postdlf (talk) 14:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016–17 Canadian network television schedule[edit]

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

advertising The Banner talk 13:15, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If we have 2016–17 United States network television schedule, I don't see the problem with having its Canadian counterpart. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:43, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Advertising?! Are you serious? There are 12 other Canadian telvision network schedules and this article is simply this season's counterpart. Heartfox (talk) 17:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I am serious. The Banner talk 19:41, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Look, just because there isn't always Variety, The Futon Critic, or TV by the Numbers to source Canadian telvision schedules doesn't mean it's advertising. And also, advertising for what? There are four different major Canadian broadcasting companies. This isn't a page because I wan't to "advertise for them", it's here because there are twelve other pages, and the fact that I wanted to expand the knowledge of this subject, similarily to the articles in the United States on this subject. Heartfox (talk) 20:41, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:50, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:38, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:38, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not sure how its advertising. You could make a wider argument per WP:NOTTVGUIDE but considering other Canadian and US schedules exist, this is simply the next iteration. -- Whats new?^(talk) 05:37, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Every article is judged on its own merits... The Banner talk 10:28, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - What exactly constitues advertising in this article? What exactly are you referring to when you say the article is an advertisement and that other current television schedules in other countries aren't? Heartfox (talk) 21:57, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - In what way are the merits of this article different than the merits of the USian one? Bearcat (talk) 20:14, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - part of an ongoing series of TV schedules in the US and Canada. I disagree with the nominator's rationale. PK T(alk) 14:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There may be a legitimate case to be made that we shouldn't keep any such articles at all, but there's no good reason to single out Canadian ones as somehow less inherently notable or more inherently "advertorial" than comparable USian articles that are being kept. I might be inclined to support a comprehensive and well-reasoned argument that we should delete all of these including the USian ones per WP:NOTTVGUIDE, but I'm definitely not willing to support singling out the Canadian ones for unique treatment not being extended to the USian versions of the exact same thing. Bearcat (talk) 20:07, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- agree with others' rationale that it seems odd to single out Canadian schedule. I know that this sounds exactly the opposite of Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, but I'm not sure if either should be deleted. Perhaps an RfC on the overall topic would be helpful. K.e.coffman (talk) 10:09, 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 keep. postdlf (talk) 14:39, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2003–04 Canadian network television schedule[edit]

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

Unsourced list that fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 13:14, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If we have 2003–04 United States network television schedule, I don't see the problem with having its Canadian counterpart. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Every article is judged on its own merits. The Banner talk 11:10, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - The merits of this being different from the merits of that...how, exactly? Content? The same. Quality of sourcing? The same. Difference? Crickets. Bearcat (talk) 20:08, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:51, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:55, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:55, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There may be a legitimate case to be made that we shouldn't keep any such articles at all, but there's no good reason to single out Canadian ones as somehow less inherently notable or more inherently "advertorial" than comparable USian articles that are being kept. I might be inclined to support a comprehensive and well-reasoned argument that we should delete all of these including the USian ones per WP:NOTTVGUIDE, but I'm definitely not willing to support singling out the Canadian ones for unique treatment not being extended to the USian versions of the exact same thing. Bearcat (talk) 20:08, 6 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. postdlf (talk) 14:40, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of video games (eighth generation)[edit]

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

We have longstanding sequential articles that provide for this topic. See List of video game exclusives (seventh generation) and List of video game exclusives (eighth generation). The article creator proposed a major revision in July. Fearing that his idea would not meet with a favourable reception (see brief discussion) he proceeded and created a new article no matter. My main objection is that the new page is essentially a duplication of the existing one. Moreover, keeping the information updated requires a great deal more work. There are more fields that require modifying and the table is so long it is easy to lose track of basic header information. A quick look at the history tab shows that these articles are rarely updated relative to other video game list articles. Proofreading is lacking. For this reason it's best to keep things as straightforward as possible to encourage participation. There is zero reference table at this time. — TPX 12:58, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. — TPX 13:09, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious? List of video game exclusives (eighth generation) is no more than a compilation of three existing articles with non-exclusive games removed. That article serves no purpose at all. I'm not going to reiterate myself here (read there instead: Talk:List of video game exclusives (eighth generation)#Purpose of this article?). But more importantly, you've probably have gone too far to have, really, requesting for an deletion on the new article that I've created, even though it has its purpose.Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 13:59, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The seventh and eighth generation articles were created long before I started editing them. Their purpose, I assume, is to help visitors discover more concisely what exclusive games each system offers (Gears, Mario, Forza) in order to make an informed decision. Everyone can appreciate the effort you have expended to create a new article, but there is a considerable amount of overlap between exiting pages and the new article that I don't understand what the point is. Encouraging editors to proofread these type of lists is hard enough as it is. — TPX 15:14, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I'm going to reiterate to here from the last time I said there. They lost their purpose ever since that the "exclusive" column has been returned to the game list. They can just go to the main game list to look at exclusive games just fine. Some readers may prefer a different table with different sorting system revolving exclusive. The new article does not require frequent updates because it does not have release dates and many other game info, just the game title, exclusivity, and availability. Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 18:07, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is why I placed "more concisely" in italics when I said "Their purpose, I assume, is to help visitors discover more concisely what exclusive games each system offers" because the same information can be found by visiting each list article separately. If you believe they are unnecessary then feel free to nominate both for deletion. But what you should not do is create a yet another third unwieldy article consisting of the same information. — TPX 18:32, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No need to tell me what I should and should not do... the new article clearly isn't for you. Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 18:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree that the list is redundant and unnecessary to list out when we have so many list articles on 8th gen games. What about turning it into a "list of lists" though. Rather than re-listing every single video game released since 2011, just list off the game lists for any of the 8th gen consoles. I.e., List of Nintendo 3DS games, List of PlayStation 4 games, etc etc. Sergecross73 msg me 14:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's very redundant to list same games twice, sure, but sometimes that's a good thing, we can cross-check for the questionable games between two lists. Though that's not what the new article is about, it's another list with conpletely different column that will provide different purpose to the readers. Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 14:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point though? Each individual list already tracks all of this information, including exclusivity of software. This is a massive, unwieldy list that is going to require a ton of maintenance, without any payoff, since it's all documented elsewhere already. (And in a better fashion too - this list has a ridiculous number of "unknown" fields.) Sergecross73 msg me 16:32, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:List of Xbox 360 games#Proposal for improving the exclusivity information is where I got idea from. i thought it's good but it would be crazy to add any more columns to the existing table that's already taken the whole screen, so duplicate the list with a entirely new columns will be more ideal. There are more room for more columns, too, but that's all for now. Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 17:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What about we move and merge the genre, developer, and publisher columns from three articles to this new article? This new article could save someone's edits up to three times because they don't have to add such info to each game list. I don't like this idea though. Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 18:30, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Its already a very large undertaking to maintain these individual List of PlayStation 4 games-type lists. I believe this proposed combined massive one containing all games from Wii U, PS4, and Xbox 360 is too much to maintain by itself, let alone maintaining the individual lists and your proposed massive combined one concurrently. Especially for something that's entirely redundant anyways. We don't need this. Wikipedia isn't a buyers guide or some "ConsoleWars" fansite. Its an encyclopedia. Sergecross73 msg me 13:03, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now I realized that articles revolving exclusives/exclusivity information are very console war like articles mostly maintained by fans. Do List of video game exclusives (seventh generation) and List of video game exclusives (eighth generation) deserve to stay too? TPX's reason as stated above sounds like they're buyers' guide. Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 01:00, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will vote for deletion if the pages are nominated. There is no real purpose for List of PC exclusive games to exist when exclusive titles are denoted on List of PC games. — TPX 12:29, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'll try to nominate these exclusive articles for deletion tomorrow. PC exclusive games article could just turn into a redirect page instead to retain its edit history then someone will still have a chance to merge if they feel like it. Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 14:15, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per my comments above and the nom. List is entirely redundant to other already better done lists. Open to recreating as a DAB like page that lists all of the separate lists that already exist that already contain all of this info, though even that is probably more or less already at the 8th gen page. Sergecross73 msg me 16:37, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:53, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article creator here, it's useful for cross referencing but probably useless to the readers. Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 01:15, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- not adding value to the project and not helpful to readers. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:41, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) — Yellow Dingo (talk) 04:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cubiculum[edit]

