Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 October 21

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 20 October	22 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:59, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Aberasturi[edit]

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

Aberasturi does not fit our notability guidelines for cyclists. He has not participated professionally in the 27 allowed races that would give him presumed notability, nor ridden in the top tours, nor competed in international cycling competitions. The sources are also very lacking. John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Weak because there is some coverage in RS but as John Pack Lambert noted, subject has not competed in top tours or competitions. Meatsgains (talk) 01:57, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly a professional cyclist who won three races this year. He rode for Euskaltel–Euskadi in 2013, who were a top level (Pro-Tour) team, and had a top ten finish in Paris-Tours. He has articles in seven languages. --Racklever (talk) 20:50, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:NCYC due to competing in multiple races of 1.1+ classified or 2.1+ classified races per Pro Cycling Stats. Races he has competed that mean he meets WP:NCYC include (but are not limited to) the WT rated 2013 Tour Down Under, the WT rated 2013 Eneco Tour, the WT rated 2013 Volta a Catalunya, the 2.HC rated 2013 Bayern-Rundfahrt and 2.HC rated 2013 Paris–Tours. He competed at many, many other 1.1/2.1 rated races and many other 1.HC/2.HC rated races along with the races I have listed. All this means he clearly meets WP:NCYC. Also meets WP:GNG per articles from Eurosport, Esciclismo, Biciciclismo, Deia and many others. Nominator and first !voter clearly failed to do the prior research before this AfD, which should be done per WP:BEFORE. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 10:13, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rode at the 2013 Tour Down Under, the 2013 Volta a Catalunya, and the 2013 Eneco Tour - all UCI World Tours. Any one of these cause the presumption of notability per WP:NCYC criterion 1. Its not like he competed in one game or match (or more appropriately a one day race), he competed in three tours while competing for a fully professional team. That, along with all the other info given about him, keep. RonSigPi (talk) 18:20, 28 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. ChrisO 23:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan Woolard[edit]

Non-notable beauty pageant contestant. Outside of a top 15 finish in the 2006 competition, nothing here of substance. --fuzzy510 06:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC) fuzzy510 06:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable based on past and current activities, future prospects cannot be used to satisfy WP:BIO because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SquidSK (talk • contribs) 09:26, 25 June 2007

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:57, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Calvin Moore[edit]

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

Non-notable actor - this was a PROD contested by the original editor. Subject does not meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Peter Rehse (talk) 22:35, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 22:39, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete actor with lots of minor roles but nothing defining.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:52, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Page's only reference is IMDb. Subject lacks significant notability with only minor appearances. Meatsgains (talk) 02:23, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON and WP:UPANDCOMING. Three of his four film roles don't even have a name. Bearian (talk) 19:35, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sjrct (talk) 15:47, 23 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 Non Phixion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:58, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Green CD/DVD[edit]

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

The album does not have enough coverage for notability. It has one review from Pitchfork from 2004 but that is all I could find that can be considered in-depth. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:06, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Non Phixion. As well as the Pitchfork review, there is coverage (and a chart placing of sorts) from CMJ New Music Report ([1]), but I don't see enough to allow it to be expanded into a worthwhile article. The sources that are available would be better used within the article on the group. --Michig (talk) 13:28, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:19, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. Fails WP:NALBUM, hasn't charted anywhere —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 22:58, 23 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mother-Daughter Exchange Club[edit]

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

A directory-like page on an unremarkable film series; significant RS coverage cannot be found. The article does not cite any sources that are not award materials or PR driven. The industry awards do not overcome the lack of reliable secondary sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:43, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Easy one I'd say, if the individual movies are notable, they could be listed, however the series as a whole is not. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:33, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTDIRECTORY. No prose. No encylopedic information, no secondary source content, no commentary. Other websites record directory information like this. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:55, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. AVN Best Older Woman/Younger Girl Release and Best Specialty Series - Other Genre wins aren't notable? Please direct me to the consensus for that. (I also fail to see how this is a directory; not to mention that the notion that all the sources are PR driven is inaccurate.) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 02:28, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Our core content policy Verifiability requires that we "base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." There are no such independent, reliable sources in the article and I have been unable to find any such sources. Unless such sources are brought forward, this article should be deleted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:57, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:19, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of adequate sources to support article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable pornographic film series, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 01:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom's accurate analysis. Even if the cited awards were "notable", a dubious claim, the actual NFILM criterion is a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking, a bar these tinfoil trophies handed out by a trade magazine to its advertisers fall far, far, far below. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:33, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all relevant content to Girlfriends Films. NOTE: I've recently edited the article in question here, but I have not done an extensive amount of research on the subject of this article though. The subject here does not appear to meet the notability standard for films yet. The awards won by this film series are not "major awards for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking"...they are minor, niche awards at best that are not at all "handed out by a trade magazine to its advertisers". There are also no "promotional" citations in this article now, and the remaining citations are reliable for what they are trying to cite. Guy1890 (talk) 04:39, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This may be sensible and acceptable. Mention of this series is appropriate at that Girlfriends Films. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:17, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:42, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above comments. Aoba47 (talk) 14:29, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I don't see a reason for Merge/Redirect as the target article does not discuss the subject, and there are no sources listed in the present page to enable any sort of encyclopedic content. Please also see a similar situation with a redirect that resulted from a deletion discussion:

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 September 17#Big Tits at School

The redirect above was deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:37, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article Girlfriends Films does, in fact, mention the subject of this AfD here, and it also links to List of awards and nominations received by Girlfriends Films, which mentions the subject of this AfD several times as well.

The redirect for Big Tits at School (which was originally enacted in this AfD instead of a merge) was unfortunately deleted (despite the subject of that redirect being mentioned several times at Brazzers) after all of the original incoming Wiki-links to it were likely deleted in advance of the above-mentioned RfD. Guy1890 (talk) 07:16, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To quote from the Big Tits RfD: Delete: The name of the film occurs four times at the target; redirects don't need to be linked from any page to be useful (many, especially e.g. ones based on typos, won't be); it isn't a synonym. It is mentioned at the target. It was the result of an AfD. It doubles as a preservation of the history of what was formerly an article. All of that almost made me suggest keeping this and refining it to the awards section. However, there are 19 volumes in the film series. The current target doesn't talk about the films, it merely lists a few because of the awards that they won. (...) There isn't a better target, and I think the search engine handles this adequately. This sums up it pretty well. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:59, 26 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 WP:CSD#A7 by Bbb23 —David Eppstein (talk) 19:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gabrielus Lemtiacus[edit]

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

Per WP:GNG. Article lacks any context as to the significance of the subject. I understand he is a linguist and a language educator, but what specfically makes what he does notable enough for a WP:BLP? Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 19:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of notability. PROD may have been the better option. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG as zero search results indcate no notability. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 21:26, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Criteria A7. EricSerge (talk) 22:26, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very few academics rise to the level of notability before age 30, and we would need sources to demonstrate that which are lacking here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agreed, this could have been PROD'd. Not a single RS out there covering the subject. Meatsgains (talk) 02:27, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. This is a young (24 year old) educator. Bearian (talk) 19:30, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:38, 23 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Is this BLP a hoax? Alpha-School should be looked at too. Spa creator should show cause why he/she should not be banned. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:55, 23 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. Deleting 2016 Vietnam F7 Futures (tennis) – Singles and 2016 Vietnam F7 Futures (tennis) as well, as suggested, and nobody objected. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:44, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Vietnam F7 Futures (tennis)[edit]

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

This event, along with all Futures events, is not notable. Per WikiProject Tennis Guidelines, minor-minor league Futures events are not notable. None of them. A layman has to understand this long-standing consensus. The Major league baseball equivalent of tennis is the ATP world tour. Anyone who watches men's tennis on tv watches the ATP world tour. That's it. Minor league tennis is handled by the ATP Challenger tour. These are never on tv and are barely notable. Long-standing consensus has been to allow the minor league tournaments to be notable and if a player actually wins the event, for that player to be notable. Then we have the ITF Tour... the minor-minor leagues of tennis. Hundreds of tiny little events that pay a couple hundred dollars to the winners. These are never notable events, nor are the players that win them. For some reason speedy-delete was denied. The seedling articles that have sprung from this non-notable event must also be deleted. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Also add 2016 Vietnam F7 Futures (tennis) – Singles and 2016 Vietnam F7 Futures (tennis) – Doubles into this as Future articles isn't notable.

and add another one too...Vietnam F7 Futures. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:38, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per long standing consensus on Futures articles Spiderone 09:48, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:59, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Ammon[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 19:23, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: He only mentioned in some news sources, but fails NHOCKEY. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 01:28, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:00, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:00, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable hockey player who has not distinguished himself in any tangible way.18abruce (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Donald Trump#Hair. In the light of our policies and guidelines, the core issue here is whether Donald Trump's hair is notable enough to be covered in a separate article or whether, despite media coverage, it is so trivial an aspect of the topic of Donald Trump that it should be covered as part of an existing article, if at all.

I'm discounting opinions that do not touch on this issue, such as those that are just a vote or "per X". I'm also discounting the relatively few "it's an attack page" / "it's a BLP violation" opinions because they do not rebut the counterargument that these problems can be remedied through editing, as well as mere assertions such as "it's [not] notable". On that basis, a rough manual headcount gives us 29 "delete", 14 "merge", 13 "keep" and 6 "redirect" opinions (counting double the opinions of the form "X or X").

Because the question described at the outset is one of editorial judgment, and there are valid policy-based arguments on both sides, I can't assign any particular weight to either side's views. But I can determine that, at 49 to 14, there is clear consensus to not have a separate article about this topic. However, there is a significant minority - among the 49 who don't want to keep the article - that wants to either merge some content or create a redirect. Taking into account the substantial number of "keep" opinions as well, I can't determine that there is consensus to just delete the article.

Under these circumstances, I think that a redirect is the result that best reflects this discussion: It implements the consensus that we don't want a separate article, while allowing for subsequent consensus to develop about whether (if any) material should be merged from the history. Sandstein 09:19, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump's hair[edit]

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

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

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

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

I feel like this has been deleted before, but I can't remember under what title. Is there significant coverage of his ridiculous 'do? Yes. Is it unencyclopedic and not independent of the rest of his body? Yes. (Unless it's a wig, in which case I guess it's sorta independent?) p b p 19:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 19:12, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 19:12, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep no reason for deletion. --S I 19:14, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There clearly was a reason given for deletion. It's fine to disagree with it, but there was a reason. AlexEng^(TALK) 00:04, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I read this as a strong argument for keeping ("significant coverage ... Yes.") and no valid reason given or deletion. --S I 15:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- - His quote "Is it unencyclopedic...?" is a valid reason. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 02:44, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well not for Trump, but there was an AFD for Justin Bieber's hair a while ago and it had a quite lengthy discussion. Hair seems to be an important topic. :P Dead Mary (talk) 19:24, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if his hair has enough notability to warrant some coverage, it should be added in the main Donald Trump article in a subsection under appearances in popular culture. JasperTECH (talk) 19:51, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge into Trump. The subject clearly has sufficient notability for a standalone article, as ridiculous as that is (but no more or less ridiculous than the rest of this "campaign") but I'm loathe to examine the Trump article to see if it's adequately covered there. If so, merge and redirect, if not, keep. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I just hope that when I fall asleep tonight I don't wake up until November 9, so I don't have to think about such silliness. And I'm not even in the US, so I hate to imagine what it's like for those of you who are. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:09, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge into Trump. I don't see a lot of precedent for independent articles for body parts, no matter how notable. It's appropriate to add portions of this to the Donald Trump article. AlexEng (talk) 20:23, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Adolf Hitler's possible monorchism, which also may or may not be real. Emily Goldstein (talk) 20:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly a notable topic. Quite a bit of significant coverage. Kitfoxxe (talk) 21:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete anything needed can be in the main Trump article. Not enough notability to warrant a standalone article. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

People have talked about his hair independent of anything else about him for years, and probably will for centuries. Kitfoxxe (talk) 22:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We are still talking about George Washington's false teeth.Kitfoxxe (talk) 22:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why, like George Washington's teeth, it is meritorious for mention in his main article. The hair is not notable apart from the person it is on. If Trump weren't a celebrity/politician, it wouldn't be independently notable. But who knows, I could be 'wrong!' TonyBallioni (talk) 22:06, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this reasoning. If he weren't notable himself, then his hair would not be notable either. AlexEng^(TALK) 22:24, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right after all.Kitfoxxe (talk) 22:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have to admit I disagree with pbp on a lot. However here I agree with him. Donald Trump's hair is worth mentioning, but in a larger article. The article on Donald Trump may at some point require splitting, but his hair is not notable enough on its own to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:38, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There may have been a point where Trump was most known for his hair, but even then he was notable as an audacious realestate developer with a penchant for self agrandizement. I think the George Washington's teeth precedent says it all. If we do not have a seperate article on Washington's teeth, there is no reason to have a seperate article on Trump's hair.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't object. However if there was an article on Washington's teeth I would vote to keep that too. Both topics (Washington's teeth and Trump's hair) are more notable than many others that have their own articles here.Kitfoxxe (talk) 22:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST Jack, How about the "Adolf Hitler's possible monorchism" precedent which I linked to above? Emily Goldstein (talk) 23:17, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the difference there is that Hitler's testicles aren't notable in themselves, but the theories and nuttiness surrounding them are. To my knowledge, there are no theories surrounding Trump's hair that would be notable in itself. I wasn't using the Washington teeth link as other stuff doesn't exist, but to show that it is very much possible to have famous body parts covered sufficiently in an article. My general philosophy is that if you can validly cover something that is not-independent in the article that it is dependent on, don't create a new article. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:25, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OMG. "It's referenced". JPL, there has never been a time when he was most known for his hair. Please delete this ridiculousness ASAP. Drmies (talk) 23:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There was a time when he wasn't known for a dumpster fire of a presidential campaign, and the "independent coverage" of his scalp was higher up on the list of things he was known for. But it never was the only thing he was known for. p b p 00:11, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say he was ever most known overall for his hair, just that he was most known in some circles for his hair. That might be an exageration, but it is a reflection of how some social conservatives have views Trump since long before his first entry into presidential politics leading up to the 2000 presidential election. In the late 1990s circles I moved in on the extremely rare occasion that Trump was mentioned it was to insult his hair, maybe followed by disparaging comments about a guy who would use eminent domain to try and expand his casino.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Donald Trump. Artw (talk) 23:11, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Donald Trump. His hair has been discussed a lot, but I can't imagine it's worthy of a standalone article in this encyclopedia. Funcrunch (talk) 23:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It clearly passes passes the general notability guideline. With all this coverage it's possible to make this into a "good" article. And it's objectively more notable than Hillary Rodham senior thesis. If we get rid of this we'll have to get rid of that too. Or is Wikipedia biased against Trump?

Some sources over the years:

here is a list of article links

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

2004-Fire the signature comb-over, stylists say (USA Today, Donald Trump: rich man, poor hair (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette), The infinite mystery of Donald Trump's hair (LA Times), Trump Hair vs. The Mullet (Chicago Tribune)

2006-Donald Trump Jr.: The Man, the Myth, the Hairstyle (Gawker)

2007-Trump vs. McMahon in hair battle at Wrestlemania in Detroit (USA Today) Trump's hair on the line in WWE wager (USA Today) Do Not Judge Trump Until You've Walked A Mile In His Hair (Deadspin) Trump Wins at Wrestlemania, Keeps His Hair (People) Donald's granddaughter pulls a Trump card with copycat hairstyle (London Evening Standard)

2008-Donald Trump's bad hair day (The Telegraph), Donald Trump’s Hair Conceals More Than Just His Bald Spot (NY Mag), Donald Trump tells Sunday Telegraph that he uses hair spray, not gel (NY Daily News), Letterman: Is Donald Trump's Hair Really a Chihuahua In Disguise? (Vanity Fair)

2010-How I cracked the secret of Donald Trump's hair (The Telegraph), The GIF Hunter: Donald Trump's Hair Blows Up (Complex)

2011-The Secret to Donald Trump’s Hair (Time), Donald Trump Lets His Hair Down (Rolling Stone), Donald Trump: Forget the Economy, How Does He Do His Hair? (ABC News), Now We Know: Donald Trump's Hair Care Secrets (NPR), Barbara Walters: Donald Trump Wears A Hairpiece (Business Insider)

2012-Donald Trump: ‘I Don’t’ Wear A Hair Piece (Access Hollywood), Donald Trump: 'It is my hair and it's an amazing thing' (The Guardian), Mark Cuban Dares Donald Trump To Shave His Head For $1 Million (Forbes)

2013-Donald Trump Hair Mystery Over? 'Celebrity Apprentice' Star Defends His Hair On Twitter (PHOTOS) (Huffington Post Canada), Donald Trump's hair photographed crawling in Amazon WITH VIDEO (The Oakland Press), ‘Donald Trump Caterpillar’: Flannel Moth Larva Looks Like Real Estate Mogul’s Hair (PHOTO) (Huffington Post)

2014-Donald Trump: “It’s Actually My Hair” And I May Still Run For President (Time), Trump's hair is real! Billionaire reveals Ice Bucket Challenge video (AOL), Never Touch Anything That Looks Like Donald Trump’s Hair (Wired), Donald Trump’s hair the ‘mane’ event at keynote speech (New York Post)

2015-Donald Trump Says His Hair Is Real Yet Again (The Gospel Herald), Sometimes Evolution Looks Like Donald Trump's Hair And That's Okay (Gizmodo), Donald Trump's hair: Defended and explained in his own words (Today), Meet the woman who confirmed Trump's hair is no toupee (CNN), An Illustrated History of Donald Trump's Hair. (Vanity Fair), The Real Truth about Donald Trump’s Hair (Men's Health), A hair surgeon explains what's going on with Trump's hair (Business Insider)

2016-Hairdressers reveal the secrets of Donald Trump's hair (NY Post), Donald Trump’s hairdresser says he is very protective of his hair (The Independent), You can now blast a trumpet on Donald Trump's hair (NY Daily News), Is an invasive and dangerous surgery the reason behind Donald Trump’s odd hairdo? (News.com.au), Donald Trump’s Hair Evolution Is Almost As Scary As His Politics (Huffington Post), The truth about Donald Trump's hair: Former hairdresser reveals the lacquer, home cuts... and if it's real (Mirror Online), Donald Trump lets Jimmy Fallon mess up his hair, because why not (Washington Post).

There's too many for me to list them all but is it enough to warrant an article or will this forever be unencyclopedic? Emily Goldstein (talk) 00:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It no doubt is worthy of some mention, but I think the main article is the best place for that. Also, Wikipedia shouldn't create spinoffs that attempt to put a positive or negative spin on a subject already covered in a previous article as per WP:CONTENTFORK. So it being a "good" article about Trump isn't a good reason. EDIT: Unless what you were saying is making the article meet the "good article" criteria, in which case disregard my previous comments. JasperTECH (talk) 00:50, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to put on my philosophy hat and ask if Donald Trump's hair is ontologically distinct from Trump? In plain language: are article's about Trump's hair just articles about Trump or are they something different? My answer: they are articles about a feature of Trump but they are indeed simply articles about him. I completely agree it is definitely something that should be included in the article on him, but I don't see it as being a distinct article. I also agree with JasperTech about the content fork concerns here. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, that is a very goodlooking hat you're wearing. I wonder if Emily Goldstein pondered this; I would guess not. And no, I'm not biased against Trump, but I might cop to being a crusader against Trump's hair, since he's got a lot more of it than I do. Can we stop wasting our time now? Drmies (talk) 01:50, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing: Emily, mine can never be as big as yours, but certainly I could, with the help of [2], [3], [4], write a nice little article on Donald Trump's penis. There's even "A History of Donald Trumpo's Penis"! Drmies (talk) 01:57, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Emily Goldstein, the hair is no doubt noteworthy. The question, as far as I'm concerned, is: is the hair's noteworthiness independent of the noteworthiness of Donald Trump? And the answer is an emphatic "no." Even at the time of the earliest article you have posted, Donald Trump was already noteworthy for his participation in The Apprentice. Even if Donald Trump had no noteworthiness aside from his unique hair, I would arguably still put information about his hair in an article titled Donald Trump. There's little reason to demand that his hair get a separate article. AlexEng^(TALK) 01:52, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A lot of the above just mention Trump's hair in passing and are really about other things related to Trump.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sources from 2004 through 2011 are primarily about his hair, with the exception of: the one news report from 2006 (although it does mention that Donald is "perhaps best, or most endearingly, known for his hair"); the 2007 news reports, which give a little more info on the wrestling event rather than the hair itself; and two reports in 2011, in which the hair is not the main focus. One source from 2012 focuses primarily on the hair, as well as a couple sources from 2013, and one or two from 2014. Most of the sources from 2015 look pretty good. Same for 2016 (including one source saying that he is "almost as well known for his hairstyle as he is for his outlandish views."). AJFU 06:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously reading that literally? Drmies (talk) 19:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking me if I consider that last quote to be a serious and literal statement? That is what The Independent wrote. I have no idea if what they wrote was meant to be a joke, but that was not the way I viewed it. I posted the quote to serve as an example of news organizations that consider his hair to be a big deal. AJFU 00:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While there is coverage, the subject is trivial at best. Meatsgains (talk) 02:31, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are plenty of sources listed above that primarily discuss the hair, thus establishing notability. The hair has even inspired an interactive website and an Internet trend called Trump Your Cat. The article already seems fairly detailed, with potential for expansion. Merging to Donald's main page seems unnecessary, especially considering the large length of that page, which currently has over 700 references and will continue to grow. The size of the main Trump page is apparent every time I have gone to the article, as it takes a while to fully load. The main page's large size was brought up multiple times in the deletion discussion for List of books by or about Donald Trump, a page that was split off from the main Trump page to cut it down in size. That was back in August, when the main page was around 290,000 bytes in size, and it had been tagged for being too large. It is now 340,000 bytes. And the hair article is twice as long as that list of books, which had to be spun off into its own page. I don't think we should unnecessarily merge stuff into the main page (which is already huge) when the subject (in this case, the hair) can be adequately explained in its own article. AJFU 06:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Either Keep, or Merge to a non-trivial section in the main Trump article, under either "Hair" or "Vanity". This is certainly notable enough to cover in a non-trivial way. In any normal context, coverage like this would be ridiculous. This is not a normal context. -- The Anome (talk) 12:12, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - coverage is trivial. Neutrality^talk 15:40, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would support splitting the Donald Trump article into maybe three sections, one for until the start of The Aprentice, one focused on the time he was mainly notable as the star of The Apprentice and another primarily focused on his political aspirations. However a seperate article on just his hair does not seem merited.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, or to start with, the entire business career section could be put into an article titled "Donald Trump's business ventures," with the info in the main article being condensed considerably. JasperTECH (talk) 20:30, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Tough call. Think I'll go with seems a 'hair too far' bit silly and political used so WP reputation gets lowered. It's already gotten pasted into infobox e.g at List of Republicans opposing Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016, along with SNL link ... which looks like favoritism unless does Hillary infobox link to her [Saturday Night Live parodies of Hillary Clinton SNL skits ? Come back in De cember when that's not in play and I'd say yes -- it is in press, and I did get tempted by the clickbait.

p.s. The hair seems mentioned in archive 1, 8, 7..— Preceding unsigned comment added by Markbassett (talk • contribs)

Delete or Merge with Donald Trump - Trump's Hair is notable, but is too trivial to warrant its own article. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 20:57, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep C'mon. He even boasts about it at campaign events. It's one of the two or three most important factors in his notability. SPECIFICO talk 21:25, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Specifico, you know it's silly. While it may not exactly be bodyshaming given the involved vanity, this is not much different from a hit piece. Not much. Drmies (talk) 22:31, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I confess I have not read the article, and I wouldn't be surprised if it were in bad shape, like many new articles. I added one bit about the color and I was surprised that this wasn't already discussed. But just as to notability don't you think that this is a big deal with Trump. I wouldn't be surprised to see an article on "Hillary Clinton's Pantsuits" and it would be roughly the same. You do have a point but doesn't it unambiguously meet GNG? SPECIFICO talk 22:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From the number of sources you might think so, but the argument above about the hair being him is valid--besides, much of the sourcing is tongue in cheek. That his hair is an important part of what he is known for is silly; much of that sourcing is tongue in cheek and gossipy. (And frequently meant to be insulting.) If we take all of that at face value, we can write up his penis as well--and one might as well say Barack Obama's ears are notable. Everybody knows his ears... Drmies (talk) 22:56, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Food for thought. But though they are conspicuous, we rarely discuss Obama's ears, and to date we only have Trump's own (primary-source) debate boast about his penis. SPECIFICO talk 00:51, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, many people are saying... Drmies (talk) 01:38, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (abridged) – And please lose the hair gallery! WP:NOT a blog. — JFG ^talk 00:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteand/or merge. I'm going to resist the temptation to bash my head against a wall screaming "JUST MAKE THIS GODDAMNED ELECTION END ALREADY!", and try to address this honestly — but while discussion of Donald Trump's hair is perfectly appropriate in his main article, it absolutely does not need its own standalone article as a separate topic from him any more than "Hillary Clinton's cankles" (also a thing about her body that gets discussed) would. Bearcat (talk) 00:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is plenty of coverage for this to be a standalone article. Even if Trump's hair were not independently notable from Trump (as TonyBallioni has stated above), the massive coverage still makes it notable enough for it sown article. It's similar to the Political positions of Donald Trump article. It may not be independently notable, but there is enough coverage to warrant its own article. This article should clearly be kept. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, no, it's not similar to that at all. And if it's not independently notable, it shouldn't have an article. Drmies (talk) 01:39, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just when I thought American politics couldn't go lower, here we are giving equal weight to a candidate's hair and his political positions. Wikipedia is pretty entertaining! — JFG ^talk 04:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They both have received a lot of coverage, and in that regard they are similar (but obviously not in the same way). --1990'sguy (talk) 16:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't understand the relevance of Mr. Trump's hairstyle insofar enough to warrant its own article. At best it should be merged into the subject's main article, but even that I do not support. Useless trivia per WP:TRIVIA Nagylelkű (talk) 01:29, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another stupid article that will survive an AfD because "no consensus". This process is broken.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:11, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help but notice that while you complain about the AfD process, you haven't provided a reason for why it should be deleted, as required by WP:DISCUSSAFD. Also, I wouldn't say that consensus is unobtainable. It seems to me that the discussion is leaning towards the delete/merge side. JasperTECH (talk) 03:30, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment None of Donald Trump's notability comes from his hair. His career as businessman, entertainer and politician would have the same trajectory if his hair were different. The "Never Trump, Never Clinton" crowd would just as much refuse to ever consider voting for him if he were totally bald or if he had a subdued hair style. The same is true for those who embrace his postions on immigration, economic policy, or who laud his style, or who trust him more than other candidates. On the subject of Obama's ears We have this [5] from New York Magazine, A cbs news article on Obama being bullied for his ears, and lots more. Much is humorous or at least meant to be so. The same is true of much of the coverage of Trump's hair. This is not Saturday night live. We do not need to have free standing articles on even large scale and sustained jokes. We can, and maybe even should, give coverage to Trump's hair in the article on him. However there is no reason to have a seperate article devoted just to his hair.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:08, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There was a section for his hairstyle at the Donald Trump page, but after some discussion, it was removed in February by an editor who mentioned the idea of the hair getting its own article. AJFU 15:49, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wooha. Now we have 7 x Washington's teeth, 4 x Trump's penis, 3 x Hitler's testicle(s?) piled up as agruments. And the finding, that Trump's hair does not exist apart from Trump's body. What a collection. Shortly investigated I would like to add Justin Bieber's hair, Beatle haircut, Rachel haircut, Ivy League (haircut), Tom Peterson haircuts, Pompadour (hairstyle) and the Bill Clinton haircut controversy. While the splitting of the whole article "Donald Trump" into several pieces would definitely improve readability, this should be discussed on the talk page there. But the valid argument that the Trump article already is too long, is an argument for keeping some parts seperately. There are already some subjects outhoused into other articles that do not "exist separately from Mr. Trump", like Donald Trump pseudonyms, List of things named after Donald Trump, Legal affairs of Donald Trump, Stop Trump movement, Donald Trump Supreme Court candidates, Ancestry of Donald Trump and more... --S I 16:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (I've already voted delete.) This seems to be a tough call, especially in what Wikipedia policies or guidelines may or may not apply to it. Unfortunately, I couldn't seem to find any relevant Wikipedia guidelines for articles dealing with humorous subjects like this. However, I think the main arguments so far in favor of deletion are that the subject is trivial, could possibly be a POV fork (since most coverage of his hair is positive), and that Trump's hair is only notable because of everything else he is known for, and should thus be placed in the main article. Some more thoughts I'd like to add is that the number of Google searches or photos posted online aren't a reason for inclusion, even if people are interested in every detail about his life, such as his hair, because of his celebrity status.

The arguments in favor of keeping it seem to be that it has a lot of reliable sources and news coverage (though I don't think it has much independent coverage), is a notable topic about Trump, and that it makes sense for it to have its own article since the main one is too long. I agree that it has reliable sources and is notable, but I think the main article needs to be split anyway, and that the contents here should then be summarized in the main article. JasperTECH (talk) 16:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTEVERYTHING. The content is purely trivial. I also oppose merging the content into Donald Trump per WP:UNDUE (there is already a hair section). Our articles should contain knowledge that is significant, notable and of some importance to human culture. - Mr X 12:41, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Human culture?? articles about rock songs, cartoons, etc. etc. but not the hair? Not everybody's hair receives worldwide attention, but for those who've got it, we should cover it. SPECIFICO talk 13:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cover it? With a {{hat}}?- Mr X 13:45, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I created the hair section. JasperTECH (talk) 14:52, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Donald Trump, notable cultural icon, but this article consists of little more than a bunch of random observations from writers.--Prisencolin (talk) 22:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the precedent set at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Obama's arms. The fact that sources exist does not mean it deserves an article. The follicles in question would not be notable if they were not attached to a notable person (unless perhaps they were to become detached in an unusual manner), and notability is not inherited. This article is a collection of unencyclopedic trivia that fails the WP:FART test. Wikipedia is WP:NOTPEOPLEMAGAZINE. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When will this madness end. Don't merge into Trump as that article is already a behemoth. We need some sort of notability guideline for presidential elections as the media seem to indiscriminately print every tiny detail and too many editors here are no better. AIRcorn (talk) 23:23, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- To be fair those who argue that pure number of articles discussing the matter alone would justify this content fork could probably have put forth that argument long before Trump announced his presidential run.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:57, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Anything relevant goes in the article on the person or the campaign. This is a truly ridiculous split. That something has been referred to during an election campaign does not make it independently notable. There are many significant things to discuss about the subject that are suitable for an encyclopedia . Even if this were one of them, it still doesn't need a separate article. I'm reluctant to call anything a new low for WP, because someone might trump it, but .... DGG ( talk ) 00:15, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When DGG !votes to delete an article, we should probably listen. On another note, I definitely appreciate your use of "someone might trump it". The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not everything that gets coverage deserves an article. This is one of those examples. His hair has gotten lots of attention, yes, but it's all trivial. I had never seen WP:FART before, but I think it applies here. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:19, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It really is a wonderfully useful essay, isn't it? The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a silly and unusual subject but it's a notable one.LM2000 (talk) 10:53, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article on a living person so lets KEEP it, just move the article to its real name, "John Miller"--Ste moc 14:57, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG. Give the article time to develop. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:12, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Donald Trump's hair has been a major topic of discussion, with talk show hosts like Jimmy Fallon even making it a center point of one of his shows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yegaron (talk • contribs) 16:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)— Yegaron (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Conflicted As bizarre as it is, his hair is quite notable with a number of reliable sources. As far as guidelines are concerned this meets them all. That said his hair is notable because of him just like his hands and other parts. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 16:40, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Keep Generations to come will discuss his hair. This is a notable topic that merits its own article. Over time this article will grow too. - Askalam Abite —Preceding undated comment added 16:45, 25 October 2016 (UTC) — Askalam Abite (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Striking sockpuppet of Yegaron (talk · contribs)—DoRD (talk) 23:39, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. After giving this considerable thought, my conclusion is that the subject is undeniably notable. However, despite its facially serious tone, this article is inherently overwhelmingly a vehicle to poke fun at and disparage a living person, and should therefore be deleted immediately per WP:ATTACK and WP:BLP. (I'm not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:10, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I nominated the article for speedy deletion. To be clear, I'm not trying to disrupt this very legitimate AfD, but I do believe the article is an attack page so I feel obligated to report it. If the reviewing admin(s) disagree(s) with me, that's fine. (I'm not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:16, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DrFleischman: I agree this should be deleted, but speedy delete? Really? I would say the subject of this article is humorous, but not even close to libel. I guess it's up to the admins now.JasperTECH (talk) 19:23, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@RHaworth: speedied it per G10. I also find this questionable, even though I am clearly on the delete side of this. There are clearly users that think it should be kept and I wouldn't have called it an attack page. I think it might be best to restore it and let the AfD play out. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:28, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

JasperTech, WP:ATTACK isn't just for false/unverifiable information. It's also for pages that "exist primarily to disparage" their subjects, and the type of humor encapsulated by this page (and by the cited sources) was by and large about laughing at Trump, rather than laughing with him. All in good fun to be sure, but at Donald Trump's expense. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:31, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While his hair has had coverage, it's not really notable in itself is it? Also as a side note is it November 10th yet? RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:18, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Admin comment: This AfD was briefly closed following a speedy deletion of the article. Per discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 October 25, the article has been restored and this discussion reopened. Sandstein 09:36, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there has certainly been coverage, but at some point the information is too detailed to be useful. And I feel the page is, in effect, an attack page. So per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Obama's arms, general common sense (WP:IAR), and what's good for Wikipedia (having an article like this right before the election is in appropriate), this should be deleted. In the fullness of time, we may find that it is a notable topic, but in the context of the US election, this can be reasonable seen to be a political attack piece. Hobit (talk) 11:45, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Hobit, good point about Obama's arms. I just ran into Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Bieber's hair, a speedy redirect by User:Timotheus Canens for "SNOW and whatever". I am puzzled by this edit by Schmarrnintelligenz, which appears to be a "see also" insertion of what appears to be another valid article, Justin Bieber's hair, which does not exist. In other words, I have some doubts about good faith here as well. Drmies (talk) 14:50, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm willing to assume good faith here, but I just think the article can easily be perceived as us picking on Trump (an attack page) even if that is not the intent. If this were an important topic, I'd argue that's not hugely relevant. But it isn't.
- And to clarify, I'm fine with a smerge also. Hobit (talk) 23:20, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – There are, in fact, two prongs to WP:N: 1. It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and 2. It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy. The subject here falls rather neatly under the WP:NOTEVERYTHING category of topics that may have received significant coverage, but are simply inappropriate for an encyclopedia to cover. It is wholly and substantially trivial information. It fails the second prong and should therefore be excluded. Mz7 (talk) 14:59, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - absolutely no need for a separate article on a tangent topic that can easily be covered in the main article. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:43, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Utterly ridiculous. Jimmy Johnson gets more attention for his hair (and has for longer than Trump). This is along the same lines as Michelle Obama's arms and should be treated the same way. Ravensfire (talk) 15:48, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is an OTHERSTUFFDOESNOTEXIST argument. Discount accordingly. Carrite (talk) 05:34, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Donald Trump#Hair There is enough independent commentary over time to address some of the material in the main article. While it is trivial we have dumber stuff and we do document items which have been subject to significant RS coverage on public figures. Jbh ^Talk 16:00, 26 October 2016 (UTC) Last edited: 01:17, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional keep. First of all, not wanting to influence the upcoming election (or appear to do so) is a totally good WP:IAR reason. The question is, for what outcome? Whether the article is kept or deleted, we will have done a choice either way, which either side could criticize us for.

