Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 October 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 24 October 26 October >

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delete--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 22:27, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Morris[edit]

Jacob Morris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable individual, failing WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. PROD declined with the text: Jacob Morris is a candidate for Governor of California as stated on the secretary of states website here: http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Candidates/List.aspx?view=intention&sort=NAME&electid=62 - therefore he does meet the politician requirements.... which makes no sense at all. He may be on the CA-2018 ballot, but that doesn't get him on Wikipedia. Also, if the username of the contributor is to be taken at face value, this is an attempted WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete He is an unelected candidate. We dont do articles on people on that ground alone per WP:POLITICIAN. Everybody can become a candidate for the Californian Governor elections if he attempts and fulfills the criteria. I tried to look if he perhaps passes WP:GNG generally but I couldn't find anything on him which would satisfy the criteria. There is zero coverage on him in RS. He is therefore (at least currently) not a notable subject. As the nom has already said the username of the article creator suggests a connection to the article subject. It is therefore possible that this article acts an advert for him per WP:PROMO. The article should therefore be deleted. Dead Mary (talk) 10:26, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He has declared his candidacy for 2018, this is not enough to make him notabile.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:01, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:28, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Being a candidate for office does not alone meet the notability threshold for an article. ALPolitico (talk) 09:47, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being as yet unelected candidates in future elections (or failed candidates in past ones, either). If you cannot demonstrate and reliably source credible evidence that he was already eligible for a Wikipedia article for some other reason independent of his candidacy, then he has to win the election, not just run in it, before the election itself can "meet the politician requirements". But there's no other claim of notability even being made here at all, let alone one strong enough to actually pass a Wikipedia inclusion bar. Bearcat (talk) 13:37, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 00:00, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Leinster Senior Cup[edit]

2010 Leinster Senior Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

County cup season article - not notable Kivo (talk) 22:14, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Leinster Senior Cup (association football) as WP:NSEASONS says that is preferable to deletion. Smartyllama (talk) 12:47, 26 October 2016 (UTC) Keep Per additional information provided below, seeing as first level teams are taking part. That being said, redirection should still be used rather than deletion if consensus is that this is not notable. Smartyllama (talk) 17:28, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as first level teams are taking part. Surely has same level of coverage as English Level 10 league season articles. -Koppapa (talk) 06:50, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:00, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:00, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolute Keep Not a county cup. Provincial cup featuring entrants from levels 1–3. A leading cup competiton in Republic of Ireland. Djln Djln (talk) 14:42, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Leinster Senior Cup (association football). Don't think this is notable enough for a standalone article. Number 57 14:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Provincial nature of cup doesn't make it any less notable, and in fact it is only structured in this way due to the historical governance of Irish football whereby the Leinster Football Association who run the competition were actually founded before the Football Association of Ireland. Thus, the cup has been in existence before even the national League of Ireland and is the oldest football cup competition in the country. Specifically in relation to the modern day season articles, all the top League of Ireland sides from Leinster compete in the cup and deem it worthy enough of playing their strongest teams, therefore individual season articles are useful in giving more background info. --IrishTennis (talk) 15:20, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Here we go again ! Once more articles regarding Irish association football are being targeted by editors who know little are nothing about the topic and have not even done basic research. For one thing Leinster is not a county. It is a province made up of 12/15 counties. The Leinster Senior Cup is the oldest surviving association football competition in what is now the Republic of Ireland. Along with the FAI Cup and the League of Ireland Cup it remains one of three top cup competitions in the Republic of Ireland. Participants include clubs from the top three levels in the Republic of Ireland football league system. Recent winners include Dundalk F.C. who are currently playing in Europe. It should not be compared to a mickey mouse county cup like the Sheffield & Hallamshire Senior Cup which features no mark clubs from levels 5-11 the English football system, none of whom, correct me if I am wrong, are currently competing in Europe. Unlike the Leinster Senior Cup, none of the "Senior" clubs from Sheffield & Hallamshire even compete in this cup. The season articles should not be deleted as they perfectly notable but I have no objection to the finals articles being merged with the relevant seasonal articles. Djln Djln (talk) 15:31, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep First level teams compete in this cup, and it is one of the oldest surviving soccer competitions in Ireland, and one of the three top cup competitions in Ireland today. --SuperJew (talk) 21:05, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - seems to be a notable enough competition to merit individual season articles -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:25, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 00:00, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Leinster Senior Cup[edit]

2011 Leinster Senior Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

County cup season article - not notable Kivo (talk) 22:18, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Absolute Keep Not a county cup. Provincial cup featuring entrants from levels 1–3. A leading cup competiton in Republic of Ireland. Djln Djln Djln (talk) 14:44, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Leinster Senior Cup (association football). Don't think this is notable enough for a standalone article. Number 57 14:47, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Provincial nature of cup doesn't make it any less notable, and in fact it is only structured in this way due to the historical governance of Irish football whereby the Leinster Football Association who run the competition were actually founded before the Football Association of Ireland. Thus, the cup has been in existence before even the national League of Ireland and is the oldest football cup competition in the country. Specifically in relation to the modern day season articles, all the top League of Ireland sides from Leinster compete in the cup and deem it worthy enough of playing their strongest teams, therefore individual season articles are useful in giving more background info. --IrishTennis (talk) 15:20, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep First level teams compete in this cup, and it is one of the oldest surviving soccer competitions in Ireland, and one of the three top cup competitions in Ireland today. --SuperJew (talk) 21:06, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - seems to be a notable enough competition to merit individual season articles -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:25, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 00:00, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2012–13 Leinster Senior Cup[edit]

2012–13 Leinster Senior Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

County cup season article - not notable Kivo (talk) 22:18, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 21:45, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 21:45, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolute Keep Not a county cup. Provincial cup featuring entrants from levels 1–3. A leading cup competiton in Republic of Ireland. Djln DjlnDjln (talk) 14:45, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Leinster Senior Cup (association football). Don't think this is notable enough for a standalone article. Number 57 14:47, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Leinster Senior Cup (association football). A total of 600 people attended the final, this is simply not a tournament that is significant enough to warrant its own season article. Fenix down (talk) 17:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep First level teams compete in this cup, and it is one of the oldest surviving soccer competitions in Ireland, and one of the three top cup competitions in Ireland today. --SuperJew (talk) 21:06, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - seems to be a notable enough competition to merit individual season articles -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:25, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 00:00, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2013–14 Leinster Senior Cup[edit]

2013–14 Leinster Senior Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

County cup season article - not notable Kivo (talk) 22:18, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 21:45, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 21:45, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolute Keep Not a county cup. Provincial cup featuring entrants from levels 1–3. A leading cup competiton in Republic of Ireland. Djln DjlnDjln (talk) 14:46, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Leinster Senior Cup (association football). Don't think this is notable enough for a standalone article. Number 57 14:47, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Provincial nature of cup doesn't make it any less notable, and in fact it is only structured in this way due to the historical governance of Irish football whereby the Leinster Football Association who run the competition were actually founded before the Football Association of Ireland. Thus, the cup has been in existence before even the national League of Ireland and is the oldest football cup competition in the country. Specifically in relation to the modern day season articles, all the top League of Ireland sides from Leinster compete in the cup and deem it worthy enough of playing their strongest teams, therefore individual season articles are useful in giving more background info. --IrishTennis (talk) 16:38, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Leinster Senior Cup (association football). A total of 500 people attended the final, this is simply not a tournament that is significant enough to warrant its own season article. Fenix down (talk) 17:37, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep First level teams compete in this cup, and it is one of the oldest surviving soccer competitions in Ireland, and one of the three top cup competitions in Ireland today. --SuperJew (talk) 21:06, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - seems to be a notable enough competition to merit individual season articles -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:26, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 00:00, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2014–15 Leinster Senior Cup[edit]

2014–15 Leinster Senior Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

County cup season article - not notable Kivo (talk) 22:19, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 21:45, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 21:45, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolute Keep Not a county cup. Provincial cup featuring entrants from levels 1–3. A leading cup competiton in Republic of Ireland. Djln DjlnDjln (talk) 14:47, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Leinster Senior Cup (association football). Don't think this is notable enough for a standalone article. Number 57 14:47, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Provincial nature of cup doesn't make it any less notable, and in fact it is only structured in this way due to the historical governance of Irish football whereby the Leinster Football Association who run the competition were actually founded before the Football Association of Ireland. Thus, the cup has been in existence before even the national League of Ireland and is the oldest football cup competition in the country. Specifically in relation to the modern day season articles, all the top League of Ireland sides from Leinster compete in the cup and deem it worthy enough of playing their strongest teams, therefore individual season articles are useful in giving more background info. --IrishTennis (talk) 16:39, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Leinster Senior Cup (association football). Fewer than 1000 people attended the final, this is simply not a tournament that is significant enough to warrant its own season article. Fenix down (talk) 17:37, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep First level teams compete in this cup, and it is one of the oldest surviving soccer competitions in Ireland, and one of the three top cup competitions in Ireland today. --SuperJew (talk) 21:06, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - seems to be a notable enough competition to merit individual season articles -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:26, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 00:00, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2015–16 Leinster Senior Cup[edit]

2015–16 Leinster Senior Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

County cup season article - not notable Kivo (talk) 22:19, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 21:45, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 21:45, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolute Keep Not a county cup. Provincial cup featuring entrants from levels 1–3. A leading cup competiton in Republic of Ireland. Djln DjlnDjln (talk) 14:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Leinster Senior Cup (association football). Don't think this is notable enough for a standalone article. Number 57 15:39, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Provincial nature of cup doesn't make it any less notable, and in fact it is only structured in this way due to the historical governance of Irish football whereby the Leinster Football Association who run the competition were actually founded before the Football Association of Ireland. Thus, the cup has been in existence before even the national League of Ireland and is the oldest football cup competition in the country. Specifically in relation to the modern day season articles, all the top League of Ireland sides from Leinster compete in the cup and deem it worthy enough of playing their strongest teams, therefore individual season articles are useful in giving more background info. --IrishTennis (talk) 16:39, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Leinster Senior Cup (association football). The low attendances of previous finals (no figure is given for this one) indicate that this is simply not a tournament that is significant enough to warrant its own season article. Fenix down (talk) 17:41, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep First level teams compete in this cup, and it is one of the oldest surviving soccer competitions in Ireland, and one of the three top cup competitions in Ireland today. --SuperJew (talk) 21:06, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - seems to be a notable enough competition to merit individual season articles -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:26, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's not a county cup. Very notable and historic competition in Ireland, with senior status. Mooretwin (talk) 09:29, 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. MBisanz talk 22:50, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn T. Morris[edit]

Glenn T. Morris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article seems to be written by the subject with little or no credible citations to speak of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rightousbob (talk • contribs) 19:45, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it could use some editing, but there seems to be evident citation. MysterKitty (talk) 20:05, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Evident citation? I don't think so. There are only two listed citations through out the article, "Fourth World Center For The Study Of Indigenous Law And Politics" and a press release from a Native American activist group. Neither of which can be considered credible sources. Rightousbob —Preceding undated comment added 22:12, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

True, what I thought would be good sources turned out to be mostly 404 links. I'll prune some of those and see if there's enough info in the remaining links to warrant notability. MysterKitty (talk) 22:40, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. GS cites are 71,50,26 and not much else. May be not enough. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:42, 28 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete at best as the best I'm simply seeing is having the University of Colorado (one of his university workplaces) give their highest award to him, but there's no actual named professorship, library collections or other significant information listed, therefore there's nothing to base a genuinely substantiated article. The fact it also cares to list who his work colleagues are causes questions of named mentions for advertising. SwisterTwister talk 23:46, 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. There is no meaningful "keep" argument to be found anywhere in this discussion.  Sandstein  18:07, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Empire loyalism[edit]