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

WP:NOTDICT Cabayi (talk) 10:56, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Cubiculum" is the Latin word for "bedroom". No sources have been cited to prove the accuracy of this overly specific definition. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:49, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm changing to neutral due to the changes to the article since this AfD began. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete per WP:NOT. Another article from a well-meaning student unable to read instructions for contributing. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:21, 2 October 2016 (UTC) Changing to Keep based upon recent improvements. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:14, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This has a specific meaning in Roman architecture and culture which is not the same as "bedroom" in modern English, and has loads of coverage in independent reliable sources. For example (and the available sources are far from limited to these) the first two of the very many sources found by the Google Scholar search linked above are this and this. Of course the current article is pretty crappy, but notability is a function of the available sources rather than of the current state of an article. I don't have the time or inclination to fix the article now, but will try to do so in the next few days. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:10, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:10, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pointless dicdef. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:49, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Yes, now an acceptable stub. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:35, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a dictionary. I would note that the author moved the page to a plural form of the title. 331dot (talk) 18:13, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There was no reason for the move except to frustrate the deletion discussion. Pure page move vandalism. I've moved it back & suppressed the redirect to restore the status quo. WP:PM/C#1 Cabayi (talk) 20:03, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewritten the article based on the two sources that I mentioned above, and many more sources are available from the Google Scholar and Google Books searches linked above. I would invite Cabayi, Metropolitan90, Chris troutman, Necrothesp and 331dot to consider whether their opinions still stand. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:55, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I now think that it is no longer a dictionary page, and there is probably enough to sustain an article, given its current information. 331dot (talk) 20:23, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Too late for me to withdraw the nomination per WP:WDAFD, but it's now worth a Keep. Cabayi (talk) 21:17, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per 86.17.222.157's findings. I'm a bit surprised they were ignored by everyone who commented after him/her. Uanfala (talk) 21:21, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little disappointed by that, but not at all surprised. It's pretty much par for the course that participants in deletion discussions ignore the caveat "if they cannot be expanded beyond a definition" at WP:NOT#DICT. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:31, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per article improvements and new sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The current version looks OK to me. I appreciate that it is only a little more than a definition, but it is certainly not just a definition. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:58, 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) 17:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tihomir Todorov[edit]

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

The football player never played in a fully professional league, hence fails WP:NFOOTY. Ymblanter (talk) 09:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:00, 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) 20:00, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:08, 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]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:49, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:49, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:49, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:55, 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 Housekeeping closure. Article does not exist. (non-admin closure) John from Idegon (talk) 06:37, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstaritis[edit]

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

I don't know, but the humor template is being used to compromise the speedy deletion process. Articles like these woild have been speedy deleted if it wasn't for that user tag. Does anyone here even find these nerdy articles remotely funny? Kevinjonpalma11 (talk) 06:11, 2 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 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:23, 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. JohnCD (talk) 17:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sunday Night Takeaway[edit]