As is evidenced in the article, there has been coverage of that subject for a long time in numerous venues, beyond any possible claim of WP:ROUTINE. Even if everyone agrees that it should never ever have received it, it has, and it is not our job to decide that a GNG-meeting topic is actually not worth it - or if it is, claim WP:IAR rather than masquerading behind the guidelines.

Donald Trump is already a long article, so merging is an unpractical option. Even if the content was not GNG-worthy, which it is (alas), there would be a case to WP:SIZESPLIT.

All this being said, the article as it stands now has a few features that in my view constitute disparaging humor. If any of those are kept, I would actually prefer deletion (WP:IAR: on that exact subject, better have no article than a somewhat attack-y article).

The photograph captions "Side view, 2015" and the "View from above/behind, 2013" objectifies the human under the hair. Replace by "Donald Trump, 2015/2013".
The "gallery" section is already disputable, but in any case the first two photographs are out of the temporal scope where the references mention the subject, and should be taken out.

Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:00, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Dr. Fleischman's speedy delete !vote above is a well-written summary of my concerns of "disparaging humour". Nonetheless, I believe that the corrections I proposed are enough to bypass those concerns. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:03, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTADIARY, which says not to go into trivial details on people. His hair is little more than trivia and far from worthy of its own article. Sources talking about something doesn't always make it significant. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:20, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One problem: this is not "trivial detail," this is a topic covered substantially not just in a sufficient number of independently published sources, but in a vast number of independently published sources. At that point, it becomes a valid topic in and of itself in accord with GNG. Everything else is a "SEEMSIMPORTANT/DOESNTSEEMIMPORTANT" argument. Carrite (talk) 05:33, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: has multiple independent reliable sources; meets all other criteria. $ɱ$ (talk) · vbm · coi) 18:46, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Which criteria? No one is doubting that there are sources. The argument is that it fails a bunch of criteria. Drmies (talk) 22:11, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOTADIARY, which says not to go into trivial details on people. His hair is little more than trivia and far from worthy of its own article. Sources talking about something doesn't always make it significant - per Snuggums. A laughable example of how crap wikipedia can be when partisans create content. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:06, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia's job is to report the facts, and when those facts influence an election, so be it. If we deleted every article that could potentially influence an election, we'd be removing a lot of notable material. That sets us down a slippery slope where Trump demands we delete Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations or Clinton demands we delete Hillary Clinton email controversy because "it could influence the election." And that's not a road we want to go down. There are numerous sources indicating significant independent coverage. It's notable. And if it's notable, we should keep it, even if it influences the election, or we risk going down a very dark path. Nor is WP:IDONTLIKEIT or WP:ITSSTUPID a reason for deletion when the topic is notable. Smartyllama (talk) 19:13, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I would agree that we should not care whether our articles influence elections. But our job is not just to "report the facts", but to do so in an encyclopedic manner. Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject (WP:NOTEVERYTHING). This is exactly the kind of topic that was intended to be excluded by WP:NOT—trivial and extremely unimportant to the overall coverage of Donald Trump. Mz7 (talk) 19:23, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Smartyllama, Wikipedia's job is not to report the facts--we have newspapers for that... Drmies (talk) 22:11, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We do? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:17, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge and redirect to the briefer existing discussion at Donald Trump. As far as I can see this is not an attack article, although there's always the chance that someone might make an inappropriate edit that requires reversion. Trump is not only a political figure and a real estate developer, he has had a long career as a television personality; in these contexts, it is entirely appropriate to include some content about the elements of his public image, certainly including his much-discussed hairstyle. I can't agree that this is inherently unencyclopedic content given the very extensive discussions in numerous reliable sources. Having said this, I don't think a case has been made for an entire separate article about the hair; for now I think there is enough room at the current discussion in the main article, which could be expanded by a few sentences if and as appropriate. Someday someone may see fit to write a more focused article on the Public image of Donald Trump, along the lines of other similar articles in Category:Public image of politicians, and when that happens there will be more room for more content about this and other aspects of his persona, and the edit history will be useful in that regard. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:54, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Donald_Trump#Hair. Keep history intact for reference and possible use subject to consensus at Talk:Donald_Trump supporting expansion of coverage at that article. A spinout right now is overly bold, and on the face of it is a massive WP:UNDUE violation, an overweighted coverage of a triviality, especially in coverage of speculation. I think it unlikely that much of the detail in this article will be used, but it is more properly a discussion for the main article talk page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:29, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Donald_Trump#Hair. The existence of this page is a completely undue focus on a single aspect of a living person, and is clearly intended to humiliate and disparage the subject. Even despicable individuals are due WP:BLP protections. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:53, 26 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per MrX. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:42, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, if speedy delete isn't possible. I'm still strongly of the opinion that this is attack content. Even if we imagine the possibility that it isn't attack content, it's also sub-trivial and completely inappropriate for Wikipedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:09, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Donald_Trump#Hair. It's already covered in enough detail there. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:29, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Donald_Trump#Hair, or merge it with the main article. Ceosad (talk) 12:00, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is the archetypical example of a bad idea for a Wikipedia article, following in the footsteps of The Weather in London, Michelle Obama's arms and Bill Clinton haircut controversy - unless the hair itself is a major and independent subject of the broadsheet press (which it isn't) we should not have an article on this. This is not a speedy; if it was there wouldn't be any legitimate "keep" votes on this AfD. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:13, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not everything in the world needs an article, and this certainly doesn't. Joseph2302 12:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:NOTNEWS; Wikipedia is not a newspaper, nor a soapbox. This is unencyclopedic speculation and tabloid news, at best. Kierzek (talk) 14:05, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Donald_Trump#Hair which IMO covers this in sufficient detail. Although this is certainly not an attack page it is a very blatant example of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOT#IINFO. The mere fact that there is news coverage of some subject does not mean we should have an article about it if it is overly detailed or trivial. Hut 8.5 18:11, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep - One dreds to consider what guideline to use in this capillose case. Fur sure, the mane question is if this doo is a cut above the general notability guideline. This may be no crowning glory, but this specific aurocephalous tuft has significant coverage, and has had notable effects in society.[6][7][8][9][10][11][12] -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 21:25, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Mirror ... well it's not quite as bad as The Sun, but not far off.... Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:09, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fairly so, a few UK tabloids favour following fluffy fun. However one strand out of place does not detangle the tress. Recurring recounting, recording, recognition and reputation of this ruff by regularly reliable sources rightly records a rough keep. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 08:03, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge sans trivia and Redirect to Donald Trump. ~~There's significant coverage, but it's all on top of an unreliable source.~~ The subject is Trump. This is part of Trump. Not sure how much more a part of another existing subject something can be. Yes, there are sources about it, and there are sources about literally dozens if not hundreds of other aspects of Donald Trump that don't need to be a stand-alone article. WP:NOPAGE and whatnot. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge. Wikipedia's goal is to be an encyclopedia of information that is reliably sourced, presented neutrally. The media coverage of the article subject seems so tabloid and more concerned about satirical coverage of Donald Trump rather than actual serious coverage, especially considering all of the listed article sources are from 2016, which is definitely due to reaction to Trump's political candidacy. All in all, such reactionary, tabloid-al, satirical information has no place on Wikipedia, especially since (in my opinion) it breaks WP:UNDUE. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 02:40, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"especially considering all of the listed article sources are from 2016, which is definitely due to reaction to Trump's political candidacy." What are you talking about? I made a list of sources on this page and there is coverafge as early from at least 2004. Most of the sources in the article are from before he announced his 2016 campaign. To me it looks like you never opened the article. Emily Goldstein (talk) 04:04, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you haven't read my reason too. I've said much more than that. Anyway, will you argue with me that press coverage of the hair from 2004 wasn't tabloid as well? Good effort, but my vote is a solid delete/merge. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 05:54, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reminder that a majority disagree with the speedy deletion action and that Category:Body parts of individual people and Category:Individual human heads, skulls and brains exist. Comments claiming that this is an attack page or WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST type arguments referencing Michelle Obama's arms should not have as much weight in regards to the closing decision. Also in case this gets deleted and someone wants to know more about this I will list the three most interesting things I found. There's a "Trump caterpillar" that looks like his hair. Kacey Jones made an album titled Donald Trump's Hair.[13] And Saturday Night Live litterally did a skit on his hair.[14] Emily Goldstein (talk) 04:04, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A significant portion of the deletion review !votes to restore this to AFD were people who still think it was should be deleted, but that it wasn't a clear-cut attack page. The BLP/attack concerns have been iterated here, and while I don't necessarily agree that this is an attack page, I think stuff like pointing out that there is a caterpillar that looks like his hair border on that. I don't think speedy is warranted, but the concerns are legitimate. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to note that WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST states: Yet a small number of debates do receive wide participation and result in a decision that is effectively final, until new evidence comes along. If you reference such a past debate, and it is clearly a very similar case to the current debate, this can be a strong argument that should not be discounted because of a misconception that this section is a blanket ban on ever referencing other articles or deletion debates. The Michelle Obama's arms AfD had broad, broad participation, and the delete arguments in that debate match delete arguments made here. It's not binding precedent, but it does strengthen, not weaken, the wider argument that this subject is unsuitable for Wikipedia. Mz7 (talk) 04:44, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those categories aren't very good comparisons. The entries in them are either redirects rather than articles, the article isn't actually about the body part itself (War of Jenkins' Ear, Beheading of St. John the Baptist), the subject is an archaeological relic (Heslington Brain, Manning River Skull) or the body part was continuing to generate substantial coverage decades or even centuries after the owner died (Oliver Cromwell's head, Albert Einstein's brain). I don't think there are any other examples of body parts of living celebrities with articles, and the Michelle Obama's arms is a much better comparison than anything in those categories. Hut 8.5 08:54, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So where are you on Hitler's testicles? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I guess if Trump manages to start a world war we might be able to have an article on his testicles. Hut 8.5 15:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject is far to trivial to be included. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 07:13, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is way too much IDONTLIKEIT/ILIKEIT, SEEMSIMPORTANTTOME/DOESNTSEEMIMPORTANT, OTHERSTUFFEXISTS/OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST going on here. This is a keep under our General Notability guideline, and here is why: (1) "The truth about Donald Trump's hair," (The Mirror); (2) "The Real Truth about Donald Trump’s Hair," ((Men's Health)); (3) "Donald Trump's hair: Defended and explained in his own words," (Today Show); (4) "The Truth About Donald Trump's Hair," (The Nation); (5) "Sorry, Gawker, But Donald Trump's Hair is Not a Weave," (NY Daily News); (6) "The Citrusy Mystery of Donald Trump's Hair," (NY Times); (7) "Jimmy Fallon Messes With Donald Trump's Hair in Tonight Show Appearance," (Chicago Tribune); and on and on and on and on and on. These are multiple pieces of independent coverage of presumed reliability dealing substantially about the subject of the article. Whether one likes it or doesn't like it, feels it is unimportant or feels it is important, whether other articles like this exist or do not exist does not matter, this subject meets our sourcing requirements. Carrite (talk) 12:19, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not a newspaper. We do not have to create articles on everything. This is a content fork from Donald Trump, and one that has no real reason to exist. Wikipedia is not a diary, it is an encyclopedia. Things need to be able to be shown to be more than just the blow by blow of coverage. In this case the coverage is not indepdent of the subject. This is not like Jenkin's Ear which sparked a war after it was severed from his head.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:22, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that arch deletionists are wrong so infrequently about the outcome whenever an AfD debates attracts more than a few of the usual suspects is because there is very little appreciation among said deletionists of the importance of GNG, of the way that GNG keeps our debates rooted in the rule of law rather than degenerating into endless waves of tail-chasing and utterly unproductive acrimony. We don't need to waste words about what "seems like it belongs in an encyclopedia" as opposed to a newspaper. In actual fact, GNG reigns supreme here and that is a good thing — it protects the work of all content creators from arbitrary annihilation. If the sourcing exists, notability is met and the work is protected. We don't need to spend 40 pages chattering about what things "seem important" or "seem unworthy" — that is 100% irrelevant. This is a slam dunk keep unless for some reason there is a viable Ignore All Rules case to be made. And I ain't seein' it... best regards, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 05:18, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- As I mentioned above, WP:N very clearly states in its lead that there are two conditions a topic must satisfy in order to merit a standalone article: the first is the WP:GNG or an applicable WP:SNG, the second is WP:NOT. Our job as an encyclopedia is to summarize the accepted knowledge available on the topic, not include every single possible detail. The subject here is Donald Trump, and it is inconsistent with the goals of this encyclopedia to dedicate an entire article to his hair. As a compromise, I have no objection to merging the article to Donald Trump#Hair. Mz7 (talk) 14:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - The subject of "Donald Trump's hair" is Donald Trump's hair, not Donald Trump. Coverage has been devoted exclusively to that topic in the mainstream press, to the point that there is a perfectly solid base of accepted knowledge to ground an article on. At that point of sourcing, having an article is neither gossip-mongering, nor breaking news, nor anything else at WP:NOT. You can argue that newspapers are stupid, but they are the base on which the notability guidelines are built and it was clear from the start that it is not the perfect base (the hope being that it is the least imperfect one). You can claim WP:IAR to delete the tabloidy stuff that crawled into the New York Times, but you cannot claim the New York Times is not enough. That topic does not fall under WP:ROUTINE or similar exemptions; there simply is too much of it on a particular point (try to remember last time a newspaper discussed Obama's or Clinton's or Romney's hair).
  Merging to the parent topic is a policy-supported alternative even for standalone-worthy topics, whereas outright deletion is not. (Though I do not think it practical in that case, see above) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:03, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Newspapers aren't stupid; they have their purpose. That purpose just happens to be different from the purpose of encyclopedias. It is exactly this fundamental difference in purpose which causes WP:N to have that two-pronged approach: not only must there be significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources, but the topic itself must be something appropriate for an encyclopedia to cover. (Newspapers form a part of the base for the first prong, but not the second.) Topics like Donald Trump's hair or Michelle Obama's arms may serve the purpose of a newspaper, but not for an encyclopedia. As for what the subject is, perhaps my original comment could have been better worded, but I meant that the subject of "Donald Trump's hair" is presented in this article as a subtopic of Donald Trump the man. I read the New York Times op-ed you mentioned, and it too characterizes this topic as a subtopic of Donald Trump, mentioning his "unclassifiable" ideology and even Hillary Clinton's hair. As an encyclopedia, we are responsible for summarizing knowledge about Donald Trump in an encyclopedic manner, and a standalone article specifically for his hair is putting too much weight on trivial details. Mz7 (talk) 21:09, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- A subject has to pass a notability guideline and merit a stand-alone article (WP:NOPAGE etc.). Plenty of individual aspects of highly notable subjects could pass GNG. Trump's orangeness, for example, or his money/tax records, or his hands, or any single one of dozens of political positions/trends associated with Trump. You could even say that Trump's first third of his life or upbringing (independent of particular businesses, etc.) has been the subject of enough coverage for GNG, etc. but it doesn't make sense to spin off because it's so clearly part of the subject himself. Like his hair. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:30, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:BJAODN. jps (talk) 15:21, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Donald Trump. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 16:48, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Donald J. Trump is the very definition of the American success story, continually setting the standards of excellence in business, real estate, entertainment, and tonsorial achievement. His coiffure has been particularly important in his ongoing attempts to reach women and come to grips with their issues. E Eng 17:07, 28 October 2016 (UTC) Seriously, the subject is certainly notable. There may be a NOPAGE argument (I'm a particular fan of NOPAGE) but I don't see harm in maintaining the status quo for now. We can reconsider the merge question after the election's over and his sexual assault trials are underway. OK, that last bit wasn't serious.[reply]

I realize you are trying for the funny (at least based on your user page), but at some point you're making my point that this is an attack page. Some of your user page might also be viewed as such. Hobit (talk) 17:29, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was indeed attempting to bring some comic relief to an otherwise vexing topic area; just because it's possible to do that in no way implies that the article itself is an attack page. As to my user page, the material there is (as explained on the page itself)

meant to increase other editors' pleasure in contributing (by providing modest amusement they can enjoy during breaks from editing) or to assist them in becoming more effective editors (by illustrating various aspects of Wikipedia as a social environment). In humor based on political events, Democratic figures are featured as well as Republican, though unfortunately the former opportunities don't arise very often, because e.g. Clinton and Obama just aren't as amusing as the Republican nominee.

Obviously it's all meant in jest. I wouldn't never seriously compare Donald Trump to Hitler. That would be a BLP violation. E Eng 18:19, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Trim.~~ ~~Cut.~~ Merge and redirect to Donald Trump#Hair, per ~~WP:Fart~~ WP:FORK. And look forward eagerly to the end of the election process, hopefully in ~~less than a year~~ a little less than two weeks. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some people trot out the article from the New York Times as if it is a reliable source. The problem is that op-ed articles and editorials are almost never considered reliable sources. Generally for the purposes of meeting the General Notability Guidelines we need to source to actual news articles, not op-eds and editorials.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Are you kidding me? A entire page criticizing a living person's appearance? This is an obvious WP:BLP violation in its entirety. Moreover, it undermines the credibility of Wikipedia when we allow an attack piece on a current political candidate's appearance (or an entire page about a person's appearance period). This is tabloid stuff. We are not a tabloid. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:51, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
oh for Heaven's sake delete This is basically part of one sentence: "Trump has been mocked for his appearance, especially his hair." The rest is tabloid detail. Mangoe (talk) 02:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am sure this shouldn't be an article. It's funny but not what we do here at Wikipedia. The Ninja5 Empire (Talk) 05:36, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:44, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reichskommissariat Ural[edit]

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

Article seems to be a hoax. No references to "Reichskommissariat Ural" found on Google Books. Mvaldemar (talk) 17:59, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:V and no WP:RS for this stub on something which never existed. Noted that the creator's account is globally "locked" and this editor was blocked on one Wikipedia in the past, already. Kierzek (talk) 18:06, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldnt find anything regarding a planned Reichskommissariat Ural. The planned Reichskommissariate for Barbarossa were RK Ostland, RK Ukraine, RK Baltenland (later absorbed by RK Ostland), RK Kaukasus, RK Rußland or later named RK Moskowien (Moscow and everything further east) and a not really defined Reichskommissariat for the area area around Turkestan in Asia (according. to Germany and the Second World War, Volume 4, pp. 419-421). This supposed Reichskommissariat Ural would simply fall into Reichskommissariat Rußland/Moskowien. The plan for the occupation for Russia was made by Alfred Rosenberg, but a Reichskommissariat only for the Ural was never planned. It may be possible that Rosenberg and his staff were discussing that back then internally, but it never went officially it seems and the lack of mentioning this in RS is telling. Due the lack of RS I therefore say that the article should be deleted, per WP:GNG and WP:V, since it cant be verified. Dead Mary (talk) 19:59, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a reference to a proposed Reichskommissariat for the Ural region in the book Himmler's Raumplanung in Osten: Der Generalplan Ost in Polen 1940-1945, p. 51. I haven't been able to locate the book online to verify this. Mvaldemar (talk) 08:55, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Without reliable sources discussing the subject, how could we have a article about it? Chris Troutman (talk) 14:34, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- It was possibly a government structure whose creation was discussed, but German forces did not penetrate to the Urals, so that it cannot have happened. Dead Mary's contribution suggest that even that is going too far. Either OR or plain HOAX. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Delete A Google search on ["Reichskommissariat" central and south Ural "Sir Hartley Shawcross"] gives as the third hit the page [www.iro.umontreal.ca/~felipe/IFT6010-Automne2009/Data/TP2/docs/english/o/Operation_Barbarossa]. While not itself a reliable source, that page has many references at the bottom, and the text on the page says, "During the Nuremberg Trials in 1946, Sir Hartley Shawcross announced that in March 1941 in addition to administrative divisions previously created the following divisions in Russian East were planned: * Ural (Central and South Ural and nearest territories, created from planned East Russian European territorial reorganization). So I doubt that this article is a hoax, but without a link to a reliable source, we and our readers can't verify the information as accepted fact." Fails WP:DEL7.
There is related material at The Ural mountains in Nazi planning#Related plans. Unscintillating (talk) 17:00, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With further review, I've found that the link I cited originates from the July 2008 Wikipedia article on Operation Barbarossa, and the detail I've quoted was removed here, as well as there were two other edits at that time to remove this information on the grounds that it was a "fabrication". I don't know if it was a fabrication or not, I just know we can't verify the information. Unscintillating (talk) 17:46, 23 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. No consensus on redirecting, chiefly due to Lemongirl942's argument (K.e.coffman's argument is less persuasive as notability and search term usage are not necessarily related) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:06, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Global 2014[edit]

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

The pageant edition has no significant coverage. The winner was already added in the Miss Global wiki article. Richie Campbell (talk) 02:35, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:10, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:10, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Global. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:11, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is the second attempt at deleting this article. There's nothing to merge to Miss Global as the only source listed is a self-citation, and the name of the winner has already been added to the main article. A redirect is unnecessary since anyone searching for Miss Global 2014 would find the main one. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 17:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, noted the winner is already listed on Miss Global article page; therefore no reason for separate, non-notable stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 18:03, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss Global no notability, but a valid search term. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:18, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I still stand with Delete not Redirect or merge since the winner was already specified in the main article.--Richie Campbell (talk) 02:19, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right, which is why redirect makes sense. She is in the main article and it's a valid search term. A redirect will help others find the information they are looking for. I agree that a merge is not neccesary. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I personally find these redirects to be a bit disorienting. Since the subject is non notable, it's unlikely to be a valid search term. I thus believe that deletion is the right approach. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:06, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with you, deletion is the correct approach in this matter.--Richie Campbell (talk) 00:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@K.e.coffman:I would be fine with deletion, but don't really see how a redirect is disorienting. If someone who isn't a registered user is trying to find out who won in 2014 they could very well search for Miss Global 2014. Redirects are cheap and if it helps someone find what they are looking for, I think its a positive. Like I said, I'm not necessarily opposed to deletion here, I just think there is a reason that a redirect might be helpful, and so we might was well do it now. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:17, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (no need to merge/redirect). The only important information in the article is the name of the winner (which is entirely sourced to a primary source). There is no content left here to merge. I don't see a need to redirect this as well because the search engines can easily semantically search for "miss global 2014" and go directly to the Miss Global article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:12, 28 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) 09:06, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only Connect (series 11)[edit]

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

In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Only Connect (series 1) the pages for series 1 to 10 were deleted as listcruft . Since then pages for series 11 and 12 have been created. Series 12 has been deleted as an unchallenged prod, but the series 11 page had a strong challenge from multiple editors. So here we are at AfD. It would be sensible if participants considered the whole series, so that if it was decided keep this page, all the others could be undeleted at the same time without the need for a deletion review. SpinningSpark 23:53, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Comment As the original proposer of deleting this article (and the Series 12 article), my reasons were purely to follow the precedent of the previous decision on articles documenting earlier series. I've no strong feelings either way (maybe I waver slightly towards deletion), but we should be consistent: either all of the series articles should be resurrected, or all deleted. Dave.Dunford (talk) 14:37, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources have been provided, and the only external link offered is the series' own official web site. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:13, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:05, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 17:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article does not meet requirements for notability specified in WP:GNG --♫CheChe♫ talk 18:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:29, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TIME Fibre Broadband[edit]

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

Unsourced, only consists of infobox. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 02:19, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you're quick. I was adding a WP:PROD to this but you beat me to it. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:20, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:42, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:42, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sourced or not, this is simply advertising. No claim of significance here and doesn't satisfy WP:NCORP. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looked at the sources below, still not convinced

New Strait Times Brief coverage in a list of other broadband services]
Sun(Malaysia) - redressed press release This one is essentially a redressed press release, with 80% of the article consisting of quotes by an employee. Not useful for WP:CORPDEPTH (quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources) or for WP:CORPIND.
BBCMag or BBP Mag Doesn't seem like an RS to me.

The coverage is pretty spotty here and this service is clearly not notable. Someone might make a case of the parent company being notable and indeed, I do have access to Malay sources which might help to satisfy CORPDEPTH. But that's for the parent company not for this. This is not notable. More importantly this is clearly using Wikipedia for promotion, which should not be encouraged per WP:NOTPROMO. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:09, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What do editors think of sources like The Sun, New Strait Times, BBCMag (not 'the' BBC), another The Sun link? Lourdes 07:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 17:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources aside, this article violates notability guidelines for corporations under WP:CORPDEPTH. --♫CheChe♫ talk 18:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello CheCheDaWaff, I didn't quite understand what you're saying. Are you saying the sources within the article are okay? Or are they not? And how does this article violate notability guideline? Any clue would be helpful. Thanks. Lourdes 20:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Lourdes:, I should have been more clear. Personally I'm not comfortable with the sources but I'm not sure how favourably they compare to the guidelines on reliable sources. (WP:RS should probably be consulted here). Perhaps violate was the wrong word. What I mean to say is that I don't think it qualifies as notable, as specified in WP:CORPDEPTH. The specific issue I have is with this: "Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization." Failing this condition (of having deep coverage) means that the article needs several independent sources that establish the notability of the subject, which I don't think it does. I'm willing to budge on this, and I think it will come down to an assessment of the sources. For that reason (me not being sure about the sources), I'm changing my stance to unsure for now. Thanks for getting me to look into it a bit harder. --♫CheChe♫ talk 22:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Update: having looked at the sources and read what Lemongirl942 has written about them, I am again leaning towards deletion. --♫CheChe♫ talk 22:16, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MER-C 04:48, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Grand International 2016[edit]

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

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Grand International (2nd nomination), and the sidebar at right listing all of the deletions associated with this contest. The contest itself is of borderline notability, and two deletion nominations for that were closed as "no consensus", not "keep". Several previous attempts at year articles for the contest have not survived an AFD: Articles for deletion/Miss Grand International 2013, Articles for deletion/Miss Grand International 2014.

Miss Grand International 2014 was speedy deleted six times, and protected from re-creation twice. There's nothing here to suggest that this year's event is any more notable than the last four AFDs from 2013 onward: the references are all press releases and astroturf, same as the last articles. The deleted articles also have a long and chequered history of sockpuppetry and WP:SPA account editing: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrdhimas/Archive. This latest article should be speedy deleted and temporarily protected from recreation per WP:SNOWBALL. Tried the obvious speedy G4, but this was declined without comment. AFD it is then. Wikishovel (talk) 17:17, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 17:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 17:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable pageant. The previous annual articles of the pageant were deleted and this year is no exception.--Richie Campbell (talk) 22:55, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:PROMO on an unremarkable event; PR exercise at best bordering on spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's just yet another attempt to promote a minor (or at best "mid size") beauty pageant. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 13:03, 26 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 Deleted (G7) by Vanamonde93. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:01, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of conjoint analysis software[edit]

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

No indication of significance. Promotional at best. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:37, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I could never understand why we entertain such articles when it comes to software tools but not for other types of tool. If anyone started an article called Comparison of pneumatic drills or Comparison of cheesegraters we would delete it in the blink of an eye because this is an encyclopedia, not a consumer guide. Why does the fact that tools are implemented in software make us treat them differently? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@86.17.222.157: So can I put you down as a delete?

--Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:28, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that it's a "delete", unless someone can answer my question as to why software tools should be treated differently from other tools, as seems to be what has always happened on Wikipedia. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:39, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree, should be deleted. Sorry about the fuss it caused.Happybunny95 (talk) 05:11, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete WP:G7 since author agrees with deletion. And remember WP:BITE, people; new editors can learn the ropes if we don't scare them away. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:49, 24 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) 09:06, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Burundi Rugby League Association[edit]

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

uncited and full of original research. Even if true, the sport hasn't even existed for 2 years. This association is not recognised by Rugby League International Federation LibStar (talk) 15:55, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article fails to meet notability criteria listed here: WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CheCheDaWaff (talk • contribs) 18:55, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:15, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:15, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - may be notable in the future but certainly not at this moment in time; WP:TOOSOON Spiderone 09:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Killagators 2[edit]

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

Film fails WP:Movie. Dewritech (talk) 15:09, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 17:06, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As simple as fails WP:NFILM. GSS (talk)
Delete. Article fails notability under WP:GNG and WP:MOVIE. --♫CheChe♫ talk 19:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm skeptical that this even exists. The only hit on Google is Wikipedia's article. If it exists, it's probably an amateur production on YouTube. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:47, 22 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:26, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Punches, Kicks, Trenches & Swords[edit]

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

Non-notable single by low-profile indie band that fails WP:NSONG on every level. See also Holes (Pint Shot Riot song). KaisaL (talk) 19:51, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:38, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:38, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:43, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing for the substance needed for a confirmed separate article with independent notability, and there's nothing to suggest anything otherwise since the notability for these subjects is firm. SwisterTwister talk 01:47, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 15:06, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree with nominator in that it fails WP:NSONG. Aoba47 (talk) 19:10, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I also agree that does not fall within the guidelines specified in WP:NSONG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CheCheDaWaff (talk • contribs) 23:17, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MER-C 04:48, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kaseya[edit]

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

Promotional article substantially written by SPAs that doesn't appear to meet WP:NCORP. Basic WP:BEFORE shows PR-inspired coverage and little else. Tagged for notability since 2012 without improvement. Has been multiply deleted previously, including dying at PROD. David Gerard (talk) 14:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 14:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 14:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 14:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 14:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt as this has been a damn advertisement for each of the 4 times it's been deleted since 2007, and there's nothing at all suggesting we should continue tolerating it, especially when so blatant; take the current article for example where it not only lists the PR information and activities but also literally all specifics there to know about the things and events the company has involved itself with. The article also then speaks for itself by having an enormous amount of quickly "new" accounts and their own contributions are never actually substantial apart from simply adding company information, self-explanatory of course. This was unbelievable accepted in January 2012 but the causes for that was not only the mistakes and damages AfC itself had at the time by not acknowledging advertisements or simply compromising by accepting half-authored advertisements; now we have a choice and especially when it involves such blatant deletions in the past, therefore there are seriously nearly no chances of an acceptable article because of the numerous PR advertising attempts, outweighing anything at all to suggest this would amount to convincing. SwisterTwister talk 04:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam; strictly advertorial. Salt too until such time that the subject becomes noted by independent reliable sources. For now, nothing stands out about this company. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:57, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:29, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Puppet Fighter (film)[edit]

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

Hoax. No indication that a film of this name is in production. Speedy deletion template remove by IP editor. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:49, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This one seems clear cut to me. There are no sources listed and no evidence the existence of any subject matter to be covered. --♫CheChe♫ talk 23:25, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:16, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:29, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nikoleta Lozanova[edit]

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

Delete: non-notable Playboy model. Quis separabit? 14:37, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:35, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SST flyer 12:28, 27 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) 09:07, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aathmika[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 14:10, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and indefinitely protect the article from re-creation until the actress acts in at least a few more films and gains notice. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —Vensatry _(talk) 14:45, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SST flyer 12:37, 27 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) 09:07, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nayan Nilim[edit]

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

Delete: Fails WP:NACTOR. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:19, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:55, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:55, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I re-wrote the article and added in there whatever sources I could find online in English-language newspapers. They however appear insufficient to help subject reach the NACTOR or GNG standard. Going through sources, I noticed that he is mentioned multiple times as renowned Assamese actor, which convinces me to believe that WP:NEXIST. Still undecided though, and may or may not !vote later. Anup [Talk] 19:18, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:13, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

huh! no one? k, soft delete it. Anup [Talk] 08:48, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:38, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the sources have not been sufficient to establish notability and sustain an article. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:02, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:29, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Wild Things (band)[edit]

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

Delete. WP:TOOSOON article about a band with no strong claim of notability per WP:NMUSIC and no reliable source coverage to support it. The referencing here is entirely to primary sources and IMDb (because two of the band's members have also been actors), with no media coverage about them shown at all. As always, a band is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because they exist, if a strong notability claim and the reliable sourcing to support it aren't present. Bearcat (talk) 13:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:43, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:43, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. I suspect the article has been created by band member Rob Kendrick: his birth name was Robert George Feltrup and the creator of the article is "Felrg"... Felrg is an SPA who only works on articles related to Kendrick. Richard3120 (talk) 15:00, 21 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 per CSD A7 by RHaworth (non-admin closure) TonyBallioni (talk) 23:38, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chokh Film Society, Shahjalal University of Science and Technology[edit]

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

No indication of notability Melaen (talk) 13:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:29, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Badanamu: Learn and Play[edit]

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

Badanamu does not appear to be a television program, but rather a company that produces educational materials (games, videos, etc., see their website). The company does not appear to be notable. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:09, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. Correct, it's not a TV program. I disagree about its notability, though. I have a toddler, and we were introduced to their material at her preschool. It does appear to be fairly well known about, and their videos have millions of views on YouTube. That said, the article itself is a poor one. I think it should be kept and improved, though, not deleted. Lukobe (talk) 16:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Lukobe: Your KEEP argument amounts to little more than WP:ILIKEIT. Your assertion that "it appears to be fairly well known about" is not supported by the availability of any reliable sources. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- spam; incoherently written; does not cite any RS. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:43, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk 11:45, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per K.e.coffman's comments. The keep vote does not provide adequate enough reasons for the article to stay, and I agree with WikiDan61 in that it falls more into WP:ILIKEIT than anything. Aoba47 (talk) 19:08, 21 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 that this is a content fork of "Panzer ace" in popular culture. Discussion can and perhaps should continue whether that article is appropriately named... Sandstein 08:36, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tank Aces[edit]

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

This is fundamentally a dictionary definition. TheLongTone (talk) 12:27, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (Changed my vote to Merge) -

I wrote the article, and I think I probably agree with the points raised here - I think it's better to merge this article with the Panzer Aces in popular fiction retitle it to Tank aces and make it cover all tank aces from various countries, not just German tank aces. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:33, 13 October 2016 (UTC) No idea why this article has been included here fo AfD. Searching on the term brings up many hits in Google. The term is used by various books in discussion of the various historical tank aces, including the book "Tank aces: from Blitzkrieg to the Gulf War". There is any number of Tank aces.... in fact, I am wondering why there is no article on it already. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:33, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Which is why you wrote this article. I'm not saying that the term isn't used; I'm saying that there is nothing to say on the subject that cannot more usefully be included in another article. There is of course Panzer Aces, an article probably justified by the fetishisation of the Nazi Military.TheLongTone (talk) 12:44, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess we will have to agree to disagree, I think there is enough to substantiate it. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deathlibrarian's above comments appear to be deliberately misleading: this is a POV fork spun out of the history of the article they suggest merging it into. The material was rejected from that article after various discussions. Nick-D (talk) 23:26, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D As mentioned below, I have no idea what you are on about. I've researched some new material and included it from Robert Kershaw's book "Tank Men", Is there something wrong with that? Can you please elighten me and give me a link to this discussion of rejected material that I am supposed to know about??? Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:51, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[15] [16] and [17] where the material you added was removed (with you reverting the first removal). The material on the claimed number of tanks destroyed you tried to add to the previous article has been recycled in this article, along with material taken from the original article (including the complete misrepresentation of a source I added which I've removed in these edits - the source explicitly says that the wartime US Army didn't recognise "tank aces" and the author has written that the whole concept is nonsense). See also Talk:"Panzer ace" in popular culture#Credited vehicles and Talk:"Panzer ace" in popular culture#Suggested move (the two threads immediately before the one you started). Nick-D (talk) 09:01, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So you are talking about the various web references that refer to the number of kills for the german tank commanders? You will note I raised this as an issue on the pages talk page, and *no one*, including you, had any issues with it, or even replied - [18]. I came to the page, and did my original searches online to find that material, and then added it. As I told you, I wasn't aware it had previously been rejected, if that's the case. I told you before, I don't go and read the history of every page before I come to it to add material. Someone raised the point that the web references were innappropriate, and then following their removal, (which was fair enough) I spent *a lot of time* finding recognised book published sources which I inserted. Once again, as you are an admin, I would have assumed you were aware of this policy Wikipedia:Assume good faith before accusing other editors.Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:29, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 14:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 14:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 14:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 14:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to "Panzer ace" in popular culture as an unneeded & POV WP:FORK and/or recreation of Panzer ace moved at a recent AfD. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/German tank aces. Sample content:

"The concept of the Tank Ace, during the war was mainly used by the Germans. The Germans were involved in large amounts of tank combat and had a number of successful Tank Aces that were highlighted for reasons of propaganda. The British (...) did not use the term tank ace because no individual British tank commanders acheived large numbers of destroyed enemy tanks." Etc.