Empire loyalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As far as I can tell it's a hoax, with the factual parts not having enough substance for an article. No hits anywhere for "Movement for Ireland" together with "James Wills". If its one somewhat vague reference exists at all, it's not mentioned anywhere online. Kolbasz (talk) 19:03, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 10:23, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 10:23, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 10:25, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing relating to James Wills or the 'Movement for Ireland' in the article. All the citations add up and using the 'page link' tool, I can see correlation between the two subject points brought up within the article. WilliamKingstonCox (talk • contribs) 10:31, 26 October 2016 (UTC) --WilliamKingstonCox (talk) 10:34, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
— Note to closing admin: WilliamKingstonCox (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.
  • Can this be resolved as soon as possible please. This AfD entry is top in political lists - can a third party with an extensive knowledge give this article the greenlight to be kept? --WilliamKingstonCox (talk) 10:41, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Appears to be a hoax - or at the very least OR synthesis, since it is taking and misinterpreting / misordering a selection of genuine but unconnected events in order to claim something new and unsourced: "the ideology that the British Empire should be re-established and continued". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:06, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Article may need to be severely amended is confusion is occurring. However, I would like to point out that the topic on the "League of Empire Loyalists" has been linked to the paraphrase - '...and to a lesser extent imperial continuation'. Also, in terms to the Canadian 'loyalists' the paragraph has been opened with "the term itself" - 'itself' here being the keyword.Sabloem (talk) 16:32, 26 October 2016 (UTC) — Sabloem (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of TheHumbugBar (talk • contribs). [reply]
Exactly, its all synth. League of Empire Loyalists was a genuine 1950s entity, but has nothing to do with the subject of this article, there were inhabitants of America who decided (for allegiance reasons or for their safety) to move to the still British ruled territories in Canada after the War of Independence, but they have nothing to so with the subject of this article or indeed with League of Empire Loyalists, there was a 1997 Ontario state legislature decision to commemorate that migration because it was an important event in the development of Canada, but it has nothing to do with the subject of this article. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:47, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What happens now? Do we keep, severely amend or delete this article? -TheHumbugBar (talk) 22:11, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: TheHumbugBar (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.
See Wikipedia:Guide to deletion and Wikipedia:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!. This is a process that takes some time. Kolbasz (talk) 06:22, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The apparent hoax has now been removed - though we haven't gotten a reason for its inclusion in the first place - but what remains seems to be, as pointed out, original synthesis, so my AfD nomination stands. Kolbasz (talk) 17:33, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't understand whats wrong with it? Its a general political standpoint. JohnTombs48 (talk) 18:37, 27 October 2016 (UTC) - Struck !vote by blocked sock. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:50, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a genuine political standpoint. No such "ideology that the British Empire should be re-established and continued" standpoint exists in reality, which is why the claim that such an ideology exists is unsourced. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:00, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amend What has occurred here is simple - a misunderstanding between two seperate meanings for the same term. The page states two different points in its opening line. I think Imperial continuation is the ideology we will go with for that of the League of Empire Loyalists. For the Canadian situation, is the page on United Empire Loyalists sufficient enough? I think either we keep the page and amend it or we continue the process of AfD and allow other insight from those specialising in the field, like myself, as a postgraduate at the University of Oxford studying British politics. Birmuk (talk) 21:31, 27 October 2016 (UTC) — Birmuk (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of TheHumbugBar (talk • contribs). [reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 22:50, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Penor Rinpoche. WP:IAR/WP:SNOW close. The article duplicated an existing article and has already been redirected. (non-admin closure) clpo13(talk) 23:04, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drubwang Padma Norbu Rinpoche[edit]

Drubwang Padma Norbu Rinpoche (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Questionable notability, lacking WP:RS, large portions in foreign language. WP:PROSE Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:44, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 07:24, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of active nationalist parties in Europe[edit]

List of active nationalist parties in Europe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is misleading, biased, unscientific and not particularly enlightening, and suggestions on the talk are not taken into account when the article being edited. This article is not very much needed, because people will not go to an online encyclopedia, look for this article’s name and find what they were looking for. Only one article links to this one. Hence I would not waste my time editing the article to make it more useful. Tannkrem (talk) 18:35, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:27, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:27, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:27, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is well referenced. Click on anything on the list, and its in article it describes itself as a "nationalist" political party. Dream Focus 23:09, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is actually incorrect. The only Norwegian party in this list has never defined itself as a nationalist party, though it is anti-immigration and also increasingly EU-sceptic. A lot of Norwegian leftists would consider themselves more nationalist than the Progress party. Other parties are listed solely based on their EU-scepticism, an inclusion which looks particularly stupid in light of the recent Brexit referendum in the UK. --Tannkrem (talk) 23:03, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If one entry doesn't belong on the list, remove it. The other ones I clicked on defined themselves as nationalists. Dream Focus 23:15, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not following; the Progress Party (Norway) is referred to as nationalist in these two examples: Populist Political Communication in Europe & Neo-nationalism in Europe and Beyond: Perspectives from Social Anthropology, among others. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Keep -- well referenced and useful to readers. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:32, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:15, 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 Delete--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 22:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of all National Historic Landmarks[edit]

List of all National Historic Landmarks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

unreferenced and indiscriminate list Jax 0677 (talk) 17:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I don't like the title (clearly the content is only referring to buildings in the USA), but I don't think the items in the list are inherently unreference-able. According to WP:LISTN, we're supposed to be judging the notability of the list as a whole, and it seems to me that it is quite likely that US Historical Landmarks - as a thing - are at least as notable as most other lists on wikipedia, such as List of castles in England, List of national parks of the United States etc. As a list it seems to me to be far more coherent than other hypothetical lists which could be offered such as List of things that are orange, List of objects bigger than a cow etc. On the other hand.. if the header is to be believed, the list will eventually include more than 2500 lines of information, which will likely make it unworkable as a wikipedia page. Maybe it needs to be transwikied to wikidata? JMWt (talk) 18:27, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mark. Chase (talk) 21:47, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant. There are well-over 2,500 National Historical Landmarks in the United States compared to 59 National Parks in the US. I agree that that we should absolutely chronicle all of the national landmarks, but there is absolutely no reason to do so on a single page. We already list all of the landmarks by state and have a master list of lists to help with navigation purposes. In my opinion, this is cleaner, easier to navigate and easier to open for slow computers than listing every single landmark on a single page. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:56, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:03, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:03, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:03, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:15, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:15, 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 delete. MBisanz talk 22:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MPP Global[edit]

MPP Global (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

From company Promotional writing of an article to references used for press or news coverage. Everything is promotional and nothing else. No-notability of this organization. references are PR exercise of company or clearly influenced by the company the way it is being covered by media. If we have to make a Wikipedia page for being an encyclopedia in this manner. wikipedia is not a portfolio or directory of such company Light2021 (talk) 16:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:49, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Salt as there are several things to note here: One is that it's an obvious advertisement (once deleted before in 2009 until it was restarted to this current one in 2011), then it was actually unbelievably accepted in 2011 when AfC was a madhouse of advertisements (though it still is), and then the sources and information listed are all simply advertisements, wherever published, because advertising is still advertising, and the several advert-only accounts here emphasize it. SwisterTwister talk 20:29, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. There is coverage, but everything I see is brief mentions. Willing to change my !vote if anyone can point out some in-depth coverage to take a look at. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:18, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:PROMO; no value to the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:59, 2 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. North America1000 19:34, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MultiSafepay[edit]

AfDs for this article:
MultiSafepay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-Notable. From company Promotional writing of an article to references used for press or news coverage. If we have to make a Wikipedia page for being an encyclopedia in this manner. wikipedia is not a portfolio or directory of such company. Light2021 (talk) 16:37, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:49, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this is still as blatant an advertisement since Piotrus nominated it in 2014, complete with all advertising information and sources and finally the few several accounts (note the author curiously focused with this one article for a noticeable time). SwisterTwister talk 20:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Spam as I wrote 2 years ago. Last discussion was closed as no consensus because nobody bothered to comment. I hope this time we can trash this for good. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:29, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Plenty of sources, but they are either unreliable or not in-depth. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH.--CNMall41 (talk) 23:21, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as corporate spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 22:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guildford Shuttle[edit]

Guildford Shuttle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another non-notable bus route. All sources bar one are from local press, which on occasion can contain dubious info. Nordic Nightfury 15:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 15:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 15:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:49, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's unclear if this is a company, hence the organizations delsort. North America1000 03:30, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Coverage in a single local free advertising mag does not meet WP:GNG.Charles (talk) 17:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Actually, it does. I was going to say delete until I saw all these sources that are on the article. The Surrey Mirror is a reliable source, so why is it being questioned? . Class455 (talk) 04:08, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Its not about if the sources are reliable, as per below it is about if the information that the sources provide can be backed up by a secondary source. Having just one primary source, even if notable will not do. Nordic Nightfury 07:25, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Only one unique source which is local, no significant coverage from other secondary sources.Ajf773 (talk) 04:29, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non notable shittle, Fails GNG. –Davey2010Talk 20:39, 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 as a blatant hoax. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 02:25, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abidoye lukman[edit]

Abidoye lukman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable football player for a team which doesn't even have a Wikipedia article. Probably ineligible for A7 due to a claim to notability, but still not notable. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:41, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:41, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:41, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:41, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - hoax autobio. Played for clubs in six countries, at twenty-eight years old? He's either too amazing to be true, or too awful to be notable. Zero mention of him online, and if he'd played a professional match for Victoria Hotspurs F.C. or Smouha SC (both of which he's spelled wrong), you'd think he'd at least be mentioned somewhere. But that club, and a few other, were added after the AFD tag was applied. Wikishovel (talk) 15:59, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - blatant hoax; needs deleting ASAP if possible Spiderone 16:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 16:07, 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 keep. Cavarrone 10:02, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

POLi Payments[edit]

POLi Payments (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another fintech with no encyclopedia notability. Popular media did not cover this as being notable. this is just Press nothing about depth of coverage. Highly misleading in nature. Everything is promotional and nothing else. No-notability of this organization. If we have to make a Wikipedia page for being an encyclopedia in this manner. wikipedia is not a portfolio or directory of such company. Light2021 (talk) 14:53, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:50, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the information and sources listed literally only focus with advertising the company and services, none of it actually amounts to substance and nor should it be given the sheer number of different accounts involved here and how they only add what the company say about itself; this is all enough to delete and there's no questions about it. SwisterTwister talk 20:51, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Lee, Michael (2012-12-19). "NZ bank claims payment processor is capturing user details: A New Zealand bank has spoken out against a payment processor that it alleges is creating spoofed banking sites and capturing log-in details without customers' knowledge". ZDNet. Archived from the original on 2016-10-26. Retrieved 2016-10-26.

      The article notes:

      Online payment system POLi Payments has found itself in hot water after allegations that it has been duplicating the sites of Australian and New Zealand banks, and prompting customers to enter their banking details.

      ASB Bank New Zealand raised the alarm, stating that through its security and fraud-monitoring measures, it "identified the POLi payment service is 'spoofing/mirroring' the ASB and Bank Direct secure internet banking sites so that they look identical to our genuine sites, and capture customer information."

      One of POLi Payments' offerings is to partner with businesses, so that their customers can use POLi to make payments from their bank accounts, eliminating or reducing merchant fees. When checking out with a POLi-enabled business, customers are prompted to log in to their bank account, where POLi handles making the transaction on the user's behalf.

      Participating businesses include Jetstar, Virgin Australia, Air New Zealand, and Dodo.

    2. Leyden, John (2008-03-18). "Online banking payment system aims to reduce fraud: Cunning Aussie fix for online payments". The Register. Archived from the original on 2016-10-26. Retrieved 2016-10-26.

      The article notes:

      Online shoppers in the UK will be able to pay direct from their online bank account rather than via a credit or debit card, thanks to a new service.

      The POLi online bank payment platform aims to increase payment choice while reducing card-not-present fraud, a category of fraud covering ecommerce transactions which is on the rise. ...

      The technology behind POLi was developed by Australian firm Centricom Pty. According to merchants in Australia using POLi, the service now accounts for an average of 23 per cent of their total online payment transactions.

      Centricom teamed up with UK-based online payment firm Neteller last August to launch a joint venture to roll out POLi in Europe, starting with its launch in the UK last week. The service, distributed through Neteller’s payment processing arm Netbanx, supports transfers from all major UK high street banks.

      ...

      POLi pricing is based on volume of transactions, rather than a percentage of sales charged to merchants by credit card firms. As a result, costs to merchants and consumers alike ought to be lower.

      Merchants need only store transaction ID numbers and dispatch details, without a requirement to store information on a customer's online bank account. ...

      POLI has previously been rolled out in Australia, New Zealand and South Africa.

    3. Saarinen, Juha (2012-12-19). "Banks concerned over POLi security: Payments intermediary accused of site spoofing and mirroring". iTnews. nextmedia. Archived from the original on 2016-10-26. Retrieved 2016-10-26.

      The article notes:

      Australian banks are looking into the security of Melbourne online payments intermediary POLi after a New Zealand bank warned customers against the service due to "serious security and fraud risks".

      CommBank's trans-Tasman subsidiary ASB this week issued an advisory warning that POLi was spoofing or mirroring its internet banking sites and capturing customer information.

      POLi stated in response (pdf) that it did not capture or store user information. Its terms and conditions indicated that it did not store usernames and passwords but "the POLi Service may store your financial institution account number".

      POLi targets users who do not have credit cards, offering what it describes as "a pass through service whereby the bank sites are accessed via our secure servers".

      The service claims to be used by government organisations such as the New Zealand transport authority, most Australian and New Zealand banks, and companies like Jetstar, Virgin Australia, Skype, Travelex and Mantra Group.

      </blockuote>

    4. Rubens, Paul (2013-07-23). "How Bug Bounty Programs Bring Big Savings and Better Security". CIO magazine. Archived from the original on 2016-10-26. Retrieved 2016-10-26.

      The article notes:

      POLi Payments is an Australia-based online payments system provider which has used Bugcrowd's bug bounty service. The company's systems have been penetration-tested by VeriSign and its code has been reviewed by two other organizations, but Jeffery McAlister, POLi Payments' CEO, points out that the penetration test was carried out to get a report at the end of it.

      "Scopes were set, budgets were set, and our technical team was confident that we would get a good report. But unless we came under real attack, we couldn't be sure how secure we really were," he says.

      POLi Payments decided on a limited period bug bounty program with a fixed budget of AU$5,000 (US$4,650), about half the price of its penetration test. There were 335 people who participated in the program, at least some of whom McAlister believes were former underworld hackers.