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

The program was announced as airing in 2016, however did not eventuate and looks to be either dumped or pushed to 2017 [21]. The article could be re-created should the series be going ahead. Otherwise the article is about a show announced but not delivered, failing notability and lacking sources. -- Whats new?^(talk) 06:21, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:19, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:19, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom - David Gerard (talk) 17:23, 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 06:17, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a weakly sourced WP:TOOSOON article. Not adding value to the encyclopedia at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:27, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Also fails WP:CRYSTAL. The show could be postponed indefinitel. The article can be recreated at a later date. TheKaphox T 13:31, 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. Michig (talk) 08:19, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Facetiousism[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Neologism. Only references found are to things like Facebook and Urban Dictionary. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Jbh ^Talk 06:01, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 06:04, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 06:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable neologism that does not even rise to the level of a WP:DICDEF as no reliable dictionary defines it. Writing this article is, perhaps, an example of the non-notable term in use, and I suspect that someone is trying to pull our chain. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:14, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect to Deconstruction~~ Delete for failing WP:GNG, WP:NEOLOGISM, and WP:DICDEF. FourViolas (talk) 06:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Nothing of value. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:55, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, invented. Hairhorn (talk) 16:33, 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. Michig (talk) 08:18, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Portaro[edit]

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

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:ANYBIO. This article was originally filled with SEO/spam external links many of which did not have any relation to claims. The subject does not appear to be notable and the page looks to be nothing but a promotional vehicle. After going through the inline external links there was one, poor, link to a "List of Geniuses" site that you pay to be listed on. Jbh ^Talk 05:22, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 05:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 05:58, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The one "pay to play" directory listing reference in the article is worthless. In effect, this is an unreferenced biography of a living person, which is contrary to policy. Maybe he is a genius. I do not know one way or the other, but that is not a claim of notability in itself. I did a good faith search for reliable, independent sources that devote significant coverage to this person, and came up with nothing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:07, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete blatantly promotional unsourced BLP - David Gerard (talk) 09:37, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Haven't found any substantial coverage. The one article that turned up was this, which is just a passing mention. 2602:306:3A29:9B90:1C2C:935B:D0B7:DEBC (talk) 10:19, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- unsourced spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete as not only unsourced, but also seriously advertorial with this essentially only existing as a job listing and there's all the signs to show it, there's nothing here at all to suggest there's significance for his own convincing article, let alone especially not the substance. SwisterTwister talk 06:34, 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 speedy delete. Obvious spam for non-notable musician Jimfbleak (talk) 06:13, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WYSM (Musician)[edit]

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

Self promotional article of non-notable musician. Speedy was removed by a new editor. Melcous (talk) 05:18, 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 redirect to Eric Horvitz#One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence. Whether to merge stuff from history is up to editors. Sandstein 08:15, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence[edit]

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

Insufficient evidence for the importance of this particular report DGG ( talk ) 04:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:31, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:08, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect if there's a suitable target. The "coverage" is clearly from a promotional push, and is therefore churnalism - David Gerard (talk) 08:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge into Eric Horvitz who seems the promoter. The Horvitz article just has a promotional quote about it. W Nowicki (talk) 18:00, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have no connection to Horvitz; I created the article b/c the sources include what I presume to be independent analysis, and my reading of WP:ORGDEPTH was that any amount of unattributed analysis by the independent publication makes the coverage non-trivial; if I'm wrong, then the article can be deleted but I'll probably ask at the WP:ORGDEPTH page for a modification to be more clear. For example, the nytimes 2014 source states "The project, hosted by the university, is unusual not just because of its duration but because it seeks to track the effects of these technologies as they reshape the roles played by human beings in a broad range of endeavors." The csmonitor source states "As it turns out, there are already groups dedicated to tackling these ethical concerns." Of course, for all I know these "insights" may have been fed to them by the organization, but that's true of any article. I don't know what level of non-triviality is usually required to pass WP:ORGDEPTH. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 14:46, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Eric Horvitz#One_Hundred_Year_Study_on_Artificial_Intelligence; the subject does not appear to be independently notable per available sources. The RS listed can be used in the target article to expand the section. With a redirect, anything useful could be picked up from the article history. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:24, 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. (non-admin closure) Jbh ^Talk 03:20, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Lazzarini[edit]

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

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:PROF. I could find no significant RS coverage of the subject and his publications have few citations. Jbh ^Talk 04:41, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw Consensus is clear. No need to keep this open. Jbh ^Talk 03:20, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 05:25, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 05:25, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I created the page, it appears that the work with Csound and synthesis is significant enough. There were some links broken in different places on wikipedia, I realised later that the page was there but was deleted.Roetfuss (talk) 08:35, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep the article's not great, but the dude invented MFM synthesis! - David Gerard (talk) 09:38, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I missed something where sources discuss him rather than the technique. I would be more than happy to withdraw the nomination if some are found. Also, his most highly cited work has 38 citations so how big a deal is it? His work is outside my area of expertise and I'm willing to reassess. Jbh ^Talk 13:10, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite possible a redirect to csound is appropriate ... but I'll have a good look - David Gerard (talk) 13:52, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

38 citations of a single article in a niche area such as sound synthesis is not too bad. The MIT Press book appears to be well appreciated. Just giving some reasons why I even bothered.Roetfuss (talk) 14:53, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even a cursory look at the sources more than demonstrates that this person fulfills the notability criteria for academics. giso6150 (talk) 03:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative Keep -- the google books search (link) shows that he co-authored The Audio Programming Book and that his works are being cited by others. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:26, 10 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. Obvious hoax Fenix down (talk) 08:38, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Barbour II[edit]

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

This is apparently a playable character from a video game. Google searches turn up nothing. If it exists, this is way too soon for an article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:22, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:59, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 17:59, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - probable hoax, in any case, this clearly fails WP:GNG Spiderone 18:00, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is somebody writing an article about one of their characters they created on a video game. Giant Snowman 07:06, 6 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. Vanamonde (talk) 07:00, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Hypes[edit]