K.e.coffman (talk) 14:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand this.... are you saying the Germans were the only people to have tank aces? During the war Germans and Russians mainly highlighted their tank aces, but after the war literature discusses tank aces from various countries, including people like Poole (from the US) and Sydney Valpy Radley-Walters (from Canada) Deathlibrarian (talk) 21:37, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but... This is a mess, and I don't just mean the article under discussion. Clearly, this article is a content fork of the other article. I hate to speculate on editor motives, but I'd presume that it was created out of an objection to the "in popular culture" retitling over there, and that's understandable. Frankly, I think that editorial decision was... unhelpful (and not entirely accurate; the 1943 Hoo Hsien-Chung reference is not really a "popular culture" reference). The handful of legitimate historical issues aside, we don't name articles like that one is named, even for primarily-cultural topics. If this were entirely up to me, I'd delete Tank Aces as a content fork and move "Panzer ace" in popular culture back to Panzer ace (because that's clearly the WP:COMMONNAME in preference to Tank ace, which should redirect). The article's content makes it clear that the concept is largely an ahistorical romanticization of WWII tank combat; we don't need to use the title as a brute-force instrument to make that point. However, I strongly suspect that were anyone to unilaterally make those moves, it would evoke some discontent. A discussion at requested moves or an outright RFC on the article naming is probably wise. In any case, the version currently under discussion here at AFD, is duplicative and inferior, and we delete content forks. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:42, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Guys deleting this doesn’t make any sense. How can you delete a broader category (tank aces) and keep the narrower category (German tank aces)? Were the Germans the only ones that used tanks? If anything, the Panzer aces page should be renamed Tank Aces and info about the other tank aces from other countries no longer excluded. Frankly, the fact that the concept is only addressing German tank crews seems to be a WP :BAL issue... isn't it? I'll note that even Wikipedia uses the term, for two Russian Tank aces, Dmitry_Lavrinenko and Zinoviy_Kolobanov and there is at least one book on Tank aces, that covers tank aces from various countries, from ww2 to the modern era - "Tank aces: from Blitzkrieg to the Gulf War". I understand that German tank aces (people like Wittman destroying 150 tanks) were a lot more succesful than "western" allied (like the top American tank ace, Poole, who only destroyed 15). However, the top Russian aces destroyed around 50 tanks or so and were recognised with awards during the war, so fairly comparable...so I don't see any reason why they should be excluded. Deathlibrarian (talk) 21:37, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Apart from the WP:CWW-issues: The term "Ace" was not used in German military contexts at all. It surfaced well after WW II in some military history books for the popular market (with publishers like Motorbuch). The term brings up many google hits, because it has been used in amateur military historiography. But is there any reference in material published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses, in completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD, which are publicly available? (WP:SCHOLARSHIP) So far I have seen none. And neither did I read the term "Panzerass" in any German primary source, including propaganda. Not only the British and the Americans did not use "the concept" (whatever that means), but neither did the Germans. Thus an article which poposes that such a "concept" actually existed during WW II is historically inaccurate. Once again I argue that the diverse articles on fighter, submarine, tank and other military aces should be wrapped up to become Ace (military).--Assayer (talk) 02:40, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So should the "tank ace"article should be changed to cover post WW2 use of the term "tank ace"? Of which there is quite a bit, including .....our own Wikipedia articles which use it.... Running a search on "tank ace" gets 258,000 results on Google Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:48, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and block article creator This is a bad-faith POV fork of what's now the "Panzer ace" in popular culture article, which was itself subject to an AfD which was closed as keep 3 days before this article was spun out of its history. There's been a consensus in previous discussions concerning the main article that the material on 'Successful Tank Aces' and the like was rubbish as the whole concept is based on no or bad references, and this article appears to have been created to reinsert it as factual claims rather than as a popular culture concept, which is how serious works treat it. Deathlibrarian, this is awful and highly disruptive conduct. Nick-D (talk) 23:21, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nick-D- mate you need to get off your high horse and give me an apology. If you check my history, and that of the page, I have had very little to with the Panzer aces page, and all the history/shenanigans associated with it. I only came across it recently, and started adding in some references. I knew the "panzer aces in popular culture" article was there when I created this one, but as far as I was concerned, from the rather odd title, it seemed to be specifically about *german* panzer aces, and how they appear in literature (?). I was writing a broader article about Tank Aces from all nations....and that's about the third time I have explained that, so may be you should actually read the comments before you start casting aspersions about wikipedia contributors. People are allowed to create new articles on wikipedia, they aren't always aware there is some big backstory to a page when they create one.Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- This article recycles content which you tried to include in the "Panzer ace" in popular culture article, as well as material added by other editors to that article. You have edited that article no fewer than 71 times, which actually makes you the second most frequent editor of it both in terms of edits and the amount of material included in those edits. Nick-D (talk) 06:08, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - As I said, I have only been on "Panzer ace" in popular culture recently...for the last 5 weeks, CHECK THE HISTORY OF THE PAGE, and most of my edits are in *one section*...I had just been finding references for German tank commanders... because that section had a note on the top of the section asking for references, so I added a whole lot to help out the article (and my comments on the talk page were about that section). I have not been involved in any of the discussions about the politics of the page... you can check the history to confirm that. I was not involved in the discussion about the deletion of the page either. And yes, I did add some material, from the German tank aces page to my new page, because, not suprisingly, one page is about "German tank aces in popular media" and the one I wrote is about "tank aces"... so of course there is *some* cross over. May be you should check your facts, and read this policy before throwing accusations around about people, because people trying to contribute to Wikipedia don't deserve to be treated like shit Wikipedia:Assume good faith...... Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:42, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (and also "Panzer ace" in popular culture). Tank ace and Panzer ace are meaningful terms, but where the line is to be drawn between aces and other tank commanders seems to be to be a POV issue. I would see no difficulty in principle with converting the article(s) into a definition + a list (table), and that list might include a the number of kills, but if an individual is notable he will have an article, which can be included in an appropriate category for WWII tank commanders by belligerent country. "Popular culture" articles and sections used to exist when I first worked on WP about a decade ago. They attracted large amounts of NN trivia, but were deleted en masse, long ago. We should not encourage the revival of such trivia. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:21, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment based on people's suggestions... I have suggested that the ("Panzer ace" in popular culture) be retitled to "Tank Aces" on that page, any material here that is worthwhile can be transferred to that page, and this page can therefore be deleted. If you support this, or have objections, that conversation is here [19] Deathlibrarian (talk) 21:45, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd incline to go the other way, keep the in popolar culture, any non-ww2 stuff could be included in tank warfare. (just to be difficult!)TheLongTone (talk) 22:10, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So put a section on tank aces in the tank warfare section?Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk 11:43, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Truth is the first casualty of war." There is no reason to think any of the records of "tank aces" are accurate and the whole concept seems to be made up after the fact, as the related articles make clear. The "tank ace controversy" then turns out to be a minor item which should be mentioned somewhere, but not have its own article.Kitfoxxe (talk) 22:54, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not sure if the term was used during the war, but post war, the concept certainly has been....and is not simply "made up". It's referred to in a range of various books, its been used by newspapers to refer to the various tank aces including Poole, Radley-Walters, Wittmna, and Bach. It's used in documentaries, it's also even used by Wikipedia itself, to refer to the various tank aces, for eg on the pages for Michael Wittmann, Lafayette G. Pool, Dmitry Lavrinenko and Sydney Valpy Radley-Walters and others. As for your comment that the records of tank aces are not accurate, that is the opinion of some historians it would seem, but there is no general opinion from Historians that the German records are generally innacurate, certainly not to the degree that they still wouldn't have qualified as a "tank ace" Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:48, 24 October 2016 (UTC) Most importantly, it's a legitimate concept that the average user and would come to wikipedia expecting to find encyclopaedic information, about at least. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:48, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually thinking as much of the Soviets when I said that. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:23, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh, I don’t know how accurate the soviets were, possibly less accurate than the Germans(?). In any case, if you have official reports saying a tank ace destroyed 150 tanks, and they actually only destroyed 130… it’s still indicative of them as a tank ace. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:47, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Tank ace" as a concept has not been covered by serious historiography. It mostly likely originated with the publication of Panzer Aces by Franz Kurowski in the early 1990s. The whole "tank ace" concept seems dubious, same as "U-boat aces" and (even) "Infantry aces". The reason I say this is the "tank ace" is not shooting and driving all by himself -- what about the crew? Are they "aces" too? The fact that some popular history writers call certain tank commander "aces" does not mean that the concept exists. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:02, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

K.e.coffman Not sure what you regard as "serious historiography" but the concept and term is discussed by a number of books, that would meet wikipedia guidelines and WP:RS. You can run a search on Google Books and you will find a number of books that use the term. In addition, at least one of these, Robert Kershaw's books "Tank Men: The Human Story" *is* reliable historiography and discusses the term (as referenced in this article). Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:13, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mergeto "Panzer ace" in popular culture. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:25, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ to "Panzer ace" in popular culture - for my previous reasons, as above. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:06, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've stricken the duplicate !vote above. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:22, 28 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. Black Kite (talk) 08:20, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Latitude 42 Brewing Company[edit]

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

Appears to be nothing more than WP:PROMO with no real indication of notability. John from Idegon (talk) 21:19, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:55, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:55, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:55, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This page was not intended to be a promotion for the brewery. This is a college project. I researched many other notable Michigan breweries, which all had a wiki page, and decided to make a page for this particular brewery. I added some additional references on the page to demonstrate the breweries international notability and removed a line which may have been perceived as biased. Ricky beausoleil (talk) 02:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the listed information and sources are PR alone, showing what only the company would include as part of its PR advertising and that's what this is exactly, everything listed is trivial and this is making it nearly speedy material; for example the fact it's a first for the local community of Portage, therefore it's not actually significant. SwisterTwister talk 06:08, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The brewery satisfies WP:GNG and WP:Breweries. Here's what I'm going by, but only the first four are already included in the article, the rest need to be added: [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] — Mudwater^(Talk) 23:13, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added the other three references. — Mudwater^(Talk) 06:24, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Pinging some more editors who might have an opinion on this question: @David Eppstein, IronGargoyle, MelanieN, Northamerica1000, Prof. Mc, and Trev fro: Feel free to chime in. — Mudwater^(Talk) 11:03, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. All information in the article comes from reliable sources. The nomination appears to have been made in the mistaken belief that articles about commercial establishments can only be promotional, but that is not true — it is ok for us to describe such subjects in factual terms and that's all our article does. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:28, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of breweries in Michigan for now. I am not impressed by the references or the awards. My personal criteria for brewing companies: They qualify to be included in a "list of breweries in..." if they have an independent reference, which this does, so it can go in the list. But these references are routine (directories, local paper stories, etc.), of the type that go to every brewery that ever opens anywhere, so they don't make it notable. As for the awards: there are so many brewing competitions, all handing out hundreds of medals, that I don't count state or local competition awards (even if they are called "international," as most of them are) as significant. I really only regard medals from the two most respected competitions - namely, the Great American Beer Festival and the World Beer Cup - as being significant enough to guarantee an article. Maybe later, this brewery has only been open for 3 years. I should add, I do NOT find the article to be promotional; in fact it is well written and sourced. My objection is based only on notability. --MelanieN (talk) 04:01, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk→ Be a guest 08:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. purely trivial references, but no notability DGG ( talk ) 02:05, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: moved to new log Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk 11:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk 11:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A purely local business with no notability. MB 00:00, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The brewery passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline based on the sources provided by Mudwater (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 06:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'll note the listed sources above are literally local event listings so as such they are not significant or independent outside of the interests of local visitors and citizens, therefore because there's no actual substance apart from such trivial information, they are not independently notable. Also, no, we cannot negotiate that "local event listings" are still major news because it would be the equivalent of saying a local businessman's interview with his local newspaper would be major independent news. SwisterTwister talk 06:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The articles are not merely "local event listings". The sources discuss the company's history and are brewery reviews. Cunard (talk) 06:40, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From newspapers publishing information about such trivial awards, the reviews are still not actually focused as such, and "company history" is essentially advertising because that means the company is giving said information, something of which is expected since it's only a local news article, an excellent place for local advertising. Because none of these are outside of that, they are not substantial and therefore cannot be guaranteed to not be company-motivated advertising. See the secondwavemedia.com article for example:

Those two boys are today the men who are making Latitude 42 Brewing Company, at 7842 Portage Road in Portage, just north of East Centre Avenue, an instant success....(interviewed businesspeople) and then Doors to the new microbrewery open seven days a week, onto 11,000 square feet of space that includes at center a granite-topped bar, surrounded by handcrafted, tulip-wood tables and booths. Inside there is a capacity for 243 people, and the outdoor patio can hold another 90. A private dining room and 14-person brewmaster’s table are available for private parties. And a children’s play corner makes it clear: this is a place for families....(interviewed information again before scoping into building and company specifics such as the food specifications offered and what sizes they come in.....

Therefore that is clear advertising, because it not only begins with "such a family-fun place, it is located at....and while this beer is offered and this other beer is offered, it has 11,000 square feet, tulip-wood tables and booths, can hold 243 people and patio can have 90....". Honestly, that is advertising and that's not "substantial or notable information" nor should we accept it as such. To note, with all examining, the kalamazoocountry.com is literally a few thinly-tossed paragraphs about a trivial award and then finishing with "Congratulations to the company!". Yet again, this is not substantial nor should it be mistaken as such, and therefore they are local event listings, because like the secondwavemedia.com, it was not only republished advertising but literal advertising aimed at customers, and Wikipedia is not by means a business listing.

Take also articles about commercial establishments can only be promotional, but that is not true — it is ok for us to describe such subjects in factual terms and that's all our article does (yet the quoted selecivewavemedia.com specifically stated what the restaurant's size, capacities, food options, available seating options, etc. therefore that's advertising, not "encyclopedia information"), which states we can apparently accept advertised information simply because of the overall specifying, but that's not stating how WP:ADVERTISING (where it explicitly states advertising can and will be removed if unsuitable) and WP:NOT are not applying. Also, WP:GNG can be removed as applying when WP:ADVERTISING and WP:NOT, which are large and firm when it comes to removing unsuitable information, especially when such company-advertising blatancy is offered as "significant news". SwisterTwister talk 07:08, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of breweries in Michigan per WP:TOOSOON; not enough in-depth coverage to warrant a stand-alone article at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:39, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 08:20, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Gharibyan[edit]

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

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

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

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

A poorly written autobiography of an Armenian student which struggles to meet WP:GNG … took part in Best Model of the World XXII ? actor, producer, showman and publisher in music networks? Article is stuffed with references that do not support the content. Theroadislong (talk) 21:17, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:47, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:36, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:36, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SNOW and Speedy Delete as entirely advertising, the sources are not at all convincing and this is clearly not only an autobiography, but a glory one at that, with the professionally taken photos to the specifics about what he himself wants to say. This is advertising and a blatant one. SwisterTwister talk 22:48, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, this is not a autography, and before voicing your opinion, please take your time and properly explore the content of the references. If you don't know any other language apart from English, please translate them first before making comments. David Gharibyan is well known not only in his country, but also abroad. To put yourself on the right track, please review the following links:

https://armeniagogo.com/armenian-models/ http://www.barev.today/news/twitter1 http://www.imdb.com/name/nm7770043

check description videos: https://www.youtube.com/user/DalitaVEVO/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4dP1wa4IC4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXqCBU62B4k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBq9xUm4Igo

about Best Model of the World https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fIno_c57Ak http://www.novinite.com/articles/110709/Bulgaria+Hosts+'Best+Model+of+the+World+2009'+Competition http://www.bestmodeloftheworld.com/

--52.89.0.184 (talk) 23:18, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's the thing, none of those links are actually what we need for an article here, we need actual in-depth third-party news, not simple YouTube links or model and IMDb listings, because none of these actually substantiate an acceptable article, therefore the deletion still applies. SwisterTwister talk 02:37, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello dear @Theroadislong: First of all, according to the data that I checked, David Gharibyan is a PhD student, which differs from ordinary student conception. The vivid proof of that is the reference in the professional journal of the Armenian National Science Academy (http://lraber.asj-oa.am/6457/). This also means that he holds a Master’s degree for about three years. I don’t understand your argument about this article being pure autobiography, and I think your writing style is just an effort to offend the artists, which is not acceptable. What concerns the Best Model of the World Competition, we have already discussed that issue with you and came to a mutual understanding, so why are you still touching that question? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:David_Gharibyan). I have reviewed and translated these links, so I don’t think that they are out of the content, so I cannot agree with your arguments about this. Finally, concerning the question with the word “showman”, I would like to substitute that word with “host”, as well as change the word “producer” with “director”. --Prsocialmedia (talk) 17:09, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having a masters degree does not make him notable. Entering the Best Model of the World Competition does not make him notable. Theroadislong (talk) 17:14, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Theroadislong: Yes, the Master's degree does not make him notable, but where did you find that he is notable for that? As of the Best Model of the World, he has represented a country, is it not enough? Actually, David became famous by winning the Mister Fashion Beauty Universal competition. Don't you agree, that his fame was ranked by such networks as Google, YouTube, Facebook, etc., which him granted him a title of verified user? http://newsroom.fb.com/news/2013/05/verified-pages-and-profiles, https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/3046484?hl=en --Prsocialmedia (talk) 21:00, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:GNG I'm afraid that none of those things make him notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Theroadislong (talk) 21:06, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SwisterTwister: Those links that I put in the discussion is just for responding to your suspicions. Please, see also the following links, which will help you to re-consider your opinion. They will also help to make the hashtags of the upcoming debates more efficient.

http://www.replik.am/arm/index.php?id=93847 https://armeniagogo.com/armenian-models/ http://www.barev.today/news/twitter1 http://orer.eu/hy/%D5%A4%D5%A1%D5%BE%D5%AB%D5%A9-%D5%B2%D5%A1%D6%80%D5%AB%D5%A2%D5%B5%D5%A1%D5%B6%D5%A8%D5%B4%D5%AB%D5%BD%D5%BF%D5%A5%D6%80-%D6%86%D5%A5%D5%B5%D5%BD%D5%A2%D5%B8%D6%82%D6%84-%D5%BF%D5%AB%D5%A5/ http://aad.am/5513.html https://www.kinopoisk.ru/name/4268781/ http://www.onteatr.ru/aktery/armenii/garibyan-david-levonovich http://www.panarmenian.net/rus/news/192584/ http://avproduction.am/?ln=am&page=person&id=2542 http://www.bellezavenezolana.net/2014/Diciembre/dic308.htm http://old.iravunk.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=31665:-l-r&catid=41:lurer&Itemid=57 http://www.starslife.am/news/davit_gharibyan_winter_must_be_cold_for_those_with_no_warm_memories/2015-12-02-2655 http://news.am/rus/news/114023.html http://lurer.com/?p=166709&l=am https://www.slaq.am/arm/news/119438/ http://my.mamul.am/am/photoreportage/59165 http://blognews.am/arm/news/13323/glance-y-merkacrel-e-hay-model-davit-xaribyanin.html http://www.glancejournal.com/2012/12/blog-post_2019.html http://miaynser.do.am/blog/davit_39_gharibyan/2012-02-12-99 http://celebrityimages.org/celebrity/7770043 http://style.news.am/arm/news/11222/amenagravich-hay-modelnery-foto.html http://note.taable.com/post/58386/ArmFashion-Show-0/2b64895TT9-83-8501-0--8T587TT---55 http://www.erit.am/news/hy/3119 http://operativ.am/?p=174605&l=am http://www.armfashion.am/show-business/interview/1521-??????-?????????-?-?????-????????-????????-????????.html http://www.hmongbuy.com/M0dYaHBFZWZZRGMz http://www.erit.am/news/hy/1149 http://armfilm.org/serialy/2152-ancyal-seriya-1.html http://designdeluxegroup.com/magazine/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2013/09/27.pdf (Page 42-43) http://news.am/eng/news/114023.html http://www.armspain.com/gala-en-benidorm-para-la-eleccion-de-mis-y-mister/ http://www.bellezavenezolana.net/2014/Diciembre/dic165.htm https://cmoda7magazine.wordpress.com/2015/04/26/davit-gharibyan-mister-fashion-beauty-universal-2014/ --52.89.0.184 (talk) 22:42, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David is not only an actor, as he has been granted the grand prix in model competition in 2014. 193.6.53.148 (talk) 10:48, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: When I was editing, user @Theroadislong: immediately deleted my edits without allowing me to finalize it. I consider it as a non-respectful attitude, and if it is repeated, I will take appropriate measures. --82.199.207.121 (talk) 06:48, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article isn't for deletion. David Gharibyan as an actor and model is known even in Georgia, outside of Armenia. --Mikheil ^Talk 22:39, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk→ Be a guest 08:53, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think Theroadislong's arguments about this page are such, that can be referenced for any similar Wikipedia page. I think they are subjective and I suggest to keep the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazy4uPresident (talk • contribs) 14:02, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This user has made no other edits to Wikipedia. Theroadislong (talk) 10:33, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think Theroadislong's arguments about this page are such, that can be referenced for any similar Wikipedia page. I think they are subjective and I suggest to keep the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.198.102.7 (talk) 14:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTPROMO This is patent promotion going on and a good example of a WP:PSEUDO biography. There's hardly anything in English language references and I expect at least some so that we can verify the facts in a BLP. I also consider this too soon: the subject is still a student and the roles in the movies do not seem to be any major roles. Accordingly, delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:05, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: moved to new log Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk 11:25, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk 11:25, 21 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. Black Kite (talk) 08:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bix (website)[edit]

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

Promotional website content article. References are very poor such as Teitter, Techcrunch or wayback machine. Press coverage are promotional. Nothing significant or notable about the website to be here. Light21 07:29, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:18, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:19, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:WEBCRIT per a review of available sources. Source examples include, but are not limited to those listed below. The article does not have a particularly promotional tone, the site was discontinued in 2009, and the article simply presents facts, although it would benefit from some copy editing. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:27, 18 September 2016 (UTC) (Addendum: I am also okay with a merge to List of Yahoo!-owned sites and services. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:47, 13 October 2016 (UTC))[reply]

References

Automata, Languages and Programming. pp. 339– . (subscription required)
TechCrunch
TechCrunch
TechCrunch
Billboard

Merge to Yahoo - this could be a paragraph from its RSes - David Gerard (talk) 17:06, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 06:51, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 19:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Yahoo!-owned sites and services This is not independently notable enough to have its own page. Any information to be merged can be taken out from the article history. This Automata, Languages and Programming reference for example is not an independent sources as it is written by a Yahoo employee. Techcrunch publishes literally every small news (where the sources are of questionable independence) and even they seem to acknowledge that the site didn't have a lot of significance. Most coverage is solely about the acquisition by Yahoo and subsequent shutdown. Per WP:NOPAGE there is no need to have a separate page for this. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Yahoo!-owned sites and services; not independently notable per available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:41, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
Significant coverage about Bix not due to Yahoo!'s acquisition:
1. Buechner, Maryanne Murray (2007-07-08). "50 Best Websites 2007. Bix: Talent Show". Time. Archived from the original on 2016-10-16. Retrieved 2016-10-16.
  The article notes:
  
  Bix, a natural extension of the current public obsession with American Idol, plays host to all sorts of contests—beauty, comedy, dance, karaoke, lip-synching—even Capitol Records is using the site to conduct its search for its "next great country singer" (winner gets $50,000 and a three-song demo deal). Contenders upload original audio and video recordings or digital photos to enter; viewers vote, and, just like on Idol, the fans decide. Anybody can start a contest, and anybody can enter a contest—unless it's made private, which is an option. The Battle of Bix's Best Video Karaoke, for example, invited the top four from five different contests for a final face-off (it ended June 11, with songbird82 declared the champion. View the winning entry). Members can create top 10 lists (their 10 favorite entries), leave comments and email contest links to friends or post entries on their own websites (the site gives you the HTML code to copy and paste). There is mature content, but only registered members who declare themselves over 18 on their profile page can access it. Contest pages present a randomly selected face-off between two entries, and this changes each time you visit, so be sure to click "view all entries" before you pick a favorite.
2. Bruno, Antony (2009-08-29). "Check The Mic: Online Karaoke Sites Stumble In Search Of Viable Biz Models". Billboard. Retrieved 2016-10-16.
  The article notes:
  
  Not long ago, big media brands were eagerly jumping on the online karaoke bandwagon. News Corp. acquired kSolo in May 2006, and Yahoo bought Bix in November of the same year.
  ...
  Bix was a contest-oriented site where users uploaded performance videos and judged clips that other users created. After Yahoo acquired it, it scored some early successes—Time magazine named it one of the top 100 Web sites of 2007, and Capitol Records Nashville launched a country music talent contest through the service offering the winner $50,000 and the chance to record three demos. But Yahoo shut it down June 30, citing a desire to focus its resources on other areas.
  ...
  So what happened? ... At launch, Bix offered little more than 2,000 songs, while SingShot had about 2,500 when EA acquired it. What's more, licensing costs drove both to feature older songs rather than pricier new music.
  ...
  Rather, Yahoo and EA miscalculated by using karaoke as a rallying point to form a new social network. And just like most other such networks that have attempted to challenge MySpace and Facebook—as well as video-sharing sites that tried to compete with YouTube—they failed.
  Despite the popularity of user-generated video and music content, karaoke is just too small a niche to make the center of a new social network. According to the online traffic monitoring firm Compete, Bix averaged only 40,000 unique monthly visitors before it shut down...
3. Lee, Raina (2008). Hit Me with Your Best Shot!: The Ultimate Guide to Karaoke Domination. San Francisco: Chronicle Books. p. 120. ISBN 0811861406. Retrieved 2016-10-16.
  The book notes:
  
  BIX.YAHOO.COM
  Price: Free
  Video Enabled: Yes
  Platform: PC only
  Bix certainly has the most outlandish contests, such as the Best Yodel Contest, Sing for Your Servicemen Contest, and many that have nothing to do with singing—Favorite Pet Picture or Favorite Nintento Character Contest. The interface is like other Yahoo services: cluttered, unattractive, and confusing. But it's also the only karaoke site that offers video content. That means instead of just listening to random strangers, you can see them crooning and wiggling at their computer stations. Take that as a pro or a con.
4. Fost, Dan (2006-07-17). "Micro-star search". San Francisco Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2016-10-16. Retrieved 2016-10-16.
  The article notes:
  
  Here comes Bix, a new startup, with the latest in Internet big ideas: contests.
  ...
  Bix founder and CEO Mike Speiser, who had brought us epinions in the first dotcom boom, is an American Idol fan who hasn’t missed an episode, and appreciates the “brilliance” of the show in getting viewers to help make the stars.
  ...
  But the idea behind Bix is an intriguing one: That anyone can create a contest, and that the proliferation of webcams will have young people flocking to compete and vote online.
  The money will come when corporate sponsors decide to create contests, which Speiser says is already in the works.
  Speiser and his team have raised $6.775 million from Sutter Hill Ventures, Trinity Ventures and three smaller investors, including Stanford University. He says they’ve got three huge patents pending. They also have a bunch of other intriguing ideas for smaller revenue streams, such as recording your own karaoke and then using it as a cellphone ringtone.
5. Cashmore, Pete (2006-07-18). "Bix is the New American Idol". Mashable. Archived from the original on 2016-10-16. Retrieved 2016-10-16.
  The article notes:
  
  Venture-backed startup Bix.com is garnering a lot of attention in the blogosphere - and so it should, since it's an interesting play. The idea is to find talent online using a model that lies somewhere between American Idol and Digg - users create contests, submit their own videos and images and vote for winners in various categories. The company was formerly known as 900 seconds (famous for 15 minutes?) and it has some some good credentials: it was started by Mike Speiser, the Epinions co-founder, and has raised $6.77 million from Sutter Hill Ventures, Trinity Ventures and others.
  ...
  The concept is a good one: one of the reasons that mainstream users love Bebo, Hi5, Piczo, Windows Live Spaces and the rest is because they crave the attention - having a MySpace page or a top-rated YouTube video is the next best thing to celebrity status. This is surely one of the reasons that Fox bought kSolo, the online karaoke service. And of course the medium matters, too: because people aspire to be TV presenters, filmstars, singers and models, these sites need to focus on audio, video and images. This is also one of the reasons why video blogging may become bigger than text blogging (yes, really).
  So is it any good? Well, I took it for a a spin earlier today, and I think the simple answer is that there's not much to it right now. The site features a number of contests - Karaoke Idol, Lip-sync Idol and the Bix Beauty Contest, and you can also create your own. Users vote on entries using the thumbs up and thumbs down buttons, and you can't see how others have voted before you submit your vote. You can also add comments and see which users have given the entry a positive rating. The site design is ugly but tolerable and the content is - as you'd expect - pretty poor quality. Bizarrely, there doesn't seem to be any way to find the highest-rated entries, which seems like an oversight. Bix plans to make money from advertising and charging users for ringtones of their own audio clips.
6. Malik, Om (2006-07-17). "Vote for Bix (Or Not)". Gigaom. Archived from the original on 2016-10-16. Retrieved 2016-10-16.
  The article notes:
  
  Add Bix, a start-up previously known as 900 Seconds, to this list.
  The company was started by Mike Speiser, co-founder of Epinions.com and has raised $6.77 million from Sutter Hill Ventures, Trinity Ventures and a gaggle of individual investors including ex-Yahoo Geoff Ralston.
  Bix is a platform for creating contests online much in the mold of American Idol. From singing contests, photo contests to video shootouts, the company will allow end-users to become their own producers and editors. Speiser says the company was inspired by the growing popularity of contents such as American Idol, and Top Model.
  Here is how it works – I create a contest inviting participants to submit their photographs of San Francisco. The community can then vote and pick their favorites. The photo submission with most votes bubbles up to the top. You can also have a head-to-head competition between various photos as well. You can do the same for picking say the top videoblogger or what not. Basically Bix is using community to do the editing and selection – off loading all the cost of creating and managing content.
7. Kirsner, Scott (2007-04-22). "Internet idols. Modeling themselves after 'American Idol,' upstart websites look to turn unknown artists into stars". Boston.com. Archived from the original on 2016-10-16. Retrieved 2016-10-16.
  The article notes:
  
  The co founder of Silicon Valley's Bix even showed up at a cattle call audition for "Idol" last summer to pitch his site, handing out 15,000 fliers to the would-be Kelly Clarksons waiting in line.
  Three months later, his contest site, where you can vote for the best Elvis impersonation or the foxiest model, was acquired by Yahoo Inc. for an undisclosed amount.
  ...
  At Bix, competitors can win $50,000 and a recording session from Capitol Records.
  ...
  Bix and OurStage both try to prevent over-eager voters from spoiling the results of their competitions by presenting entries at random, so a band can't link its fans directly to a page where they can cast a vote.
  ...
  Bix employs artificial intelligence software to try to discern whether a vote is being cast by a real, live human or a software "bot." "We're looking for inconsistencies," says Speiser.
  ...
  Speiser says Bix will generate revenue for Yahoo by charging companies to create contests on the site -- for instance, a toothpaste company might sponsor a competition for America's best smile. "This is a new way for marketers to engage with consumers," he says.
8. Marshall, Matt (2006-08-09). "Bix, the online karaoke/dance competition site, launches". VentureBeat. Archived from the original on 2016-10-16. Retrieved 2016-10-16.
  The article notes:
  
  Bix is a Palo Alto start-up that wants to feed off the popularity of American Idol.
  It has just launched. We mentioned it here when it was still in testing mode.
  It lets people compete in online karaoke, dance, and other contests. It kicks off with a $50,000 prize.
  The company says the idea is to let other companies sponsor these competitions, thereby building their brands within what Bix hopes will be a young, attractive user base. But as you may expect from a start-up, it launches this first $50,000 competition without a sponsor.
9. Robinson, Blake (2006-07-17). "Bix sees green in online contests". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 2016-10-16. Retrieved 2016-10-16.
  The article notes:
  
  American Idol proved not just that we love watching the highs and lows of wannabe superstars, but that a surprising number of us wanted to be up there. It’s these two factors that make Bix, a company enabling public and private contests online, think the service it’s about to launch is a winner.
  ...
  The site is certainly easy enough for the mass consumer to use. I spared the world my singing, but I watched Speiser create a contest and karaoke video. Setting up a contest is quick, as is creating and uploading a video with a webcam. Also, viewing content, voting and sharing are all simple enough tasks.
  Still, there is a lot of work ahead of them. The user interface needs an upgrade to attract serious corporate advertising dollars; Bix needs to optimize for mobile users (mobile was a huge factor in American Idol voting); and it will have to soon go international, before someone else does, to tap what’s likely an even better market.
10. Heropoulos, Staasi (2006-11-22). "Web 'idol' success good for $50,000". The Republican. Archived from the original on 2016-10-16. Retrieved 2016-10-16.
  The article notes:
  