    5. Warwick-Ching, Lucy (2007-08-17). "SMALLER COMPANIES UK: Neteller targets Asia Pacific SmallCap Briefing". Financial Times. Archived from the original on 2016-10-26. Retrieved 2016-10-26.

      The article notes:

      Neteller, a payment processor for gambling websites, has bought a minority stake in Centricom of Australia for ADollars 5m (Pounds 2.1m) cash to expand its online services in the Asia Pacific region.

      ...

      Neteller introduced the online payments system to its Australian customers after a partnership was struck with Centricom in January. The system allows customers to make payments online without disclosing bank or credit card details to the merchant.

      ...

      Jagen, an international investment group, remains Centricom's majority shareholder.

    6. Irvine, Jessica (2006-09-29). "Online shoppers protected". The Sydney Morning Herald. Archived from the original on 2016-10-26. Retrieved 2016-10-26.

      The article notes:

      One system is already running on a small scale in Australia. Called "POLi", or Pay Online, it is a joint venture between the Melbourne company Centricom and the global technology giant Unisys.

      Only three online retailers have signed up so far, but Centricom's chief executive, Simon Warner, said several large retailers and airlines are poised to make it a payment option on their websites.

      The system is unlikely to be popular with the big banks, since it could eat into their revenues from credit card transactions.

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow POLi Payments to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 05:31, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I disagree that POLi Payments is promotional. It contains a detailed "Concerns" section with information like:

    Although POLi Payments stresses that security is a high priority for POLi,[9] concerns remain regarding exposing the user's banking credentials to POLi, and liability for fraudulent transactions [10]

    ASB Bank, one of New Zealand's largest banks, has responded to POLi with a release stating that POLi is "spoofing/mirroring" their on-line banking pages and capturing customer information, and "due to the serious security and fraud risks" recommending that their customers not use it.[11][12] The release also claims that ASB has asked POLi to remove support for ASB customers from their service. POLi responded to the ASB advisory with an announcement, refuting the claims,[13] and apparently reverting the version of the payment system.[11]

    ANZ New Zealand,[14] Bank of New Zealand,[15] Kiwibank,[16] Commonwealth Bank,[17] Westpac[18] and Police Bank[19] are also warning customers against using POLi. ANZ further advised that use of POLi invalidated the bank's online guarantee, potentially making the customer liable for any losses if their online banking account were to be compromised. POLi's terms and conditions note "We are not making any representation that we or POLi™ have the approval or, an affiliation with, or any licence from or agreement with your financial institution to operate or make POLi™ available for use by you."[20]

    Cunard (talk) 05:31, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Literally every single one of those contains clear and blatant company PR, take one for example:
"One of POLi Payments' offerings is to partner with businesses, so that their customers can use POLi to make payments from their bank accounts, eliminating or reducing merchant fees. When checking out with a POLi-enabled business, customers are prompted to log in to their bank account, where POLi handles making the transaction on the user's behalf"
Take the other examples:
"The POLi online bank payment platform aims to"...."Centricom teamed up"...."security is a high priority for POLi"...."One of POLi's offferings"...."POLi pricing..."....[Company] has partnered with [company]"...."POLi stated"...."The company's systems have been penetration-tested by VeriSign and its code has been reviewed by two other organizations, but Jeffery McAlister, POLi Payments' CEO, points out that the penetration test was carried out to get a report at the end of it"
No serious publication would actually advertise literal advertised services and company and everything else accompanied and in other links here publish the same thing, if that's all the publication cared to publish, it shows there was no actual journalism, and it's simply republishing PR as if it were PRNewswire or BusinessWire. Note how literally blatant this last quote is about the banks, it not only contains "TM" symbols but it speaks from the company's literal POV, something that only they are saying and publishing. We cannot take such blatancy literal for "significant" or "coverage" and nor should we, because none of it is actual independent significant coverage. Once we actually start accepting republished advertising as coverage, we are severely damned. SwisterTwister talk 06:36, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot agree that articles like those from ZDNet and nextmedia that discuss allegations of how POLi Payments poses "serious security and fraud risks" are PR. Cunard (talk) 06:46, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And I cannot agree that "Everything is promotional and nothing else" and "Literally every single one of those (concerns links?) contains clear and blatant company PR", given the significant list of non-promotional bank and non-promotional (mostly negative) reputable third source web sites, and the (mostly negative) security reports (refs 6, 7, 8 and 11 through 19, 21 and 22).
Please list the actual ref URL/s or ref number/s that are promotional or blatant PR so they can be cross-checked. (Links to POLi's website will of course be self-promotional.)
peterl (talk) 11:01, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've just re-read it, and maybe you are referring to the links in the first 'Keep' section? In Which case, my responses would be:
1. The Register. Agree, is promotional. But it is coverage in The Register.
2. The Register. Disagree, is very negative: ""serious security and fraud risks".
3. ITnews. Disagree, not promotional, negative. "Banks concerned over POLi security"
4. CIO magazine. Disagree, not promotional, informational + negative. 38 security issues.
5. Newsbank/Financial times. Disagree, not promotional. Informational on company itself.
6. SMH. Disagree, not promotional. Informational, but also says "unlikely to be popular with the big banks".
There are also the links on the current page to The Guardian, The Register, BRW and numerous bank websites.
peterl (talk) 11:24, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What you presenting here with long list of references are News just News covered by News. Wikipedia is not a Newspaper. We are discussing the Company here, and why this company should be kept or deleted ?Light2021 (talk) 11:31, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. The primary focus and refs of this article are on its Concerns. There is significant, reliable, well-referenced, reputable sources for all of these. The bulk of this page, and its references, are on the concerns and problems, so I can't see it as a PR win.(refs 6, 7, 8 and 11 through 19, 21 and 22). The overwhelming coverage in this article is negative. Being owned by Australia Post, and promoted by some significant Australian (and NZ) companies also makes it notable. Perhaps some of the history of previous versions can be trimmed, although that information also demonstrates the history of security issues. In the light of this, I don't understand the assertion "Everything is promotional and nothing else." Also of note may be the attempted edits by possible COI editors to reduce the 'severity' of the coverage. On a side note, I've removed one sentence which may have been viewed as promoting how it works. peterl (talk) 09:40, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I've just seen that many of the links to negative pages, particularly from the banks, have rotted, so I'm updating them. (Have just done the BNZ one, but will get to more of them.) They clearly display the widespread concern from the banks themselves, which is clearly value in the notability stakes. (For those not from Australia or NZ, we have many fewer major banks than countries, so the weight that should be afforded those that do publish pages should be higher.)
    peterl (talk) 10:00, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • First the way Keep discussion is going on by presenting Articles here. A very Lengthy one instead just mention the link. Contributors might get confused with the notability discussions as it is so so long comment.
If you go to real article coverage Either they are Press like Bounty Program or how this company is being compared with others or similar to that extend. This kind of coverage can only be made possible by PR department of a company. And that is how coverage mislead with notability. If this company has been covered by media by "Negative" view, how does that even make it neutral. Lots of scandal happens in the world. News Covered them already. Why the Encyclopedia need them here. If it is news about company and it says how remarkable it is to bring great change or by its notability then it can have the page as Wikipedia. Else We are writing news coverage in the form of Company article in Wikipedia. Light2021 (talk) 11:26, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That a lot of the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" is negative does not negate the fact that is is ""significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". ZDNet:[1], nextmedia:[2], ASB:[3][4], ANZ:[5], BNZ:[6], Kiwibank:[7], ZDNet/Commbank:[8], Policebank:[9]
peterl (talk) 11:37, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really know whether you even understand the meaning of Notability and Coverage? You are wasting lots of time citing unnecessary sources with no significance. Twitter status, Banks Press Release Website Pages? is this notable? you are making so many comments to prove one great hoax of promotions with citing infinite unrelated non-notable sources to build confusion, so someone can come here and make it close not by reading them but by the waste of length written here. As no one has time to read so much. The No Consensus will be chosen in the end and it will be closed as Keep. This is the strategy you want to follow here. Like Above comments made by contributors also, Tired of responding to your comments with no sign of substance but mere waste of time. Light2021 (talk) 11:59, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree.
peterl (talk) 20:50, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK!
Light2021 (talk) 20:57, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note how I specifically and explicitly noted every single advertising puff from those articles complete with quotes, therefore the links only actually emphasized how there's nothing else beyond actual advertising, therefore we have nothing for a significantly improvable article, let alone actual substance. SwisterTwister talk 22:59, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree peterl (talk) 09:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Peterl presented some strong counterpoints to many of those arguments, specifically that many of those articles were at least partly critical. OhNoitsJamie Talk 13:28, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Thanks to @Peterl:'s research and analysis. There is in-depth coverage to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. Also, I want to address the sentence from the nominator - "This kind of coverage can only be made possible by PR department of a company." Newspapers don't wake up in the morning and start knocking on doors of companies looking to write about them. The large majority of stories you read are PR driven. PR companies are paid to put stories in front of the media. HOWEVER, it is still up to the media to decide to cover them. If a reliable source decides to fact check a press release and write a story about it, it then meets the definition of coming from a reliable source in my opinion. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:29, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH per a review of available sources, such as some of those listed above and as per sources available in searches. Promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing the article. The statement in the nomination of "everything is promotional and nothing else" is instantly refuted by reading the "Concerns" section of the article. North America1000 12:56, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the sources are decent but the tone of the article is jsut promotional in tone. Pyrusca (talk)
I note that more than half of the article and more than half of the references are about security concerns. The lead section is descriptive (what is does), but also introduces the concerns, including the reported connection to enabling financing of illegal gambling. Are there any sentences that particularly stand out regarding the promotional tone? peterl (talk) 22:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to closer - Simply a note that in the near week now of this AfD, the Keep votes have not actually substantiated themselves with other sources found or what else could actually improve this, including after I specifically listed the quotes from the earlier sources and showed the blatant "The company said today", "The company's goals and plans are", "The company's services include for its clients", etc. Therefore this article is still an advertisement, regardless of the agreement of comments. SwisterTwister talk 04:10, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. A number of new refs have been found and added. The article has been edited and improved over the week (see the history). The breadth of references show clear notability and significance. I also find it difficult to see how an article that has such significant negatives and concerns could be viewed as an advertisement. The 'Delete' votes have clearly not supported their assertion that "Everything is promotional and nothing else" in the light of the actual refs on the page. Three of the four major Australian banks (and other smaller banks) are warning customers not to use it, and that is promotional? peterl (talk) 05:19, 31 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 22:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ProPay[edit]

AfDs for this article:
ProPay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wondering they have not put their whole profile into one wikipedia article. the most miserable highest degree of promotions. Another fin-tech with no encyclopedia notability. No-notability of this organization. If we have to make a Wikipedia page for being an encyclopedia in this manner. wikipedia is not a portfolio or directory of such company. Light2021 (talk) 14:50, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:53, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:53, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Salt as 3 deletions in 2007 is a suitable sign as it is, and this is still as blatant an advertisement as it ever could be, therefore we have to face the honesty and see how blatantly advert-like it's been maintained and we never make compromises with such blatancy. Information and sources are so largely advertising, it cares to list, not only its advertising but its list of employees.... SwisterTwister talk 20:40, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A ton of coverage, but nothing more than brief mentions. Not enough to establish WP:CORPDEPTH. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:33, 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. Nominating 3 days after the last closure is damn right disruptive - If you disagree with the closure go to DRV, You don't just renominate and renominate!. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 21:22, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Payoneer[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Payoneer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another fintech with no encyclopedia notability. Coverage by standard popular media merely an exercise or once in a lifetime coverage any startup gets when they are funded. this is just Press nothing about depth of coverage. Everything is promotional and nothing else. No-notability of this organization. If we have to make a Wikipedia page for being an encyclopedia in this manner. wikipedia is not a portfolio or directory of such company. Light2021 (talk) 14:47, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Per the sources presented at the previous AfD discussion, which was closed three days ago as keep. It's disruptive to renominate an article this soon after a keep closure at AfD. North America1000 17:01, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nominating 3 days after the previous AfD was closed as "keep" is disruptive; a WP:TROUT to the nominator. Nothing has changed since the previous AfD. --Mark viking (talk) 23:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Sources have been presented on this previous AfD discussion, which was closed three days ago, and yes, the discussions have been had and not ignored as argued, and the people who voted to Keep have challenged the debate and have had the conversation. It is not right to continue the AfD just because someone felt it was not a correct outcome. I have read and the articles and, yes, I have used some. These are valid. Please end this and keep. GeorgeRosen (talk) 17:22, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Cao, Jing (2016-10-05). "Cross-Border Payments Startup Payoneer Raises $180 Million". Bloomberg Businessweek. Archived from the original on 2016-10-16. Retrieved 2016-10-16.

      The article notes:

      Research firm Pitchbook Inc. estimates Payoneer is valued at about $880 million after the most recent funding.

      The article further notes:

      Payoneer’s technology moves money for businesses in one country working with those in other countries and handles the regulatory and currency issues that come with international transactions. While many payments startups rely on the existing credit card infrastructure, Payoneer has built its own connectors directly into banks, allowing recipients to get money deposited in their accounts and avoiding the transaction fees that come with plastic.