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

Not enough coverage to meet MUSICBIO or GNG. Coverage is a single local paper and social media. Jbh ^Talk 02:41, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 05:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 05:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable music producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject meets 1 & 10 of WP:MUSIC for producing music for television show. Has significant coverage from independent, secondary sources. Passes WP:GNG. –haggforlife (talk) 02:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it stands NMUSIC #1 requires actual decent RS coverage, and so does keeping it as a BLP - David Gerard (talk) 09:39, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks significant coverage. Majority of the sources appear to be the same insignificant regional community newspaper/site. The IBM site solicits self-generated content that endorse IBM products. The only decent source appears to be Respect magazine, but that's only one, which is not enough. The subject (not the article) may be a case of WP:TOO SOON. ShelbyMarion (talk) 01:59, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above, it would be delete but he has been featured in very credible magazines. I did a quick Google search and found some. Succeeds WP:gng. seanhaley1 (talk) 23:41, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Suspicious account: Please note that the above contributor has recently created an account, rapidly made 10 edits and then started !voting on multiple AfDs, many of which don't make sense. See Special:Contributions/Seanhaley1 for their edits. There is a possibility that this is an undisclosed paid editor/canvassed editor/sockpuppet who is probably voting on multiple AfDs to hide the actual target. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:52, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- strictly a vanity page on a non notable artist; WP:TOOSOON applies. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:32, 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. postdlf (talk) 14:40, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

VAT Refund Eligibility Table for EU based Companies[edit]

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

Not encyclopedic, not referenced, not reliable compilation of tax rates. Do not quite understand the purpose of this. The article itself says The table below is intended as a guide only. Renata (talk) 01:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree that this is not appropriate for a standalone article per WP:NOTGUIDE, and it is somewhat duplicative of the information at Value-added tax#European Union countries, though the table in this article includes much more detail. Jakegreenblatt, as the creator of this article, please understand that we are not criticizing you as an editor; you clearly have a strong enthusiasm for creating content for this encyclopedia, and I hope that you will continue to contribute here. Perhaps you can help improve the article for Value-added tax by adding citations to reliable sources? Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:30, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:30, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:30, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:30, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:30, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT and unreferenced WP:OR. Not something one would expect to find in an encyclopedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:01, 6 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. JohnCD (talk) 17:04, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One Love: The Bob Marley Musical[edit]

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

Non-notable musica lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 01:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per extensive coverage from multiple countries, e.g.: [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31]. --Michig (talk) 06:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reddogsix seems to quickly delete articles without checking sources. I Googled the "musical" and, per above, also found substantial coverage. Succeeds WP:MUSIC. seanhaley1 (talk) 23:45, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Suspicious account: Please note that the above contributor has recently created an account, rapidly made 10 edits and then started !voting on multiple AfDs, many of which don't make sense. See Special:Contributions/Seanhaley1 for their edits. There is a possibility that this is an undisclosed paid editor/canvassed editor/sockpuppet who is probably voting on multiple AfDs to hide the actual target. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:53, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Page would benefit from expanded content, additional information about the show, synopsis, song list (like other musical theatre pages), and community impact. Beneficial as a record of a new work of musical theatre, with one, soon to be two full productions, and prominent subject matter. References, as pointed out by Michig, are substantial and non-trivial. Yebsakin (talk) 07:36, 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. JohnCD (talk) 16:58, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jamieson Laboratories[edit]

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

A non-notable company that fails to cite almost any reliable sources to back up its claim to notability. Me-123567-Me (talk) 01:29, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found several sources, which I put on the talk page. I think they may be enough for notability. Adam9007 (talk) 01:35, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:32, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:32, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

leaning Delete - I had a look, but everything I could find was passing mentions and corporate ownership deals - David Gerard (talk) 19:15, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the listed links were all simply PR and republished, talking about what the company only wants to mention about itself, not what actually matters, and the best part that came close was simply about the potential $1 billion sale, but it never actually happened therefore there's nothing else to say. Once we become a PR webhost for all advertising matters, this place is damned and troubled severely. SwisterTwister talk 01:51, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability under WP:CORP may certainly be possible here, as it's by far the dominant product on the vitamins rack in every single drug store I've ever actually set foot in — but the nominator is correct that in this form, the article is minimally sourced and skews decidedly advertorial in the substance. Adam9007's new sources on the talk page aren't helping all that much, either — half of them are corporate press releases, which are primary sources rather than reliable ones, and the ones that are good sources are covering it entirely in the context of a purchase deal that fell through. And even in a deep ProQuest search, I'm finding a lot of glancing namechecks of its existence in coverage of other things (such as its former CEO donating $750 to the mayoral campaign of Drew Dilkens, which who cares, or his new role as head of a medical marijuana company, which WP:NOTINHERITED), and very little substantive coverage about much of anything else besides the cancelled takeover. And while the takeover deal would be entirely worthy of note in a substantial and well-rounded article, it just makes this the corporate equivalent of a WP:BLP1E if it's the only thing we can actually substance or source about the company. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do better than this, but this as currently written and sourced is not enough. Bearcat (talk) 16:35, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- this is a case of a company that could be notable, but review of the available sources proves otherwise. Not other reason for the article to exist to serve as a WP:PROMO, which Wikipedia is not. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:00, 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. A Train^talk 16:58, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zuggtmoy[edit]