  But that doesn't matter because Webb is the reigning champion of a Web-based Karaoke competition sponsored by www.Bix.com - total payout: $50,000.
  ...
  Bix.com is the first online contest system that allows anyone to create, enter, and view a talent competition. Bix sponsored the $50,000 karaoke contest as a promotion to help launch the Web site.
  ...
  The Bix.com contest attracted over 1,300 contestants - 500,000 people watched the performances, and Webb won with just 387 votes.
Significant coverage about Yahoo!'s acquisition of Bix:
1. Helft, Miguel (2006-11-17). "Yahoo Buys Site for Staging Online Contests". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2016-10-16. Retrieved 2016-10-16.
  The article notes:
  
  Bix.com, which was founded in January and introduced its service in August, is trying to capitalize on two trends in popular culture: the fascination with TV shows like “American Idol” and the explosion in user-generated online content, especially video.
  The site allows anyone to create an online contest in any of a number of categories. Users can then submit their own entries — a video for a lip-sync, karaoke or comedy contest, or a photo for a beauty contest — and vote on which entry deserves to win. The prizes range from a few minutes of Internet fame to cash or merchandise in contests sponsored by advertisers.
  ...
  Yahoo said it planned to keep Bix.com as a stand-alone site and also to integrate it with some of its other social media properties, which include Yahoo Groups, the social network Yahoo 360 and the photo-sharing site Flickr.
  ...
  Bix.com, based in Palo Alto, Calif., has 16 employees and has received nearly $6.8 million from Trinity Ventures and Sutter Hill Ventures.
2. "Yahoo Acquires Bix.com". Billboard. 2006-11-17. Archived from the original on 2016-10-16. Retrieved 2016-10-16.
  The article notes:
  
  Contests on Bix range from rating creative undertakings like karaoke, dance, photography or writing to "Hot or Not" beauty contests, where participants judge others on looks.
  ...
  Bix is one of a new crop of Web sites that encourage user self-expression, by enabling people to try their hand at making short video or audio recordings. Toward that end, it has video- and audio-recording tools that work with computers connected to a low-cost Webcam device, cameraphone or digital video camera.
  Founded only in January of this year, Bix is the latest in a string of social media sites Yahoo has acquired including photo-sharing site Flickr, shared bookmarking site del.icio.us, group calendar Upcoming.org, and video editing site Jumpcut.
  Since Bix was formally introduced in early August, the site has attracted more than one million users, Speiser said.
  Contests can be initiated by Bix members, or by corporate sponsors. In one example of its utility for advertisers, amusement part operator Six Flags asked people to submit their best impersonation of a roller-coaster scream. Details can be found at http://www.bix.com/sixflags/.
3. Kopytoff, Verne (2006-11-16). "Contest site is Yahoo's latest win". San Francisco Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2016-10-16. Retrieved 2016-10-16.
  The article notes:
  
  Adding to its credentials in social media, Yahoo Inc. has acquired Bix, an online site where users can create, enter and judge contests involving everything from karaoke to comedy to writing.
  The acquisition, disclosed tonight, gives Yahoo what it bills as a playground for emerging talent.
  Bix, a start up, founded in January, joins a list of other Yahoo acquisitions in the social media space, including photo sharing service Flickr, the bookmarking site del.icio.us and Upcoming.org, for listing events.
  ...
  Among the recent contests on Bix was one to find “the sexiest female biker,” a vote on “the least deserving billionaire” and another created by Six Flags Great America that asked people to submit their best impersonation of a roller-coaster scream.
4. Gohring, Nancy (2006-11-17). "Best Lip Syncher? Yahoo Buy, Bix, Lets You Prove It". PC World. Archived from the original on 2016-10-16. Retrieved 2016-10-16.
  The article notes:
  
  Bix.com users create contests and then ask others to submit entries. Contest subjects include lip-synching, photography, dance, beauty and many others. Viewers cast votes and winners can receive prizes if the contest creator offers one. Some contests are sponsored by companies that view them as promotional opportunities.
  ...
  Once Bix.com becomes part of Yahoo, users can expect more community features and more entertaining content, Speiser said. In addition, Yahoo is already looking into how it might integrate Bix with other offerings such as Yahoo Groups, Yahoo Messenger and Yahoo Video, Horowitz said.
  Bix.com, founded in January, joins several other social media companies acquired by Yahoo including Flickr, Jumpcut, Del.icio.us and Upcoming.org.
5. Tilve, Priyanka (2006-11-17). "Yahoo! Acquires Online Contest Site, Bix.com". Firstpost. Archived from the original on 2016-10-16. Retrieved 2016-10-16.
  The article notes:
  
  Yahoo! Inc has acquired a community-based website called Bix.com, where users arrange contests and rate each others' photos and videos online. The acquisition is an attempt to compete against social networking sites like Myspace and Facebook, by integrating Bix with Yahoo! Groups, social network, Yahoo! 360 and photo sharing site, Flickr. However, the companies have not disclosed financial terms of the deal.
  ...
  Bix is currently focused on talent—based online contests, with categories such as photography, Karaoke, comedy, dance and writing among others. The prizes for winners of the contests range from a few minutes of Internet fame to cash or merchandise, sponsored by advertisers.
  Despite being launched in January this year, Bix has enjoyed massive popularity, considering the growing fascination with online videos. Moreover, the site also has video and audio recording tools that work with computers connected to a low-cost webcam device, camera phone or digital video camera, making it a shorter route for everyone's 15 seconds of fame.
6. Mayberry, Carly (2006-11-20). "Yahoo! adds Bix to menu of social media offerings". The Hollywood Reporter. Associated Press. Archived from the original on 2016-10-16. Retrieved 2016-10-16.
  The article notes:
  
  Yahoo! Inc. is adding social media service Bix to its menu of offerings, a company representative confirmed.
  Founded in January, Bix features online contests with Web-based video and audio recording tools where users can create, enter and serve as judges for those contests, which range from karaoke, dance and comedy to beauty, photography and writing.
  The competitions are initiated by Bix members who also establish the contests' criteria and deadlines.
7. Veneziani, Vince (2006-11-16). "Yahoo! Acquires Contest Site Bix". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 2016-10-16. Retrieved 2016-10-16.
  The article notes:
  
  Online karaoke and contest site Bix has signed an agreement to be acquired by Yahoo! Bix CEO Mike Speiser will continue running Bix but will also take on responsibility for product management for Yahoo! Groups, 360, and Photos under the title VP of Community.
  ...
  Bix is a 16 person company based in Palo Alto. The company was founded in January and went live in August. They report 1 million unique visitors since launch. They have raised $6.77 million from Sutter Hill Ventures, Trinity, and others. The terms of the acquisition aren’t being disclosed. Our previous coverage of Bix is here.
  Bix has built a community of users by offering prizes of up to $50,000 in its contests. Contests are set up by the site, but others are created by users. Those contests include not just karaoke but everything from beauty contests to comedy, dance, a cappella singing and photo competitions. Those contests can be public or private. Each are wrapped in targeted advertising and there’s a strong mobile component. The site has some basic community features and an “easy upload to MySpace” tool.
8. Arrington, Michael (2009-08-04). "Yahoo Shuts Bix Down. Did Anyone Notice?". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 2016-10-16. Retrieved 2016-10-16.
  The article notes:
  
  It must be disconcerting to a big Internet company to shut down a whole website and nobody even notices. Not even a short note on Twitter from a concerned user until now. But that’s what apparently happened.
  At some point Yahoo shut down Bix, a karaoke and contest website that they acquired in late 2006. Yes, at some point in 2006 someone at Yahoo said “Karaoke? Contests? We gotta own that!”
  Six days ago at least it was still up and running at bix.yahoo.com. Now that just redirects to m.www.yahoo.com.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Bix to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 02:33, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A merge to the list article List of Yahoo!-owned sites and services would be undue weight because the list article contains a sentence or two about each Yahoo! service. The substantial coverage in reliable sources is sufficient for Bix (website) to be a standalone article. Cunard (talk) 02:33, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Still not convinced. These are functionally passing mentions, or personal op-eds at WP:SPS level - David Gerard (talk) 12:53, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Nothing to write more about this one. It only exist because Yahoo Acquired it and shut it down. Light2021 (talk) 13:23, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk→ Be a guest 09:01, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: moved to new log Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk 11:23, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk 11:23, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard's demonstration that this was a notable website for a time, and there's too much content to fit neatly in the list article, so a separate page is justfied per WP:NTEMP. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:33, 21 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. Black Kite (talk) 08:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Sargent Pillsbury, Jr.[edit]

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

Delete. Poorly sourced biography of a person whose most substantive claim of notability is having been a non-winning candidate in a party primary. This is not a claim of notability that passes WP:NPOL -- and the only potential claim of preexisting notability here, that he was president of an insurance company, isn't sourced to any media coverage about him in that role. The sourcing here isn't substantive enough to get him over WP:GNG -- two of the three references are to paid death notices in the classifieds, of the type that every person who exists at all gets regardless of their encyclopedic notability or lack thereof, and the third is a biographical sketch on the website of the organization that holds his personal papers, which is thus effectively a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. None of this is enough to demonstrate that he had the notability necessary to earn an encyclopedia article. Bearcat (talk) 19:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 20:52, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 20:52, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 20:52, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article has its faults, all of which appear to be omissions, but Pillsbury undoubtedly was notable. In addition to heading an insurance company, he headed two trade associations, was chair of the Minnesota Orchestra and active in the building of Orchestra Hall, trustee or director of other organizations, and won sailing awards. [27], [28].

None of what you just said constitutes an automatic notability freebie in the absence of proper reliable source coverage about him to support it. And of the two links you provided at the end of your comment, one of them is a paid death notice that's already in the article and has already been addressed in my nomination statement, and the other is a Google Groups posting (which is not a reliable source, as Google Groups content is user-generated and can misrepresent the publication details or the content of a source.) Bearcat (talk) 23:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Will this transcription of the Pioneer Press obituary suffice? It was not a paid notice; the author was a reporter with the St. Paul Pioneer Press. Kablammo (talk) 18:25, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another user has now confirmed that the article appeared in the Pioneer Press on March 30, 2005. See, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Minnesota#Pioneer Press Archives. I will edit the article accordingly. Kablammo (talk) 21:34, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article now has four independent reliable sources. One is a news article authored by a reporter with the largest newspaper in St. Paul, Minnesota (and second largest in the state). The article appeared in the B (local news) section of the paper shortly after Pillsbury's death. Another source is the Minnesota Historical Society, a highly-regarded and well-staffed state-chartered organization which is active in all facets of Minnesota history, with a central museum and document repository and dozens of staffed historic sites around the state. It sponsors exhibits and programs, publishes a magazine and books, and has its own wiki-- with vetted content authored by identified and qualified authors. Its publications have been relied on in numerous Wikipedia articles, at least two of which are featured. It is incongruous for Wikipedia-- itself but a website hosting articles written in many cases by amateurs-- to dismiss the MHS as unreliable.

I have rewritten the article, removing sources which were derived from paid obituaries, and adding other sources. Kablammo (talk) 22:23, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my standards for lawyers' articles. In addition to running for a major office, the subject was president of a major company, and served on several civic boards and committees: chairing the boards of the Minnesota community chest and a major orchestra, and serving on several important civic boards. He was also a partner in an AMlAw 100 law firm. Bearian (talk) 21:09, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here is a source available from WP:BEFORE D1, that also draws attention to the fact that "J.S. Pillsbury, Jr." is an alternate search term for the topic:

Wallace Clement (1977). Continental corporate power: economic elite linkages between Canada and the United States. McClelland and Stewart. ISBN 978-0-7710-2150-3. Retrieved 2016-10-06. J.S. Pillsbury, Jr., began his career with the family firm, becoming chairman of Northwestern National Life while retaining a directorship in Pillsbury and is now also a director of Northwestern Bancorp and Boise Cascade Corporation.</ref>

Unscintillating (talk) 01:20, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis Nomination states (emphasis in original), "two of the three references are to paid death notices in the classifieds, of the type that every person who exists at all gets regardless of their encyclopedic notability or lack thereof..." One of those two appears to be from the Rome News Tribune dated Mar 31, 2005, ref. This same article appears in the Washington Post, one of the most famous newspapers in the U.S, on Mar 30, 2005 ref, where the material is marked as copyright by the Associated Press. According to our article, "Cutbacks at rival United Press International in 1993 left the AP as the United States' primary news service..." I see no evidence that either the AP or the Washington Post or Rome News Tribune was paid for this article. Unscintillating (talk) 01:20, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Analysis Nomination states, "...the third [reference in the article at the time of nomination] is a biographical sketch on the website of the organization that holds his personal papers, which is thus effectively a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE." An inspection of the material shows that it is copyright "(C) 2015 MHS". There is no evidence that this material is anything other than secondary material. As secondary material it is effectively secondary material. Unscintillating (talk) 01:20, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The source is an archival organization which directly holds a fonds of his personal papers because those papers were donated to it. That makes it an affiliated source, which makes it a primary source. It's not exempt from being a primary source just because he didn't personally publish the "inventory of this fonds" page himself — it's still an inventory of primary source documents which were directly donated to the organization by him or his estate. Bearcat (talk) 21:24, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat, I still am not following your argument. The biographical note published by the Minnesota Historical Society is the Society's biography of Mr. Pillsbury. The note itself is not a mere inventory (and even if it were, the MHS is both a secondary source and reliable). MHS is not only a depository of primary source documents; it has those, and much more. It has a complete editorial staff (including factchecking) and is publisher of 450 books in print in the Society's three imprints. Eric Morse, who write on the Canadian fur trade, has thanked the MHS for its work in his field, and I have used its sources for probably a dozen articles, including a featured article.

The MHS is an independent, secondary, and reliable source. Kablammo (talk) 23:39, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The MHS's page about Pillsbury is a catalog of an archival fonds of primary source documents donated to the MHS by Pillsbury or his family. The MHS may be a valid source in some other contexts, but it's a primary source in this context — not because of what the organization is, but because of what the page is. Bearcat (talk) 02:14, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The biography was contributed by the MHS, an independent and reliable party. The fact that the MHS also keeps his records is not relevant. Even if it were, the source would still be reliable-- the Society's characterization of those records would still be writings of an independent third party. The MHS did not generate those stored documents. Kablammo (talk) 00:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis Nomination states, "The sourcing here isn't substantive enough to get him over WP:GNG..." This is an assertion that notability has content requirements, but notability has no content requirements except for a special case involving lists. As per the WP:N nutshell, "The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article." Unscintillating (talk) 01:20, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, your position is that anybody can get into Wikipedia just by asserting that any particular thing they did was noteworthy in and of itself, without having to adequately source their notability per the demands of WP:GNG? Bearcat (talk) 21:24, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm saying that our WP:N guideline says that Wikipedia notability is defined outside of Wikipedia. Unscintillating (talk) 22:47, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and reliable source coverage which satisfies WP:GNG, in the context of something that counts as a notability claim, is how one shows whether notability has been "defined outside of Wikipedia" or not. So what you're saying is not in contradiction with what I said. Bearcat (talk) 02:14, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I saw is the inference that looking in the article was a sufficient test to determine that the topic failed wp:notability. Since notability has no content requirements, looking in the article may tell if the topic is notable, but it doesn't help in determining an absence of notability. Maybe WP:BEFORE D3 explains it better, "If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination." Unscintillating (talk) 22:42, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis Nomination states, "None of this is enough to demonstrate that he had the notability necessary to earn an encyclopedia article." It is a truism that "X is not enough to demonstrate that the topic had the notability necessary to earn an encyclopedia article." as notability is not earned. Unscintillating (talk) 01:20, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He was president of an insurance company that hired a famous architect to build its office building, had relations to people in the food industry, and lost in a primary election. None of this is notable, and the obituaries are not enough to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:42, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 19:55, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We see in, "Katharine Clark to be June Bride; her Marriage to John Sargent Pillsbury Jr, to Take Place in St. James's Church. New York Times, May 23, 1936.", that this Minnesotoan's marriage at age 24 was considered news in New York. We have evidence stretching from 1936 through to a book published in 2011. Obviously Wikipedia notable. Unscintillating (talk) 23:51, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To whatever limited to non-existent extent that a mere wedding announcement on the social pages could actually count as WP:GNG-conferring coverage in and of itself, the fact is that Katharine Clark, not John Pillsbury, is the primary subject of that headline. Her parents lived in New York City at the time, according to the wedding announcement, and thus her wedding announcement would have appeared in a New York City newspaper regardless of the notability or non-notability of whatever random dude she was marrying — it exists because her, not because him. Wedding announcements fall under WP:ROUTINE, so a wedding announcement does not speak to GNG just because it's in The New York Times. Bearcat (talk) 02:26, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide the link that shows this announcement. Unscintillating (talk) 13:15, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ROUTINE is for event notability such as the Balloon Boy, and even for events doesn't change how to interpret WP:GNG. Unscintillating (talk) 13:15, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ROUTINE explicitly includes wedding announcements in its examples of coverage that doesn't assist GNG. Bearcat (talk) 15:54, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the reference, and I'd have to look at the edit history and maybe the talk page to understand why the exact words "wedding announcements" are listed. But I can say that the context shows no coupling to WP:GNG.
The page itself is concerned with event notability, such as Balloon Boy. The specific paragraph you've identified refers us to WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, the specific name of which was a part of policy I helped to codify. We are not using this topic, the Pillsbury topic, to announce a wedding in 1936. We are not violating WP:NOTNEWSPAPER.
The paragraph itself says that such material may be useful in non-event topics, "Routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc. may be better covered as part of another article, if at all." The other side of this is that, as I said before, WP:GNG has no restrictions for "routine" coverage. Unscintillating (talk) 17:02, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's saying that a published wedding announcement cannot be used for supplementary verification of the wedding and the name of the subject's spouse and other biographical details after the topic has already cleared GNG on other sources. But if you're evaluating the basic question of whether the subject has enough coverage to pass GNG in the first place, a published wedding announcement does not count as a data point in and of itself toward tipping the scale into "yes". Bearcat (talk) 14:51, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The policy term is "significant coverage", not "data point". As "significant coverage", this headline contributes to WP:GNG notability. From WP:GNG, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Unscintillating (talk) 23:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And just when I went ahead and characterized "John Kerry wasn't elected either" as the most impressive feat of completely missing the point that I'd seen on Wikipedia in the 2010s, you had to go and top it almost immediately. One evaluates whether GNG is met or not by counting the number of references that qualify toward the meeting of GNG, so a reference can quite validly be called a "data point" without needing the phrase "data point" to be specifically reflected in the exact wording of GNG itself — we are not restricted to arguing solely on the basis of the exact literal wording of a policy statement, but are permitted to use alternate words to make the same points. The point remains, a wedding announcement does not count toward the meeting of GNG: anybody can place a wedding announcement in the wedding announcements section of any newspaper by paying for the announcement. So a wedding announcement is not GNG-conferring coverage just because it can technically be called "substantive"; a wedding announcement is not GNG-conferring coverage just because it appears in The New York Times, when the bride's parents lived in New York City and therefore would be expected to place their daughter's wedding announcement there; a wedding announcement is not GNG-conferring coverage just because the bride and groom are technically named in its headline. A wedding announcement simply is not GNG-conferring coverage, period. Bearcat (talk) 21:15, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've quoted from the guideline, and your analysis has not identified errors in my analysis, so my statement stands.
Yes, if it was paid, that would change my opinion...was it? You've said that it was on the "social pages", and another editor called it a "news article".
As to the idea of using counting of entire references to assess GNG, the general rule is "two good references", but it is theoretically accepted that 50 or 100 references each with minimal significant coverage must also be considered.
No, "confer" means "bestow", and notability is not bestowed, so saying that "X does not bestow notability" is always a true statement, or a truism.
I believe that the point remains that WP:ROUTINE does not define GNG, and only becomes a factor to raise the bar when GNG is met and the topic is an event. Unscintillating (talk) 00:48, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again with the trivial semantic quibbles? Whether notability is "conferred" or "demonstrated" by the sources is immaterial to the substance of the matter. And some people who are desperate to get their pet topic into Wikipedia will call anything a "news article", including press releases and entertainment event calendars and brief blurbs, so long as it happened to get printed by a newspaper — I've even seen people try to claim that newspaper advertisements satisfied GNG because newspaper (which they don't).

But given the fact that the only version of that source anybody in this discussion can actually see is a garbled no-text abstract behind a paywall in the NYT archives, we have to evaluate it based on the content of the headline itself — and we know that (a) the headline is primarily about the bride, and (b) "local girl gets married" is not a thing newspapers assign their newswriters to write journalism about, but a thing that got published on the social pages in that era and is typically relegated to the "life events" section of the classifieds alongside birth and death notices today.

Plus I was able to find a very similar "article" about Katharine Clark marrying John Pillsbury in the New York Sun archives on Google News, which was (a) dated just one day earlier than the NYT article listed here, (b) very plainly in the "weddings and deaths" pages rather than the news pages, and not bylined by an NYS journalist, and thus very plainly a paid wedding announcement, and (c) very definitely not substantial or GNG-demonstrating.

And again, "non-famous local girl to marry" is not a thing newspapers print in their GNGable sections; it's a thing they print on their "weddings and births and deaths" page. This is a known fact about how newspapers work. So the source in question is not "real GNG-eligible news article until proven otherwise"; it's "non-GNGable paid wedding announcement, quite possibly even the exact same announcement I showed above from the New York Sun, until proven otherwise", because that is, and always has been, how newspapers "cover" the weddings of non-famous daughters of local residents. Bearcat (talk) 02:10, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The location in the headline as argued would change the amount of attention given to the topic. I suppose you could say in WP:GNG terms that the depth is less for an out-of-town spouse. I'm basing this on the headline, as I've not seen the announcement. But this argument doesn't change the existence of non-trivial coverage that goes to WP:GNG, just the depth of coverage. Unscintillating (talk) 13:15, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk→ Be a guest 09:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing administrator: The nomination has been relisted twice. Many of the new comments on this nomination page continue existing discussions started before relisting, rather than being added below the relisting notice(s).

Continuing the discussion just above: The New York Times has multiple news on John S. Pillsbury, Jr.:

news article on wedding; (1936) (garbled link; clearer in NY Times search tool) This article has been obtained and cited. Kablammo (talk) 20:19, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
appointment to the board of Northwest Bancorporation (now Wells Fargo (1963)
election as chair of Life Insurance Association; (1966) This article has been obtained and cited. Kablammo (talk) 20:19, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
election as chair of North Atlantic Life; (1967) This article has been obtained and cited. Kablammo (talk) 20:19, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The text of all of these is hidden behind a paywall. Kablammo (talk) 17:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have obtained and cited three of these four articles. Kablammo (talk) 20:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep Historical bios such as these are often lacking in online sources. I'm willing to WP:AGF that offline sources exist and it's simply an editing issue. Articles such as this are one of the reasons Wikipedia exists.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Summation This article was proposed for deletion one month ago. It was relisted three times, the most recent one week ago.

When nominated, this article had 85 words with three sources, two of them independent and reliable. It now has 1124 words and twenty sources.

Four readers have voted "Keep", while two voted to "Delete".

It is time to close this AfD as Keep. Kablammo (talk) 16:19, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a historical biography which is reasonably well sourced at this point. There's a touch of WP:MEMORIAL going on, but it's not overwhelming. The article presents a picture of civic involvement and I believe this is sufficient for notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:31, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The name of the article can be further discussed on the article talk page. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for my country[edit]

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

POVFORK. No indication this speech is more notable than others. The "title" is apparently an invention of the article's author. Written entirely non-neutrally, with "commentary" presenting Duterte's claims as facts in Wikipedia's voice. Names public figures as being drug offenders. zzz (talk) 19:05, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not significant enough to justify a seperate article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:10, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:37, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:37, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article passes the WP:GNG as the speech received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as Rappler, Philippine Daily Inquirer, The Philippine Star, Forbes, Manila Bulletin, etc. They're all cited in the article. The title could be renamed tho but the specific line in the speech was specifically highlighted in the Rappler source.1.--RioHondo (talk) 13:08, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NOTE. The speech, including the 'narco-list', have been covered in many reliable sources, like User:RioHondo stated, it has received "news followup", and that the source coverage is "in-depth". ~Manila's Poging Juan 15:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This speech received less media coverage than many others by the same individual - see Rodrigo Duterte and Philippine Drug War - hence the lack of an appropriate title. The top Google search results for "Duterte narco-list" refer to a different speech. The article fails WP:GNG per WP:What Wikipedia is not, specifically WP:NOTADVOCATE #1. zzz (talk) 00:25, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think having "less coverage" than other topics is a criteria under WP:GNG. It simply says the topic has to have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Whether it is "less significant" than other popular articles is never a basis for Notability. Thats your personal POV. And a speech by any country's President having this amount of coverage, both from within and outside the country, is certainly notable, whether you agree with the state leader's speech or not. See WP:IDONTLIKEIT.--RioHondo (talk) 01:45, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as what RioHondo stated, this article recieved multiple credible sources from local news websites. - Supergabbyshoe
Comment - At the very least, I hope we can agree on a better title than Rodrigo Duterte speech during a wake visit to killed-in-action NavForEastMin soldiers, August 2016. GAB^gab 16:25, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The replacement title again demonstrates the level of notability. If a Donald Trump supporter wrote a pro-Trump article about a speech at one of his rallies or press conferences, it would quickly be deleted. This is no different. In both cases, their speeches frequently get reported in "multiple credible sources". zzz (talk) 04:32, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But we have based it on Obama's ones (Barack Obama speech to joint session of Congress, September 2009, Barack Obama speech to joint session of Congress, February 2009) and has no bias on it, as Duterte made the speech on a wake visit to NavForEastMin soldiers with the date when it was delivered. And second, what do you mean of notability? As far as I know in Wikipedia, notability means when it is/was covered by several reliable news sources, the topic has received follow-up, and it received reactions from low-time people up to high-time ones. Wait! There is something lacking to the article. To make it more notable, especially to User:Signedzzz, we can put in the "Reactions" section that these people identified by the President denies any involvement in drugs^[1]^[2] and other sources I can't tag because of busy school works and other news follow-ups regarding the after-shock of the speech. ~Manila's Poging Juan 07:20, 16 October 2016 (UTC) PS: As I've said, I'm currently busy of school works, due to the incoming semestral break and second quarter exams that I can't contribute much now including the sources I've tagged, so please can someone make a contribution out of it. Regards![reply]

And wait! You compare Trump's speech to Duterte's ones, like someone anti- who keeps comparing Trump to Duterte? And excuses, what makes this article a pro- one? By the way, this one has a sense, especially he is "too much", in my opinion, focusing on Oplan Tokhang like there are no other problems in our country, unlike Trump's ones that is currently busy of his "sexism", "racism", and "ass here, ass there" (that is what media always highlight). Your latest comment, User:Signedzzz, is, therefore, debunked. ~Manila's Poging Juan 07:31, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And to User:GeneralizationsAreBad, the new title is based on gov.ph (Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines), which is the official site of the Executive Government of the Philippines, where Duterte, the head of state, is also the head of this government. While we can suggest better title as you have said, I also suggest "Rodrigo Duterte speech naming alleged drug personalities, August 2016", as it was the focus of the speech, as reported by reliable sources, the media. ~Manila's Poging Juan 07:45, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://cnnphilippines.com/news/2016/08/07/Alleged-narco-politicians-narco-politics-deny-involvement-illegal-drug-trade-duterte.html
^ http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/805946/dutertes-drug-war-draws-varied-reactions-mainly-shock

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not recommended article title
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk→ Be a guest 09:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the multiple sources prove the notability of the topic. But if it is just an article title dispute, you are free to start a WP:RM discussion. Anyway, Trump is just a presidential candidate, this is a speech by a head of state so its a weak comparison. Thanks for the link to Wikisource though PogingJuan, although normally we dont move the article while discussions are ongoing. If we go by WP:COMMONNAME, I would agree with your alternative title, based on sources cited in the article.--RioHondo (talk) 13:28, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article passes WP:GNG. N. GASIETA|talk 06:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article passes WP:GNG. I also suggest to rename it base on what the government use as title of the speech. Nickrds09 ^{(Talk to me)} 07:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The current title is actually based on the published speech of Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines, which is President Rodrigo Roa Duterte’s Speech During a Wake Visit To Killed-In-Action Soldiers. ~Manila's Poging Juan 16:11, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But I believe that there is 'another' fitting and proper title for this article. ~Manila's Poging Juan 16:13, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: moved to new log Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk 11:18, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk 11:18, 21 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. Another very large wall of text again proving that there is great disagreement about how to treat this articles and whether certain sources meet the requirements of reliability and verifiability. As with other AfDs of this type, there is no consensus to delete this at the moment. Black Kite (talk) 08:24, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kissmetrics[edit]

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

Instead of PRODing, which may actually be driveby-removed, I'll simply nominate and say: the first source is boldly entirely PR, see "“I was born with the gift to drive traffic to websites,” is how the young and amazingly energetic serial entrepreneur, Neil Patel, starts our interview...." and that same article goes to state, not only the specifics of interviews but of the fluffed-puffed achievements there is to advertise about both the company and him. The VentureBeat article not only states the funding part but then adds paragraphs about what the company is and its services along with how it works; that is notoriously used for PR and PR alone. The next TechCrunch article boldly contain words only found at sales pitches, which are messages targeted at the clients by stating words that get their attention, such as "Kissmetrics wants to boost you!"....No honest "journalism" adds that, ever; the second TechCrunch is essentially also the same; simply by "adding a journalist" is not stating that the company was completely uninvolved, certainly not, it's actually stating the contrary, the company was involved but is wanting to be surreptitious about it. The next one, MediaPost, then again contains only PR-based speak, nothing an actual journalism-article would contain, since this exact article goes to specifics about the background; sure, there's a lawsuit stated but that's still not taking away how it's not actual substantial news. The next one, which also states information about the lawsuits, is thin, and is still not convincing. Whether it was intended or not, it could actually be said these links were put to the end to perhaps counteract the PR-based information with hopes of adding "neutrality". Essentially what this company's business and environment is: having PR-based or still otherwise PR-like or then simply unconvincing coverage altogether. I'll note that I have looked at this author's contributions and they hint at the work of a PR agent, because the exact links here were easily found with searches, searches that also found other trivial coverage, all that is still entirely unconvincing since it's only about expected company activities; some of it is timed apart suggesting there was no consistency. SwisterTwister talk 17:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These books from an academic publisher have significant coverage of Kissmetrics. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:19, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are ... not great book sources. (The former I am familiar with because the book and author articles in Wikipedia were paid promotional pieces that needed severe culling and is only kept for an appearance on one of the minor NYT lists, the latter is a very minor "for Dummies" book.) - David Gerard (talk) 07:56, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you doubt the reliability or the independence of those sources? Or that they have significant coverage of Kissmetrics? Your comment seems to be about the notability of the books, which doesn't have any relevance to the notability of the subject. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:59, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt they establish notability for the purpose of having a Wikipedia article - David Gerard (talk) 19:27, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, which of the requirements of "significant coverage", "independent" and "reliable" do you believe that these sources don't meet? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:06, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:05, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:05, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've heard of them lots, they may well be notable ... but even if they were, this article presently warrants WP:TNT. Perhaps there are non-rubbish sources an article can be constructed from, possibly a very short one ... - David Gerard (talk) 07:56, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An article can be blown up and started again without an admin having to press the "delete" button first. Just use the "edit" tab. WP:TNT is a highly-disputed essay based on a personal opinion that has no basis in Wikipedia policy or guidelines. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:59, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, there's probably a reason WP:TNT is as widely cited as it is - David Gerard (talk) 19:27, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And there is a reason why it is widely ignored by admins closing deletion discussions. What makes you think that can't simply edit an article to blow it up and start again rather than have it deleted first? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:06, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible that badgering people who disagree with you will turn out to be less than convincing - David Gerard (talk) 20:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not badgering, but attempting to conduct a discussion. How about answering my questions rather than complaining that I'm asking them? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:14, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't view this sub-thread above as "badgering" by 86.17.222.157; it reads to me like they're simply stating their opinion regarding matters. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:57, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because what pushes this company over the notability threshhold is the 2011/2012 controversy[29][30][31] regarding the "Cunning Online Tracking Service That Can’t Be Dodged" (to quote a Wired.com headline) Add in the other existing rs coverage about the company, and it is a keep. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 18:03, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator - That's essentially being the one thing about the company that is in fact nor PR, everything else is in fact said PR; the fact my analysis and comment have show this where there's blatant and bold "the company wants to show and say for its clients"; that would be an unbalanced article by having one thing NPOV of a law case, and then everything else PR, considering the only other coverage aside from that is in and of itself ("existing coverage" is in fact the exact same PR I have listed here above). When Wikipedia starts accepting advertisements, no matter what the supposed exceptions may be, that's when this is no longer the encyclopedia once conceived. SwisterTwister talk 19:51, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And do you consider that the two books published by John Wiley & Sons that I cited above to be PR? If so, why? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:59, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH per a review of available sources. Source examples include, but are not limited to those listed below. Also, for starters, the book sources are certainly not "pr", a simple, two-letter acronym that is often used much too liberally to dismiss entire swaths of sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:28, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

The Lean Entrepreneur. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 23-24.
Social Media Metrics For Dummies. John Wiley & Sons. pp. pt198-200.
"Researchers Expose Cunning Online Tracking Service that Can't be Dodged". Wired.
"Online Analytics Firm Settles Suit Over Unstoppable User Tracking". Wired.
"KISSmetrics Looks To Turn Your Customer Data Into An Interactive Infographic". TechCrunch.
"AOL, Spotify, GigaOm, Etsy, KISSmetrics sued over undeletable tracking cookies". ExtremeTech.
"KISSmetrics moves from analysis to execution with Engage, a new conversion optimization tool". VentureBeat.
"KISSmetrics: A Conversion Funnel Tool That Gives Your Site A Memory". TechCrunch.