      Payoneer’s technology allows small- and medium-sized companies to pay and manage invoices over the internet rather than using checks and paper. Amazon.com Inc., Google, Airbnb Inc. and Getty Images use Payoneer to pay en mass the businesses, proprietors and freelancers using their platforms. About half of Payoneer’s revenue comes from bulk payout.

      When a consumer buys products on Amazon’s marketplace from independent merchants or retailers, the e-commerce giant receives the payment. Using Payoneer’s software, Amazon can then at once send the sellers the money they’re due in their local currency. In any given month, Amazon pays merchants from more than 100 countries through Payoneer, Galit said. This is an important part of Amazon’s e-commerce business, with marketplace sales making up about half of all orders.

    2. Arnold, Martin (2016-10-05). "Payoneer raises $180m in venture capital funding: Fundraising one of the biggest by a financial tech company this year". Financial Times. Retrieved 2016-10-16.

      The article notes:

      Payoneer has raised $180m from venture capital investors, making the Israeli-turned-US cross-border payments provider the subject of one of the biggest funding rounds by a financial technology company this year.

      The company was founded in 2005 by Yuval Tal, a former Israeli special forces officer, who is its president. It has its headquarters in New York, a large research centre in Tel Aviv and has clients in more than 200 countries, including many of the biggest internet marketplaces such as Amazon, Airbnb, Google, Getty Images and UpWork.

      Technology Crossover Ventures, the California-based investor, is leading the latest fundraising round for the company, taking the total it has raised to about $280m. TCV is buying newly issued shares alongside Susquehanna Growth Equity, the Pennsylvania-based investor, and offering to buy out existing shareholders.

      The article provides detailed information about the company, including negative information:

      Payoneer was linked by Dubai police to the incident in which Hamas commander Mahmoud al-Mabhouh was killed in 2010 in that the company was said to have provided pre-paid credit cards to some of the team that carried out the murder, which was widely believed to be the work of Mossad, the Israeli overseas intelligence service. Dubai Police did not release further details.

    3. Miller, Claire Cain (2008-08-26). "Start-Up Offers a Way to Pay Workers Abroad". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2016-10-16. Retrieved 2016-10-16.

      The article notes:

      As the Web makes it easier for U.S. companies to hire workers from Bangkok to Berlin, figuring out how to pay them is an increasingly pressing issue. Payoneer, an Israeli start-up now based in New York, aims to fill this niche in the international money-transfer market.

      Payoneer enables businesses to pay freelancers, contract workers or salaried employees with a prepaid MasterCard card that payees can use to withdraw cash from an A.T.M. and as a debit card in stores and online. Greylock Partners, Crossbar Capital and Carmel Ventures have invested $14 million in Payoneer.

      ...

      So far, Payoneer has helped 200 companies sending money to 120,000 cardholders, 85 percent of whom are outside the United States. Many of the companies that use Payoneer offer payees several options, like PayPal or wire transfer, and those who live abroad often choose Payoneer.

    4. Ziv, Amitai (2013-05-12). "Start-up of the Week Using Banks to Move Money Is So Yesterday. Israeli startup Payoneer facilitates payments in 95 local currencies and sees the sky as the limit in the global $1.1-trillion industry". Haaretz. Archived from the original on 2016-10-16. Retrieved 2016-10-16.

      The article notes:

      "I established the company in New York in 2005," says Yuval Tal, Payoneer's founder, who served until 2011 as its CEO and now is its president and director of business development. "We began by serving American kids who come to Israel on programs like Taglit-Brithright, Hillel or with the Jewish Agency. We provided them with debit cards they could use to pay for things in Israel. "

      Payoneer's client base has long since expanded far beyond this core group. Today its technology is mainly for people with a long list of payment recipients, or what is known in Internet parlance as affiliate networks.

      ...

      Payoneer also has a product for very-small size service providers and a service that allows customers to open a virtual American bank account. This means that a small client in China can use Payoneer to offer their services on Amazon or another American website and receive payments to cover expenses, all in dollars.

      ...

      Payoneer is a mature startup. Some 180 of the company's 250 employees are located in Israel, with the rest working in the United States and Gibraltar. The company raised $22 million in capital in two rounds, the second in 2008. Payoneer hasn't needed external funding since. Tal claims the company's been profitable since 2010.

    5. Rubin, Eliran (2016-03-17). "Tech Nation: Chinese Tech Figures to Invest $50 Million in Israeli Startups. Payoneer to buy Armor Payments, a U.S.-based escrow startup; Next Insurance raises $13 million". Haaretz. Archived from the original on 2016-10-16. Retrieved 2016-10-16.

      The article notes:

      Israeli payments platform developer Payoneer is buying U.S. startup Armor Payments, it announced on Tuesday. Armor develops a system for guaranteeing payment security in business-to-business transactions. Payoneer declined to say how much it will pay for Armor, whose operations and seven employees are to be folded into Payoneer. Payoneer develops a platform enabling customers and businesses to make payments from different countries and in different currencies. It stated that the acquisition will reduce the suspicion and uncertainty when its customers make purchases from unfamiliar businesses.

    6. Kolodny, Lora (2014-03-05). "Payoneer Wired $25M to Make Cross-Border, Commercial Payments Easier". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2016-10-16.
    7. Geron, Tomio (2016-10-15). "Payoneer Locks in $180M Led by TCV for International Payments". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2016-10-16.
    8. Orpaz, Inbal (2014-03-06). "Payments Startup Payoneer Raises $25 Million in Capital". Archived from the original on 2016-10-16. Retrieved 2016-10-16.

      The article notes:

      Payoneer, a startup whose technology enables companies to pay their suppliers anywhere in the world, said on Wednesday it had raised $25 million in an investment round led by the U.S. private equity firm Susquehanna Growth Equity.

      Existing investors Carmel Ventures, Greylock IL and Vintage Venture Partners joined the round, the company said. Amir Goldman, managing director of Susquehanna Growth Equity, will join Payoneer’s board.

      ...

      Payoneer provides a payment platform that connects thousands of companies with millions of professionals and small business owners in some 200 countries. Already profitable, the company said it would use the new capital to expand into new markets and increase sales and marketing as well as to pursue acquisitions.

      The company was founded in New York, where it is headquartered, in 2005 by Yuval Tal, who served until 2011 as CEO and is now its president and director of business development.

    9. Grimland, Guy (2010-03-03). "Did They Know? Israel-U.S. Startup Linked to Dubai Hit". Haaretz. Archived from the original on 2016-10-16. Retrieved 2016-10-16.

      The article notes:

      Employees at the Payoneer are still trying to understand what hit them: the Israeli startup company has faced a wave of unwanted publicity after Dubai police claimed that suspects in the assassination of Hamas commander Mahmoud al-Mabhouh used its credit card technology.

      Payoneer provides prepaid credit cards, which means holders can fill them with money and use them, without the card being tied to a standard bank account. Thirteen of the 27 suspects used prepaid MasterCards issued by MetaBank, a regional American bank, in order to purchase plane tickets and book hotel rooms, said the Dubai police. The police then tied MetaBank to Payoneer.

      It is still not clear how bad the publicity is. One source close to Payoneer said: "All such publicity hurts," but added that customers were unlikely to be deterred from buying the company's products.

    10. Grut, Oscar Williams (2016-10-05). "A fintech company used by Google, Amazon, and Airbnb raised $180 million". Business Insider. Archived from the original on 2016-10-16. Retrieved 2016-10-16.

      The article notes:

      Payoneer, a US fintech company that helps businesses send and receive money across borders online, has raised $180 million (£141 million) in a Series E funding round.

      The cash comes from Technology Crossover Ventures (TCV), a Silicon Valley-headquartered VC fund that focuses on growth funding for established tech businesses. TCV has backed giants such as Facebook, Netflix, and Spotify.

      The funding round is double Payoneer's funding to date and takes its total raised to $270 million (£211 million). CEO Scott Galit wouldn't comment on the company's valuation but it's likely in the billions given the amount of equity doled out.

      Founded in 2005, Payoneer has two main parts to its business: helping small and medium-sized businesses make overseas payments online; and helping global tech giants like Amazon, Airbnb, and Google, to pay suppliers around the world.

    11. Goldenberg, Roy (2015-11-05). "Amazon selects Payoneer's payment solutions". Globes. Archived from the original on 2016-10-16. Retrieved 2016-10-16.

      The article notes:

      Israeli online payments solution company Payoneer Inc. has been selected by online retail giant Amazon Inc. to expand cross-border payment options to sellers from 24 countries who sell on marketplaces in the US, Spain, France, Italy, Germany and the UK. As a featured payment solution for select countries within Amazon Seller Central, Payoneer will provide a simple and convenient way for sellers from top markets including China, Japan and South Korea to receive their Amazon disbursements.

      In cooperation with Payoneer, Amazon now allows sellers to sign up for Payoneer directly from Amazon Seller Central. Upon Payoneer registration, sellers receive online accounts that can collect Amazon disbursements, and that provide access to these disbursements through local bank account withdrawal or through the use of a Payoneer MasterCard. This alliance marks the first time that Amazon has expanded Seller Central cross-border payment capabilities through alliance with an external payment solution.

      Payoneer was founded in 2005 by entrepreneur and investor Yuval Tal and has raised $90 million to date including $50 million in August. With 500 employees worldwide, the company is today headquartered in New York with its R&D center in Tel Aviv. Two years ago there were rumors that the company was planning an IPO at a company value of $700 million but in the end it chose a financing round of $25 million instead. Payoneer's investors include 83North, Carmel Ventures, Greylock, Vintage, Ping An and private investors such as Yuval Tal himself, Zohar Gilon, and others. Payoneer has been in the past chosen as one of "Globes" most promising Israeli startups.

    12. Tsipori, Tali (2016-10-05). "Israeli digital payments co Payoneer raises $180m". Globes. Archived from the original on 2016-10-16. Retrieved 2016-10-16.

      The article notes:

      Israeli digital payments company Payoneer has raised $180 million in growth equity financing from TCV (Technology CrossOver Ventures) with the participation of former investor Susquehanna Growth Equity. The financing includes $90 million for expanding the company while shareholders sold a stake worth a further $90 million. This is the largest-ever investment in an Israeli fintech company and the proceeds from the financing will be used to accelerate global growth and to enhance an already strong and debt-free balance sheet.

      Payoneer transforms the way businesses send and receive cross-border payments. The company was founded in 2005 in Israel by president Yuval Tal and former CTO Ben Yaniv Chechik and has raised $235 million to date including the latest financing round.

      Payoneer CEO Scott Galit said, “TCV shares our belief that we can make a difference by empowering entrepreneurs throughout the world by offering them tools and solutions to participate, compete and succeed in the global economy. TCV’s connections with fast growing e-commerce marketplaces, global brand-building expertise and its long-term investment philosophy are the perfect fit for Payoneer and will help us propel our growth in the years to come.”

      Payoneer is headquartered in New York and has its development office in Tel Aviv, which houses 560 of the company's 760 employees worldwide.

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Payoneer to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 05:47, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You mean this kind of close " The result was keep. Overall consensus is that the article meets CORDEPH as well as GNG so closing as keep" where Keep vote is made by none other than who can keep anything as seen on other AfD. The discussions has been ignored and Keep votes as counted alone. Numbers of Votes does not make any article keep or delete. The substance of keep article discussion is missing. Where Keep vote contributors only cites GNC and move on. They do not even care to read the articles or references, how they are covered and what actually been covered by them. It is full of advertising, promotions and press and nothing else. Even you want to fill the discussions with News Paper content or with blog. Link would be enough to mention. No need to write the content of covered article. It mislead the voters as some of them only comes here to vote not participation on discussions. Cite GNC or Passes this or that. And move on. All research and efforts made by other contributors goes waste who read articles and make significant observations like happened in previous AfD also. Light2021 (talk) 07:55, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I read the news articles provided in the previous AfD discussion. It is inappropriate to state your unsubstantiated opinion that users have not read sources. It is also rude. North America1000 08:04, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you think the previous AfD was closed improperly, then you can take it to deletion review, per WP:DRV. But AfD is not for "keep nominating until you get the outcome you want." You are wasting other editors' time. --Mark viking (talk) 08:08, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if my words reads rude to you. This company is a classic case of high degree of promotions as all the articles covered by media for this one. Only PR or coverage that anyone can get once in a lifetime if they are being funded by investors. Sustainable coverage, notability is highly questionable for this one. By this mode Wikipedia will become PR host or Directory for funded startups. This is encyclopedia not making article based on articles covered by media as News. Neither this is Press distribution channel. Pardon me, But I have no interest nominating articles till I get " Desired Outcome". I have first nominated this one. As there is nothing to write about this one. Except paragraph as mere Company profile. 4 days before or months before, nothing is changed. This is blatant promotions and nothing else. Passing GNC saves such Spam from last few years. Keep votes are counted and being closed. And now Wikipedia is filled with such articles. It creates certain danger to Notability of Wikipedia itself. Else we would have made another Tumblr. What's the difference. You both are seniors to me. I respect your views. And If something in my language found wrong. Apologies. As editors time are valuable, so is mine. I do not want to waste my time either. Thanks Light2021 (talk) 08:42, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize, I was mistaken about who nominated the previous time--it was DGG, not yourself. --Mark viking (talk) 08:55, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Per the sources presented at the previous debate and the ones listed above. The news is substantive and is about funds raised and partnerships as well as insight into the finance/tech industry. It's not fluff and it's not self promotional - these are facts. Wiki is not a place for every company, but ones that make a mark for unique reasons. This company does. Veggies 2 (talk) 20:36, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
can you be more specific apart from Google News link. which shows news of Funding or operations. Is there any Depth of Coverage made by Significant media that you can present? As getting funded from investors an usual coverage anyone gets in popular media not becuae it is notable but because they got funded by investors. Works merely as Corporate Press. Wikipedia is not a PR host or Press distribution network. Article itself nothing to write except a standard Fintech company profile. Light2021 (talk) 20:51, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • TechCrunch is Significant Media and it wrote about its recent $180 M raise
  • Martin Arnold at the Financial Times was impressed enough to note that "Fundraising one of the biggest by a financial tech company this year"
  • Israel's largest business publication Globes thought enough of it do do an in depth interview as to what the company does to deserve the miney it raised
  • Seeking Alpha is a very prestigious publication in the investment world and it saw to talk about the size and breadth of Payoneer
  • then there is Forbes, no slouch in media credibility, and it covered this company's growth this year.