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

This article does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 01:29, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 01:29, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 01:29, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Some RS has shown up in my search results. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 02:01, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the above !voter may be referring to [32], [33], [34], and [35], which all seem to mention this one fictional element in reviews. There's a bit more in [36], [37]. Books without preview dealing with this apparently include [38], but I can't verify that. At any rate, yeah, this is a major antagonist in the long-running plot lines. Jclemens (talk) 04:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As per usual, none of these sources show anything relevant. First four are singular name usage that do not talk about the character in any meaningful context, fifth is just describing a branching scenario and mentions the character only in relation to the scenario without any real world context, and sixth is just a strategy guide. Once again, you've brought in a load of fluff and three other people will come in here to vote "per Jclemens" despite reasonably knowing that none of these sources could actually be added to the article in good faith, at least in terms of establishing notability for the article. Would it kill you to at least try to find actual sources? TTN (talk) 11:46, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- At some point, you should reevaluate your assessment of the sorts of sources I provide, since when I do provide them and dispute your deletion proposal, consensus seems to fall with me far more often than it does with you. Jclemens (talk) 06:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please feel free to show me where anyone has used the majority of the sources you provide to improve an article. There is not one source listed above that could be added to the article in a meaningful way. It has nothing to do with the sources being relevant or even actual consensus that the article is notable. It's a bunch of people coming in with the idea that the article is notable in the first place and voting keep based upon that initial idea when given a reason to do so, even if that reason is faulty. Pretty much all these articles that have been kept recently will end up sitting for another year without improvement and eventually be removed in another AFD. It's actually quite common in a number of AfDs with the same kind of useless laundry list of trivial mentions. Your idea of notability is simply contrary to Wikipedia's idea of notability. I don't see that changing any time soon. TTN (talk) 13:34, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Amusing that you should expect me to improve an article with what I find, when when I find anything at all, it's evidence that you never bother following WP:BEFORE. You also confuse evidence of notability, which must be independent, with evidence of sources which can be used to create and expand an article, which doesn't have to be, per WP:SPS and WP:SELFPUB. Jclemens (talk) 02:10, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - I would expect that, if your sources are as good as you claim, that any of the number of people professing a keep argument would use them in the articles. They don't, they won't, and nobody ever will (unless someone shoves them in after this argument to make a very bad point). Anyone who expects someone to follow BEFORE to the letter for a bunch of old, forgotten ten year old articles is silly. The onus is on the person claiming that the articles are notable. Just because most these were made when Wikipedia's standards were extremely lax does not mean the idea of a topic needing to properly branch out from a main article should be ignored. I do run a quick check through the source links, but that doesn't really matter when you pull out a bunch of irrelevant junk and claim it to be proper. Articles need to have multiple, non trivial third party sources to establish notability. While you constantly try to dance around that very specific definition of notability, it's there as clear as day. These sources are irrelevant, trivial mentions that do nothing more than confirm the existence of the topic. TTN (talk) 02:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It needs some rewrite though. Doesn't look encyclopedic at the moment.Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk→ Be a guest 12:49, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the keeps above. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:54, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of the above, or failing that merge to List of demon lords in Dungeons & Dragons. BOZ (talk) 04:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge - The Polygon source is a trivial passing mention in an interview with a WotC employee, the Forbes article another trivial passing mention from 'contributor' content which should not be assumed reliable, the Escapist mention is another passing mention in a product announcement of no substance, and Diehardgamefan is another very trivial passing mention in an outlet which doesn't appear reliable. Grayfell (talk) 00:53, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:01, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all above, as well. This article should remain. It satisfies GNG seanhaley1 (talk) 23:48, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Suspicious account: Please note that the above contributor has recently created an account, rapidly made 10 edits and then started !voting on multiple AfDs, many of which don't make sense. See Special:Contributions/Seanhaley1 for their edits. There is a possibility that this is an undisclosed paid editor/canvassed editor/sockpuppet who is probably voting on multiple AfDs to hide the actual target. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:53, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How? What significant coverage has this received that is independent of the subject? Grayfell (talk) 05:29, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per JClemens. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:16, 10 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 Greyhawk deities. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:26, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Myhriss[edit]

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

This article does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 01:27, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 01:28, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 01:28, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject lacks notability. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 01:57, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Greyhawk deities per WP:ATD-M as a presumably NN fictional element with a valid merge target. Jclemens (talk) 04:54, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge per Jclemens. BOZ (talk) 04:29, 3 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 keep. Consensus is that while this is indeed a concept invented by popular writers post WWII, it is notable as such, but the article should be edited to reflect this. I'm not sure that there is consensus to rename the article, but discussions about this can continue on the article talk page if needed. Sandstein 14:53, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

German tank aces[edit]

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

Plainly put, there never was a "German tank ace". By that I mean that neither the term "Panzer ace" ("Panzerass") nor the "concept" (whatever that means) did exist among the Waffen-SS, the German wartime propaganda or the Wehrmacht. I may be proven otherwise by RS, but so far I have not read the term or in any primary sources or military historiography. (There are two exceptions of the latter, I will mention later but these actually support my argument.) Of course there were German tank commanders who became the subject of German propaganda, notably Michael Wittmann. It is also true that U-boat commanders and pilots received the most prestigous German military order of WWII, the Knight's Cross, when they had sunk a certain number of enemy ships or shot down a certain number of enemy planes, respectively. But even them were not referred to as "aces" (Asse) by German propaganda. No soldier of the Wehrmacht or Waffen-SS, however, received a Knight's Cross just because he had destroyed a certain number of enemy tanks. If these men were considered for a Knight's Cross, it was for a single deed which was supposed to have significantly influenced the outcome of combat and been carried out "on one's own initiative" ("aus eigenem Entschluss"). Kurt Knispel, arguably the most "successful" "German tank ace", for example, never received a Knight's Cross. (Roman Töppel, "Das Ritterkreuz des Eisernen Kreuzes und der Kampfwert militärischer Verbände," in: Ztschr. f. Heereskunde 76 (2012), pp. 180-190, here pp. 180-1.)