Comment and analysis - Not only have I included these sources above, but I have listed the concerns about them; as for the others, I will say that the last TechCrunch article listed is clearly a sales pitch alone, in that it says "KISSmetrics: A Conersion Funnel Tool That Gives Your A Memory", no honest journalist would say that unless they were persuaded as part of an advertising campaign, the article then goes to say "what your clients need", what the company is and its financial background, to then actually "how does KissMetrics differ" which is followed the company founder's words. No journalism efforts ever come from simply allowing the company itself to not only blatantly supply the information, but to use it as a "news" form, when it clearly is only being listed to fluff and puff the company's gains and activities. This same source then says "The service is free for the first thirty days, then offers tiered monthly pricing plans based on how many events you’ll be tracking. These plans begin at $149 a month and go up to $699, with custom plans for especially large sites" which is followed by the people involved; that is also not close at all to actual news because only the company would have knowledge and access to those activities, so who best to list it than the company itself = not news. The next one "KISSmetrics moves from analysis to execution with Engage, a new conversion optimization tool" not only also has a sales-pitch-like tone but it goes to "Since the word “metrics” is in the company name, it’s not a shock that KISSmetrics has been all about analysis....ISSmetrics is unveiling a new product, and in some sense, a new identity. The company is launching Engage, a conversion rate optimization solution that is focused on taking traffic to your website and turning it into dollars. Engage will join the company’s existing product, which is now called Analyze....install Engage on your site and you gain the power....KISSmetrics is a popular solution....Notable customers include...", everything from that listed information is clearcut PR in that it not only advertises what the business is and its information, but it goes to list not only its clients but then finishing with sentences about the company's plans = Not independent nor news. The next article is the only one closest to actually seeming independent and non-PR in that it actually talks about a law case, but any company is nearly always going to have something like that, it's not an automatic inheritance of news or notability, as closed AfDs have shown. Next, as for the Wired, I specifically mentioned this one and its concerns, so it's simply repeated without actually acknowledging or considerations. Once again, my analysis, concerns and examinations here have explicitly stated why these sources are unconvincing and how they are not "significant or substantial". SwisterTwister talk 22:55, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Once again you are ignoring the two books published by John Wiley & Sons. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 09:31, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because those are essentially still only guides, not the larger amount of coverage needed; even then with my examinations listing these as "still thin", the concerns of PR outweigh any other possibly good sources here; and PR should and is a serious concern. SwisterTwister talk 16:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are not "essentially still only guides", whatever you mean by that, but independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject, so enough to substantiate notability. It doesn't matter if there are thousands of other mentions of the subject found by web searches that are PR - we should simply ignore those and concentrate on the sources that are not PR. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:05, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per sourcing listed above by NorthAmerica, this company meets WP:GNG. Safehaven86 (talk) 17:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Simply saying Keep and not actually acknowledging and considering the massive concerns listed above, including listing and examining each and every article, is not the same thing as actually saying "it's sourcing". There's no "significant, substantial, notability, etc" or WP:GNG if the sources alone are PR and simply republish company-supplied company about said company itself. I have explicitly even noted such blatant PR such as "Here's what Kissmetrics has to offer" and "What Kissmetrics services are! Here's the clients that have used Kissmetrics!" (all sales pitches and that alone), therefore none of that is "substantial, significant, notability, independent, etc." or "WP:GNG coverage". Also, simply tossing comments aside from as "not considering swaths of sources", this means nothing if, again, the sources themselves, the contents that is, are unconvincing and PR, that is what is unacceptable (regardless of the names and numbers of sources). As always, we cannot alone simply that it's supposedly acceptable simply because a known news source publishes it, because that's exactly what churnalism is and that's what companies use as methods of self-advertising. SwisterTwister talk 19:19, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sources are pure PR, I agree with the nom 100% --Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 19:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide any evidence that "the sources are pure PR", and does this !vote take into consideration the sources I provided above, or only those in the article? The sources I provided above are book sources published by John Wiley & Sons and bylined news articles written by staff writers that have been published in independent, reliable sources, and serve to qualify that WP:CORPDEPTH is met. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep per my comments above. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:05, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This comment above says they confirm their earlier statements and claim "it doesn't matter if there's PR if there's sourcing", yet I have explicitly stated what was exactly PR. Simply still stating that "there's still sourcing" is hardly an acknowledgement or consideration of what I said above, as is the same with "per my comments above". SwisterTwister talk 19:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, for at least the third time of asking, please explain why this book and this one don't amount to significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Please address those specific sources rather than continue to repeat the generalisations that you have made so far. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is written in the article "Kissmetrics provides visualization tools on how users interact with their site, web apps, and mobile products. It collects and shows customers acquisition data for each user." This is blatantly promotional language. As for its references, a bunch of them are blog entries, as well as an regulatory source. In addition, im not impressed by the Tech Crunch article since it posted the piece as if it is a bait article for you to use. The only "notable" one is the FORBES article, which is weak in itself. This article should be deleted. This isn't a future calling card. Pyrusca (talk) 19:26, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask you to answer the same question that I asked SwisterTwister above. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:05, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, note that per WP:NEXIST, topic notability is not based upon the state of sourcing within articles, it's based upon all available sources. Notice that I have provided many sources above that are not present in the article, which serve to establish the company's notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:24, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This assumes the existence of these sources. We can't just assume them - David Gerard (talk) 09:40, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note the sources I provided above in my !vote; many of them are not in the article. The delete !vote above comes across as only being based upon sources in the article, such as "As for its references, a bunch of them are blog entries, as well as an regulatory source" and "the only "notable" one is the FORBES article..." Of note is that I did not include the Forbes source in my analysis of notability above. See also: WP:ARTN. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:05, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commment - Considering WP:PROMO, advertising contents and its PR advertising sources cannot be fixed, and this is shown by my extensive analysis above, because once we start accepting advertisements with such churnalistic and company-enhanced sources, we're damned as an encyclopedia. For the sake of keeping the encyclopedia at its best and removing such advertisements, this is what is important, regardless of notability, because even with a notable article, if that were to happen, we would have accepted an advertisement, something that we have staunchly and largely attempted to not let happen. SwisterTwister talk 05:08, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as clearly meeting WP:CORPDEPTH. Saying a source is a PR does not make it so, the same with saying journalists are not honest or have a conflict of interest, these judgments should be demonstrated in order to be taken into a minimal account. And even dismissing some weaker sources such as the VentureBeat and TechCrunch articles, the concerns about the two John Wiley & Sons books and the MediaPost and Wired articles are particularly weak and very unlikely, if not odd (I never heard that a book being a bestseller means it being unreliable, nor I have never seen press releases opening about lawsuits against the companies they should promote). There is enough news and book coverage [32], particularly in The Lean Entrepreneur: How Visionaries Create Products, Innovate with New Ventures, and Disrupt Markets by Brant Cooper and Patrick Vlaskovits, to have a neutral and accurate article. Cavarrone 10:38, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Indeed, assertions of the available sources all automatically somehow being "pr" as a default should be backed up with objective evidence for such claims, rather than by proof by assertion alone. For example, the sources I have posted above are not press releases, as evidenced in part by utilizing Google searches using the titles of these article, in which links are only present for these articles themselves, as opposed to press releases, which typically have the same article hosted on many various websites. As such, the sources I have provided objectively serve to qualify the topic's notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - It's pretty much agreed by everyone that the present article, as of when I am typing this, looks pretty bad. That it needs severe clean-up isn't really, though, that solid of an argument for deletion. Should this get kept, it would be a simple matter to edit things and put them in much better language. As far as sourcing goes, I believe that it's true that some of the cited links have problems. What TechCrunch in particular has published is intensely promotional. I do, however, think that the two book citations, the reporting from Wired, and the rest give a reasonable sense of notability, even if I'm not too sure. I lean towards keeping the article. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 12:23, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep had a quick look at the sources and they strike me as reliable. Pwolit iets (talk) 14:52, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which ones? The ones where I have clearly stated they were either PR or PR-focused? Simply stating that some sources are acceptable is not the same thing as analyzing and acknowledging them. SwisterTwister talk 16:41, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the ones Pwolit iets mentioned as reliable, and that you were unable to dismiss. Cavarrone 18:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thinly stating that the sources seem enough is not at all actually the same thing as analyzing them, as theu have been above. Despite that people are listing Keep, there is then cknsensus, considerably, no one actually confidently wants this kept as they themselves acknowledge the concerns. What PR is....is PR, simply suggesting that it may not be intended as PR carry no weight or bearing as actually analyzing them, as they have been above. Then the claims of "but the PR concerns are not stated" is completely unconvincing since they are above in the nomination and following comments themselces, therefore, simply stating this is not substantiated; includibg to not even acknowledge their own listed PR sources, which again, affects the foundation of simply suggesting Keep but not actually substantiating it. Once we start compromising ourselves to accept PR and an article that was clearly only started for PR, we are damned as an encyclopedia. SwisterTwister talk 16:39, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating the same concept dozens of times does not make it true, or more convincing. Eventually, even heavily retouched press releases are not difficult to be identified as such. In spite of walls of text of "analysis", none of the provived sources has been demonstrated to be a press release. The funny thing, even negative journalistic pieces have been marked as PR, which is one of the oddest thing I happened to read in an AfD. Provide EVIDENCES of sources being press releases or stop this annoying singsong. --Cavarrone 18:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- - Once again, personal attacks never help, and I will state again my commentd above explicitly stated the PR parts from the listed sources. Also, there has never been commentd at AfD suggesting negative criticisms of companies was PR, unless it was still largely PR itself. My comments themselces have even stated how, why and where sources can be PR.SwisterTwister talk 18:24, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - ...and as I analyzed in my comment, your arguments in dismissing some sources (eg. the book sources, or the MediaPost and Wired articles) were weak and unconvincing (I have ever seen press releases opening about lawsuits against the companies they should promote). And you yourself now say that such "sources CAN be press releases", which is hardly an evidence of whatsoever. As you said, a PR is a PR, and as long your only argument is that the sources are all press releases, the burden of proof is on you. Cavarrone 18:45, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator - These latest Keep votes are, I want emphasize, are simply either stating "per user" or not actually substantiating themselves after analyses have bee listed, and they have not since, post-analyses, actually showed convincing sources, including ones that I have, as it is, listed are unconvincing such as mere company activities and "news" about this. A Keep vote, especially having been posted after such analyses is not carrying the same weight and bearing, if they not only actually listen to the concerns shown and stated above, but to actually then search for suitable coverage, which in this case, is non-existent because the company is simply searching for any and every PR opportunity, even the Delete votes above acknowledged these concerns, yet no one has actually kept to mind what the said either.... It is a fact that the Keep votes here never listed any acknowledgement of seeing the concerns themselves and instead, were simply listing other unconvincing sources, including PR news for trivial and unconvincing company activities, but then also tossing the analyses aside as "not looking or understanding the sources". Therefore no one can seriously take these Keep votes, especially considering the IDONTHEARTHAT and badgering that followed, but if the Keep votes are not even actually listening to the concerns, instead simply stating what they themselves believe, and not what Wikipedia should in fact believe itself. It is a fact that we are damned as an encyclopedia when we start kidding ourselves by accepting PR advertising articles, because that's exactly why these PR campaign articles start, to game the system and attempt, at any and all costs, to accept an advertisement. Nothing whatsoever can persuade us to think otherwise, even if the company were ever notable, because the important thing is to not accept advertising articles whatsoever, accepting an advertisement, even if it were ever notable, would be a damning action, hence because we would have accepted advertising. SwisterTwister talk 18:41, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This summary is utterly inaccurate. None of the last comments is a "per user" vote, and on the contrary they clearly indicated several sources which appear reliable and which you have failed and still fail to dismiss. As long as you are repeating yourself again and again, I'll repeat myself too: provide EVIDENCES of sources being press releases or stop this annoying singsong. I see only one WP:IDONTHEARTHAT here. Cavarrone 18:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Every single Keep comment in fact supported the other Keep votes, including the latest ones above. There is nothing new to actually analyze here because no one has in fact added any actual new sources to examine. There is no burden for anyone but the people want to want to Keep the article and with that, list some actually convincing sources, because I certainly added enough in my nomination, stating the concerns, but no one has actually addressed or fixed them, instead simply ignoring the concerns and then stating their own beliefs. I once again have explicitly stated including the portions of contents from said sources, showing what the PR concerns were and why they existed, so for anyone to continue saying otherwise or making personal attacks is completely unacceptable. As for the MediaPost and Wired, I especially included the concerning parts of information that led and showed why those sources were not convincing, so it cannot be said I never examined them, because I explicitly put so above. After my last large analysis of the sources, no one ever at all listed any actual sources, and instead, simply voted Keep citing the same said sources above, which despite, were then analyzed largely and closely, along with the other ones listed. To state again, this AfD clearly shows the latest votes being "per sourcing listed above..." (1) and "per my comments above" (2), despite these were added after my analysis, so these comments either intentionally chose to ignore the analysis that was posted after the listed "supposed sources" or saw the concerns, but chose to still list their own beliefs, instead of actually acknowledging the concerns. As for the GoogleBooks link that was recently listed, that clearly contains guides themselves, exactly how I stated above earlier in my analysis, and clearly these said GoogleBooks links contain information that was supplied by the company and for the company itself, therefore that also cannot be guaranteed as PR-free, let alone, company-touched-free. Also, it's unacceptable to say I "dismissed sources" since I have been listing analyses and comments since this AfD began, specifying, again, the concerns each time. It's this type of ignorance of PR that honestly damns Wikipedia because no one cares or actually fully considers the analysis listed, and the subsequent concerns. SwisterTwister talk 19:12, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop digging. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:24, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
86.17.222.157 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) How does your comment have to do with this AfD exactly? It seems quite random. If you wouldn't mind explaining your comment further please do so. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 19:36, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a reference to the law of holes: if you find yourself in an untenable position, you should stop and change what you are doing, rather than carrying on and exacerbating the situation. Just a way to say that repeating yourself again and again does not make your position stronger but weaker. Cavarrone 19:58, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Cavarrone, for explaining exactly what I meant. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:09, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) And after reading this redundant wall of text, I still fail to see how the MediaPost and Wired articles are supposed to be PR. The only vague arguments in your deletion rationale were a so-called "PR-based speak", which looks like just a POV and is rather different from pointing to a specific press release used as the basis for an article, and that "they contain negative material so to appear neutral", which is just something odd and incoherent. And about the books, calling them guides does not affect their reliability, you can even call them hamburgers if you like it, as long as they are reliable independent secondary sources containing significant coverage about the subject they are good. Please stop posting the same stuff again and again if you have anything new to say, your POV is quite clear. Cavarrone 19:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not primarily because of being promotional ,but it is just not notabler. It's a $7 million company-a small business, and if it were anything but a new internet company it would be getting no attention whatsoever. But for this type of firm, there are new sources that give every single acquisition and press release coverage. Let's makedsome analogies: In other fields with very extensive coverage because of promotional reasons, or just because of fan interest, such as wrestling or college foootball in the US, or beauty pageants, or the like, w interpret the sourcing requirements for substantial coverage from third-party independent and reliable sources, not press releases and not mere announcements quite strictly. We could deal with it by adding on special factors, and we do to some extent in the special notability guidelines, but mainly we rely on a very high degree of skepticism on the sources. This should apply to internet companies also for the same reasons--essentially all the coverage is tainted to some degree with promotionalism , and essentially all of it is because of special interest within the industry not shared elsewhere. The sources here have exactly those problems. DGG ( talk ) 22:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When the RSes are clearly running churnalism, I have no problem calling that "promotional" and not considering it reliable sourcing to base an encyclopedia upon. While it's possible to interpret our RS rules such that things that are clearly barely-processed press releases would be treated as A+ first-class carefully-verified information you can absolutely rely upon, that does not mean that doing so is somehow a good idea, and I really don't see that we're obliged to do so - David Gerard (talk) 09:12, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:Agree Meets WP:CORPDEPTH per 1000 rationale above.Mbridge3000 (talk) 17:19, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This comment is, yet, not considering any of the extensive analysis listed above, showing clearly nothing here establishes actual notability, and like with the user's nominated deletion here at AfD, it is not convincing or merely state PR and republished, so that is certainly not substantial, nor will it be. SwisterTwister talk 08:54, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.Just another start-up and no claim to notability apart from raising $7 million, lawsuit and acquisition. These things happen thirteen-a-dozen in the corporate world. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:33, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the only truly reliable and independent source presented is Wired related to the super-cookie lawsuit. But that's not enough to build an article on. The company has been around for a while, so the lack of WP:SIGCOV is a bit surprising, but that only reinforced that the company is not notable. The current article is a WP:DIRECTORY listing and the sources presented would not allow to development beyond that, and Wikipedia is not a directory of marginally notable companies. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:08, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a small non-notable startup. What matters is the quality of references and sorry, but the references here are pretty bad. I see the Wired as one of the better ones, but even that is not enough. The coverage is techcrunch and other tech blogs are routine coverage. Please note, that asserting that techblogs are entirely independent is simply proof by assertion which btw is contradicted by quite a few sources online. As for the book sources, we just don't use any book (just like we don't use any website). The "for dummies" series contains numerous books about every small thing related to software and are essentially like manuals (and the author btw is actually a self declared professional in the same field who advises companies). It is pretty easy to get "content" into books like these. This is not significant coverage. More importantly, there is no credible claim of significance here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:15, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom And here comes the another PR. Nothing to write about this one. Light2021 (talk) 20:34, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources listed by Northamerica1000, which show that it meets WP:CORPDEPTH. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:55, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It actually helps to substantiate one's vote given there has been enormous analysis specifically showing the listed sources are merely PR, either being started for them or actually by the company themselves. There is no CORPDEPTH if coverage is simply about their own words and actions, considering both WP:ADVERTISING and WP:NOT, which is far heavier than "CORPDEPTH". ONce we allow ourselves to be used as a mere PR webhost, we're damned as a serious encyclopedia, because it then shows we can't handle the simplest of advertisements. SwisterTwister talk 02:01, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a !vote doesn't agree with your analysis doesn't mean that it is unsubstantiated or was done without serious consideration. It's entirely possible for people to carefully analyse the sources present in good faith and come to opposite conclusions, as I did in this case after looking at Northamerica1000's sources.

Neutral or positive reporting on a business doesn't mean it's PR and unreliable. If we applied this standard that "if coverage is simply about their own words and actions" then the subject isn't notable to biographies, the result would be absurd and not many biographies would survive. In fact, the fact that a company's PR releases are reworked into articles by media outlets is often an indication that they might be notable, because non-notable companies wouldn't get that treatment. Reporting what reliable sources say about a subject is the entire basis of our notability guideline, and one can't simply dismiss sources out of hand because they are commenting on primary sources.

Of course, subject where the only sources are those that uncritically report on said releases would be problematic, but in this case there are several reliable sources that don't do that: the two books, one of which uses this company as a case study and the various articles about its privacy breaches and the relevant lawsuits. Issues with tone can be solved by editing; I would for example support expanding the sentence on the supercookies lawsuit to at least explain what was alleged to be problematic about their tracking capabilities. --- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 20:01, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"n fact, the fact that a company's PR releases are reworked into articles by media outlets is often an indication that they might be notable, because non-notable companies wouldn't get that treatment." has it backwards. The fact that the news outlets base their articles on such press releases indicates they are not doing independent reporting, but just repeating what pressa gents convince them to include. Not only is such "reporting not a RS for purposes of notability , but it is not even a RS for anything else,because it's just based on the company's own say-so DGG ( talk ) 17:26, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The case study in the 2016 book The Lean Entrepreneur published by John Wiley & Sons provides extensive coverage of the subject.
The Wired and TechCrunch articles provide significant coverage about the subject and are not press releases. They are written by established journalists and published by reputable news organizations. I agree with Cavarrone that "I have never seen press releases opening about lawsuits against the companies they should promote."
Here is another article about the subject that is not mentioned above:
1. Valentino-DeVries, Jennifer (2011-08-22). "'Supercookie' Code Seen on Hundreds of Sites". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2016-10-16. Retrieved 2016-10-16.
  The article notes:
  
  Researchers at the University of California at Berkeley originally found that cookies stored in the browser’s “cache” of previously visited websites could be used to respawn cookies on Hulu’s website. Code responsible for this capability came from a company called Kissmetrics, which analyzes website-traffic data.
  But the Kissmetrics code wasn’t limited to Hulu. Technology researchers Ashkan Soltani, who worked on the original Berkeley study, and Nick Doty analyzed the top 1 million websites and found that 515 of them were using the same Kissmetrics code. The “sole function” of that code was to “set a persistent identifier via the browser cache,” Soltani wrote.
  ...
  The websites containing the code included music service Spotify.com, personal finance site Mint.com, crafts marketplace etsy.com, government site challenge.gov and profiles site about.me.
  ...
  Kissmetrics has said that after the original study, it stopped using these types of cache cookies and will use only regular cookies in the future. The site also has an opt-out available. (Your Digits blogger had a bit of trouble finding it on the Kissmetrics site, but it can be found here or by Googling “Kissmetrics opt out.”)
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Kissmetrics to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 04:32, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above coverage suggests that the event of the Supercookie controversy may be notable (of which I'm not convinced), but that is a one event situation for the company, which is otherwise not notable. Companies are not notable for minor controversies they cause. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk→ Be a guest 09:16, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Simply because 1 case study exists is not a sole basis of notability, and when considering serious concerns such as WP:ADVERTISING and WP:NOT, it can certainly be enough to not count 1 case study as convincing; therefore, the quoted link above actually shows not only trivial information, but then the last 2 sentences literally come from the company itself: "The websites containing the code included [insert named companies and other mentioned businesses here]....'Kissmetrics has said that after the original study, it stopped using these types of cache cookies and will use only regular cookies in the future. The site also has an opt-out available". None of that can be taken seriously as non-PR or a guarantee of the company not supplying its information therefore actually citing this shows the bareness of actual good quality sourcing, and thus not considering any trivial and unconvincing "company quotes" existing. Then, also considering the extensive and noticeable analysis of the Wired and TechCrunch, showing that they are simply advertising and showcasing the company, along with supplied company quotes and interviews, it is not the same thing to then suggest "but it's a source!". We need to be careful about these subjects, which is why they are analyzed so thoroughly, because they always have such obvious PR intentions given the company's plans are exactly this, therefore when considering the WP:ADVERTISING, WP:DEL14 and WP:NOT mentioned earlier, it's certainly enough to delete. SwisterTwister talk 19:28, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: moved to new log Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk 11:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk 11:16, 21 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 Midnight_Club_3:_DUB_Edition#Soundtrack. MBisanz ^talk 23:32, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Midnight Club 3: DUB Edition soundtrack[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS, WP:GNG. Topic lacks significant from reliable secondary sources. Merging content to Midnight Club 3: DUB Edition would be inappropriate per WP:VGSCOPE. The1337gamer (talk) 18:21, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 18:23, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 18:23, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 18:23, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Only nom has discussed in afd
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk→ Be a guest 09:21, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm usually against these sorts of "soundtrack spinouts", but that's usually because there's no sourcing. The IGN source in the article is actually pretty detailed, and actually specifically dedicated to the soundtrack itself. If there's any other sourcing out there, it could actually be one of the few valid ones. That being said, it shouldn't just be a giant track listing either - if no one's going to actually write an article, a redirect could be warranted as well. Sergecross73 msg me 13:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge text and not track listing to existing section: Midnight_Club_3:_DUB_Edition#Soundtrack. Redirect shouldn't have been reverted in the first place. Always good to clean up the redirection target to make sure the redirect sticks (if you leave circular redirects, readers get irked). I'm not seeing a preponderance of independent coverage on the soundtrack to warrant a separate article but there's always summary style. czar 05:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: moved to newer log Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk 11:15, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk 11:15, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - While there is a source on it, considering there's currently zero prose in the article, and zero content about it at the parent article, it should be merged back for now, and only spun out that WP:UNDUE weight is being focused on it at the parent article (which we're nowhere close to currently.) Sergecross73 msg me 12:40, 21 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 herein is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:46, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

C. Ainsworth Mitchell[edit]

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

Subject of article fails WP:Notability. The references cited are primary, mainly evidence of existence (1911 publication Science and the Criminal; report on determination of forgery, receipt from US Library of Congress for copy of report, news item covering lecture by Mitchell (1930). Coatrack article for a Bahá'í Faith controversy. (Account name for article is that of a figure involved in the controversy.) Neonorange (talk) 11:13, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:11, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:11, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:11, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep. Some interest for early criminology. Operated before the web, so few sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:36, 21 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Wikipedia needs to be built on secondary sources, it is not a place for original research. It is also not a place to right wrongs. If someone did not receive notice, and if other people writing on them has not been done in either their time or ours, then the article is not worth keeping. Due to digitizing of out of copyright works, the claim about lack of sources is questionable. Yes, there are fewer sources from them, but a good portion of the ones that do exist can be found on the web.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep . The link for the book seems to be a 2010 reprint. This suggests that someone thought the book important enough to be worth reprinting. It is possible that further research would throw up further publications. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - member of the Society of Public Analysts, fellow of the Royal Institute of Chemistry, early advocate of pinhole solargraphy, head inspector at Scotland Yard, etc - seems to meet notability for professors, gng.Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For what it is worth, I did not find anything about the Will and Testament of `Abdu'l-Bahá. It was probably a minor part of his life that has grown in importance as the religion has grown, while the rest of his accomplishments have seemed to shrink as chemistry and criminology progressed. In any case, his role in a number of interesting stories and prominent institutions in the 1900s through 1930s seem to make him notable, in my opinion.

Also, a quick look at google scholar suggests his h-index is above 8. While the h-index isn't really used for notability, I thought it was interesting. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—as nominator. Based on the work by Smmurphy I am no longer concerned about the coatrack aspect; this article is now clearly about Mitchell and his contributions and not a grinned-up contribution to a controversy. — Neonorange (talk) 18:34, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: secondary biographical sources are out there, beyond the trivial mentions in newspapers: a 3 page obituary in Analyst, of which he was appointed editor in 1920. His works are in over 2800 library holdings per WorldCat, and his work is mentioned in varying degrees of detail in several modern books, e.g. A Catalogue of the Law Collection at New York University (1999), Legal Medicine in History (1994), and especially Prisoners, Lovers, and Spies (2014), which calls him "an expert on the chemistry of inks who would later become one of England's most respected forensic scientists." Hint: it helps to search for strings like "Charles Ainsworh Mitchell", "C. A. Mitchell" in addition to "C. Ainsworh Mitchell". --Animalparty! (talk) 20:37, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 58 works at Internet Archive, he's clearly notable as an author who is widely held in libraries. -- GreenC 16:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:39, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:39, 28 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. Black Kite (talk) 08:25, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One Love Party[edit]

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

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

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

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

Non-notable party. Essentially a vanity project for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ankit Love (2nd nomination). The article was deleted back in May Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One Love Party. Coverage is routine election coverage. Fails WP:NORG. As near as I can tell the sources in this version are, in bulk, the same sources about the London Mayoral campaign which were deemed inadequate for notability at the last AfD. Jbh ^Talk 10:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC) Last edited: 11:18, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 10:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 10:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 10:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am in no way a member or related to this party but it is notable. They've stood in a variety of seats in varying levels of government, the citations have been vastly improved since the last deletion. They feature in a large amount of maintstream, individual and foreign media... the article has been updated repeatedly and keeps getting new citations daily. As per the speedy deletion removal note on the talk page, if you look at the revision history you can clearly see the improvements and citations being added. This deletion discussion is jumping the gun but even so, the article easily stands on it's own. Is it a major party? No. Is it a minor, notable party? Yes. Drowz0r (talk) 10:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the OP's new insert on where the citations are focusing on; naturally the frontier launch/candidacy of any party creates a lot of press so you'll probably see that in bulk for some time, especially when that candidate is also the continual leader of the party. Even so, there are now six citations (naturally not including links to Love Party's own site and such) that don't reference the Mayoral election and indeed reference their Witney candidate with some information on her. You can bet your bottom dollar more will be added shortly Drowz0r (talk) 11:23, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Some of the "Mayor election" pieces are a bit confusing. There were actually two mayor elections, a by-election for hackney and a London mayoral. Some of the wording and citations seem to confuse the two and it may appear that only one notable event happened, while there were actually two.Drowz0r (talk) 11:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Parties whose average number of votes are in the low double digits (32, 34, 44) are simply not notable no matter the temporary splash or even repeated curiousity press coverage.~~ Jbh ^Talk 11:40, 21 October 2016 (UTC) You are correct. Raw vote count is a poor way to judge notability. Struck. Last edited: 12:22, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To count a party's notability by how many people vote for them is to fundamentally misunderstand UK politics under the FPTP system, secondly there are dozens of political party pages with precisely double digit votes that have been deemed notable so I do not see where that method of deletion you have suggested has ever been enacted. It is near impossible to compare different constituencies and even more so different levels of elections (national, local, etc) on vote count but generally it is a better indicator to go off vote share and not vote number. If the only press this party had was a bullet pointed name and a vote result in the press I would agree but they have consistently been given an allotment of space in every press piece covering the election as to what their policies and backgrounds are. Some press have reported, some have criticized, some have supported, analysed. There isn't a common curiosity theme, there is a variety of different media going for different things. I know because I've been improving the article for a few hours now and read through the articles and watched the videos. For example, one exposes a suggested military coup from the party. Seems to be around 10 citations now which are not relating to the london mayor thing btw Drowz0r (talk) 11:50, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will dig through the sources you have added later in the day. I have been through so many overblown, trivial and downright deceptive sources in relation to Ankit Love and his projects on Wikipedia that I am very skeptical of anything relating to that topic. (This article also has the massive citation overkill the past articles showed. I would be much more convinced by a half dozen or so good citations rather than 37, most of which were discounted in the last AfD.) In general though, small protest parties get coverage for the elections they contest and not much else. If there is significant, sustained coverage in relation to the party, not PR stunts and wild claims by Love to get press, I will reconsider.

It is the existance sustained coverage, outside of coverage of individual contests, which would indicate notability to me. Jbh ^Talk 12:06, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A second set of eyes is very welcome, if nothing else, I typo a lot. I did notice before I started editing the piece it only included the positive pieces from the press and I've been adjusting that, such as the bonkers military coup suggestion was missing along with having fashion designers do school uniforms. I think it's noteworthy to include Love's father wished he had not gone into politics too and that the twitter account seems to have been deactivated after receiving a massive (fake?) boost of subscribers - I guess that also happened here on wiki with the citation overkill. I'm just wary of dismissing the article due to it being a vanity project. It might well be a vanity project from Ankit but with some injected balance, it can be made into something more educational as oppose to propaganda (I consider UKIP a Farage vanity project but hey ho~). Drowz0r (talk) 12:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I tagged this as a speedy delete, as a recreation of a recently deleted article. The article was, this time, created by User:Stephen Nightingale, an WP:SPA. The tag was then removed in good faith by User:Drowz0r: as someone who was not the author of the article, that is allowed as a judgement call. However, a new AfD discussion is an unsurprising development. Drowz0r has been working on the article to improve it, as have I. I thought about bringing this to AfD myself, but I'm somewhat undecided as to whether an article is warranted or not. The One Love Party appears to be a rich guy's vanity project that has had zero psephological impact. However, I also agree with the discussion above that vote share alone is not the decisive factor in determining notability. If Ankit Love or whoever is bankrolling the party wants to throw their money away on lost deposits, that's their choice. Can you "buy" notability by just standing at lots of elections? Perhaps. There has been some RS coverage of this party and continues to be. However, it is all in the context of specific campaigns, so I think WP:NPOL/WP:NORG do point to this being insufficient. Whether the article stays or goes, I entirely agree with User:Jbhunley's concerns about all things Ankit Love on Wikipedia. Vigilance is required. Bondegezou (talk) 15:08, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually found a number of citations now that are not related to the elections, especially the mayoral one that can be added but I'm super swamped - I plan to add them tomorrow, but here is another: https://www.hackneycitizen.co.uk/2016/10/26/hackney-central-masterplan-resurrecting-hackney-brook-ideas-feedback/

Delete - My reasons for deletion in the previous Afd remain valid - this is not a serious political party but a means for self promotion by a narcissist. Wikipedia is not a place for self-promotion. There is some coverage in WP:RS but this is to be expected during an election campaign as the nominator has stated. Besides, if you invent flamboyant, outrageous policies solely for the purpose of getting attention, you will succeed.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 14:11, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based on the last AfD this article had attracted vandals most likely from the significant amount of news coverage for the London Mayor election at the time. According to User:JMiall in the previous debate it even had more hits than the Green Party (UK) page at the time. So well done guys last time in deleting it, as it seemed that must have been the only way to get things under control. That made sense then, but now it’s a completely different and normal article and all the bizarre attention and vandalism has subsided. There are now notable citations about two more candidates over four more elections since the Mayor of London and the last AfD. No doubt this is an odd-ball even wacky party, but if other minor and odd UK parties like Al-Zebabist Nation of Ooog that’s just done one election with 30 votes can be considered notable or the Roman Party that also seems like a self-funded vanity project for one guy, then come on One Love is certainly more notable then those and so should be kept. Taking about bizarre attention grabbing narcissism along with buying notability on steroids, what about Donald Trump or his Mexico-wall idea? I really wish those could be taken off here too. But that doesn't mean they should be though. As sad as it is even Donald Trump and his pages must be protected from vandalism. ${\mathfrak {StephenNightingale}}$ ^{( $Talk$ )} 02:08, 29 May 2024 UTC [refresh] — Stephen Nightingale (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

To add I was also the initial author of the new version of this article which has been edited since.

{\mathfrak {StephenNightingale}}

^{( $Talk$ )} 02:08, 29 May 2024 UTC [refresh]

Comment WP:OTHERSTUFF explains why the existence of other articles that may warrant deletion is never a good reason to keep an article. I've now PROD'ed Ooog. I would suggest that the Roman Party should go to a second AfD. Bondegezou (talk) 21:48, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are right here of course, in terms of the written rule - but I have noticed a massive inconsistency in wikipedia over this. I've had pieces deleted while far lesser pieces have been kept and vice versa. Articles like Wales_Green_Party I nominated for deletion and made a convincing case, only for it to be re-created and kept despite others nominating it for deletion again. It remains a dead page, kept for no apparent reason. It seems that if enough people bombard wiki with "Keep it! Keep it!" with no real substance, the page is ultimately kept, despite the rules above saying this doesn't. Personally I've always suggested keep and a review some months/weeks later, generally that allows time for citations to appear and if they do not, the page can be deleted without any real argument.Drowz0r (talk) 10:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion decisions and processes can be far from consistent, but practically it makes sense to debate each case on the basic principles. That's why WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments are generally given little weight. Bondegezou (talk) 12:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The argument regarding other non-notable parties has been addressed by Bondegezou with WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Regarding the other half of the argument (that there are more candidates that have contested more elections), quantity of candidates fielded or elections contested is a poor indicator of notability for much the same reason raw vote count is a poor way of judging notability. We need independent, reliable, significant sources to demonstrate notability and I'm not satisfied there are any. (I'll expand on this below.) N4 (talk) 06:44, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep On the basis that it is a registered political party with the UK Electoral Commission and has participated in a number of elections. If this is the case, then what possible reason ought this topic be deleted other than political? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.231.229.214 (talk) 19:40, 24 October 2016 (UTC) — 151.231.229.214 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I've struck out this comment as the fact the party exists is not an argument demonstrating the party is notable. N4 (talk) 06:44, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It appears we are trying to establish a higher threshold of notability for political parties than for other organisations. There are multiple independent sources here. Another way of looking at the question is "Would a reasonable observer expect to find out about this organisation by consulting an encyclopaedia?"Rathfelder (talk) 22:34, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note for the closing admin: Rathfelder is the creator of the page Al-Zebabist Nation of Ooog that was nominated for deletion due to discussion above.