These were not press releases, but articles written by real reporters about this company - profiles and not merely mentions in passing. That seems credible to me and each piece defines why the writer deemed it unique. Veggies 2 (talk) 21:22, 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. North America1000 19:45, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ITransact[edit]

ITransact (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

How old is the company, does not make it notable. no references are found the existence of this company. there are 1000 of 50 years old company locally in a city, it doe not make any of them encyclopedic notable. Everything is promotional and nothing else. No-notability of this organization. If we have to make a Wikipedia page for being an encyclopedia in this manner. wikipedia is not a portfolio or directory of such company. Light2021 (talk) 14:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I did find at least one source that could be used for notability.... although it isn't very flattering and this is now merely a subsidary of another company which doesn't even have a Wikipedia page of its own. Beyond self-published sources, I really don't see any other kind of coverage of this company and it certainly fails WP:ORG. If an article existed for Payroc, I'd say merge this content into that article.... but I don't think even that company has sufficient notability to even create a new article and similarly fails WP:ORG as well. The current range of sources makes it impossible to follow the WP:NPOV guidelines of even creating a reasonable article. --Robert Horning (talk) 16:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as clear advertising and this alone, and that in fact is an excellent explanation for deletion, because the information and sources listed are exactly advertising the company; none of it becomes substance and nor should it be or we expect it to be, because it's all published and republished PR, by obvious advertising-only accounts. SwisterTwister talk 20:26, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Be careful there and asssume good faith with the originator of this article. The other edits by this user seem to be pretty reasonable, unless you have access to other logs that aren't public. I agree that the information is mainly PR fluff, but you seem to be bordering really closely to a personal attack here against the editors of this page. I did perform a quick review of those edits to see if perhaps it was some sort of PR agency that threw this up, but it seems more like an employee or somebody close to the subject instead that also tried to participate on Wikipedia in other ways as well. --Robert Horning (talk) 00:12, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as blantant advertising and fails WP:ORG per above. Chase (talk) 21:53, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Advertising needs to be deleted under WP:G11, not AfD. If it is promotional and can be saved, then replace the text per guideline. However, I don't find any sources that could be used to save it. The references are all brief mentions or local press. Being that it was just purchased by another company, I doubt there will be anything in the future to use either. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:38, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is G11 material. The company doesn't satisfy WP:NCORP at this time with not enough reliable sources covering the company in depth. I am also doubtful about the notability of the parent company here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:22, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 22:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Reichard[edit]

Richard Reichard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a candidate for election that fails WP:N is poorly referenced and seems to be more of an electioneering advert? Paste Let’s have a chat. 14:15, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:55, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:55, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Candidates for office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates; if you cannot make and properly source a credible claim that he was already notable enough for a Wikipedia article for some other reason independent of his candidacy, then he does not become notable enough for a Wikipedia article until he wins the seat. But there's no credible evidence of preexisting notability here, because the content and sourcing here is entirely about his campaign itself — and that's a WP:ROUTINE type of coverage that all candidates for election always get. No prejudice against recreation on or after November 8 if he wins, but nothing here gets him an article today. Bearcat (talk) 15:23, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unelected candidates are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:05, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree with John Pack Lambert. VVikingTalkEdits 13:31, 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. MBisanz talk 22:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aref Aghasi[edit]

Aref Aghasi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was that the article Fails WP:NFOOTY as [he] has never played in a fully-pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:12, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:12, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 14:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 20:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails all relevant criteria; it may need some protection if it is being recreated again and again Spiderone 11:08, 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. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 12:31, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fin jopson[edit]

Fin jopson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability not demonstrated, not supported by credible citations — billinghurst sDrewth 12:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:56, 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 merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters (1974–76). (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 00:00, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Homunculus (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

Homunculus (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 12:45, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:45, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:45, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 07:28, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route K5[edit]

London Buses route K5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable bus route, filled with cruft. Majority of sources are from local news agencies so notability may be an issue with them. Nordic Nightfury 12:30, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 12:30, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 12:30, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The least notable bus route I've seen in a while! Not high use, in fact "In 2009, a consultation was initiated regarding the usefulness of the route" suggests that even TfL question it's notability ;-) Jeni (talk) 14:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- this route was on Wikipedia's front page as part of DYK, nominated by Launchballer and notability concerns seem to have been addressed as part of that process. I would read Template:Did you know nominations/London Buses route K5 where the question of notability was explicitly brought up and apparently resolved as the hook made it to the main page. jcc (tea and biscuits) 15:51, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plenty of sources and an existing consensus per User:Jcc. Andrew D. (talk) 16:15, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep -Per Jcc and Andrew Davidson. I didnt realise this was all going on while I was out on holiday in India! Anyway, Notability is passed due to a previous DYK nomination, so that's why I'm opting for a speedy keep. Class455 (talk) 16:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability has already been established. Does it say anywhere that simply being put on the front page guarantees notability?--Launchballer 7:39 pm, Today (UTC+1)
  • Delete per WP:PRODUCT, WP:GNG. Goods and services should be covered at the providers' pages. Not notable in itself. Making it into DYK by the skin of its teeth does not prove notability. No wider secondary coverage beyond a specialised fan publication.Charles (talk) 18:41, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Upon examing the extensive coverage in the sources, have to agree with the communities earliers assessment that this important bus route is indeed notable. On the WP:PRODUCT argument, a bus route is not just a "product" but among other things also an element of public infrastructure. It would be as senseless to delete a bus route for being a product as it would be to destroy or merge a motorway article just beacause it happened to be toll road. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:47, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep only on the basis it ended up at DYK, Had it not been for that I would've gone with delete. –Davey2010Talk 20:42, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The claim that having been in DYK confers notability is false. Notability is determined by this process, based of available secondary sources, not by a limited local consensus at DYK.Charles (talk) 20:49, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What guideline suggests this? The question of notability was answered when the article was nominated for a DYK, and it passed, so is definitely notable. Class455 (talk) 04:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The policy linked in the above post.Charles (talk) 09:03, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree however IMHO as it's been on the main page it deserves an article and in all fairness it must've had some notability for it to have reached the main page, I believe every thing that reaches DYK should have an article kept still, Deleting this would only mean we're deleting a part of history and IMHO we'd only be disadvantaging ourselves. –Davey2010Talk 11:12, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you saying that this formal process can be trumped by a local consensus of whoever happens to be working on DYK at the time? That would be against policy.Charles (talk) 13:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has no rules, so we don't have to stick to policy. WP:IAR applies as if a "policy" stops you from improving Wikipedia, then ignore it, unless its a copyvio, deliberately vandalising the encyclopedia or verifiability. Class455 (talk) 14:26, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Charlesdrakew and Jeni have voted delete WP:SK#1 does not apply. This cannot be speedily kept. With five keep votes and two delete votes, however, the current consensus is 'keep'.--Launchballer 17:04, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bit more context to Launchballer's comment: Nordic Nightfury, the nominator closed this AfD as withdrawn by nominator, however, as User:Launchballer noticed, Wikipedia:Speedy_keep#1 states that an AfD can only be closed in such a situation where the nominator withdraws if "no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted or redirected." This does not apply in this case, since User:Jeni and User:Charlesdrakew have voted delete. jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:35, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a ballot. Only an uninvolved admin can determine the outcome based on the strength of the various points made.Charles (talk) 20:49, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability has already been established as per above. 82.27.197.173 (talk) 12:57, 29 October 2016 (UTC) — 82.27.197.173 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep. as a major bus route in a major city. Being in DYK is irrelevant. (if something totally non-notable ends up in DYK because of the eccentricities of that project, we might want to maintain traceability as a redirect to something pertinent, but it would never be reason to actually keep the article. DGG ( talk ) 02:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Bennett and Standish families. MBisanz talk 22:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spike Lester[edit]

Spike Lester (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article fails WP:FICT, WP:NOTE and WP:RS. Limited evidence of independent notability. I have attempted to expand the article in the past, but I could only find a single interview with an actor, and that is not enough to sustain the article. Aoba47 (talk) 16:30, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 16:30, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 16:30, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would recommend a redirect to Bennett and Standish families as the information about the subject is already located in that article rather than the list of characters and cast members of the show. Aoba47 (talk) 16:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Merge any content if needed. Avoid redlink bait to recreate the article again, preserves history if ever needed. Montanabw(talk) 20:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relist - if article is to be redirected/merged, a target page will need to be confirmed. Having two ideas as to where the new target should go is no good. Nordic Nightfury 11:27, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 11:27, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 11:28, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Bennett and Standish families I think this is a better article for a redirect as opposed to the list article. Bennett and Standish families can be expanded as well. I prefer a redirect (with history preserved) instead of a merge here because the article is literally unsourced and it would be much better for someone to add sourced information to the target article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:53, 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 redirect to Transformers: The Veiled Threat. MBisanz talk 22:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Salvage (Transformers)[edit]

Salvage (Transformers) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Minor Transformers character. No evidence of real-world notability. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or redirect? Further consensus needed Nordic Nightfury 11:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 11:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect, notability is not established. TTN (talk) 13:12, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the Veiled Threat book. The plot summary and character list already contain enough information about the character. Further detail is not necessary. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Article has already been speedily deleted. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:41, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1935 in Philippine military and law enforcement[edit]

1935 in Philippine military and law enforcement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This seems like serious overkill to me, and looking at these recent edits to the navigation template many, many more articles are planned. While the 1941-1945 articles may perhaps be defended as exceptional years, all that happened in 1935 was the Sakdalista uprising. 1935 in the Philippines is all that is needed. Fram (talk) 09:58, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:15, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:15, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:15, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:16, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable for stand alone article; several short mentioned events during that year can be mentioned in the Philippines article in relation to their history. Kierzek (talk) 14:37, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This content fork is not sufficient to be a stand alone article. Make sure it is already covered by 1935 in the Philippines and then delete. EricSerge (talk) 15:01, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge what is needed, and then delete. Highly redundant and unlikely to be a valid search term. Bearian (talk) 20:00, 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 speedy keep. WP:SK#2, also wrong venue. (non-admin closure) ansh666 16:27, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Agtx[edit]

User:Agtx (edit | [[Talk:User:Agtx|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Do not use this platform to advance and market yourself in Wikipedia. Do not delete articles for your pleasure. Verify pages with valid references. How can you list your City as the greatest? It's not even in Top 10 in TimeOut and Quora. Ever been to London? leetphenom 09:10, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Speedy Keep and Warn User: WP:SKCRIT#2b. Made in response to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Caleb_Punzalan. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 10:26, 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 22:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Veracity (Mark Lavorato novel)[edit]

Veracity (Mark Lavorato novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Completely unsourced article about a novel, written entirely as a plot summary with no indication of real-world context of any sort (award wins, bestsellerdom, etc.) that might make it notable -- and the writer doesn't even have a WP:BLP. There's simply no actual notability being shown here at all under either WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 08:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as it stands. Happy to reconsider my !vote if reliable sources can be found. A Traintalk 21:35, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:24, 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 redirect to Jermaine Thomas (basketball).. Rlendog (talk) 15:44, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dontay Thomas[edit]

Dontay Thomas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not seem to pass WP:NBASKETBALL and does not in any other way provide information that might suggest it passes WP:GNG. Quick search turns up a few articles reporting on his signing with overseas teams. JTtheOG (talk) 06:55, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Actually does meet WP:NBASKETBALL. He played in Liga ACB last year (profile) Merge with Jermaine Thomas (basketball). Same guy. Rikster2 (talk) 00:29, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 07:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as being equivalent to merging in this case. No idea why this was relisted; the consensus is clearly to merge and redirect. Muffled Pocketed 08:28, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yes, can we close this? Makes no sense. Rikster2 (talk) 15:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect per above and this I think has enough comments to be closed. Chase (talk) 21:54, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:52, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SureID[edit]