The article claims rather vaguely: "To the extent that the concept existed, it was mainly advanced by the Waffen-SS as part of its contributions to Nazi Germany's propaganda campaigns," referenced with Steven Zaloga's Panther vs Sherman. Battle of the Bulge, 1944. Oxford: Osprey Publishing 2008, p. 36. I will quote him at length, because his publication is the one and only source so far. Even he notes that "the concept of 'tank aces' was not particularly prevalent in World War II, even in the Wehrmacht. It was most common in the Waffen-SS, which was far more attuned to the propaganda imperatives of the Nazi state. It was especially common regarding the Tiger bataillons which enjoyed an envelope of invulnerability for one year [...]. In Heer panzer units the concept was not widespread, and military awards focused on mission performance, not an arbitrary metric like tank kills". Zaloga's claims do not support the definition of our article, since the top three "tank aces" fought with the Wehrmacht, not the Waffen-SS. How did they become "tank aces", given the "concept" wasn't prevalent in the Wehrmacht? And how could the "concept" have been especially common regarding "certain bataillons" and not with tank commanders in general? Did man and machine become one? It seems as if the fame of the German tank Tiger II, propagandized as a "Wunderwaffe" (wonder weapon), has somehow been transposed upon its commanders, but that is clearly an ex post development, i. e. the term was attached to them after WW II. Zaloga does not provide any reference for his claims anyway, which does not speak for their reliability.

As I said, the term "Panzerass" is not to be found in German propaganda of WW II. The term "ace" in relation to individual military success, so to speak, originated with French military propaganda of WW I. The as de l'aviation, (the flying ace) was used for fighter pilots who had shot down a certain number of enemy aircraft (usually more than five). It has been picked up particularly by the US Air Service and its propaganda. (On that see Linda R. Robertson: The Dream of Civilized Warfare: World War I Flying Aces and the American Imagination. University of Minneapolis Press, Minneapolis 2003, esp. pp. 87-113.) Two things should be noted: First, although, fighter pilots like Boelcke, Immelmann, and Richthofen figured prominently in German propaganda, the term "Fliegerass" was not used. Second, the term "ace" is nohing like a concept, but rather an image, a myth. As Peter Fritzsche put it: "The ace in combat is an immediately recognizable image. In control of his fate, handling his airplane with great courage and skill but also with an envied recklessness, the aviator appeared to be a genuine war hero, comparable to cavalrymen in Napoleon's era or chivalrous knights in the Middle Ages. [...] To this day, myths opposing the individual, distinctive combat of the aces to the industrial mass war on the ground remain deeply embedded in Western folklore." (A Nation of Fliers: German Aviation and the Popular Imagination. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (Mass.) 1992, p. 64.) The term "Fliegerass" is nowadays present and being used in German language referring to fighter pilots like Richthofen, Mölders and the like. But that is a fairly recent development (see, e.g., this google ngraph) and to a limited degree it became part of popular culture through special interest literature. It is not used as a "concept" by historiography, though. Instead, the image of the "ace" itself has become the subject of historiographical research. (See the examples of Robertson and Fritzsche, cited above.)

The same applies to the term "tank ace", minus the historiographical interest. The term originated within English special interest literature to purport the image of individual, distinct combat (and to sell books, I might add, by hooking up with Western folklore). One might just take a look at the literature in which the term "tank ace" is used. If Zaloga claims that the "concept" of "panzer aces" has received considerable attention in recent years, then he certainly does not refer to military historiography, but rather to special interest literature by publishers like Osprey, Stroud, Stackpole, Fedorowicz, Zenith Press and so forth. Take Franz Kurowski, former Nazi propagandist himself, as an example. It is difficult to keep track of his numerous publications in German, but a quite comprehensive list can be found here[39]. He chose some fairly martial titles, but he did not use the term "Panzerasse" whatsoever. Who came up with the "Panzer aces"? Please note, that JJ Fedorowicz followed up with Infantry Aces: The German Soldier in Combat in WWII (1994), also by Kurowski. It's the same book selling scheme, but equally ahistorical nonsense.

So far I have found two RS in which there are references to "Panzer aces". One is by controversial author Jörg Friedrich who speaks of generals Hermann Hoth and Georg-Hans Reinhardt as "Panzerasse" (Das Gesetz des Krieges, 1993, p. 220.). By this he unwittingly demonstrates, that "Panzer aces" is not a defined "concept" referring to successful tank commanders. The other is The Myth of the Eastern Front by Smelser /Davies who discuss Kurowski's titles, but not as a "concept" whatsoever.

To sum it up: "German tank aces" is a phrase used within English (mostly American) militaria literature. The term not only builds upon the myth of the fighter ace, but incorporates this myth and therefore has no analytical value whatsoever. It is not found within military historiography. As a "concept" it is WP:FRINGE and not sufficiently notable for a dedicated article in Wikipedia. (WP:NFRINGE). Instead Wikipedia provides unwarranted promotion for the "concept" (WP:PROFRINGE). In contrast to "Flying ace" or simply "ace" where there are independent reliable sources analyzing this term, there are virtually no such RS on the "German tank ace". Thus the article is beyond improvement. Instead Wikipedia is not a dictionary does apply. Assayer (talk) 00:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Assayer (talk) 00:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Assayer (talk) 00:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Assayer (talk) 00:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not sure why this has been taken to AfD before there was any discussion on the talk page... Regardless, the concept is clearly notable as it is covered by the multiple reliable sources cited in the "Overview" section of the article - I'm not sure why these are being dismissed? This nomination is also rather confusing as the article discusses the concept of a "tank ace" critically, noting that it is a disputed concept, so the WP:TNT-style argument above doesn't really apply. This is an article about the alleged concept of a tank ace, and not an endorsement of such a thing. Nick-D (talk) 00:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment With all due respect to Steven Zaloga, who is apparently a more critical reader than many of his fellow author's at Osprey's, but imho his publication does not qualify as a RS. It's an 80pp brochure with many grand illustrations, but lacking any references. Zaloga's depiction of the German perspective is based upon "the numerous Foreign Military Studies prepared by German military officers about the Ardennes campaign" (including, e.g., two reports by Jochen Peiper), i.e. by the de:Operational History (German) Section. The work of this body of former German officers has been critically examined recently ( Esther-Julia Howell: Von den Besiegten lernen?, Munich 2015]]. The 12 books in his bibliography (Kurowski is not among them) are also from the militaria camp. Btw, I admire how you managed to read my argument, check upon its claims and the references and came up with an answer in just three minutes.--Assayer (talk) 15:47, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While Osprey books don't have footnotes, Zaloga always includes multiple pages worth of references (including to the primary sources he regularly uses) at the conclusion of his books, as you note, so it's not accurate to claim that his work is unreferenced. You also appear to misunderstand WP:RS: Zaloga is a widely-published and cited expert on the topic of armoured warfare, and whatever the shortcomings of Osprey publishing, they're a professional outfit which exercises quality control (albeit not as much as they probably should in some instances) so the work can be considered reliable. I don't think that many people are going to read all of your over-long statement, and there's no reason to do so given that it's not relevant to Wikipedia's criteria for deletion and implies that you haven't actually bothered to read the content of the article (the topic is notable, and the content is OK and can be improved, so there are no grounds for deletion). There are certainly grounds to move and improve the article, but that's an content discussion which you didn't bother to start before launching this process out of the blue, not a deletion discussion. Nick-D (talk) 22:09, 2 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 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:02, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Pls see below; Original comment -- as someone who has contributed to the article, I advocate deletion. Here's the version as I came across it in 2015: link. It was one of the articles that launched me on the "Waffen-SS mythology" journey :-) . The article continues to attract (mostly new) editors who attempt to restore it to the prior state on a fairly regular basis:

September 2016
May 2016
March 2016 Edit summary: "This is the list of German panzer aces. Stop. No need of sociological junk"
February 2016 Edit summary: "Reads like a tabloid whit all those quations, not very encyclopedic. This should be merely a list, how invulnerable the Tiger I was doesnt matter, or that all tanks aces were bulshwalkers does not belong here."
Also from February 2016, restoring the dubious "kills"

As far as the term is concerned, I suspect it originates with the prolific Franz Kurowski whose Panzer Aces, Luftwaffe Aces, Panzergrenadier Aces and Infantry Aces (!) continue to be popular WWII "militaria literature". The term "Panzer ace" appears in The Myth of the Eastern Front in quotation marks in the discussions on Kurowski.

At best, this could be deleted and redirected to either Waffen-SS in popular culture or perhaps to Franz_Kurowski#Portrayal of Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS. Alternatively, a new article could be created under the name "Panzer ace" in popular culture or similar. Secondary sources for this would be Zalooga and Smelser & Davies.

As far as the article under discussion, the most recent version, which I was actually planning to address, but got distracted, introduced sources such as Patrick Agte and similar. So I suspect that trying to maintain neutrality of this article would be an on-going issue. Thus I advocate deletion. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:29, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Infrequent, and rapidly reverted/corrected, reversions to a less-good previous version aren't a reason to delete articles or their history IMO - note that these can, and probably will, be re-added via Wikipedia mirrors anyway based on my experience with similar articles. I'm sympathetic to an alternate name as suggested below though. Nick-D (talk) 04:00, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The latest dubious version (diff) was there for a month. So, I'd say WP:TNT the current version, and start from scratch with a new name. Please see suggested draft below. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as "Panzer ace" in popular culture. There appear to be sufficient reliable sources for that. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:43, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I created ~~Draft:"Panzer ace" in popular culture~~ by moving the academically supported content to the draft version, and addressing some of the concerns raised in the nomination. I limited the list to those commanders who are described in RS as "Panzer aces".

I would still advocate deletion of the current page, to remove the access to the edit history and avoid restorations of dubious material. After deletion, the name can be redirected to the new article "Panzer ace" in popular culture, if the consensus is indeed to go with a revised name. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:19, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think that this effort is an ill-advised piecemeal approach. I do not see sufficient RS for a "Panzer Ace" in popular culture-article. As far as I know this topic has not yet been adressed in military or cultural historiography. Steven Zaloga (I have adressed the reliability of his work above) does not deal with the issue of "tank ace" as a myth, but accepts it as being a "concept". Moreover I doubt that the "Pancer Ace" figures so prominently in popular culture that it would deserve a dedicated article. Instead, I would suggest an article Ace (military) on the terminology. There are sufficient RS to trace the emergence of that term, its meaning and image. The equally ahistorical Submarine ace could be merged and redirected to that article. Ideally even the article Flying Ace, which at present is completely devoid of academic historiography on the subject, could (and should) be merged into such an article.