Comment. There are many independent sources but few of them are reliable. Of the sources that are reliable, all of them feature trivial coverage of the subject. See my comment below. N4 (talk) 06:44, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. I was pretty optimistic when reading through the article as it's better presented and more substantial than the last time we discussed it but despite it's promising appearance the subject still isn't notable. Take the list of sources. Remove the primary sources. Remove the sources that could be considered pure "Ankit Love self-promotion". Remove the less reliable sources from minor and local blogs and magazines. All remaining sources either simply record the fact the party exists and contests elections (Electoral Commission, London Elects) or mentions the party in passing as part of normal electoral coverage (BBC News, The Guardian, Newsweek). Having gone through this notability discussion several times previously, I'll keep it simple: If you want to show the party is notable find a single article in a major British newspaper that directly discusses the impact of the One Love Party as it's central subject and then maybe we can establish a claim to notability here. Such an article hasn't been presented because such an article doesn't exist because the party is not notable. They don't even meet general notability. The assertions (and for the most part, they are simply assertions) that the party is notable hold zero ground. Notorious, perhaps.

Are there inconsistencies in how and when non-notable articles are nominated for deletion on Wikipedia? Yes, of course there are, but the whole point of WP:ININ is that this isn't of any relevance to this discussion. The reason why this particular subject seems to be nominated for deletion more than other non-notable British parties is not "political" as an above editor suggests. It is because this is the FOURTH creation of an Ankit Love related article that was created in spite of the fact that the three previous deletion discussions (even though heavily contested and contrived) reached the snowball conclusion that neither Love nor his party merit an article. This is the FOURTH deletion discussion accordingly and I suspect we'll reach exactly the same conclusion as the three that came before it. The repeated recreation of Love-related articles in opposition to community consensus in the absence of arguments to change the consensus is annoying and disruptive. I would like to suggest salting the title. N4 (talk) 06:44, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to all The common complaint from all, which seems valid, is the article simple did not contain enough media hits in reputable papers, outside of election curiosity for this piece to be notable. I had a sniff around and have added several new citations since this was nominated for deletion that meet the proposed criteria. They are not linked to elections and speak of either Ankit Love individually but talking about the common policies or feature Ankit and the party but are not linked to an election. I'd appreciate everyone who has voted a delete variation to check the citations again and then we can continue to discuss if it needs to meet anything further. Thanks in advance. Drowz0r (talk) 13:08, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for looking for more material, but I've just removed the two you added. One made no mention of the party, only of Mr Love, and it didn't say much about him. The other had one paragraph on the One Love Party only and is too trivial to warrant inclusion, I feel. Bondegezou (talk) 13:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking - I've added another but it's related to the up-coming by-election, so while notable doesn't really solve our "continual media outside of elections" issue. I did add some others prior to those two, which seem acceptable (well, they haven't been removed at least) Drowz0r (talk) 15:08, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

reluctant keep Looks like a little-known musician created a "Party" as a means of self-promotion. The problem I have an an editor who regularly works at AFD is that it seems to have worked, at least in the sense that it generated profiles in major media in Britain and India that go far beyond routine news coverage. I'm just seeing too much in-depth coverage to delete.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:05, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The few "keeps" (some of them self-described as weak) didn't go into as much detail on why they deemed the sources sufficient as others presented a much stronger and well-explained case that the sources are insufficient to make the subject meet our inclusion threshold. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:00, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of Donald James Cavanaugh and David Virgil Neily[edit]

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

This article is about two missing people not officially pronounced or confirmed dead (and hence WP:BLP should still apply), largely sourced to local news reports. A search for additional sources turns up little more than same. Madeleine McCann this is not. I think for an event such as this we really should err on this side of caution; in particular things like a claim for illegally growing cannabis, sourced to the Anderson Valley Advertiser are a serious concern. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:03, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the false assumption above, both men are officially considered missing, as can be verified at http://www.mendocinosheriff.com/missing/Georgejdorner (talk) 15:20, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:BLP, considered broadly, probably applies to Cavanaugh and Neily despite their disappearance, but it most certainly applies to Denoyer, who not only hasn't been charged in connection with the disappearances, but was acquitted of the one charge (animal cruelty) actually filed against him -- not that you'd learn that from the lead! The sources used are not the high-quality sources needed to support negative BLP portrayals such as this. Some are not RS at all, and I question the "independence" of small-town papers offering sympathetic viewpoints to the family of a missing person. I don't think this rises to the level of a G10 attack page on Denoyer, but I do think that BLP policy mandates its removal. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:16, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I am puzzled by the claim that there is derogatory content concerning the disappeared men. I wish you would point it out so I can correct it. As for Denoyer, I have added to the article to emphasize his being acquitted on animal cruelty charges, and that he has not been charged in the disappearances. I have not mentioned he is a Person of Interest to the Mendocino Sheriff's Department in these disappearances--even though he is.
- I am even more puzzled that MediaNews Group newspapers such as the Ukiah Daily Journal and Fort Bragg Advocate-News are not considered reliable sources. I realize that the Anderson Valley Advertiser is a different matter. However, to the best of my knowledge (and I am a longtime reader), the AVA has never been sued for libel or slander despite being quite outspoken. So, I would ask, where are the unreliable sources? Or are you saying we can't trust the Huffington Post and/or CBS News?
- If you can be specific, I may be able to deal with the problem.Georgejdorner (talk) 16:42, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to ask Squeamish Ossifrage about specific sources, but the basic point is that just being verifiable to reliable sources isn't enough for an article sometimes, it also has to be suitable for an encyclopedia, particularly one that is well known for getting a volley of complaints (both legal and otherwise) from all over the world. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:34, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have toned down the statement about marijuana cultivation so that it pertains to the area rather than just to Denoyer's ranch. I have also added language to stress that Mr. Denoyer was acquitted of animal cruelty charges, and that he has never been charged with any crime pertaining to the disappearances. I am unaware of any furtherf deleterious information.

I deserve an opportunity to correct the article if it has problems. If a vague and unsupported accusation of "unsuitability" suffices to delete an article, most of WP's articles are subject to arbitrary deletion.

All things considered, you'll probably have an easier time writing articles on another topic than trying to defend one that other people think violates the core policy of BLP. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:53, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If there were BLP violations in the article I might tend to agree with you. However, false calls of BLP violation are not grounds for deletion.Georgejdorner (talk) 16:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do apologize for having been occupied away from the project and not returning here to comment further more quickly. However, I don't appreciate the accusation that my BLP concerns over this article are "false calls"; they are not. I'll try to keep this response brief, although if there's a desire for a more in-depth examination of the problems, I can do that too. In short, the sourcing is not high quality. The Charley Project is not a reliable source whatsoever. The Anderson Valley Advertiser article is a local article, in a weekly tabloid paper, in tabloid tone, and is not a reliable source for BLP-related concerns (or, probably, anything else). The other two newspaper articles are local-interest stories in small, local papers (their ownership by a national holding company does not change that character), which, among other things, are not generally considered to speak to notability (all, or most, missing persons are reported on locally and in local papers; not all missing persons cases are considered "notable" in Wikipedia's unique use of that term). The NBC "Missing in America" source gives every impression of not being independent reporting; it is not bylined, and is in large part dedicated to a personal video made by a family member of one of the subjects. HuffPo is a better source than the rest, but HuffPo's quality varies from contributor to contributor and topic to topic and should be evaluated with caution despite being generally accepted as reliable. But all that aside, this article is rife with BLP concerns. I'll blockquote policy here:

A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For subjects who are not public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured. Generally, a conviction is secured through judicial proceedings. Allegations, accusations, investigations, and arrests on suspicion of involvement are not a conviction.
— Wikipedia policy on people accused of a crime

The bulk of this article does precisely that. Phrasings such as "Indeed, it seems Denoyer had gained control of Cavanaugh's money."; "Denoyer accused Cavanaugh of theft, and dropped his 63-year-old penniless disabled uncle in the San Francisco Airport."; and "He claimed that if he had been called to testify in the animal cruelty case, Denoyer would have been convicted and the elder Neily spared his fate." should probably be removed immediately as BLP violations (especially given the source quality)! Specific sentences aside, the entire article is written with the implication that Denoyer was responsible, and our policy simply does not permit that. That's the essence of the BLP policy. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, me, Mr/Ms Ossifrage...where to begin?

"Indeed, it seems Denoyer had gained control of Cavanaugh's money." went by the board when I edited out the Charley Project cites. Your Charley Project complaint has been addressed.

I fail to see how Denoyer's accusation of theft, or his taking his uncle to the airport, can be construed as a crime. In source material, but not in the article, is the fact that Denoyer held his uncle at gunpoint to force him to go to SFO. As pointing a firearm at someone is a crime in California, I chose not to mention it because it was never charged.

As next of kin, Ryan Neily is entitled to his opinion about Denoyer. I quoted him to show how investigation of this cold case continues because he is pressuring the authorities. Ryan Neily's

Somehow, you haven't seemed to have noticed that I peppered the article with information that stated Louis Denoyer's innocence.

Denoyer has never been charged in connection with the disappearances; he was acquitted on the animal cruelty counts. Last sentence of lead. Not strictly true. Denoyer pled guilty to a charge of improperly disposing of a dead animal carcass; the court placed restrictions on his future ownership of horses. However, as it now stands, the sentence clearly states he is innocent. I excised the petty conviction out of respect for BLP policy.

Sergeant Jason Caudillo of the Mendocino County Sheriff's Office followed up on Neily's disappearance with a search of the Westport ranch with cadaver dogs. They alerted on a pet's grave, but nothing else. Caudillo admits he found no direct witness or physical evidence of a crime on the Westport ranch. Last para of Neily's disappearance. A reluctant official statement of Denoyer's innocence, but I can only quote what is said.

James Denoyer claims to have no knowledge concerning the disappearances. Last sentence in article. This is the only statement of Denoyer's that I found. I gave him the last word.

If there is a consensus on newspapers being unreliable sources, I wish you would link me to it. I mean a true consensus, not your solo version. As it is, I use these papers for other writing projects of mine. From long experience, I know these newspapers are reliable. We don't have big city papers out here because we don't have big cities. However, if you take the New York Times as the gold standard for news sources, guess what? Every one of the newspapers in this article has been used, at one time or another, as a source for Times stories. You see, the professional journalists at the Times believe they are reliable.

Keep - per WP:GNG. Per extensive and good sources. It seems to be more a situation were the article needs to be improved or rewritten, but DYK is not used to establish article quality, it is about the article subjects notability. Two different things.BabbaQ (talk) 07:16, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is the best source in this article? I define a good source as a book that has had sustained and critically acclaimed reviews from subject experts. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While your personal definition of a good source excludes all use of newspapers as reliable sources, it does not match that of WP. The article is entitled to an evaluation by WP standards. With one possible exception, all newspapers used are main stream media by major news organizations.Georgejdorner (talk) 16:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suitability? How can WP find such subjects as porn stars suitable, but not the disappearance of two human beings? Sorry, but the suitability argument is nonsensical.Georgejdorner (talk) 16:57, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A very good question; personally I'd delete the whole bally lot of them if I was in charge but unfortunately I seem to in a minority of men who dislike porn to the point of feeling nauseous about it so I have to defer to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS I'm afraid. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:22, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:32, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. People disappear all the time. There's nothing that raises these particular instances above the rest. It also casts aspersions on a living, uncharged person, Denoyer, as noted above. Even if they were found to have been murdered, not the case here, it still would likely not justify an article. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:42, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Single disappearances are common. However, this is the only example I know of where two people consecutively vanished from the same place, which is a notable difference.
- The accusation is made that I am "casting aspersions" on Louis Denoyer. Where? Please point out the problem areas. I dealt with the first examples, but now the accusation seems to have become an amorphous cloud of blame, unsupported by evidence. If specifics were noted, I might be able to satisfactorily rewrite the examples given. That is, if there are any specifics.
- As noted above, there are three specific instances where the article clearly states that Denoyer was cleared of criminal activity.Georgejdorner (talk) 13:58, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As Clarityfriend notes, I question whether there's sufficient notability here even if the article were free of BLP concerns, but BLP is the more important problem. Policy simply does not permit an article to make negative implications about a living person with poor sourcing, even if you then say something to the extent of "But he wasn't charged for any of that." And make no mistake, the sourcing for the negative implications is poor, even when it is sourced to an article that is probably a RS for general purposes. How? Here's an example. As of this version of the article, this text appears: The bedroom he had been promised was a mattress tossed in the rear of a junk truck. He needed rides into town for food and medicine, but Denoyer refused them. Cavanaugh's son called him from Illinois, and sensed there was something wrong in his father's situation. Cavanaugh seemed too nervous to render any explanations, although he hinted at nefarious deeds afoot. That is cited to the HuffPo article. But if we go read the HuffPo article, we see that's actually based exclusively on a direct quote from Ryan Neily. Neily is entitled to his opinions and his version of past events, and is under no obligation to maintain a neutral point or view. HuffPo doesn't make those claims in its voice, they merely repeat the quote. But this article then presents those claims as if they were established facts, in the encyclopedia's voice. That's an NPOV problem and it's a BLP compliance problem. And that's how much of the article is written. Even when it cites a reliable source, it does so largely based on the quoted statements of the individuals involved, not the reporting in that source's editorial voice, and then it repeats those claims in the project's voice. I recognize that we disagree here, but I think the history of responses at the BLP noticeboard makes it very clear that policy simply doesn't permit this sort of thing. I'm not really interested in engaging on this topic further here (and this isn't really the place for a nuanced discussion of the editorial requirements of the BLP policy), but I'm steadfast in my opinion that this article does not satisfy policy expectations, and that simple rewording cannot fix it. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:27, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The argument was made above that disappearances are commonplace. Undeniably true, but two disappearances in a row from the same place is notably unusual. I don't know of another case of double disappearances from the same place.
Now that I have received detailed feedback on BLP complaints, I have been rewriting the objectionable sentences. I also found a bit more I could change to honor BLP. If you still have any objections, please let me know.
I have read these local newspapers for years. I would not depend on them for national or international news; they just run wire copy. However, for local news, they are extremely reliable. These papers are not stepping stones to a big city job; our local journalists hang around for years and decades. They know this county.
On the other hand, I doubt that you have ever read a copy of any of these papers before this article. You can't really know whether a paper you have never read is reliable or not. An argument based on ignorance is not very persuasive.
Let me end by noting that the most recent text of the article should be the subject of discussion. Past edits are just that--past.Georgejdorner (talk) 02:30, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:DEL9 and WP:NOTNEWS. The BLP issues are concerning here and are not negotiable. Simple speculation should not be covered in an encyclopaedia, particularly in cases where the event itself may not be notable. I am also struggling to see the WP:LASTING effects and WP:PERSISTENCE which makes me believe this is not notable enough. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lemongirl, I am going to repeat my request that pro-deletionists point out specific problems for correction. There is such a thing as WP:ATD--although you all seem to be unaware of it or determined to ignore it. I say that because none of you have showed any signs of having noticed the ongoing changes I have made in accordance with WP:ATD. And there it says: "Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases." Of course, in this case, ATD is being crippled by vague accusations without feedback.Georgejdorner (talk) 15:13, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- this appears to be an attack page on James Denoyer as the article omuniously concludes:

[He] claims to have no knowledge concerning the disappearances.[6]

Neither does the article discuss any long-term societal impact. This appears to be standard crime blotter material, and not something one would expect to find in an encyclopedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:45, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The BLP concerns are not a reason to delete—the article can and should be rewritten. And while I would like to see an example of non-trivial coverage from outside Central California in addition to the Huffington Post, I must admit, as the primary contributor to a number of missing-person case articles, that this is not a typical case of such. Two similar people disappearing from the same place (or near it) under similar circumstances? I know, OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but here I would argue that the notability from that aspect alone is similar to that of Disappearance of Terrance Williams and Felipe Santos (which does have more solid sourcing, I agree). Daniel Case (talk) 07:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
MAJOR REVISION BY NOMINATOR I have rewritten the article extensively and removed Denoyer from the story. This means there can no longer be any merit to BLP complaints concerning this article. And, as I have added text denoting these are active missing persons investigations, there are ongoing impacts on society.
This rewrite is extensive enough that any recommendations based on the previous text need serious re-evaluation.Georgejdorner (talk) 17:54, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG. Clearly a case with enduring interest. Covered in WP:RS like the Huffington Post years after the event, has demonstrated WP:PERSISTENCE. Per WP:EASYTARGET, BLP concerns are not an argument for deletion since, as this case demonstrates, they can be dealt with through our usual processes. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk 10:31, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. At the end of the day this is just a news story and we are WP:NOTNEWS. People disappear all the time, the media write about them, but that doesn't mean we have to. I don't see how this story is important to anybody other than the people involved in it directly. Sandstein 08:29, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- As noted above in posts that Sandstein seems not to have read, consecutive disappearances are notably unusual and have been covered by WP. If Sandstein's claim is corrected to cover the actual circumstance of this article, it is, "People vanish consecutively from the same place all the time." Obviously, this is not so.Georgejdorner (talk) 15:40, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"People disappear all the time, ..." Inadvertent paraphrases of Monty Python are not the best AfD arguments, no matter how much of a smile they bring to the face. Daniel Case (talk) 22:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Just a news story". Like Pearl Harbor and the Kennedy assassination. (Per WP:WHOCARES) Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:42, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep national-level coverage (HP, NBC) of this mean we have met all relevant notability guidelines. The fact that said coverage happened years after the event, tips it in. I'm a bit more mixed on WP:NOTNEWS, thus the weak part. Hobit (talk)
Delete. I looked at the sources in the article. About half of them are clearly unsuitable for establishing WP:N. Three looked promising, so I examined them in more detail:

Anderson Valley Advertiser. Self-described as a small-town weekly, which publishes, among the news of local fire district controversies and county supervisor meetings -- some of the most imaginative and well-written articles and stories found in the American press. We're not looking for imaginative stories.
Fort Bragg Advocate-News. Another small-town weekly, reporting on what's essentially a local human-interest story.
Huffington Post. This is the only one of the sources that's really worth-while. A substantial article in a national publication. If there were a few more like this, we'd be good. But, it's just not enough by itself.

-- RoySmith (talk) 13:08, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 08:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doc Love[edit]

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

Promotional article with no independent, critical review or discussion of the subject. Wkharrisjr (talk) 14:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Might it be, that the reason why the English version of Wikipedia has more deletions than other language versions, is because more Americans opt to censor ("edit") than contribute? See Pareto's Law. And it shows that non-English speaking cultures assume good intent in contrast to us. For example I had my article on Abram Kamensky deleted, which exists both in Ukrainian and Russian. My article on Aleksandr Kamensky was also submitted for deletion, but it was kept. This is why I quit contributing to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB90:1E06:637D:0:3C:3594:5F01 (talk) 16:37, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wkharrisjr wrote:

Promotional article with no independent, critical review or discussion of the subject.

I am sorry you feel this way. The excerpt below disproves your point of view.

Doc Love's stated interest is to improve relationships between men and women, decrease the nation's divorce rate and gradually quell the 'war between the sexes'.
He criticizes other relationship experts for having no understanding of the concepts of Interest Level and Challenge.
Thomas Hodges borrowed the concept of Interest Level from Looking Out for #1 by the Libertarian Robert Ringer, who also self-published his bestseller Winning Through Intimidation. Thomas Hodges was inspired by Ringer to self-publish his materials.
In contrast to these other relationship experts Doc Love claims to be a true scientist: "I, in contrast and not realizing it at the time that I was a true scientist, tried a different approach: "Please tell me about the men you chose to stay with, who didn't wine you, dine you, and buy you flowers?"" In "Doc Love - The System (Synopsis)" The System is defined by Doc Love in this way: "To you Psych majors, "The System" is the result of a long-term study of the effects of male behavior on the behavior responses of women toward them, with applications for the male via behavior modification". Ironically, after a while, Doc Love began focusing more on empowering himself to control his own male students and impose on them his UNSTATED interests:

Libertarians' excessive obsession with "Aristotelian" logic of Ayn Rand makes their systems for love and life impractical. Zadeh's Fuzzy Logic expands the logic of Aristotle, rather than replaces it, just as Einstein's theory of relativity merely compliments Newtonian mechanics where that paradigm lacks explanatory power. Men would be more successful with women if they accept that extreme cases of truth are uncommon in humanities. By claiming that he has a monopoly on truth, Doc Love is ignoring the reality that when it comes to social intelligence, fuzzy logic is closer to the way we arrive at truth.

Science aims at understanding causality so control can be exerted. Changing public attitudes about a MALE behaviour may lead to anti-male laws being passed prohibiting that behaviour (social engineering).

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB90:1E06:637D:0:3C:3594:5F01 (talk) 19:34, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Considering that a few years ago a totally fake article was created on Wikipedia by some university students in Virginia we have every reason to want to delete articles that lack adequate sources. This is one such article, sources and verifiability are needed, not blind acceptance of low quality research on non-notable topics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:42, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Pack Lambert , if a Bimbo does not know that leaves are green because of chlorophyll then according to your reasoning Photosynthesis is one such article. Why? Because if you were not ignorant to the fact, that a topic is notable, you would contribute to Wikipedia by finding authoritative sources for it. (When was the last time you did that?) Are there notable topics you never heard of? If you think so, please do some "low quality research" and reverse your verdict. If you truly believe you know everything worthy of note, then I have nothing more to say to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB90:1E06:637D:0:3C:3594:5F01 (talk) 04:01, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed Doc Love's official website from external links. I hope this makes it clear that this is an encyclopedia article, and not a commercial promotion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB90:1E06:637D:0:3C:3594:5F01 (talk) 15:42, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An encyclopedia is for reference. Try to be constructive, instead of removing entries. Peter Andrew Nolan (talk) 10:45, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk 10:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Remember, folks, AFD is not cleanup. The article clearly needs work, but that doesn't mean it should be deleted. We need to look at notability. Withholding my !vote until I have time to determine that, but please, don't vote delete just because the article needs cleanup. I'm also satisfied that the limited sourcing proves that, at the very least, he exists and the article is not a hoax. Now, WP:ITEXISTS is not a reason to keep, but I feel the concerns that this is a hoax are unfounded. Smartyllama (talk) 13:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As I still have been unable to find significant notable coverage in reliable sources and none has been provided by other editors. That is why it should be deleted, not because it is poorly written. If consensus is that Doc Love meets WP:GNG, it should be kept regardless of the current state of the article, which myself and others have attempted to improve. I just don't think he's notable. I stand by my statement that @Johnpacklambert:'s concerns about a hoax are unfounded. But WP:ITEXISTS is not a reason to keep. Smartyllama (talk) 17:51, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:45, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:45, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

Doc Love has his own worldwide radio show heard every Wednesday for an hour on Blog Talk Radio.

He has written a popular column on the #1 Men’s website in the world, AskMen.com (featuring dating and relationship advice for guys.)

He has also been featured in countless major media appearances, including

▪ FOX News ▪ Time Magazine ▪ The 9-5-0/Houston ▪ KIIS/Los Angeles

On 22.1.2016 Doc Love was interviewed by Lucia, she has posted the interview on YouTube under the title 《The Art Of Love | Doc Love's THE SYSTEM | The Dating Dictionary | Episode 1

Lucia is a dating/relationship expert specializing in Cougar relationships. She is the author of, Lucia's Lessons of Love, a syndicated columnist, keynote speaker and host of The Art of Love on L.A.Talk Radio.

Strong keep"'2607:FB90:1E0B:E660:0:47:7857:9E01 (talk) 19:21, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Echoing Smartyllama's comments above - no notable coverage. The person exists, but is not notable enough to be on Wikipedia. If there's coverage from the media that 2607:FB90:1E0B:E660:0:47:7857:9E01 references, I can't find it.Timtempleton (talk) 20:16, 26 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. Black Kite (talk) 08:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Ferguson[edit]

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

Fails both criteria of WP:NFOOTY Echetus Xe 18:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable footballer — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnTombs48 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep I'd say that this person makes the general notability guidelines as the main subject of several articles, as cited eg [33], [34], [35], [36]. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 19:09, 13 October 2016 (UTC) Happy to replace this with delete if the transfer news is deemed to be routine. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:26, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:29, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG as he has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources - transfer news is routine, and the Daily Mail is not a RS to boot. He also fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he has not played in a competitive cup or league match between two clubs from fully-professional leagues. Giant Snowman 20:31, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG at present, but has potential to become notable within the near future as the loan deal to Southport is only a 1 month deal. Suggest review at a later date. douts (talk) 10:06, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

near future? WP:Crystal? Govvy (talk) 10:47, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not received significant coverage or played in a fully pro league, meaning the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Speculation as to future appearances is never grounds for notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:58, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes notability at WP:NFOOTY as he has played in the EFL Trophy, played for a fully-professional team against fully-professional Category One academy side. --Jimbo^[online] 15:50, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - so if this passes then we'll have to create articles on Freddy Hinds, Jack Senior, Jack Snelus, Leon Davis, James Martin, Reece Fielding, Morgan Penfield, Daniel Matsuzaka, Jordan Williams, Lewis Butroid, and Ellis Hudson. These are after the first two rounds of matches of the competition. I have noticed a lot of articles have already been created for players who have played against youth teams in the competition, including a 16/17 year old who has subsequently joined Metropolitan Police on loan in the Isthmian League. If, as Jimbo suggests, we are counting the academy teams as fully-professional then there will be dozens of articles on young footballers that pass the notability criteria and therefore need creating.--Echetus Xe 14:44, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And surely articles for the players from the "U23" teams as well? OGLV (talk) 22:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if they pass the criteria. You're acting as if Wikipedia is running out of server space. --Jimbo^[online] 13:17, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NB...not all academy and youth players, only the ones who pass the criteria of playing in fully-professional competitions. --Jimbo^[online] 13:25, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "The Competition is a ‘First Team Competitive Match’ for the purposes of the Football Associations Regulations for Disciplinary Procedures" as per the tournament rules. My understanding is that the under-23 teams are, for the purposes of this competition, first teams that simply have additional age-based selection criteria, unlike, say, the Professional Development League. OGLV (talk) 22:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- comment - according to the FA handbook, First Team Competitive Matches (FTCM) are defined as "FTCM are matches in the following competitions: FA Challenge Cup, FA Challenge Trophy, FA Premier League, Football League, Football League Cup, Football League Trophy, the National League and The FA WSL." So East Grinstead Town versus Three Bridges in the FA Trophy is a ‘First Team Competitive Match’.--EchetusXe 10:51, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Agree. But they aren't fully professional clubs in fully professional leagues. As has been mentioned elsewhere, matches between first teams in fully professional leagues, in cup competitions, is in keeping with the spirit of WP:NFOOTBALL despite not matching it to the letter. OGLV (talk) 23:26, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I waited a while to make a decision the first lot of references on the article are from primary sources and the Grays Athletic ref is pointing to a different player, other sources are noting his movement around the football league. Although they are notes of his name these few articles are not enough to pass to pass WP:GNG in my opinion. Because the question is, is a match against an u23 academy team notable. I don't think it is, if you're not playing against another first team I would say this is notable but currently I would say it fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Govvy (talk) 08:53, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The FA considers them to be first teams though, just with additional selection criteria based on age. "The Competition is a ‘First Team Competitive Match’ for the purposes of the Football Associations Regulations for Disciplinary Procedures" as per the tournament rules. OGLV (talk) 17:51, 17 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. NFOOTY specifically discusses only fully professional leagues. General consensus is that the spirit of this can be extended to cup competitions when the matches are between teams from FPLs. However, in this instance the EFL trophy has specific team restrictions that fundamentally set it apart from other competitions. This is not a senior first team competition in the same way the FA Cup or football league are. GNG is also failed, the sources mentioned above are simple routine transfer talk. Fenix down (talk) 08:14, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk 10:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Current consensus is that players must have played in a fully professional league to be considered notable. LTFC 95 (talk) 18:19, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - without doubt, NFOOTY is failed here. GNG is also not met as the coverage is routine and not significant Spiderone 08:05, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as pointed above, the subject plainly fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Cavarrone 11:14, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - per Jimbo Online's argument. Doesn't look too convincing but this article just might be professional enough to be notable. Inter&anthro (talk) 17:54, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to push technology. MBisanz ^talk 23:32, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Push Notification[edit]

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

I think this article should be merged with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notification_service to make one full article, rather than two stub articles about the same thing. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 19:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 08:15, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 08:15, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 08:15, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - aren't there countless of notification services / ways to notify many users at once while push notification is a specific type of said? --Fixuture (talk) 22:32, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge TomStar81 (Talk) 12:26, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Another Article At least two other articles, Notification service and Push technology, are good canditates for merge. Take your pick. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 11:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is sufficient coverage of this topic as well as ongoing academic discussion of various push notification systems and technologies (GScholar results) which can be used as a basis for this article. High beam shows lots of ongoing research and patents so sources on the basic/general techinolgy are very likely to exist per WP:NEXIST.
Should not be merged because Notification service seems to include not only push technology but things like Reverse 911 and EMWIN. Jbh ^Talk 15:47, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Push technology may be a valid merge target instead. Jbh ^Talk 17:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to suggest that, but Push technology is kind of confusing, so I couldn't really get a clear understanding of it. Maybe I'm just tired but if you think that it fits, then you can make your decision. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 11:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, did you know that the page won't link if you capitalize the 't' in 'technology'? UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 11:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Articles are titled in sentence case ie "Push technology" rather than "Push Technology" or "push technology" however it is possible to create a WP:REDIRECT by creating a one line article consisting of #REDIRECT [[Original article name]] with an alternate spelling, or alternate name which will then be linkable. If there is no redirect and it is not appropriate to/you do not want to make one it is possible to pipe the display text - [[Push technology|arbitarry text]] --> arbitrary text. Jbh ^Talk 12:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk 10:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into push technology it already is mostly examples, just add this one. NOT HOWTO W Nowicki (talk) 22:42, 28 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 Magmatic water. The spirited defense by several SPAs and IPs is not policy based, in contrast to those arguing for deletion. Randykitty (talk) 12:27, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Primary water[edit]