SureID (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I had specified the concerns with my PROD but it seems there was a malfunction in saving it so the information was never listed; everything listed here is simply either PR intiated by or for the company itself, the article heavily focuses with things only the company would care to mention, and that's what the my searches are also finding. When a company literally has to simply focus heavily with its own company activities and supporting them by either its own words or republished PR using PR websites (as it is the Business Journals can never be taken seriously since all its actions ever are is simply fluffing PR and republishing company-supplied words), it shows they only want to advertise, also notice two obvious company employee accounts, Jeff97205 and Jtdamis. Of course the fact the PR awards that were cared to be mentioned were advertising and are therefore unconvincing, the other sources are essentially following this also by simply repeating what only their clients and investors would be avid to know. SwisterTwister talk 18:39, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:40, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 20:34, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:59, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom all sourcing I could find was similarly local, semi-sponsored or both. Perhaps others will fare better - David Gerard (talk) 08:35, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as creator. Also, unless the nominator works for these publications, how do they "know" the authors just repeated what the organization is saying. Not to mention, where in the GNG does it say that if all an author does is repeat what the sources say, then suddenly there can be no notability? It does not, because this is how news general works. Now, if all the sources lacked a byline for an author, then you would have something, but I think all of the articles have an author byline. Frankly, none of the "criteria" listed by the nominator actually exists in GNG, it is just that editor's opinion. In the end, there are multiple sources over several years (and there are more recent ones) about this entity by a variety of news outlets. The "local" sources are not local, but are regional newspapers. If one wants to remove certain portions, that is fine, but AfD is not for clean-up. Aboutmovies (talk) 15:50, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  10:23, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:PROMO with a good dose of WP:TNT, due to excessive intricate detail. Wikipedia is not an office directory and not a WP:WEBHOST for a corp web site; sample content:
  • Eid’s new 72,000-square-foot (6,700 m2) headquarters are along the Sunset Highway in a three-story brick building that formerly housed an office of Credence Systems Corporation. ... Etc.
Delete; offers no value to the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:06, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and recommend closing this Afd. Saving promotional and PR material only goes against the efforts of editors building an encyclopedia. I'll have no prejudice against a speedy recreation provided and only provided the material qualifies as RS and the contents as non-PR. But I don't see that happening. Lourdes 06:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 07:53, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) –Davey2010Talk 00:00, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Company Pictures[edit]

Company Pictures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Although a number of their productions are considerably notable, I'm not sure if this automatically confers notability upon associated people and organisations. I could not find any substantial coverage upon a cursory search, however even if I did I don't think I am best placed to judge notability on a media company (e.g. which industry publications are well respected) unless they were obvious mainstream press sources (of which I couldn't find any and expect that none exist). Would like those with a better understanding of the link between having notable output and being inherently notable to pass judgement on whether this article should remain. Should be noted that the article lacks info other than a list and is completely unreferenced, so if WP:RS are found, they should be used to expand the article (which I am happy to do if some emerge in the process of this discussion). Rayman60 (talk) 01:52, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:03, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:03, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:43, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it stands per Rayman60's reasoning. We shouldn't hold any prejudice against recreating the article if good sources can be found, if only because the subject has got a particularly search engine-proof name, which might be blinding us to the existence of good sources. If kept, article should be pared back to a stub until sources are located for the current content. A Traintalk 16:55, 16 October 2016 (UTC)(see below --A Traintalk 21:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep (changed position) -- article is in much better shape after Andreas Philopater's rehabilitation of it. I would suggest it passes WP:ORG now. A Traintalk 21:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 07:53, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have expanded and sourced the article to address concerns. Any thoughts? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 19:02, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per expansion. BabbaQ (talk) 18:09, 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. Relist was not necessary, consensus is clear Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:50, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Celestine Ogbu[edit]

Celestine Ogbu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Poorly sourced WP:BLP, with some advertorial overtones, about a person notable only as a local government councillor. This is not a level of government that constitutes an WP:NPOL pass in and of itself, but the sourcing here isn't solid enough to claim WP:GNG instead: one article deadlinks and one just contains a single glancing namecheck of his existence in an article not otherwise about him. Which leaves just one article that counts toward GNG -- but one article can't carry GNG all by itself, if that article isn't supporting an automatic SNG pass by virtue of the role. Bearcat (talk) 18:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete To be fair, I've found quite a few reliable sources for the subject. Unfortunately, the coverage within them is minimal, and refers to simply either a statement given by the subject or a line or two about his work. The other editors here who have voted delete would know how I generally fight hard to save articles worth saving at Afd. That given, I've still not been able to find anything worth the significance required. Lourdes 06:53, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable and overly promotional. Loaded with WP:PEACOCK.--Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:54, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 07:52, 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 22:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Applied Foresight Network[edit]

Applied Foresight Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unreferenced, no evidence it meets WP:ORG. Basic WP:BEFORE shows no mentions in mainstream RSes; GBooks shows largely reprints of Wikipedia pages and some passing mentions. Tagged as unreferenced since June 2015, no sign of remedying since. I'm actually surprised not to be able to find good sources ... perhaps someone else's filter bubble will be kinder. David Gerard (talk) 19:32, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:33, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:33, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:34, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:34, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless supporting references are added soon - Article has zero supporting references. If strong independent sources can be added, article can be further reviewed. Topic may be notable per guidelines but hard to evaluate.GreenMountainGate (talk) 19:09, 19 October 2016 (UTC)Blocked sock. MER-C 13:04, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • yeah, they feel like the sort of org there should be something on - David Gerard (talk) 08:13, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • ping @Deku-shrub: would you know any solid RSes on this one? - David Gerard (talk) 08:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to be a virtual academic network for futurists. Most futurists have specialisms outside of pure futurism hence it may typically take a back seat. I don't see evidence it's still active, I think it stopped in 2011. https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1823144 The text is likely even too much for H+Pedia. It may deserve a mention in past and present academic futurist networks but it appears to have produced very little independent output beyond it's closed site and wikipedia page. I'm guessing the original article was created promotionally. The site is closed. https://web.archive.org/web/20080128021644/http://www.appliedforesight.org/contact.html I have not mapped enough of these academic networks to understand their relative significance yet Deku-shrub (talk) 13:32, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 07:50, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this lovingly-crafted advertorial. Guy (Help!) 08:36, 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. Relist was not necessary, consensus is clear Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:49, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mayor Eugenio Torrento Sr.[edit]

Mayor Eugenio Torrento Sr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional article and person of questionable notability. Almost entirely unreferenced, the sources that are present are barely WP:RS. Mostly just a list of dates. Article would have to be completely redone to come close to meeting standards. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:52, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note I cleaned up the article a little and removed sections that were just unreferenced lists. Article still loaded with WP:PEACOCK language such as "his exemplanary services", "Because of his matchless performance", "His Honesty and tactfulness and undying devotion to serve", etc. --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:57, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete mayors of places with under 60,000 people need better sources to justify having the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:31, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very few sources which are no more than passing mentions of the subject.--RioHondo (talk) 09:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - arguably, his notability is in longevity in office. Bearian (talk) 22:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. When it comes to small places whose mayors don't have an automatic WP:NPOL pass just for being mayors, his longevity in office is certainly a reason why he could be considered more notable than the norm — but the article would still have to be significantly better referenced than this is. (Also, for the record, if the article is improved enough to be kept, it will still have to be renamed to Eugenio Torrento Sr. without "Mayor" in the title.) Bearcat (talk) 16:34, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't want this to sound disrespectful, but my search for sources shows that the school named after the subject seems more notable than the subject... Not only is referencing minimal, I've not been able to get RS in my search for the subject. Fails S/GNG, irrespective of longevity in office. Lourdes 06:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 07:50, 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 redirect to List of programs broadcast by Adult Swim#Digital Series. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 07:36, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid Morning Bullshit[edit]

Stupid Morning Bullshit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Internet radio program with no properly sourced indication of notability per WP:NMEDIA, which is not the same thing as mere existence. Of the three sources here, two are primary ones (the parent service's own website and the show's own Instagram account), and the one that counts as a reliable source isn't about the program, but just namechecks its existence a single time in an article about the parent company. This is not the kind of sourcing it takes to get an internet radio program over our inclusion rules for media content. Bearcat (talk) 21:08, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of programs broadcast by Adult Swim#Digital Series (with the history preserved under the redirect), where the show is mentioned, in lieu of deletion. The show created in September 2015 and is relatively new, so it has had little time to receive significant coverage in reliable sources. Preserving the history will allow the redirect to be undone easily if sources surface in the future. Cunard (talk) 03:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as suggested by Cunard. While I don't know if Bearcat would support the redirect, it seems sensible a solution enough. I really don't have any view about saving the history. Material sourced from primary sources tends to be promotional, and it's never to the benefit of an encyclopedia to support that. Lourdes 07:02, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 07:49, 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 keep. The article will be moved to List of AVA Productions films next. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 01:26, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AVA Productions[edit]

AVA Productions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability. Lacking proper WP:RS. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:33, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:31, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:31, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:31, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I'm finding mentions but that's it, no actual substance for its own convincing article and there's nothing to be expected for inheriting it by simply being involving with other people and things. SwisterTwister talk 03:14, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User talk:MichaelQSchmidt's arguments here make sense and are sound when looking at this objectively.GreenMountainGate (talk) 19:18, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a list article and move it to List of AVA Productions films. There are enough blue links to justify a list article. On sourcing issue: I adopt the above rationale (can repeat the same in my own words, if anyone want to). Anup [Talk] 08:22, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:17, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong Keep - This is another black and white case to me. The company has won prestigious national awards (there is independent 3rd party proof of that from multiple sources), what more is there to say?? The article is sufficiently referenced with solid sources, but a quick google search shows there are lots more references available to support the topic.GreenMountainGate (talk) 19:15, 19 October 2016 (UTC)Blocked sock. MER-C 13:03, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note that "worldlibrary.org" is a Wikipedia mirror. Kuru (talk) 16:55, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- My reading of MOS:LIST is that it's not necessary to combine notable topics under an umbrella of a non notable one -- the only thing these entries would have in common would be the non notable production company. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - None of the Keep comments have actually shown how, when, where and why we can finally improve this article. SwisterTwister talk 20:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Care to explain your comment of WP:JNN? Since others have described how and why after a renaming it IS notable enough under WP:LISTPURP, your claiming the opposite is kinda empty. Thanks. Schmidt, Michael Q. 11:27, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 07:49, 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 keep. MBisanz talk 22:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of types of revenue stamps[edit]

List of types of revenue stamps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This list was created by me back in 2013 in an attempt to list all types of revenue stamps issued by any country. The list as it stands is currently useless, since revenues from different countries which have the same function but are known by a different name are separated. (eg. Malta's "Cigarette Tax" has the same function as India's "Excise", but they are included in separate sections within the list). The list could be rewritten from scratch in an attempt to amend this issue, but it would be extremely difficult and it would require a lot of WP:Original research since there isn't any catalogue which lists all revenue stamps issued around the world. Currently, the article consists of a long, incomplete list which does not really make sense (many types are too specific, eg. "Beetroot Sugar Association", "Corporate Affairs Commission, "Guildhall Consultation Fee", "Holiday Pay Credit" etc). A possible alternative to deletion is to have it organized by country instead of by type, but that way it would defeat the purpose of the list. Xwejnusgozo (talk) 17:15, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • When I first looked at this I thought that it was a useful navigational list, but then tried hovering over a few links and saw that the links are not to content about the revenue stamps in question but to the top-level articles about the countries or territories themselves. I suppose this could be fixed, but the current list is pretty useless. And, before someone throws a link to WP:USELESS at me, it is valid to base an argument about a list article on its usefulness or lack thereof. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:40, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:48, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:48, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:48, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep for now: Even though there is a revenue stamps by country template {{Revenue Stamps}} it is rather informative, and therefore educational, to see the many different types that cannot be explained by the template alone and are not found elsewhere. It would, however, be more useful if the country links were to their respective revenue stamp articles. ww2censor (talk) 09:43, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is hard to see what function it serves in its current form. It could be moved to "List of countries that have issued revenue stamps" with a link or red-link to each article "Revenue stamps of x". That would be a good incentive for us to write the missing articles. Lists show the gaps in a way that categories don't. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:46, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- This is an appalling list. The problem is that it is a list of countries and places that have imposed stamp duties, not a list of articles on specific duties or even articles on particular types of stamp duty. Where the Post Office is state owned making someone buy a postage stamp for the amount of the duty is a convenient way of collecting it. I am not saying that the subject is NN: it is certainly notable, but this is not the appropriate way of tackling it. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:34, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In nearly all countries revenue stamps are separate from postage stamps, even if the postal service is state-owned. I lived in Poland from 1978 to 1981, and every time I had to deal with any bureaucracy, which was very frequent under the communist system, I was told to go and buy a znaczek skarbowy to put on whatever form I had to fill in. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:05, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: I'm prepared to link the individual country names to the appropriate article and those that have no revenue stamp article might then encourage them to be written. As they are the country links are of no use to readers looking for stamp articles but with the links it will become a useful resource. Thoughts anyone? ww2censor (talk) 17:02, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That look like a good idea to me, but I would understand if you were reluctant to do the work involved while the article was still under threat of deletion, so I'll say keep. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:05, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will say keep per the above. It looks like this was good to begin with but then it got out of date and out of control. White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:08, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I get the point re links to articles about revenues, but the main idea behind the deletion nomination is that the list is pointless. There are simply too many different headings for stamps which had a similar function, for example in most cases the "Receipt" had the same function as the "Revenue" or "Stamp Duty". If you want to make a list of countries that issued revenues, it would be better to create a Compendium of revenue stamp issuers or a List of entities that have issued revenue stamps (similar to the Compendium of postage stamp issuers). However, this would require a lot of work (I would be willing to make a list of Commonwealth countries). Xwejnusgozo (talk) 21:58, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. If a reader wants to find out where an Egg Stabilisation Charge or Pineapple Levy stamp might have been issued then it should be possible to look it up in an encyclopedia. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 09:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Enough suggestions have been made for making it a valuable list. DGG ( talk ) 07:59, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • IAR Keep. I won't even attempt to justify this on any policy grounds, but when I looked at the article, I fell in love with the concept. This is what it means to be an encyclopedia. Maybe the current version of the article is a mess, and maybe it has so much overlap with Revenue stamp that we don't need both. But, WP:ILIKEIT. WP:IAR is very empowering. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:05, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Roy Smith. It needs sources and a lead, but the information is encyclopedic and a list is as good a format as any. Srnec (talk) 21:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment:: I've now added link to most, though not quite all, of the listed state, country and town names. There may be a few changes necessary such as links to states I am not familiar with and which don't have any article. I am not sure how to name some, where states have changed over the years, such as Ceylon and Sri Lanka where, just as with the postage stamps and postal history of Ceylon which redirect to a Sri Lanka named article, I have linked both name entries to Revenue stamps of Sri Lanka. You, especially @Xwejnusgozo:, may want to review the work to determine if it now more useful and add some of the missing links. I linked all the British town entries to Revenue stamps of the United Kingdom but it might be better to link to a potential town specific article. ww2censor (talk) 13:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep From a policy POV, this can be viewed as a spinoff of revenue stamp, and given Ww2censor's improvements, I think functionally that it is a useful navigational aid. --joe deckertalk 14:27, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 07:48, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yes the article is messily written and organized (confusing types with functions) - but it contains useful information, would not be suitable for a merge with revenue stamp, and is a subject notable enough for an article. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:46, 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 no consensus. A number of the Keep votes are flimsy and of dubious provenance, but there are enough from regular editors that there is no consensus to delete. Black Kite (talk) 10:36, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Ola Sand[edit]