My own research suggests, that the term "tank ace" was used as early as the 1950ies, but not as a concept. Rather it was a loose, even sloppy term to describe military leaders like Guderian and tank commanders like Wittmann, but also someone who managed to destroy more than five German tanks with an anti-tank gun. That underlines that it is the term "Ace" that deserves scrutiny, not its various ramifications.--Assayer (talk) 15:55, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article provides multiple references which discuss the concept of the role of a "Panzer ace" in popular culture. Smelser and Davies discuss aspects of this in considerable detail in their book, as does Zaloga in several works. I also refer you to searches in Amazon.com for "tank ace" and "panzer ace" which show that multiple popular (and generally awful) books have been written on the topic - it is these which Smelser and Davies critique and Zaloga and similar are responding to. Google Books searches provide similar results (eg, [40]). Nick-D (talk) 22:20, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm of two minds on this. On one hand, the term indeed is restricted to "militaria literature" in the popular culture, but Wikipedia caters to the general public, and not to a scholarly audience. Given the fact that the article survived in its "WWII German military romancer" version until 2015 (I assume copy pasted from Achtungpanzer.com), and that there are consistent attempts to revert it to that state, I'd say there's interest in the "concept", however misguided it might be. On the other hand, I did not know that Ace (military) does not exist, and I agree that it would be an appropriate article to create and discuss the term there. I also agree that "U-boat ace" is an ahistorical concept. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:30, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not deny that there is some interest in what some have called the "German tank (panzer) ace". Of course you'll find multiple books carrying the phrase in its title. But I argue that the idea of a "concept" is fringe theory and does not merit a dedicated article. If you don't take my word for it, you may consider what Nigel Newton, Chief Executive of Bloomsbury, said when Bloomsbury bought Osprey: "The acquisition of Osprey increases our presence in niche special interest markets". Pageviews Analysis [41] suggests that the Flying ace article generates about 3,5 times more interest than the German tank aces and Michael Wittmann alone is viewed more than 3 times as often. Besides, I do not see a reason why a topic with a popular interest to it should not be treated in a scholarly sound manner. Otherwise we need not to bother about RS as vetted by the scholarly community. In a sense Franz Kurowski's work is more readable than many scholarly books. Neither do I see a particular reason to start a Panzer ace in popular culture-article instead of using a redirect to Ace (military), where the various military "Aces" can be dealt with. --Assayer (talk) 18:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Panzer ace in popular culture; delete current page per K.e.coffman. Thanks Assayer for doing all this hard work in the research; this concept needs to be clearly discussed as a post-World War II creation, seemingly with some roots in the Waffen-SS, and not something that was around at the time. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 10:01, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Panzer ace in popular culture as it seems to be mainly a post-war subject-matter of discussion and writing; thereby, deleting current page. I would like to see some further addition to the article, and it should be balanced without any "WWII German military romancer" version, nor too much reliance on any single author/historian; of the two articles I do believe the draft article now put forth is the better. Kierzek (talk) 00:48, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the move. However, it seems to me that the suggestion to delete the prior history is a violation of copyright laws if any material whatsoever form the old article is retained in the moved article because it removes the attribution of material that is a condition of contributing the material to Wikipedia. Also a comment, there were no Fliegerasse because they are referred to as Experten. I didn't search very far, but the highest ranked Google uses of Panzerexpert seem to be associated with games. --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:50, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the topic is notable per WP:GNG due to the level of coverage it has received. The main issues appear to be regarding content and how we choose to cover the issue (or about what name we give the article), not that it actually is covered in Wikipedia at all. The fact that some interpretations of the concept might be fringe-like doesn't disqualify us from covering it (and them) as long as we address that issue, likewise if some of the sources which cover it are considered to be less reliable than others doesn't prevent us from using / mentioning them and the role they have played in developing the concept (as long as it is with care and appropriate attribution, and academic reviews of them included if available, etc.). These are all questions of editorial judgment and as such I don't think AFD is appropriate in this case. By all means ensure the article addresses the issue that it is disputed / ahistorical or whatever, but the fact that it is widely covered in popular literature means many people are interested in the topic so why not provide the information to our readers in a critical manner which might educate and inform them? Indeed recent changes to the article look promising to me and suggest that that is an achievable objective. Anotherclown (talk) 00:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move I agree per above. Move this article to Panzer ace in pop culture and delete this article as it does not warrant inclusion into the English Wikipedia. seanhaley1 (talk) 23:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Suspicious account: Please note that the above contributor has recently created an account, rapidly made 10 edits and then started !voting on multiple AfDs, many of which don't make sense. See Special:Contributions/Seanhaley1 for their edits. There is a possibility that this is an undisclosed paid editor/canvassed editor/sockpuppet who is probably voting on multiple AfDs to hide the actual target. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:46, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & Move to "Panzer ace" in popular culture: The article has been much improved since the AfD started, especially with the removal of dubious "successful commanders" list, so I no longer advocate deletion. I'd support moving to a new name, with the proviso that the discussions would continue about potentially merging the content into Ace (military). If not against copyright rules, I still suggest starting a new article from scratch, using the material from the current version. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:20, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- As someone who wrote a reasonable chunk of the current article, I'd certainly object to the history of my contributions being deleted. Nick-D (talk) 01:35, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough; I guess we'll just to have to deal :-). K.e.coffman (talk) 03:15, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you move content, you need to retain the historical contributions attribution. If you copy in select content to a new article, you need to attribute it Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia etc. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Panzer ace to match text. The question of who counts as one is probably subjective, but if they are selected by an author, not as WP:OR, I see no objection. "in popular culture" normally means film etc and is not appropriate to a historical topic. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:52, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is that this not a "historical topic" but rather a contemporary creation, mostly via popular history and militaria literature. Panzer ace is currently a redirect, and it will continue to function in this capacity, so if anyone searches for "panzer ace", they will be directed to this article. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:48, 10 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. Michig (talk) 08:09, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Idzkowski[edit]

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

An unremarkable entrepreneur; significant RS coverage cannot be found. What's available relates to subject's company, while notability is not WP:INHERITed. At best this could be redirected to Peekshare; but this article is at AfD, and it's not certain if would be retained: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peekshare. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:46, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:47, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:47, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this was interestingly removed by a uninvolved person in Georgia, yet I was clear and specific with my concerns, and also this is a paid-fpr article which makes matters worse in that it was essentially PR intended. Like with the company (which I also PRODed, but now removed thus AfD), it was clear PR and that alone so there is essentially no actual substance at all, and there would be any because both are not anywhere near significant therefore not acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 01:11, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Wikipedia is not a PR or advertisement platform, and articles created to treat it as such should be deleted unless there is a very strong case to keep them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:27, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom and above - David Gerard (talk) 09:32, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above. Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk→ Be a guest 12:46, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete concur with above. MB 16:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only thing here that might be notable is Peekshare and, as already mentioned, it's at AFD too. The GeekWire reference is quite amusing. A techblog mention of the SkunkLock as one of the 10 most ridiculous startups? They may say that "no publicity is bad publicity" but I don't see being held up to ridicule as establishing notability. Meters (talk) 18:46, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Concur with the comments above. Prowp (talk) 04:12, 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.