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

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

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

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

Someone had to bite the bullet, so here goes. This is promotion of a fringe topic. It relies essentially on one non-neutral source to establish notability, the rest is fluff. The author also removed an "original research" tag. See also Primary rock. Lithopsian (talk) 18:43, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, then redirect to magmatic water. The 100+ references don't do anything to disguise its nature, as an essay set out to right great wrongs: the "dogma" of the hydrological cycle. The core idea here, that the bulk of earth's water originates in the mantle, is unquestionably fringe science. I'll avoid dumping a bunch of citations of my own here, but that is simply not the accepted understanding of mantle/water interaction. Most of the actual reliable sources cited here (for example: the 2015 Hallis et al. article in Science) simply do not support the claims they are being used to argue for here. In that sense, the article is indeed original research; it is a novel synthesis of sources--some reliable, some not--to support an argument that those sources do not make (and would not agree with). There's no way to fix this. There's no reason to fix this. I'd support deletion of the primary rock article, too; although there's actually maybe an article that could be written on that topic (as a historical concept in geology), what we have right now sure is not it. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:36, 13 October 2016 (UTC) Amended original !vote; the article supporter's efforts to justify retention have done nothing to change my opinion that this is novel synthesis in support of a fringe theory. However, they have demonstrated that it is a viable search term; there is nothing at all to be gained by retaining the current content. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would certainly agree that this is fringe (see, for example, the FAQ question Why haven't we heard of "primary water" before?) and that the vast array of sources are mostly used an input for conclusion synthesis rather than as the source of a conclusion itself. There is an array of websites that seem to support the idea ([37], [38], [39], etc), but I have not been able to find any references to primary water in scholarly sources at all. So even as a fringe theory it seems that it is not notable enough for inclusion, at least not until it is addressed by independent sources. Also note the article Primary minerals, created in the same vain as Primary rock. Sjrct (talk) 22:51, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's some hope for an article at primary mineral (for minerals unaltered by later chemical processes. And a tiny bit of hope for primary rock (mostly in a historical context, referring to Arduino and Werner's systems of lithography). Whether the current content deserves TNT is probably a separate issue to the mess that is primary water. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:40, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well, where to begin? The short articles on Primary rock and Primary minerals were specifically added to indicate that such concepts certainly exist. None other than Webster's Dictionary from 1913 (reference corrected) carried an entry for "Primary rock" which further supports the point of the PW article that these were terms very conversant to geologists and mineralogists a century ago, with primary minerals deriving from primary rock--following the early convention of Primary, Secondary, Tertiary and Quaternary geologic periods. Did you check the works of Spurr et al. (all digitally available online) where they debate extensively the deep earth source of primary minerals? We were not interested in writing lengthy articles on those subjects, but (historical) geologists are certainly welcome to expand on these. The article on "Origin of water on Earth" certainly discusses earliest (Archean and Hadean) planetary waters but does not cover the concept of earth-generated water that is now being discussed in multiple scientific disciplines, but almost absent in hydrology. Therefore why significant effort needed to be made to make the case for geo-hydrology which is emerging in some universities as a specific discipline (although more a sub-discipline of geophysics rather than hydrology) related to groundwater. For this reason your placing PW under "hydrology" is objectionable. The article on hydro-geology mentions the term geo-hydrology but only as a synonym of the first, which is inadequate at best, especially when geo-sciences exist such as geo-chemistry and geo-physics etc. The PW article could have been titled "New water" based on Salzman's book-- did you read the forward (available digitally via Hathi Trust website) by Aldous Huxley, or is he a "fringe" intellectual? Thus the decision was made to add a "Terminology" section stating the many terms for Groundwater (another totally inadequate article) to substantiate the reasoning behind reviving the term primary water which certainly Nordenskiold and his generation of the late 1800s in Europe were totally familiar with (as written in their languages). All other terms are basically a subcategory of earth-generated primary water just as the secondary minerals are derived from primary minerals. Interesting comment on the Q&A. A range of millennials was canvassed on the article and the most common response was: Thanks for the Q&A, wish more Wiki articles did that. We all know their attention span... As for Hallis not agreeing with this concept, did you contact her? She is now in Glasgow but reach out to any current or former member of NASA JPL's astro-biology team (you know, the folks charged with finding water outside our planet). Try the UCSB dissertation of former NASA bio-chemist Randy Mielke who recreated a thermal vent in a laboratory to replicate the origin of microbial life as applicable to the search for planets with magma (including our moon). How about the referenced Dr. Steven Jacobsen at Northwestern whose 25 years of deep earth seismology has now proven the existence of the hydrous mantle transition zone--yet another article missing from Wikipedia. Do we need to write all articles related to our topic, as I have done for Primary rock and Primary minerals? Addition of graphics no doubt would have helped the reviewers, it seems, but apparently these must be added to WikiMedia first. Such effort is underway. Last comment: there seems little doubt that had Wikipedia existed in the 16th century Copernicus's theory of a heliocentric solar system would have been declared "fringe" even though he may have quoted extensively from Heraclides, Aristarchus and the Pythagoreans! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BurrME64 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I most definitely agree with you that if Wikipedia existed in the 16th century, Copernicus's heliocentric solar system theory would be declared as fringe. This, however, is because at the time it was indeed fringe. A geocentric solar system was the generally accepted view and that is what Wikipedia would have primarily covered, even though an examination of the evidence by the editors may have proven to them that Copernicus was correct. This is by design. It is not the purpose of Wikipedia editors to determine what is correct or true, rather it is to assemble information from reliable secondary sources whom have already done so. So even if someone in the 16th century wrote an article on the heliocentric model of the solar system citing Heraclides et al, it would most undoubtedly be a case of synthesis of ideas from those sources to form the heliocentric conclusion, which is undoubtedly contrary to the function of Wikipedia. Sjrct (talk) 16:10, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For reference: New water for a thirsty world by Michael H Salzman Sjrct (talk) 16:10, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sjrct continues to win us all bets made with those who could not believe such an article would receive any push back from the lords of Wikipedia (supposedly "the people's encyclopedia", but I advised them it is far from it, as you have proven!) Your profile indicates you are an "eventualist" which beggars the question how Wikipedia will ever achieve value with such thinking. Wikipedia would not have published an article on Copernicus in the 16th century? That says it all... We have pointed to the article on Origins of water on Earth which does above average justice to the well-developed debate on the meteoric versus terrestrial (or proto-nebular etc.) origin of water. Did you look at the many articles in Nature and Science (I think those qualify as respected scientific journals--unless of course they conflict with "established" WikiScience) describing the recent discovery of proof of "Oceans of Water Beneath Our feet"? Yes, as usual, these are hyperbolic headlines (shameful for respected gatekeepers to engage in) but apparently they are necessary to catch the eye of even blinkered Wiki editors let alone distracted millennials...or are they one and the same? Most of the articles mention "theories 50 years old" but of course do not specify who and where and what. Expecting the silly attempt to attack anything that might not benefit the fearmongers of Peak Oil (dead and buried) and now Peak Water, we have provided abundant historical context for such 50-year old theories that had their genesis well back into the 1800s, if not back to Agricola or even Pliny or Thales himself. It was the Neo-Platonists whose philosophy dominated the Dark Ages, and once again the New Neo-Platonists (second or third incarnation) have attempted to close the gates using A PRIORI arguments that only the uneducated fail to see. Example? Why do plate tectonics (and thus almost all the earth sciences in America, but not in many other regions) believe that the Earth must be Steady State? Once again, well back into the 1800s theories posited an expanding earth--and once the oceans were mapped and dated they discovered not only did South America connect to Africa but Australia had once connected to...North America. Yes, Pangaea existed, but without oceans, on an Earth almost half the present diameter. All of the geological, stratigraphic, fossil, geodetic and paleomagnetic data proves it: throw it all into a computer science laboratory and the only way you achieve 99+% correlation is on a much smaller planet. (Yes, Wikipedia covers this under Expanding Earth, very poorly and condescendingly, even though there are countless scientific supporters of this theory who hold conferences, publish peer-reviewed papers--of course largely outside of the increasingly discredited U.S. scientific establishment.) Everything in the Universe is expanding from macro to micro scale but somehow, using a priori argumentation, the Earth is perfectly stable? Aha, you will say once again this is "fringe" science... Read Carey's book, published by Stanford University no less, "Theories of the Universe: A History of Dogma in the Earth Sciences" and challenge his science (or his analysis of dogma which may only be outdone by Arthur Koestler). EE moved mainstream with James Maxlow, a disciple of Carey in Australia, who has a large global following. Just because American academia has become overwhelmingly politicized and ossified into bureaucratic-think, do not underestimate that many other academic and research institutions are surpassing us. How many of America's Nobel laureates in science are "home grown" so to speak? Less and less each year. Before you attempt to delete this article, I suggest you spend some time actually reading the many references, start with Salzman's expose--why should such a scholarly book be bought up and destroyed nearly to a copy so that a harmless paperback should now be priced like a rare item? Yet all of the USGS libraries (and many top universities) retain copies. Once again, attempt was made in the article (in expectation of some of the shock that Wikipedia, at this late stage, could actually have at a new article of import rather than the deluge of inane lists and pop star bios) to put Primary Water in the context of the vicious Water Wars of California, once again playing out before the world's eyes, history repeating itself down to the governor's mansion itself. Not sure if the formal statement for the record by Senator Estes Kefauver on Riess and New/Primary Water was included in the references, but the topic was of deep interest in the 1950-60s, and largely private interests (mostly German (e.g., Adolf Schoepe) and Jewish (e.g. Nathan K. Mendelsohn), somewhat unfortunately, who were not particularly liked by the segregationist Democratic Party and post-WWII sentiments of the times) arrayed against politicians, bankers and Big Ag (and their Republican politicos). I will finish by asking that this article be removed from "Hydrology" and placed under a new category of "Geo-hydrology" (spelled with a hyphen to emphasize the "geo" nature of the earth-generated origin of water and the study thereof) where we are happy to remain as the sole entry. Or would you like us to create that reference too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BurrME64 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This comment was added at the top: "The Primary Water contribution is a valuable collection of hard to find references for a subject of great and increasing importance. While known under a variety of names over central centuries, the phenomenon is well established by qualified researchers and receives more and more collaboration by scientists studying the composition of the mantle and transition zone. It helps explain how oceans first appeared on Earth and why all the great fresh water bodies in the world sit atop major rifts or fracture zones - and a host of other hydrological marvels like desert oases, volcanic lakes, the artesian wells in Australia's great basin and first magnitude springs found throughout the world. I don't find any sensible reason to delete such cutting edge research. I don't know how to terminate this post properly, so will just stop here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.38.132 (talk) 05:50, 15 October 2016 (UTC)"

It should be added that the article represents no cutting edge "original research" but rather presents a new article on a century or two old term in geology as relates to earth-generated water (in all its phases: liquid, gas/vapor, and solid/crystalline). — Preceding unsigned comment added by BurrME64 (talk • contribs) — Duplicate vote: BurrME64 (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.

Incorrect! As stated, this entry was added at the top of this page by 76.90.38.132 so I placed it in the string of comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BurrME64 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In the interest of supporting primary water information online, I would like to add the following information. Pal Pauer, geologist and hydrologist, with over 40 years of field experience looking for, and finding, optimal sites for drilling water wells, recently drilled two test wells, at around 6,000 ft. elevation, in fractured rock strata, near the upthrust Garlock Fault in central California, nowhere near any alluvial aquifer / water table. He found water at both sites at less than a hundred feet from the surface, under pressure, and with a constant flow rate. He certainly has vindicated his mentor, Dr. Stephan Riess, Austrian astrophysicist, who spent over 20 years drilling for water, and often finding it in fractured bedrock strata of granite and basalt. More recently Paul Hertz, Astrophysicist, and Director of NASA's Astrophysics Division at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, presented compelling evidence, courtesy of images captured by the Hubble Space Telescope, of water jets erupting to a height of 150 miles above the icy surface of Europa, a moon of Jupiter. <www.wsj.com/video/nasa-finds-evidence-of-water-plumes-on-europa> This article was published in the Wall Street Journal. One must wonder at the intense pressure needed to throw water up to 150 miles distance from the moon's surface. <www.upi.com/science_news/2016/09/26/nasa-presents-new-evidence-of-water-plumes-on-europa> published by United Press International. Astrophysicists at NASA are proving that water is formed within bodies in space, such as Europa, a frozen moon, without clouds or rainfall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhiteTigerGO (talk • contribs) 00:05, 16 October 2016 (UTC) — WhiteTigerGO (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:19, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@WhiteTigerGO and BurrME64:: the Wikipediaspeak for "do not delete a page" is keep, not "publish", which is an interesting lapsus. I suggest you read one of Wikipedia's core policies, WP:OR, which says Wikipedia should not get ahead of mainstream science, no matter how corrupt or incorrect it is (to make it short).

Wiki-speak...this exercise is becoming more Orwellian with every comment. Was it too hard for you change Publish to Keep? It is done. This is absolutely "mainstream" science--and has been for over 100 years, albeit sidelined by the bankrupt discipline of Hydrology which is largely the point of having to spend so much time on the topic. Does the concept of Primary Rock exist. Yes: now Archean etc. Does the concept of Primary Minerals exist? Yes: they are produced from Primary/Archean rock. Does Primary Water exist? Undeniably. Hydrogen and oxygen exist deep into the mantle and combine under the electromechanical forces of our planet to create H2O in all its phases, the source of our fluid dynamics, crystalline bedrock and minerals...

Tigraan did not change "Publish" to "Keep" as it is generally against policy to edit the comments of another in a discussion page. See WP:TPO. Sjrct (talk) 17:21, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hereby issue my reliable source challenge: please provide at most three reliable sources that deal with the subject in detail and establish its notability, going by Wikipedia's definition of the terms "reliable sources" and "notability". If you fail to do so, I will consider the subject is not notable and accordingly !vote to delete. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We have provided dozens of sources from both historical and modern sources--including from "fathers" of their respective earth science disciplines. From recent years to the present you have: the deep earth seismology work of Dr. Stephen Jacobsen at Northwestern and his global team members; the deep earth mineralogy led by Dr. Graham Pearson at the University of Alberta; and the planetary astro-biology work of Dr. Lydia Hallis at the University of Hawaii/NASA and their international team. Not enough? Check with the Kepler in Austria, various institutions in St. Petersburg, multiple in Japan and China... Why not check your own article on Mantle plumes which states that such a concept of deep earth water vapor (H2O in gaseous rather than aqueous form) did not fit in with the plate tectonics of a few decades. Yes, plate tectonics...that highly controversial subject since geologists first discovered the Americas connected with Europe-Africa--but even later finding it difficult to accept the data that Australia and China were connected to North America as well. Given the vast over-specialization in science, often producing more and more meaninglessness, we understand how it is difficult to respect the great effort needed to comprehend concepts of a multi-disciplinary nature such as how minerals are created--including that really important one we simply call "water". Just because modern hydrology remains frozen in time, more a sub-discipline of civil engineer (i.e., long-distance plumbing), this state of affairs has not prevented others from leading: geo-physicists (see Wendy Mao at Stanford proving the Earth's core was created in layers through seepage from inside out); mineralogists from Van Hise, Clarke and Spurr to Pearson and Mao; a range of geo-chemists and planetary astro-biologists; seismologists leveraging the advances in computer science and mathematics; the list goes on! Primary water (and thus Geo-hydrology) is not a theoretical but rather an APPLIED science. The results speak for themselves, thus the section on History reviewing the work of Nordenskiold, Riess, Cameron and Cox who could receive much longer attention.

I wrote "at most three", in bold, on purpose. The point is to have less references to go through (details of my personal views on the subject: User:Tigraan/Reliable sources challenge). You seem to be expecting editors here to take a week-long undertaking diving through all that material. It will not happen. That is the point where countless others complained that Wikipedia is run by idiots who dismiss experts, so, pre-emptive strike: we are not evaluating the scientific merits of a theory, we are evaluating the notability of a topic for inclusion in an encyclopedia of human knowledge. Basically all scientific topics, from penguin migration to the Riemann hypothesis, require the same skill set in that regard.

So, please quote at most three papers / books / articles, the best in terms of WP:RS and WP:SIGCOV, with enough detail that one can find the them online or in the correct library (not just "the 12th paper by XXX"). The understanding, of course, is that if those few were found to be completely insufficient, then editors will !vote to delete with a clear conscience.

Of course, you are under no obligation whatsoever to locate those resources, or even to reply to my post, but I guarantee doing so would advance your case a lot more than any amount of discussion of the topic itself. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:53, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

www.dmg-home.org/fileadmin/Konferenzen/Geoberlin_2015.pdf

(2015) = "elevated primary water content"(p. 214) "Shallow magmatism during subduction-zone initiation: Constraints from the Oman ophiolite and related experiments Juergen Koepke1 , Sandrin Feig1 , Paul Eric Wolff2 (1) University of Hannover, Hannover, Germany; (2) University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia [email protected] Oral in Session A1-03 The Semail Ophiolite in the Sultanate Oman was formed during the initiation of a subduction zone in the Cretaceous and is characterized by two different magmatic phases: The first shows typical MOR-type character with a small subduction zone component (extrusives composition similar to modern MORB, but with slight Nb-Ta anomaly and elevated primary water content), the second magmatic phase is completely different..." No surprise the authors are German and Australian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BurrME64 (talk • contribs) 19:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/70015237

(1987) = both "primary water" and "primary isotopic signatures", in this case by American authors in 1987 (Dobson is now at Berkeley-Livermore so I don't think his publications have been deleted...): Abstract: Measurements of stable isotope compositions and water contents of boninite series volcanic rocks from the island of Chichi-jima, Bonin Islands, Japan, confirm that a large amount (1.6-2.4 wt.%) of primary water was present in these unusual magmas. An enrichment of 0.6??? in 18O during differentiation is explained by crystallization of 18O-depleted mafic phases. Silicic glasses have elevated ??18O values and relatively low ??D values indicating that they were modified by low-temperature alteration and hydration processes. Mafic glasses, on the other hand, have for the most part retained their primary isotopic signatures since Eocene time. Primary ??D values of -53 for boninite glasses are higher than those of MORB and suggest that the water was derived from subducted oceanic lithosphere. ?? 1987.

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#sent/157d424016a2a0db

(2013) Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Volumes 369–370, Pages 1-344 (May 2013): pp. 317-332. Water in volcanic pyroclast: Rehydration or incomplete degassing? by T. Giachetti, H.M. Gonnermann (yes, an Italian and a German in honor of Arduino and Werner) Abstract: "The matrix-glass water concentrations in samples from volcanic eruptions of intermediate to highly silicic magmas were measured and compiled. They range from 0.1 wt% to more than 3.5 wt% and show a positive correlation with vesicles surface area over glass volume ratio. Modeling of water diffusion suggests that most of this correlation can be explained by the post-eruptive diffusion of external water at atmospheric temperature and pressure into the matrix-glass, a process referred to as rehydration. Although the precise proportion of primary (magmatic) to secondary (meteoric) water is not determined by our analysis, we find that most samples can be modeled by progressive rehydration of an initially ‘dry’ sample during the time interval between deposition and sample collection at an average rehydration diffusivity of approximately 10−23 m2 s−1. This diffusivity estimate is consistent with values provided in the literature on obsidian hydration dating and with the extrapolation of diffusivity formulations for silicic melts to lower temperatures and pressures."

The three sources provided use the term "primary water", universally in the sense of magmatic water. They do absolutely nothing to support the fundamental claims of the article under discussion here (that "primary water" is a significant contributor to the hydrological cycle, or that significant sources of "primary water" can be made available via drilling; to say nothing of the article's willingness to take concepts like dowsing and abiogenic oil seriously). More specifically, the first source—Koepke, Feig, and Wolff (2015)—was a paper presented orally at the 2015 conference of the Deutsche Geologische Gesellschaft - Geologische Vereinigung. To the best of my ability to determine, it has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal and is not a suitable reference under Wikipedia policies (the pdf linked above is a publication of the conference's abstracts only). Its use of the term is trivial, and entirely compatible with our article on magmatic water. The other two sources are both published in Earth and Planetary Science Letters. The latter is, by far, the source that uses the term "primary water" in the least-trivial manner; it is available in full via ResearchGate. However, it also does nothing to support the claims of the article under discussion here, which remains a novel synthesis of sources in support of a fringe theory without sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet our inclusion standards. The sources are, however, sufficient that I would support a redirect to magmatic water (which, in light of this wall-of-text-themed AFD, will probably require protection), as the phrase is a plausible search term. I've amended my !vote above accordingly. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you are becoming educated in the subject. Magmatic water, as we indicate in the Terminology section, is one of many terms for "deep Earth water": primordial, proto-nebular, juvenile, pre-biotic, Hadean...ALL can be considered as subcategories of Primary Water. (Have you read how Primary Minerals are derived from Primary Rock? Water is a mineral--and crystalline in one of its solid forms found in many primary minerals.) Read the intro to Magmatic water again: it unquestionably enters the atmosphere via volcanic vapor, hydrothermal vents (that is liquid water!) and by the many sources of water found near volcanic formations (where coincidentally much of the purest bottled water is sourced from). We have isotope geochemists working on a review of the article as the geophysicists, seismologists and volcanologists are all pointing in that relation--while in total disbelief that this article is being rejected by Wikipedia of all things. Your profile claims Malthusianism which no doubt means you must be horrified by reference to Peak Oil being dead and buried and with Peak Water the next straw man to fall. Global Warming was certainly "fringe" and debunked so fast they changed it to Climate Change--and yet it survived on Wiki! No further responses will be made to Squeamish Ossifrage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BurrME64 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is no shred of either notability or veracity here. This is mumbo-jumbo at its best. Trying to overwhelm with acres of spurious "references" does not make for notability. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 23:21, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to magmatic water per Squeamish Ossifrage above. I entirely subscribe to their analysis of the papers at hand. Not sure whether the article history is worth nuking, or the redirect protecting. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Links have been made to Magmatic water and all other related topics--none of which covers this topic adequately. This article is absolutely Notable and fully Referenced. Wikipedia is full of "fringe" topics that anonymous reviewers deem mainstream. We have met all the criteria established by Wikipedia. The prejudices of the reviewers on the topic is immaterial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.161.76.127 (talk) 14:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a fringe topic, but that's fine, we have many articles on those as was said right above me. Where this runs afoul of policy is that many of the sources cited support a small fact in the text, but little in the way of reliable sources support combining those facts to back up the desired claim. Thus we have synthesis at work. Again as mentioned above there is little in the way of reliable sourcing to cover the concept from soda to hock in the kind of detail we need. This article gives the appearance of being the paper submitted to scientific journals which puts all the facts together to prove the conclusion. Unfortunately that's cart-before-the-horse here. Crow^Caw 22:13, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

None of those calling for deletion have indicated any specific instances of the article directly contradicting the core Wikipedia policies: Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, or the copyright policy. Because it is a "new topic" to the reviewers does not make it fringe or not Notable. The red herring of Dowsing (certainly related to pinpoint locating non-aquifer groundwater sources) was included at the end of the article which was quickly used as evidence by one reviewer as evidence of unacceptability of the whole article--AND YET WIKIPEDIA HAS AN ARTICLE ON DOWSING! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BurrME64 (talk • contribs) 00:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought I had made that clear. The article relies on synthesis to put all the facts together to prove the concept, thus running afoul of No Original Research. I wasn't going to bring up Dowsing, but since you did: our article on dowsing gives an encyclopedic treatment of it, its history and so on, with primary emphasis on the mainstream scientific viewpoint that is it pseudoscience and indistinguishable from random chance. The Primary Water article discusses the "science of dowsing". I hope the distinction is obvious. Crow^Caw 20:31, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk 09:38, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete leaving redirect to magmatic water. Magmatic water is a genuine geological feature (and is a properly cited article); "Primary water" is a WP:FRINGE version, with all differences from the other article being pseudoscience. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mate...not all water of internal origin comes from magmatic/volcanic sources; check your British sources, such as: "British Dictionary definitions for hydrothermal": hydrothermal /ˌhaɪdrəʊˈθɜːməl/ [the term dates to 1855 in geology] adjective 1. of or relating to the action of water under conditions of high temperature, esp in forming rocks and minerals Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 2012. The word "water" sadly conjures up H2O in an aqueous form; but much of deep terrestrial/telluric water (here and on the moon and many other planetary bodies) is in a crystalline form which transmutes to gas (water vapor) or liquid based on the massive pressures and temperatures combined with the electromechanical (our geo-dynamo plus tectonic action) forces of the earth. Water released from metamorphic rocks contains both primary water and atmospheric water captured from previous eons--hence the confusing results of isotope studies if the scientists do not understand the types and ages of rocks. A rudimentary chart is added for your edification: (See chart at:) "File:Geo-hydrologic_chart.jpg. It was stated that because we mentioned "abiotic/abiogenic" we are also therefore fringe...even though Wikipedia contains an article on abiogenesis that evaded such assault. And the article on Abiogenic petroleum origin has clearly moved from "fringe" to mainstream with its discussion, in the introductory section, of the recent work of the RIT/KTH in Stockholm (where the Russian scientist Vladimir Kutcherov is highly influential in this area). — Preceding unsigned comment added by BurrME64 (talk • contribs) 22:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Radically condense and NPOVize; otherwise, delete. As noted repeatedly above, the topic may well be notable (indeed I'd say it is) even though it is fringe - widespread and well-documented fringe is worth an article. However, the current treatment is an absurdly biased, bloated exercise in WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. I wonder if anyone will be masochistic enough to jump in there and cut it down to something that a neutral encyclopedia could countenance, in the face of the expected resistance from the proponents. If not, this has to go, as it is an entirely misleading minority diatribe right now.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems Sjrct has undertaken the "masochistic" exercise to review the article for NPOV, copyright etc. Why don't you dig deep and take a stab so the header can be removed and you folks can move on to other planet-saving article reviews?BurrME64 (talk) 14:22, 2 November 2016 (UTC)BurrME64[reply]

Keep; anyone is free to add a section for Dissenting Views etc. The article is Notable, Verifiable, has No Original Research (but is clearly a scary topic to typical scaremongers and establishment science types and their Wiki-drones). The article could have been titled "New water" to use Salzman's term but even he deferred to Riess--a German-trained geochemist and metallurgist who located over 800 PW wells, many of which still pour forth potable water unaffected by drought--who directly related its provenance to Primary Rock just as the Primary Minerals are. Primary Minerals is a fully established concept that has survived from the 1800s; Primary Rock is a concept any geologist would understand, largely replaced by a wide range of more specific terms. That primary rocks (magmatic, igneous, volcanic, some metamorphic) contain water is a given: Gorenson in, yes, 1931 demonstrated that granite subjected to pressure and temperature equivalent to a depth of 9 miles...contains 9% water. Refer to the Wikipedia article on the Kola Superdeep Borehole that almost reached those depths: "To scientists, one of the more fascinating findings to emerge from this well is that no transition from granite to basalt was found at the depth of about 7 km, where the velocity of seismic waves has a discontinuity [aka the Moho, discovered way back in 1909]. Instead the change in the seismic wave velocity is caused by a metamorphic transition in the granite rock. In addition, the rock at that depth had been thoroughly fractured and was saturated with water, which was surprising. This water, unlike surface water, must have come from deep-crust minerals and had been unable to reach the surface because of a layer of impermeable rock." That this water is released from the rock and added to the atmospheric cycle upon reaching the surface, via the centrifugal forces of a planet spinning over 1000 mph at the equator (thus creating the equatorial bulge) has long been theorized by many of the most renowned scientists since the 1700s--and is now fully proven by applied scientists. For this reason the article had to go to great historical lengths to demonstrate why such a simple concept remains undiscovered by hydrology (supposedly the study of water) and hydrogeology (the study of water as relates to rock) but not neglected by many other earth sciences who literally carried their water for them. And the role the vicious politics of water played in delaying this scientific inquiry is also needed--if none other than to confront the Wiki-Doubting Thomases. Read Ackerman's speech to the AGU in 1961; the same speech could be given today. This time he would point to the many years of dedicated, multi-disciplinary, scientific, field and laboratory work of Jacobsen (USA), Pearson (Canada), Nestola (Italy), Ye (China) and quite a few others--none of them from hydrology or hydrogeology but rather seismology, mineralogy, geochemistry, crystallography etc. We leave you with this reference and a graphic that will soon be in textbooks: "Diamonds and water in the deep Earth: A new scenario" in International Geology Review 58(3):1-14, June 2015. See graphic at: "File:Water in Earth - Jug.jpg". This topic may have been "fringe" a century ago; but as of 2014 it is mainstream. You folks need to come down from your Ivory Wiki-Tower! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BurrME64 (talk • contribs) 04:09, 22 October 2016 (UTC) — Duplicate vote: BurrME64 (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.[reply]

Thanks for joining us, but we do work to some basic rules. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BurrME64 et al.: this will be my last answer in that AfD for what should be obvious reasons. You do not seem to have read profitably the numerous Wikipedia policies that were pointed to you, so I will keep it short. We are not here to discuss primary water, but the inclusion of a certain page in Wikipedia. Claiming the subject is notable does not make it so (you barely tried to get higher than the 4th level of File:Graham's_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement-en.svg). Saying Wikipedia's "reviewers" are somehow all incompetent at recognizing a notable topic is preposterous. More generally, insulting others generally weakens your case (that last advice is valid outside Wikipedia). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:14, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for exiting the discussion. "Elmidae" states that indeed it is Notable--and is free to engage in the "masochistic" exercise of NPOV'ing the article to conform to your standards (which from what we see includes "Wikipedia has no firm rules"...) and the following statement: "A well-written encyclopedia article identifies a notable encyclopedic topic, summarizes that topic comprehensively, contains references to reliable sources, and links to other related topics." We have done so from our first draft. The major objection is that this article presents a supposedly "fringe" topic as claimed by anonymous reviewers whose prejudices (Malthusians, Catastrophists, etc) militate against something counter to their worldview. Global Warming is not fringe because, well, arguing a priori, the data proves it...until it doesn't. Then Climate Change emerges as a revealed religion, but is also not a fringe topic denied an article...until it isn't (sooner than later?). Please sip a naturally carbonated (CO2 resulting from the outgassing of the Earth) Perrier and read about the father of modern chemistry Lavoisier, in your case in the original, and his experiments on water in the 18th century and then return to Palissy in the 16th century and his Discours admirable... These great Frenchmen are of course pre-Revolutionary, after which little of scientific note has come from Gaul--and currently the greatest scientific and entrepreneurial French minds, thanks to the stranglehold of your beloved Institut and its Académie, are here...in Silicon Valley. Bon chance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BurrME64 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article is actually quite informative and certainly exhaustive on the concept. The references are of a high quality and with a few exceptions (which users are free to edit) presents a neutral point of view. This can only be seen as "fringe" by those for whom the concept is either new or counter to their prejudices. It seems rather obvious from the literature of many scientific disciplines that the Earth produces water which is added to the atmospheric hydrologic system. Oceanographers alone are proving massive inflows of H2O from the mantle through the crust into the oceans, including via thousands of underwater volcanic hydrothermal vents. Isotope chemistry is now differentiating between types and even ages of water. I will end by saying this entry will hopefully affect many other related articles to address this clearly notable topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.57.246.193 (talk) 00:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Magmatic water. Most of the article is very biased, violating the WP:NPOV requirement; presenting a fringe idea as if it was fact. It presents discredited ideas also as part of this topic in a non-neutral misleading way. And most of the content is presented as original research, not referenced to anything to say that this is part of the topic, instead relying on unconnected sources. I don't think that the content is excessively harmful that it must be deleted, but a redirect should be the way to go, and this content should not be recreated here. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:19, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So is the extensive body of work by Jacobsen, Pearson, Nestola et al. "fringe"? The only reason the article below highlights "a new scenario" is because this group would like to receive their Nobel Prize when such concepts were theorized and proven decades ago. Scientific posturing is nothing new--and their entire body of work has certainly now mainstreamed "competing theories of a century ago" so that this topic can no longer be considered fringe except by the bankrupt and rather indifferent disciplines of hydrology and geology. The following Water in Earth "jug graphic" is from this peer-reviewed study: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281161532_Diamonds_and_water_in_the_deep_Earth_A_new_scenario?_sg=BcbjNCok3kUO5Nh_uZL-KbKY0UXyxZxJB-IPYtantM5eU3oKH6k6OYcqIaKEbwM0VxBVCxF8gW4yBIdbZLDXow

See graphic at: "File:Water in Earth - Jug.jpg"

Keep but clarify that this is a fringe view. Primary water, as propounded by Reiss' theory, differs from the magmatic water of mainstram hydrology by being very low in TDS. As does nearly every other hydrogeologist, I regard this theory as nonsense. I have read Salzman's book, and as someone familiar with groundwater, I found it entirely unconvincing. Nevertheless, fringe theories have a place in Wikipedia, but should be clearly labelled as fringe theories. The present article gives Riess' theory a free pass, and gives only Salzman's one-sided views. Salzman was not a groundwater scientist, and neither were Reiss or Aldous Huxley. The Swedish/Finnish engineer who coined the term primary water used it for water occurring in primary rocks, and made no claims as to its origin. A properly written article on the subject should be included in Wikipedia. Plazak (talk) 13:27, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally a geologist will prejudicially consider this topic fringe. Not one of the Jacobsen, Pearson, Nestola et al. global team is a geologist. Geology long ago abandoned the pursuit of the origin of water to geochemistry, mineralogy, crystallography, volcanology...and ultimately seismology and geophysics to prove it. Many of these used to be considered sub-disciplines of geology--but at least in academia have emerged as fully developed disciplines distancing themselves from the dogmatic stranglehold of American geology and disinterested hydrology which has become a sub-discipline of civil engineering and hydraulics. PW is not/not classified simply by its TDS. Rankama was able to define it by its heavier weight 60 years ago. Libby, then, and Hallis et al., now, are using hydrogen and oxygen ratios to determine pre-biotic Hadean waters, biotic Archean waters, newly released volcanic vapors and water etc. Mineralogists understand their is H2O in minerals and that it can be released by the electromechanical forces of the interior of the planet. Crystallographers are proving this in laboratories from the US to UK to Russia to Japan to New Zealand. There is no single term that covers all Earth generated water other than Primary Water as used by the "fathers of the earth sciences" over a century ago--thus the need to place it in the context of Primary Rock and Primary Minerals. The rest are sub-categories of PW: pre-biotic (abiotic/abiogenic!) Hadean, biotic Archean, juvenile of any age from magma/volcanics, metamorphic water... See chart at: "File:Geo-hydrologic_chart.jpg". It is a long and growing list! Clearly the emerging science of geo-hydrology (the study of the water of Earth origin) is the rightful place for both the theoretical and, even more so, the applied science of earth-generated water.BurrME64 (talk) 16:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)BurrME64[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:18, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and do not Redirect to "Magmatic water". It should be noted that the article on magmatic water, which has been accepted without prejudice, includes the following statement in the introductory paragraph: "Ultimate sources of this magmatic water includes water and hydrous minerals in rocks melted during subduction as well as primordial water brought up from the deep mantle." Note that "primordial water" was italicized, but no link or reference provided. Primordial or proto-nebular H2O is the original source of PRIMARY water found in the anhydrous and hydrous minerals of the deep mantle which form the PRIMARY rocks and ultimately PRIMARY minerals of the crust. Magmatic water is a subcomponent of Primary water--which, we repeat, itself is a mineral when in solid form bound in crystals, as well as a gas (water vapor) released by volcanoes and outgassed like all other minerals towards the surface as a result of the massive centrifugal force of our spinning planet (over 1000 miles an hour at the equator, which bulges as a result). — Preceding unsigned comment added by BurrME64 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 28 October 2016 (UTC) — Duplicate vote: BurrME64 (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.[reply]

Comment originally placed above the opening statement The Primary Water contribution is a valuable collection of hard to find references for a subject of great and increasing importance. While known under a variety of names over central centuries, the phenomenon is well established by qualified researchers and receives more and more collaboration by scientists studying the composition of the mantle and transition zone. It helps explain how oceans first appeared on Earth and why all the great fresh water bodies in the world sit atop major rifts or fracture zones - and a host of other hydrological marvels like desert oases, volcanic lakes, the artesian wells in Australia's great basin and first magnitude springs found throughout the world. I don't find any sensible reason to delete such cutting edge research. I don't know how to terminate this post properly, so will just stop here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.38.132 (talk) 05:50, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
weak redirect Frankly I don't see enough to meet WP:FRINGE and the discussions here are fairly convincing that this is a fringe theory. Two of the three sources provided above seem to not really be on this topic, but instead on magnatic water. Weak because I've not taken the time to do research myself beyond reading this discussion. Hobit (talk) 04:04, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Elias, Duke of Parma. Uncontested. Sandstein 08:31, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Francesca of Bourbon-Parma[edit]

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

Non-notable family tree entry. Disputed prod. DrKay (talk) 19:57, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and then redirect to her father, Elias, Duke of Parma. This article is too confused to keep in its present form, as it starts out talking about Maria Francesca, but gives her the birth and death dates of her brother Robert Hugo, Duke of Parma, then switches to calling the subject Princess Elisabetta, which was the name of her sister Elisabetta of Bourbon-Parma. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:00, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:43, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The detailed reason given for the PROD got lost in this edit by Bgwhite. The notability issue needs to be addressed in addition to errors of content: Noyster (talk), 08:55, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk 09:33, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:33, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Abdollahian[edit]

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

I can find no evidence that this person meets WP:PROF, or more basic criteria for notability like WP:GNG. Safehaven86 (talk) 21:49, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:53, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:55, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:56, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Tentative~~ Delete due to overly WP:PROMO tone and content of the article, such as:

Abdollahian's studies included strategic decision making, data analytics, predictive analytics, international political economy, sustainable development, economics, growth, econometrics, and computational modeling. He has lectured to audiences worldwide, and he served as a board member for several private and nonprofit enterprises.