Jon Ola Sand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject fails WP:NBIO. This is just a media industry person doing his job, which occasionally involves appearing on TV, but being in the big box does not make one notable - not unless one is discussed by other independent sources, and this person is not. This nomination follows up on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vladislav Yakovlev (television executive), where his predecessor's bio was deleted, with closing admin concluding "Being a television producer or being on a show isn't notable by itself; that isn't our criteria." Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:46, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:23, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:23, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: White the article as it exists at the time of writing is under-developed, Ola Sand is well covered in independent media, most notably for his role with the Eurovision Song Contest, which brings up his name in searches across international media outlets from countries which participate in or broadcast the event. Article could certinaly do with some further content with citations, but he certainly appears notable. -- Whats new?(talk) 05:53, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable. Non-trivial third party coverage has been and will be added. This is the executive of the entire Eurovision Song Contest. Geschichte (talk) 17:58, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Geschichte: What? Where? You mean [10]? I am sorry, this is not verifiable, since you did not keep the original title, nor link to the article. If you can format it properly, I'd be happy to review it. But seriously, "Sand reportedly edged out 39 other applicants" - this is business as usual for any company, job or promotion. I think I edged out 30 or so applicants for my current job, too, which does not make me notable :) Not everything reported in news is sufficient for making one notable, see also WP:ROUTINE. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:03, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why would the first of the two provided references need "review"? Geschichte (talk) 20:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Because they fail WP:V, and so we have to trust your judgement on them. WP:AGF is all fine, but as the other refs I can access do not seem sufficient, with all due respect, I'd like to verify that they are more then one paragraph mentions, press releases or poor interviews - as are the other sources presented here so far. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:20, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Piotrus argument for deletion of this article, if I understand it correctly is that simply because the user believes the subject work is non-notable makes it non-notable. It doesnt work that way.BabbaQ (talk) 21:25, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • You clearly do not understand my argument, of notability policy in general, so please, do not try to explain (ungrammatically) my position. Thank you, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:20, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • Piotrus, you clearly can not handle a AfD discussion. Per WesleyMouse reasonings you come on as vindictive to anyone not agreeing with you. And even using canvassing to get more input that suits you. Enough said. BabbaQ (talk) 12:47, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: good sources, being the executive of Eurovision is indeed notable. also per WP:GNG.that another article about a similar topic is deleted is irrelevant per OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. BabbaQ (talk) 21:11, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do show me which part of WP:NBIO has the statement: "being the executive of Eurovision is indeed notable". Your argument is nothing but WP:ITSIMPORTANT and WP:ILIKEIT. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:18, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure, if you give me some better rationales for deletion either than a supposed lack of good sources. The article is filled with good sources from different medias. Third party. And also give me better rationales for deletion than "the article subject is not worthy". POV does never trump good sourcing and WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:59, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable through multiple independent sources. And nomination is clearly a vindictive response and follow-up to this from same nominator and ironically this article is mentioned within that nom. Wes Mouse  T@lk 23:44, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • What do you mean vindictive. We deleted one article about a non-notable subject, it stands to reason that this should open more scrutiny on other articles from the same series whose main claim to notability is having the same job - an argument that was deemed not sufficient in said AfD. Also, vindictiveness assumes I would be unhappy about something - why should I? The AfD concluded as I hoped it would. Lastly, how about you WP:AGF? Also, seriously, independent sources? All English sources are from Eurovision press releases: [11], [12] and I doubt the non-English ones are better - they are almost certainly based on them. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:22, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Fine sources already. I have also looked at more non-English sources (and some more English ones too), which are also good and not based on releases. Manxruler (talk) 21:24, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you kindly do me a favor and elaborate on how those sources are "fine"? As I said above, the only 2 verifiable (linked) English sources seem to be not independent, as they are related to the subject workplaces, and so are very close to press releases. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:38, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • The (non-linked) Norwegian-language sources are fine. I am completely willing to assume good faith in their regard. Even if I were to not AGF (and I do assume good faith with regards to the non-linked sources in this article) on the sources presently in place, a Google search has also led me to more Norwegian-language sources which also confirm the article subject's notability, are in-depth, and third-party.
Why the unwillingness to AGF with regards to the unlinked sources in this article? Are you saying that only sources that are easily accessible on the internet are verifiable? That's not how I understand our policy on verifiability ("Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access."). Manxruler (talk) 11:38, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to admins: There is a bit of canvassing going on here, which is rather unfair and needs to be taken into consideration, specially the way "votes" are being cast. Wes Mouse  T@lk 09:10, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note to admins: I did not intend to comment on this AfD. For the record, as I said on my talk page from which I was "canvassed," my vote would have been to keep. Mr. Gerbear|Talk 09:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Most of the keep comments have been challenged with credible assertions by the nominator. Additionally, there is a credible challenge raised by the nom to the reliability/significance of the sources/claims being mentioned by the keep !voters. It is suggested that !voters in this Afd may support their delete or keep assertions documenting specific reliable sources, as general assertions of notability or calls to the nom to agf undocumented sources may be discredited by the closing editor. Lourdes 02:52, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 02:52, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If specific sources in English (away from the EBU) are the issue, I can offer that he has been quoted, interviewed and referenced in the Australian media following Australia's inclusion in the Eurovision Song Contest as executive supervisor of the event, and the champion of expanding the contest to nations outside Europe. [13] [14] [15] [16]. -- Whats new?(talk) 03:15, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Lourdes: What "undocumented sources" are you referring to? I can't see anyone requesting AGF on any undocumented sources. I could add more sources to the article, but I can't quite understand what you mean by calls to "agf undocumented sources". Manxruler (talk) 03:33, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies Manxruler if the statement came out unclear. This was per your statement above: "Why the unwillingness to AGF with regards to the unlinked sources in this article?". Please do note that my re-listing note is not pointed at you. It is a general summary per my judgement of the assertions and the keep challenges. My personal opinion in this Afd is tending on Keep. I would suggest documenting the sources you are adding to the article or have already added to the article, here in this Afd to push the point through. At the same time, if you wish further clarification from me, please don't hesitate to ping. Lourdes 03:47, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, I see. Okay, sure. No problem. I'll probably add some more sources, then. Manxruler (talk) 11:59, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Subject is covered extensively in RS [17]. Meatsgains (talk) 04:00, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Subject has been covered through many reliable sources QubixQdotta (talk) 22:02, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability cannot be inherited and in any case, this is a WP:BIO1E where the subject seems to be covered only in context of the Eurovision thing. The spokesperson of a company, for example, will always receive coverage - but the coverage is always in context of the company. The quality of sources demonstrates it.
  1. Abc.net.au Passing mention/quote
  2. Sbs.com.au Another passing mention/quote
  3. News.com.au Passing mention/quote
  4. BBC Passing mention/quote
  5. Jon Ola Sand new Executive Supervisor -Eurovision press release Not an independent source and is anyway a routine news of hiring of an employee
  6. The Guardian A couple of quotes by the subject
  7. Reuters Quotes by the subject again
  8. nrk.no Brief coverage about taking over as the new supervisor
  9. another nrk.no Quotes by the subject about Eurovision. Nothing secondary about the subject himself
  10. Morgenbladet.no Cannot access this, but this seems like an interview. Not sure whether it is again in context of Eurovision or if it actually contains something about the subject himself.
The quality of the coverage is lacking. There is a severe dearth of reliable secondary sources which actually talk about the subject. What we see is the kind of coverage a spokesperson would get - notable because of association with an event. WP:WHYN requires that there should be enough coverage so that we can write a good article and not a WP:PSEUDO biography padded with a bunch of insignificant details. This is not happening here. As this is a BIO1E, I may be OK with a redirect to an appropriate article where the subject might be covered, but clearly this doesn't deserve its own page. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:55, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are wrong. Several sources are of course about Eurovision but that is because he is working with the Eurovision project. That in itself is not "inherited". Simply because he has taken over the job from his predecessor, or the fact that it is about Eurovision, is irrelevant to notability. To claim that there are no good secondary sources is IDONTLIKEIT rationale and is irrelevant. Even more secondary sources has as well been added by user @Oceanh: after this article was put up for AfD. BabbaQ (talk) 12:43, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • And where are these "good secondary sources"? Note that these need to actually talk about the subject and not simply quote him saying something about Eurovision. This is also a BIO1E btw because I don't see any evidence that the subject was notable before this. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to WP:BIO1E, "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." The Eurovision Song Contest is the most-watched music event in the world, has a long and rich history in histroy, and thus it could be reasonably determined the event is 'highly significant.' The individual is the lead organiser of this event, and therefore overseas a number of important aspects in which the event is run, including policial issues between various European nations, and as I provided evidence of earlier, his decision to include Australia (a non-European country) into the competition for the first time, which was quite controversial internally as well as with fans of the event. -- Whats new?(talk) 23:06, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that the "individual's role in the event" is decided by the amount of coverage, not by simply being a supervisor. We are supposed to create a new page for the subject only when the coverage about the subject's involvement in the event is so much that it cannot fit into the event article and it needs a separate article all on its own. That is not happening here. The secondary coverage about the subject is severely lacking and in most cases he has simply been asked to quote about Eurovision. That doesn't make him notable, but makes the contest notable. Any information about him can be easily covered in the event article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:54, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And I accept that is your opinion. I stand by my claim that he is well covered in secondary sources, and his notable activities within the major competition and his actions and decisions warrant the keeping of this article, even if it could use better references and extended detail. This AfD should determine whether he is notable, and I believe his role goes a long way towards doing that. Similar points of view saw a keep result for the previous Eurovision Executive Supervisor. -- Whats new?(talk) 02:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would be glad to see some of these secondary sources. The AfD is not only for notability: it is for deciding how we keep the information: as a standalone page or as a merge/redirect in another article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • And we have stuff like this in the article which makes it a WP:PSEUDO:

As of May 2010, Sand was in a cohabiting relationship with Swedish choreographer Mattias Carlsson.[6][7]
In October 2010, Sand was a passenger on a train that derailed at Skotterud in Hedmark, Norway.[8]