Note the sea of blue and peacock language "worldwide audiences". The article also contains a meticulous list of journal articles which are typically not included. So I'm leaning delete, but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Inadequate citations on GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:01, 17 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk 09:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: upgrading from tentative delete to full delete as no sources have been presented at this AfD. [{WP:TNT]] applies -- if someone comes along with good sources for an NPOV article, it can be recreated. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:24, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as certainly not convincing for WP:AUTHOR or WP:PROF. SwisterTwister talk 05:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The citations on GS are not enough for WP:PROF. I am unable to infer if the subject would pass any other criteria. Considering the state of the article, I feel it is OK to TNT it. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:59, 30 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 Anime music video. MBisanz ^talk 23:33, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MAD Movie[edit]

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

Difficult term to Google, but using other keywords with "MAD movie" I found no reliable sources at all Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:47, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:02, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Failed to find enough significant reliable coverage about this term. While "MAD" is is commonly used in Japanese, the "Movie" disambiguation probably makes this ineligible for a redirect. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:51, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:10, 18 October 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Redirect MAD (Video) to Anime music video. The article's current title isn't stuck the way it is, it should be moved to MAD (Video) then redirected in order to preserve the article's history. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Knowledgekid87. There is a 2016 film called Mad [40] and another film called The Mad. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:40, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk 09:31, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MER-C 04:48, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ElDewrito[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Topic lacks significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. There are some hits from reliable sources, but they are not extensive enough establish independent notability from Halo: Online, which itself also fails notability criteria. The1337gamer (talk) 17:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 17:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ForgeAndAnvil (talk) 09:05, 14 October 2016 (UTC) I recommend to actually delete this page urgently, so that i can recreate the page when the game is more notable, and has more coverage.[reply]

Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had only cursory mentions in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. A redirect to a Halo Online article would work but there is none on the subject—just a redirect to the series article and a mention of this mod would be closer to undue weight there. czar 05:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk 09:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unsourced, seems unlikely that a game engine from a video game that doesn't even have its own dedicated article at the moment is going to have independent notability. Sergecross73 msg me 12:48, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable mod from non-notable video game. Clearly non-notable. Smartyllama (talk) 20:58, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MER-C 04:48, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vicomi[edit]

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

A typical promotional article. all claims are blatant advertising only. like "largest online emotional data network" or "some of the biggest online publishers in Europe". Just the press for startup but not for its significance. other references are merely mentioned nothing notable. need to much more than that to become an encyclopedia notable. This is not a directory for startups happens everyday and even get funded and even get few coverage by popular media. Funding, operations and selective awards mentioned as promotions. definitely influenced by the company officials. Light2021 (talk) 09:24, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - apart from the blatantly promotional nature and the low-quality sources, my own WP:BEFORE shows promotional-push coverage and funding announcements - David Gerard (talk) 11:27, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and this is quite honestly speedy material, everything is simply either listing or republishing what the company would say about itself and therefore motivate for continuing this advertising, I had been watching this article since last July and it's certainly delete material now, not only considering the sheerness of no other accounts contributing to it, but the mere sheerness of the account letting it stay like this when it was clearly advertising, therefore we never compromise with that. SwisterTwister talk 02:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The only in-depth coverage I was able to find was from Tech Cocktail. I am not completely sure about its reliability and even if we use it, one source does not amount to "significant coverage."--CNMall41 (talk) 01:46, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:34, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inzergi[edit]

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

No sources, and there never have been since it was created. Frequent vandalism, including something about a dragon, which would have been notable but it was sadly unsourced. Unless there's an exception for places not requiring notability, I don't think this article adds anything. Googling Inzergi found only a facebook page, no news sites came up. There is an article on Katlang, with features the same badly worded text about this village. Maybe it should re-direct? In any case, for more knowledgable people to discuss. Scribolt (talk) 09:19, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So far I can't find any indication of existence of this place. I've tried really hard looking at the villages around Katlang and can't find anything that resembles the word "Inzergi."[41] --Oakshade (talk) 22:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)ld[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:43, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:43, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete I found one news article which mentions an "Inzergi Hospital", but the only hospital I could find was not at the location that someone filled in on Wikimapia; those two, besides copies of this article, essentially exhaust the supply of sources, and I would not assume that "Inzergi" is the name of the place where the hospital is located. It doesn't show up as a name on GMaps, but then very little smaller than Katlang itself is labelled. This may exist, but we need some real sourcing. Mangoe (talk) 03:07, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MER-C 04:47, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Advanon[edit]

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

A typical promotional article. Just the press for startup but not for its significance. other references are merely mentioned nothing notable. need to much more than that to become an encyclopedia notable. This is not a directory for startups happens everyday and even get funded and even get few coverage by popular media. Funding, operations and selective awards mentioned as promotions. definitely influenced by the company officials.

"Advanon targets the market of 378,000 high growth SMEs in the Germany-Austria-Switzerland region" and other coverage on same themes. Light2021 (talk) 09:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:37, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:37, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fintech blogs are pretty minimal coverage. The RS mentions aren't enough to convince me of notability here - David Gerard (talk) 11:36, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete by all means as my watching this since March shows the blatancy of not only company advertising but for a company whose existence has only been for something of a year, with the sources being themselves PR and republished PR, none of it comes close to actual independence (nothing here is guaranteed as non-company materials) or substance. SwisterTwister talk 02:42, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MER-C 04:47, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rubikloud Technologies Inc.[edit]

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

A typical promotional article. Just the press for startup but not for its significance. other references are merely mentioned nothing notable. need to much more than that to become an encyclopedia notable. This is not a directory for startups happens everyday and even get funded and even get few coverage by popular media. Funding, operations and selective awards mentioned as promotions. definitely influenced by the company officials. Light2021 (talk) 09:14, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:37, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:37, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

leaning Delete the Globe and Mail article is pretty good (even if it's local coverage), but my own searches don't turn up anything better, and I'm not convinced of notability by funding round coverage. (The newsworthiness of funding round coverage is mostly "what VCs are coughing up lately?" rather than newsworthiness of the funded companies.) I'd want more RS coverage than a local piece - David Gerard (talk) 11:35, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt by all means as this was in fact restarted yet after a past G11 deletion, both articles were equally advertising and this one is noticeably contains only what the company would advertise about itself; from the information, sources and accounts, they all show no one actually cared to come close to putting something both substantial and non-PR, therefore we should not accept it. SwisterTwister talk 02:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Companies are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they exist, but nothing here is a credible notability claim or a WP:CORP pass. David Gerard is correct that the Globe and Mail reference is a good one, but one good reference is not enough by itself. Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MER-C 04:47, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Phenom (company)[edit]

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

A typical promotional article. Just the press for startup but not for its significance. other references are merely mentioned nothing notable. need to much more than that to become an encyclopedia notable. This is not a directory for startups happens everyday and even get funded and even get few coverage by popular media. Light2021 (talk) 09:08, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:36, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:36, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not convinced getting coverage for a public relations exercise counts as coverage of the company (and if that's the best the author could find, it's even less convincing). WP:BEFORE is difficult because it appears journalists use "phenom" as a short form of "phenomenon" far more than I'd have expected ... I'm willing to be convinced, but frankly even if notable the article would need a rewrite from whatever unexpectedly convincing sources turned up - David Gerard (talk) 11:32, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clearly blatant company PR considering the sheer PR notices and republished PR advertising from both the information, sources and the involved accounts, none of which escaped the essences of only mentioning what the company's advertisements would, and therefore the fact my time of watching this article since its start, showed no improvements or any damn signs of actual changes-activities, it shows no one cares about this but making it and keeping as an advertisement. SwisterTwister talk 02:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MER-C 04:48, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RideOn (technology company)[edit]

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

A typical promotional article. covered by Wired merely a part of any new startup with product coverage. Just the press for startup but not for its significance. other references are merely mentioned nothing notable. need to much more than that to become an encyclopedia notable. This is not a directory for startups happens everyday and even get funded and even get few coverage by popular media. Light2021 (talk) 09:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:19, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

leaning Delete tone is breathlessly anticipatory that they may have a product some time. There's RS coverage, but it's all aspirational and clearly originating in a PR outreach. They may be notable if they get this thing out, but in the meantime I think this is a WP:TOOSOON - David Gerard (talk) 11:29, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as entirely unbelievable this was actually accepted from not only having been started for not even a full day after, but the fact it was clear advertising from the get-go, notice the advertising PR information and links and also the fact it was one PR-motivated account, all of that combined damns it as advertising and it's something we know quite clear about, therefore we make no compromises about such blatant adverts and we sure as hell attempt our best to not even accept them lest we send the "advertising is accepted" signals. SwisterTwister talk 02:49, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Wikipedia is not a collection of product brochures on unremarkable subjects. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:24, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly Too soon. If the company survives long enough to be independently notable then at that time, if not too promotional. Amused that RideOn has been around four decades. W Nowicki (talk) 18:40, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:34, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zama Arman[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM with no in-depth secondary sources, reviews or awards. Sources are all dead blogs or YouTube videos, with the exception of two samaa.tv links which appear to say in their entirety that "It is for the first time in the history of Pashto films that a new movie Zama Arman is being presented in high definition at Eidul Fitr." McGeddon (talk) 09:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:06, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:06, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: as I declined the speedy deletion of this article, I'm now WP:INVOLVED. I point out that the article asserts that director of this 2013 movie is Liaquat Ali Khan, the first Prime Minister of Pakistan, who died 1951.--Shirt58 (talk) 09:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Comprehensively fails WP:FILM. And the only seemingly notable actor (Jahangir Khan Jani) does not have this film listed on his IMDb page. Is someone trying to big up their little home movie here by attaching some recognisable names to it? edit: the originator of the article, User:Nadiagul2424, added [[42]] this title to Khan Jani's Wikipedia page on 6 October. I checked out the title on YouTube: it appears several times under slightly different descriptions (all of which mention Khan) and all by "Pashto Drama's" - who is ID'd in the comments as Nadia gul. The one I checked out was ″Jahangir Khan New Pashto Drama 2016 Zama Arman Full Drama″ (note the year discrepancy). It contains several scenes of a singing duo which appear to be of unrelated footage edited in: the type of film used, the fashions, the style of direction, the actors appearing only in these scenes etc. The male performer looks to be Khan. "Pashto Drama's" You Tube contributions appear to be more of the same: several more films allegedly starring Khan. And only one very brief bit of "Zama Arman" looks like it may have been an attempt to shoot in HD but was so distorted it seems the effort was abandoned. Plutonium27 (talk) 11:44, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this was created by a sock of User:Nouman khan sherani, who has a history of creating articles about minor films starring Arbaaz Khan and/or Jahangir Khan Jani. The latter actor is probably worth an AfD at this point, I'll take a look at that now. --McGeddon (talk) 12:03, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My further info edit was a conflict with your comment (well-spotted the sock), I decided to add it anyway. For our girl movie reporter "Nadia gul" - the thumbnail pic for her "Pashto Drama's" YouTube channel shows a conveniently generic pretty face, and the few comments are obviously either from socks or suckers. As for Khan: his page here is crap and my first reaction was "AfD this" - but a (very brief) glance at his google and IMDb makes me think he may indeed have some claim to notability. That article needs sorting out anyway. Plutonium27 (talk) 12:45, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Worth commenting at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jahangir Khan Jani (2nd nomination) if you've found anything. I can't see that he even has an IMDb page, though. --McGeddon (talk) 12:53, 27 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) by Bbb23 (non-admin closure) Anup [Talk] 19:19, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jaishankar Chigurula (Director)[edit]

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

Fails WP:CREATIVE: I can find no significant coverage of him or his work in WP:RS online. Sole claim to fame appears to be "created a world record as the lowest-budget feature film of the 21st century". Well, that's an absurd claim, as filmmakers around the world make feature films for less money than 2400 USD. The film has had mentions and reviews on film blogs, but appears to have made no major impact on the enormous Indian film market, as you might expect for a horror film made on a shoestring budget. Jaishankar Chigurula was speedied six times db-bio in 2014-15, and it's since been re-created umpteen times under various spellings (WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Jaishankar Chigurula/Archive), and newer WP:SPAs appear to still be active on this latest one created in July, and on associated articles. Wikishovel (talk) 08:15, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the reasons cited above:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 08:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 08:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, also the sources don't seem to be independent and the whole article comes across as promotional. WP:NOTPROMOTION. ronaz ^Talk! 08:35, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ar Movesources is notable i read some Telugu Articles in sources. about this person.in 2014-15s he is not notable but 2016 hes debut film 21 was released in cinemas. now he is notable. i think you don't know to read Telugu sources reference articles. hes 21 film lowest-budget film is not a promotional. you want to read ones again all the reference. please don't tag deletion again with out reading the reference.Surya Rajam (talk) 10:03, 21 October 2016 (UTC) — Surya Rajam (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete: Jaishankar Chigurula (Director): I do not see any substantial credit or any such coverage of subject in any credible sources. It fails WP:DIRECTOR, and WP:GNG. I'm not even sure for TOOSOON for him (rather seems TOOFAR). Given that it has been deleted seven times previously, I'd ask closing administrator to also salt this, Jaishankar Chigurula title.

21 (2016 film): again nothing substantial for this film in any reliable sources. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Anup [Talk] 10:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThis article Jaishankar Chigurula (Director) has a notability to Keep WikiProject Biography. sources is clear don't be jealous on film makers. & don't make a personal attacks. the article has a good sources WP:GNG.

21 (2016 film) also has a good sources cheek the bookmyshow.com References you get notability WP:NFILM Rohith Shetty (talk) 11:45, 21 October 2016 (UTC)— Rohith Shetty (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Wrongfully accusing people of personal attacks IS a personal attack. ronaz ^Talk! 12:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This both article your claim in wrong because we don't want to see impact on the enormous Indian film market that kind of business thinking not good for Wikipedia.Jaishankar Chigurula (Director), 21 (2016 film) both has a good sources & References if you delete this articles we want to delete 1000s of articles from Wikipedia because this articles has a good sources more than so meany articles on Wikipedia. please you just stop your business thinking Naresh Kumar aavula (talk) 12:49, 21 October 2016 (UTC) — Naresh Kumar aavula (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep we want to keep this article because there have a 15 significant WP:RS different websites References coverage links from online. & this article in biographies of living persons policy this policy articles can be increase notability day by day & i saw all the links of him 21 is a truly lowest-budget feature film of the 21st century. & this article being in Wikipedia few months. some senior editors also edited this article. you may cheek history. & Jaishankar Chigurula was speedied six times db-bio in 2014-15 removed. why because that old article created before his film release so Jaishankar Chigurula old article not reliable to claim. if we can delete this article they can create again & again its never stop. it can be happen so meany new biographies of living persons articles. we don't want to remove this article has a chance to be WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers. chsrivaas (talk) 16:27, 21 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) 09:08, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Woven In Hiatus[edit]

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

Delete. WP:TOOSOON article about a band with no claim of notability per WP:NMUSIC as of yet -- at time of writing, they had released just two singles, with their debut album still forthcoming. And of the four sources here, three are directly affiliated primary sources (their own record label, their own agent, a music festival they were booked to play) which cannot carry notability -- the only one that's actually an independent reliable source is not substantive coverage, but a mere 40-word blurb. This is not the kind of sourcing it takes to get a band into Wikipedia. Bearcat (talk) 06:23, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:04, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:04, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable at this time; maybe some day but not today. Kierzek (talk) 17:39, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as the nom says, fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:TOOSOON. Their album doesn't come out until November 4, 2016 – if it charts or the band gain notability in the future, I have no problem with the article being recreated, but at the moment the band do not pass notability. Richard3120 (talk) 19:23, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:34, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talokar[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that it meets WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 19:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:17, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:18, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per outcomes of other similar AfDs: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barhiya, etc. Another completely unreferenced one. The nom might want to list several at one time if there are more of these. Or could they perhaps be PRODed? K.e.coffman (talk) 08:45, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:52, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could not find any sources to verify what is being stated on the article. RollingFace99 (talk) 10:41, 21 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. Minimal discussion, even after a relist, so calling this WP:SOFTDELETE -- RoySmith (talk) 22:29, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carnival Recording Company[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

More promotion for non notable business. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:54, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:20, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:20, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:20, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:51, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:CORP. claims to be record label of many notable artists yet only gets 3 gnews hits. LibStar (talk) 10:21, 24 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. Why this wasn't speedied is beyond me. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:29, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Active Isolated Stretching[edit]

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

Contested PROD, No indication of notability JMHamo (talk) 08:40, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:46, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:50, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced advertorial created by an obviously COI editor. If WP:MEDRS-compliant sources can be found an article may be possible, but this is not it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:26, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:34, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alcomsat-1[edit]

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

Well, first of all, if that satellite was operational it could probably be merged to Algerian Space Agency#Satellites.

I found enough sources to confirm the existence of the project, but most results refer to a 2014 launch date. Thus, it seems like WP:CRYSTAL to me - as far as we know, the launch is not a certainty. As the project itself is not notable, I say to delete that. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:30, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL , projects like these can suffer new delays, often for years. Wait until the thing is really in the sky. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:57, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:04, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:04, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:49, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Kudpung's comments. Aoba47 (talk) 19:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:34, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Teargas Ginn[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No secondary source coverage, chart positions or major labels - article fails WP:NMUSIC. Am seeing nothing but directory-site listings in a Google search. Also nominating an album which would fall under speedy deletion criteria if the artist article were deleted:

There's also an article about lead singer Greg Stanina, but this has been flagged for speedy deletion. --McGeddon (talk) 17:10, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:15, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:46, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Quick online search did not produce any references to meet WP:GNG. RollingFace99 (talk) 10:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable band.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:50, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:35, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HAW Magazine[edit]

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

Only reference is to the magazines official website. I could not locate additional third-party sources for notability verificant. Based on the peacock langue, seems to be a WP:Promo Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 19:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:22, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:22, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Couldn't find a single reliable source for this topic. It apparently fails WP:WEBCRIT and WP:GNG. Anup [Talk] 22:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete-Fails WP:NOTABILITY.Prob. promotional in nature.Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 16:11, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:35, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Debussy (song)[edit]

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

Promotional article, created by the same SPA as Marcus Orelias (AfD discussion) and 20s a Difficult Age (AfD discussion). Fails WP:NSONG and WP:V. TheKaphox T 20:49, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:43, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete, no evidence at all of any impact - David Gerard (talk) 13:15, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources. Notability cannot be established. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:55, 25 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) 09:08, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Naismith[edit]

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

Delete. Completely unsourced WP:BLP of a musician, with some advertorial overtones and no specific claim of notability under any WP:NMUSIC criterion. As always, a musician is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because he exists, if that article isn't referenced to any reliable sources. Bearcat (talk) 05:11, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. RollingFace99 (talk) 11:03, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:13, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:35, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Defex (artist)[edit]

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

Delete. Advertorially toned WP:BLP of a musician, based almost entirely on primary sources like YouTube and Vimeo videos, Facebook, Beatport and Soundcloud, with little evidence of reliable source coverage shown -- even the few references that are actually independent of his own self-published PR are blogs. As always, WP:NMUSIC does not grant an automatic inclusion freebie to every musician who exists -- certain specific notability criteria, and a certain specific quality of referencing, must be present for an article to become earned. Also probable conflict of interest, as the creator's username was "Defexipedia". Bearcat (talk) 04:59, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:50, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:50, 23 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) 09:09, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Somerville[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:55, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would think that the Malaysian premier league would be pro per WP:NFOOTY, I know its technically a second division, but malaysia is a big country, you would think their second division would be fully professional.... JohnTombs48 (talk) 07:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:19, 21 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) 09:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:53, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:53, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:53, 23 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) 13:37, 24 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) Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:03, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kahi, Nowshera district[edit]

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

No citations mentioned. Can't find it in searches as well. Fails WP:GNG. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 01:55, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GEOLAND. Any formally recognized populated place will do, and this one has some passing mentions in major Pakistani newspapers (Dawn[43] and The Express Tribune[44]) and a list of schools (#63, not to be confused with schools in the other Kahi, Pakistan) Clarityfiend (talk) 00:33, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:28, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:28, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:17, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its a town/village in Pakistan in the Nowshera district. Per WP:GEOLAND (Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low.) it is notable per our guidelines. The town's population seems to be a bit larger too and they have at least a high school (Transfers, postings made in Education Dept), a large cement factory (Cement factory) and a significant power grid station which has been the site of riots (Protests in Nowshera) There is also a member of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa provincial parliament from this town Baseer Ahmad Khattak (election results) and seems to still live there. English sources mention this town only in passing, but it is very likely that sources and coverage in a local language of Pakistan exist. The article obviously is uncited and should be rewritten, but AFD is not the place for that. A bad article is not a reason for deletion and notability is clearly given. The article should therefore stay (even if we have to reduce to a stub). Dead Mary (talk) 12:23, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I massively trimmed and rewrote the article and added some of the above mentioned sources. It is still a small stub, but the village does indeed exist. Dead Mary (talk) 13:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND and thanks to Dead Mary for the much-needed cleanup. Antepenultimate (talk) 12:52, 22 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 Not Quite Paradise.. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:08, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Theme from Not Quite Jerusalem[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM for lack of available sources. - Mr X 12:32, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This choice is simply stupid and ignorant because it is the official soundtrack of a British film. I added the sources, are you happy?Driante70 (talk) 13:33, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:44, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If we can't find RS coverage of the soundtrack specifically, merge to film article (content should be relevant) - David Gerard (talk) 10:28, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:34, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Not Quite Paradise. Not independently notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:50, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge - hard to see why the soundtrack has enough independent notability to have a page. JMWt (talk) 07:22, 21 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) Cavarrone 11:16, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Flash Mob America[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable business. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:22, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - more than enough WP:RS coverage to pass WP:CORP, some starter samples that were just added to the article:^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]

References

^ Freund, Linda (2013-05-09). "Spontaneity for Hire: Flash Mobs Go Corporate". Wall Street Journal. ISSN 0099-9660. Retrieved 2016-10-13. Flash Mob America, which stages events at corporate conferences and trade shows, began in 2009 after a group of friends put on a flash-mob tribute to Michael Jackson, which went viral.
^ Pierce, Kathleen. "Flash Mob America comes to Southern Maine". The Bangor Daily News. Retrieved 2016-10-13. The Los Angeles company that specializes in seemingly spontaneous occurrences where groups of strangers gather in public for a purpose, comes the Pine Tree State for the first time.
^ Gray, Madison. "Are 'Flash Robs' Giving Flash Mobs a Bad Rap?". Time. ISSN 0040-781X. Retrieved 2016-10-13. Conroe Brooks, who partnered with Lawrence in founding Flash Mob America, says his company wants to distance itself from any notion of criminality associated with Flash Mobbing.
^ "Advocacy In A Flash". The NonProfit Times. Retrieved 2016-10-13.

-- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 08:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Yeah, there are sources mentioning them, but they lack real depth. We need to be cautious of using slow-news-day novelty to prop up promotional content like this. The Time article is crime reporting. It's just quoting the founders about how how there was some brief confusion over the term flash mob being applied to crimes. This is because they were convenient to the journalist, not because they were encyclopedically significant. Likewise the Bangor article is basically an event listing which has no weight for this. Huffington Post is weak as a source, and is an interview which lacks independence. The Non-Profit Times article is about flash mobs in general, and it's clear that all information about the company comes from the company, which is true for most of these sources. The only exception is the WSJ article. I don't have a subscription, but if it's consistent with the rest, there isn't enough here. Grayfell (talk) 09:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The bylined WSJ article is legit news coverage, with paragraphs about the company, and more paragraphs detailing one of the company events, as chosen to be covered by the journalist and the editors of the paper, +1 for rs sigcov. The bylined Bangor Daily News article is legit news coverage of a topic the journalist and editors chose as significant, +1 for rs sigcov. The bylined Time magazine article is minor coverage, +1 for verification. The bylined article in the Non Profit Times is legit news reporting and commentary with coverage of the company as chosen by the writer and editors of the publication, +1 for rs sigcov. I might be convinced to change my !vote to Weak keep because there are not an overwhelming amount of rs coverage, but still enough to clearly pass WP:CORP. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 12:32, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Bangor article is a profile of the company leading up to a local event, similar to a million such profiles put out by newspapers all the time. If this were a music group or theatrical production, it would not even be considered, and I don't see how this is any different. The NonProfit Times article does mention one specific event the company produced, but otherwise there's little about the company that isn't direct quotes from the founder. Being bylined is better than not, and these may be usable for details, but I still don't think they do enough for notability. Grayfell (talk) 21:38, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 12:37, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 12:37, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:15, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep as I've always wondered "who organises these things?" -- and now I know :-). The coverage is not in depth and is rather borderline, but perhaps worth keeping for the novelty factor, as I'm sure there are not a lot of these. If someone proves me wrong, and this is a run-of-the-mill group, then I'd be happy to change my vote. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:32, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:57, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John D. Kobs[edit]

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

Promotion for non notable businessman. This article is bombarded with sources but most are about an app, not about him. Those that are about him are not independent. There are passing mentions or quotes or similar. He lacks coverage about him in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:30, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:06, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:37, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:37, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concur with nom, non-notable businessman. MB 00:43, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO; strictly a vanity page on an unremarkable businessman. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Waltz[edit]

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

Delete. Minimally sourced WP:BLP of a person notable primarily as a non-winning candidate for political office. As always, this is not a claim of notability that gets a person into Wikipedia in and of itself -- if you cannot demonstrate and source that he passed a Wikipedia inclusion criterion for some other reason independent of the candidacy, then the candidacy itself does not get him in the door. But the only other thing here, that he was founder and executive director of a shortlived advocacy organization, is sourced only to a single deadlinked article on a website -- and judging by that source's URL, Waltz wasn't the subject of the piece, but merely had his existence namechecked in an article whose primary subject was somebody else. This simply is not enough to show that a non-winning candidate has preexisting encylopedic notability for other things. Bearcat (talk) 01:31, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete candidates for US house need extremely good sourcing to count as notable, such is not present here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete concur with nom. Fails WP:Politician as he merely ran for Congress. MB 00:45, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:00, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Bledsoe[edit]

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

This is one of the least sourced articles on the winner of a beauty pageant contest I have seen. A search for her name without quoetes on google news brought up lots of references where Rebecca and Bledsoe occured in the same article, the two names not even belonging to the same person. With quotes, it turned up only one mention of her. It was "Pageant coach has his eyes on Miss America contestants" from Newsworks.org with the specific source called "Down the Short a blog by Amy Z Quinn". This is not a reliable source. Even at that, the 20 plus paragraph article has this to say of Bledsoe "A college friend and former Miss Delaware 2005, Rebecca Bledsoe, suggested he try pageant coaching. Saltalamacchio said he whipped up a rate sheet and went to work, and has coached clients to wins and finalist placings in Miss Delaware, Miss Maryland, and Miss America's Outstanding Teen. In July, 2012, he made it his full-time job." It is about Saltalamacchio, not about Bledsoe. A more general Wikipedia search reveals that there have been lots of Rebecca Bledsoe's, but no additional reliable sources, mainly just mention on facebook. She seems to more often be called Becky Bledsoe, and I found mention of her as Becky Bledsoe Rappocchio, the later I am guessing is her married name, although there are no good sources at all. There is nothing approaching reliable sourcing for her beyond the passing mention in the blog about Saltalamacchio. John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:32, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:32, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Winning a state beauty pageant does not establish notability and there is nothing else indicated. MB 00:47, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OUTCOMES; these pages are routinely deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:54, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:SK#1. A valid rationale for deletion has not been presented. For examples of valid deletion rationales, see WP:DEL-REASON. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:55, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclone Sigma[edit]

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

The article only has one sentence. It is definitely too short. N-C16 (talk) 01:18, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Major cyclone which did substantial damage and is covered in tons of sources. We don't nominate notable articles for deletion because they're stubs. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not a strong argument to delete. Subject is notable and covered in RS. Meatsgains (talk) 01:47, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael D. Protack[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete. Completely unsourced WP:BLP of a person notable only as a non-winning candidate in party primaries and county council elections. As always, this is not a claim of notability that gets a person into Wikipedia -- if you cannot demonstrate and properly source that he passed another notability criterion for some other reason independent of his candidacy, then he has to win election to a notable office, not just run for it and lose, to get an article because of his political activities themselves. Bearcat (talk) 01:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Maybe if he had won the party nomination for governor he would be notable, but he lost that. He is an unelected candidate who has not even secured any promenint nominations.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:33, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BLP and WP:GNG. Note: The article was deleted in the 2nd afd but was put up again.Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk 11:39, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, that discussion took place in 2007 and this version of the article includes new things that happened after 2007. Those new things still don't actually pass an inclusion criterion, but we can't just speedy this since it does contain new claims not present in the 2007 edition. Bearcat (talk) 14:35, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:55, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:36, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rebel of the Underground[edit]

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

Promotional article, created by the same SPA as Marcus Orelias (AfD discussion) and 20s a Difficult Age (AfD discussion). Fails WP:NALBUM and WP:V. TheKaphox T 20:35, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom - David Gerard (talk) 07:48, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:08, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:03, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this would be borderline CSD A9, as it is, it is a record of unclear notability from an artist we've determined is not notable. Does not meet any of the relevant WP:MUSIC notability criteria. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:33, 29 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:36, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Matlock[edit]

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

appeared in for a show for a few sessions. Not notable surgeon. DGG ( talk ) 02:37, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being on a TV show is not enough to make someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:14, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:14, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:48, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a vanity page on an unremarkable plastic surgeon. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:00, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment - did some work on this. Not interested in !voting, but wanted to provide notice of the change to the article. Jytdog (talk) 07:38, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:36, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie Geist[edit]

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

While her being Miss California might be seen as one event, it is not even that high from what I have found. The article has 0 reliable sources. The sources are all either produced by Miss America or Miss California, and thus PR promotion, or sources such as IMDb which is not considered reliable. There might have been some news coverage of her winning Miss California, but I did not find it in my search. I did learn that she now has the married last name of Frank. That was from the Miss California information page. John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:45, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The google news search did pull up a few mentions at the time of the contest, but none of them are even about Geist herself. One is an article about the rise in the amount of muscles on Miss America contestants and others equally do not cover Geist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:49, 21 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 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:21, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:21, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an under-sourced BLP with no other achievements listed. Per WP:OUTCOMES, these pages are routinely deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, generally the sourcing for these beauty pageant contestants is quite thin due to little interest from outside the pageant industry, and this BLP is no exception. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:31, 29 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MER-C 04:48, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Xfers[edit]

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

high degree of promotions. Coverage on Popular media are just for Investments of Script writing/ Coverage. Similar to larger scale Grofer, Delhivery, and other startup story. it is not notable at all. Till now. Light2021 (talk) 13:21, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

leaning delete There's some RSes in there, but it all appears to be promotional crystal-ball aspirations: the company putting itself forward as something that will achieve something. There's no coverage that doesn't appear to be company-initiated. A cull to RSes would be much shorter. Is there any coverage of the company that doesn't appear to be initiated by the company? - David Gerard (talk) 18:24, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:46, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:46, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:55, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- corporate spam on an unremarkable private company. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:33, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertising and this alone, the accounts involved all only focuses with this one article and the information & sources are all advertising the company, it's not substance but that's because it's all unimprovable advertising (something we delete, not keep or attempt to unconvincingly improve). SwisterTwister talk 06:14, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:12, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a small startup which recently started in Block71. All news has been in a bunch of tech blogs and solely about seed funding, hardly anything about the actual product. Sources like TechInAsia are pretty well affiliated to companies here. There's scant coverage in any reliable mainstream media. It is also interest that the article creator's intention was to promote stuff on Wikipedia (See this). Delete as Wikipedia is not supposed to be used for promotion and neither should we encourage it. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:17, 26 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. Existing sources about the subject do not appear to be sufficient to confer notability. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:55, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Modupe Macaulay[edit]

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

No apparent notability Melaen (talk) 14:31, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- This article should be kept because the subject has received significant coverage in multiple published verifiable secondary sources WP:BASIC Olaniyan Olushola (talk) 22:36, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:45, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:45, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only 2 of the sources are even heavily about Macaulay, but in one it is much more about her business. That is not just the level of sourcing we need to have an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:35, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:55, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete search results bring up nothing notable about her except being the owner of a business. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 21:33, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:54, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alejandro Palacio[edit]

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

Article created by an SPA which contains a lot of biographical detail not found anywhere on the internet suggesting a personal relationship with the subject. The Boomerang Deportivo club cited as a reference may well be an authentic club, but Palacio happens to be its secretary, so it's not an independent source. This article from a local government website seems to be as close as I can get to a reliable source. I certainly don't want to give the impression that I am prejudiced against biographies about boomerang throwers or that Mr. Palacio is not one of its leading exponents, but this fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Richard3120 (talk) 18:45, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 18:46, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 18:46, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:37, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coverage insufficient to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:31, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:49, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't speak Spanish but it doesn't appear that the sources coming from a simple search are about this Alejandro Palacio, thus lacking notability. Meatsgains (talk) 02:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE equivalent to an expired prod tag. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:30, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Fernando Correia[edit]

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

Insufficient notability. A very rough translation into English and not worth fixing. DGG ( talk ) 19:26, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:31, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:31, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:31, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the two references provide no evidence of notability (even after translation). Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MER-C 04:48, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bakait Entertainment[edit]

Dear Comatmebro, please visit the links attached in the REFERENCE section so that your appetite for NOTORIETY can be fulfilled.Balsymbolism (talk) 07:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Per WP:CORP. Two recently released short films without any sort of particular notoriety lead me to believe the subject isn't worthy of an article. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 00:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even fails WP:GNG. MarnetteD|Talk 01:15, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GNG, CORP, etc. Andrew³²⁷ 12:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication of notability for the company (nor for their films). --bonadea contributions talk 20:52, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt as this is not only actual A7 material but it's been deleted twice now and this is being restarted yet again with no actual benefits and improvements, therefore it shows the listed concerns of why it was in fact deleted are not being clear enough to show this is not acceptable as a convincing article. To state the obvious, the three focused involved accounts with this one article are self-explanatory. SwisterTwister talk 04:12, 22 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, withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:48, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Inness-Brown[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:AUTHOR. Not a lot of secondary sources to support notability. Has won a Pushcart Prize, which certainly isn't a Peabody. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:23, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination for deletion. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:57, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:57, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep under WP:NAUTHOR -- sufficient reviews of her works and decent library holdings: WorldCat. Her novel was translated into two other languages. So I think it's a pass. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:48, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and should not have been nominated considering there's both significant WorldCat and reviews, that's enough here. SwisterTwister talk 05:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Her work has received significant coverage. (The Pushcart Prize definitely isn't a Peabody. For one thing, the Pushcart is awarded to writers, whereas the Peabody "recognizes distinguished and meritorious public service by American radio and television stations, networks, online media, producing organizations, and individuals.") JSFarman (talk) 21:14, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttp://cnnphilippines.com/news/2016/08/07/Alleged-narco-politicians-narco-politics-deny-involvement-illegal-drug-trade-duterte.html

[2] ttp://newsinfo.inquirer.net/805946/dutertes-drug-war-draws-varied-reactions-mainly-shock

[3] Freund, Linda (2013-05-09). "Spontaneity for Hire: Flash Mobs Go Corporate". Wall Street Journal. ISSN 0099-9660. Retrieved 2016-10-13. Flash Mob America, which stages events at corporate conferences and trade shows, began in 2009 after a group of friends put on a flash-mob tribute to Michael Jackson, which went viral.

[4] Pierce, Kathleen. "Flash Mob America comes to Southern Maine". The Bangor Daily News. Retrieved 2016-10-13. The Los Angeles company that specializes in seemingly spontaneous occurrences where groups of strangers gather in public for a purpose, comes the Pine Tree State for the first time.

[5] Gray, Madison. "Are 'Flash Robs' Giving Flash Mobs a Bad Rap?". Time. ISSN 0040-781X. Retrieved 2016-10-13. Conroe Brooks, who partnered with Lawrence in founding Flash Mob America, says his company wants to distance itself from any notion of criminality associated with Flash Mobbing.

[6] "Advocacy In A Flash". The NonProfit Times. Retrieved 2016-10-13.

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]