The actual content about the subject is very limited and should best be covered in a different article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The "challenge" posed towards the two non-trivial portraits on this person, which I added earlier, is utterly unsubstantiated and does not even reward a further comment. Geschichte (talk) 10:25, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (changed from the word keep, seeing as my initial keep listed above still counts) I've added more sources, in the form of a book, a journal and several news articles. Further I can confirm that the portraits added by Geschichte are indeed non-trivial, seeing as they have (for reasons that I cannot really fathom) been challenged. Manxruler (talk) 14:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And I just found a rather substantial Swedish newspaper portrait which I'll add in a little while. Manxruler (talk) 14:22, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe you just voted twice. I would be glad if you could point out the references which offer significant secondary coverage about the subject - the ones which actually talk about the subject and show why the subject's role in Eurovision is big enough that it needs a separate article to be covered. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I did, then I shall of course change my "Keep" to "Comment", but I believed that seeing as this was relisted, we had to start over. If that is not the case, and the previous votes still count, then I'll change the word "Keep" to "Comment" (which I've now done). I'd say the cites 2, 8 and 20 especially show why his role in the Eurovision is substantial enough for an article. Manxruler (talk) 15:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for the bits you find "insignificant", I'd say his being involved in a train accident, with many people injured, and notable enough for us to have an article on it, should be mentioned. Also, I find that significant, long-term, relationships are usually mentioned in biographies on Wikipedia. Manxruler (talk) 15:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per the 3 WP:PSEUDO criteria: (1) Yes, there are RS that are interviews and profiles on Jon Ola Sand, and he is not solely mentioned in connection with Eurovision. (2) Yes, Jon Ola Sand was the main focus of much coverage put forward. (3) Yes, the person is notable for other events outside Eurovision. He held numerous production and executive roles at NRK and TV2. -- Whats new?(talk) 23:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To make it easier for us, can you present HERE the links to back up those points? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There have been citations listed in this discussion, as well as the article both new and existing. -- Whats new?(talk) 03:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As User:Lemongirl942 noted above, the sources present are of poor quality. It is telling you are not even willing to present them here, you just keep saying "there are good sources" but when pressed about which ones are good, you refuse to answer. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:38, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's of your opinion that they are poor quality, I'm disagreeing as are others with these claims. As for the 'passing mentions' quotes from above, they were in response to a specific criticism that Ola Sand wasn't mentioned outside of Eurovision press releases, I didn't say they alone were sufficent, they were to demonstrate coverage in third parties. Sources within the article (many not in English) discuss or focus on him or his roles in and away from Eurovision. Source 8 is a rather thorough feature piece on his life and early career, for example. Not speaking Norweigan, I can't verify all of them, I'm assuming good faith for those I can't, and for those I can I see no reason why they show Ola Sand isn't notable. -- Whats new?(talk) 03:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And yet you still refuse to specifically name a single source that is high quality. I rest my case - all you are doing is repeating WP:ITSIMPORTANT with no backing in sources. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:05, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I stated source 8 as my one example. -- Whats new?(talk) 06:15, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, but that is an interview. Some secondary source which talks about the subject's role is required (for example, like this), where others are commenting about the subject and showing why the subject is important. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Source 8, do you mean [18]? It is brief and does not show much editorial judgement, so it fails WP:INTERVIEW test for being a quality source. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To User:Lemongirl942 first, I've got three different users pointing out three different variations on notability so forgive me for pointing to different things to different people. In pointing to that ref I was specifically arguing against breaching WP:PSEUDO. I have previously pointed to mentions of Ola Sand leading controversial voting changes as head of the ESC for the EBU [19] as well as including nations geographically outside Europe in many previous refs. I'm not suggesting any one reference establishes notability, but there's plenty of references that establish this person is notable without breaching PSEUDO. To User:Piotrus, no I mean [20] which is [8] in the article as currently written. Regardless, I don't know how it can "fail" INTERVIEW, because I don't read anything about the length of the interview rendering it meaningless and that would still be relevant even as a primary source if not secondary. -- Whats new?(talk) 06:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is longer, but still is mostly primary. Doesn't seem like there is any analysis of the interview, it is just questions and answered. Being interviewed does not make one notable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:55, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mate, I didn't pick out that reference claiming it solely made this person notable, I was addressing the PSEUDO concerns. -- Whats new?(talk) 07:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Further to User:Lemongirl1942, are these better examples of more tradional secondary source mentions you're after: [21], [22], [23], [24]. -- Whats new?(talk) 07:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- TV executives are not inherently notable, nor can they inherit notability from the shows the ran. The subject is being cited in the media, but the coverage is not about him. For example:
  • In an interview with the news agency Reuters in 2011, Sand launched the idea of extending the Eurovision Song Contest to a Worldvision Song Contest.[1][2] In May 2015, Sand stated to the Norwegian public broadcaster NRK that the Worldvision idea was likely not moving forward, due to a lack of interest among countries outside Europe. He also cited the large cost of a worldwide song contest.[3] In a 2016 interview with The Guardian he stated, "We are not looking at a sort of ‘Worldvision’ because that’s too complicated (...)".[4] Sand stated to Danish media in 2016 that the European Broadcasting Union was instead developing plans to export the Eurovision concept by launching separate versions of the song contest in Asia and the United States, depending on the level of interest in the relevant countries.[5] He was featured in the newspaper Morgenbladet in May 2012, where the focus was on the song contest and international politics.[6]

References

  1. ^ Kirschbaum, Erik (16 May 2011). "Eurovision head says global contest a "challenge"". Reuters. Retrieved 15 October 2016.
  2. ^ Falch-Nilsen, Kirsti (16 May 2011). "ESC-sjefen ønsker seg verdensfinale" (in Norwegian). NRK. Retrieved 15 October 2016.
  3. ^ Zakariassen, Gaute; Fjelltveit, Ingvild (26 May 2016). "ESC-sjefen: Ikke aktuelt med «Worldvision»" (in Norwegian). NRK. Retrieved 16 October 2016.
  4. ^ Qvist, Bella (12 May 2016). "How Eurovision finally cracked America". The Guardian. Retrieved 16 October 2016.
  5. ^ "Eurovision vil have resten af verden med til melodifesten". Berlingske (in Danish). 12 May 2016. Retrieved 16 October 2016.
  6. ^ Olsen, Maren Næss (16 May 2012). "Sjefen for sang og storpolitikk". Morgenbladet (in Norwegian). Retrieved 15 October 2016.
If people want to hear Sand's thoughts on the show, they can read online news sites. Wikipedia is not WP:NEWS. It's not a collection of vanity pages on unremarkable TV executives who just go about their business. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:51, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So you would vote to delete Robert Greenblatt and Leslie Moonves as well? Articles about television executives going about their business? There are more than just selective sources opponents seem to be fond of quoting. -- Whats new?(talk) 04:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not relevant, but seriously, comparing a chairman of a media group to a middle manager, you can't be serious? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:05, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. The latter, for example, is "Chairman of the Board, President, and Chief Executive Officer of CBS Corporation", according to the linked article. Yes, obviously the same thing... K.e.coffman (talk) 06:09, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was responding to criticism of Jon Ola Sand being "unremarkable" and just going about "their business" which seems hardly different to articles on virtually any television executive. What makes an article on a Chairman, President or CEO notable when it covers them just "going about their business?" Furthermore, his role at the ESC is the highest possible so "comparing a chairman of a media group to a middle manager" is not correct. The fact he holds the highest office at ESC and a management position at a second company only further establishes notability. -- Whats new?(talk) 06:15, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If it helps people make up their minds, I've now dug up an online version of the Aftenposten (which is apparently Norway' largest newspaper) piece used as reference 2: Skal sjefe over neste års Grand Prix.
Will have to check some things before using this online piece as the url for ref 2. Manxruler (talk) 13:15, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this piece was written before he got his present position at the EBU, back when he was "just" the NRK guy responsible for the Norwegian production of the Eurovision Song Contest 2010, held in Norway. Manxruler (talk) 13:20, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That easily satisfies WP:INTERVIEW as a reliable, secondary source. -- Whats new?(talk) 22:41, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. @Geschichte:, is the online content the same as the paper version of the new article? Can I just add it as the url of the source? Manxruler (talk) 00:54, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note. Interviews are generally primary sources and while they can be used in articles, they might not contribute towards notability of the subject. Lourdes 03:28, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews can be secondary sources in addition, where their is editorial coverage included, which there arguably is in that particular reference. -- Whats new?(talk) 03:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do agree with you on that, that there is editorial coverage of the individual within the source. I'm ambivalent of the depth of the same, yet do defer to your judgement on the same. Lourdes 04:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I'm reiterating my delete vote as the arguments for keeping the article have not been convincing. I also get the impression that there's a certain degree of "voter badgering" going on. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Considering the noticable improvement in the article's development and referencing since this AfD was opened, as well as further citations and points put forward, I would reiterate my keep vote. The subject is mentioned extensively through quotes, interviews, editorials and in connection with all matters ESC as the most senior person in charge for the EBU. The arguments about better referencing are perfectly valid, but I fail to see how he fails notability. These additional third party references may have been lost in dualing discussions previously, [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31]. -- Whats new?(talk) 04:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Lets look at these sources:-
[32], Daily Express is so far short of a RS this is laughable
[33], Non RS - looks like a puff piece
[34], Interview - not independent. Its about Eurovision not Sand
[35], Doesn't look like an independent RS and is an interview about eurovision too/
[36], Um dunno about this source but the references to sand google translate to Grand Prix boss, Jon Ola Sand, think it's nice to reflect a fine composite Norwegian culture, as he calls it, but says ESC is no integration project. - We chose the best presenters we could find, regardless of ethnicity. The three suit each other well and have the right qualifications. Jon Ola Sand has no opinion on whether presenter choice will lead to better integration, but he thinks it is positive if it happens. That looks like an interview about Eurovision and not an RS about Sand.
[37], Fan site? Not about Sand.
[38]. Looks like an RS - has an editorial team but is another interview and is about Eurovision not Sand.
So, put together we have a bunch of sources that are not RS or are not independent or are about Sand's work not about him. For a BLP we need to see printed profiles or biographies not evidence that he is doing an effective job as the mouthpiece for his organisation. We need to see evidence that shows he is notable as himself as NOTINHERITED applied. Interviews are by defination not independant and do not count towards the GNG. I haven't seen a single keep vote here that seriously addresses the need for RS. WE get insults (Thanks babbaQ for raising the tone), CANVASSing and pure assertions. TO keep this we need to see sources cites, sources that are independant, in an RS and not some tabloid rag and most importantly about Sand and not the place where he works. So my vote? Delete Spartaz Humbug! 05:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Spartaz: Source 26 from eurovision.de is the German-language site of eurovision.tv (English-language version). As for source 28 from Oikotimes, WikiProject Eurovision deemed them as unreliable, purely because volunteers can produce accounts, similar to how we do on here, and publish news. And for the record, even I am now starting to sway towards a weak-delete, although at present I am interested in reading more views before I change my !vote. I had made an alternative compromise during a previous AfD (noted above) by creating List of Eurovision Song Contest executive supervisors which may ease the tensions all-round, or even a sub-section either at European Broadcasting Union or Eurovision Song Contest providing notes on the role of the executive supervisor and a list. This sways away from BLP issues, whilst keeping what some are seeing as "important information" in-brief and on a more relevant article. Then my "keep" would be swing to "strong-delete". Wes Mouse  T@lk 07:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your suggestion perfectly reflects what we should do here. Sand is not worthy of an article but could be mentioned in the main article if there was consensus to do so. Spartaz Humbug! 18:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it is a reasonable compromise, in fact it would allow us to save and reuse content of deleted articles. An article about the position would be likely notable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:59, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: exactly, all of the content from deleted articles would be reusable on an article relevant to the event's positional role, rather than having multiple articles for BLP's who have only worked within that role and have no other sources apart from what they did in that role. That way all of these noms could easily become redirects if that was to be considered a more appropriate solution. We've already established the role is notable within context of the Eurovision events. However the people who have held that role are not as notable, but they could be listed within such article and showing the date/year they held the position. Wes Mouse Talk 14:26, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am totally fine if this closes as a redirect to List of Eurovision Song Contest executive supervisors (with history intact) and the content is selectively merged to the list article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:44, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • From what I can see the main reasoning for those who !voted delete so far is that the sources are not up to standard. But the reality is that their are plenty of sources that are third party sources about Jon Ola Sand. The article is filled with good sourcing, from many different countries as well. He is in fact the current Executive Supervisor of the Eurovision. Svante Stockselius who held the "office" before him had his article Kept recently with much weaker sourcing, to be the executive supervisor position for the worlds biggest music competition event is notable per the Stockselius keep as well. Several other language Wikis have articles about Jon Ola Sand, and yes Otherstuffexists is a rationale but in this case it is yet another proof that his notability is not national or irrelevant as per any executive at any event/corporation. But that he is well known internationally. To state that he is not worthy of an article? worthy? If any executive supervisor is worthy, than he is. Those claiming that the sources are a reason for deletion are just plainly wrong, and again being the executive supervisor of Eurovision the worlds biggest music competition, as well as every other Eurovision event etc is notable. BabbaQ (talk) 19:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 07:47, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have still not read an Delete !vote here that goes beyond a POV of sources not being up to standard. (there are plenty of sources and third party sources, also from several different countries). And POV !votes like "this article is not worthy". I am still waiting for some actual reasonings that would justify deletion beyond IDONTLIKEIT. --BabbaQ (talk) 20:57, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • You win today's internet for stupidly missing the point. This is a BLP. There is no sourcing that discusses Sand as a person rather then mentions and quotes from his role. Deleting for this is not a POV. Its a POLICY. Have you read GNG recently? Have you read BLP? Instead of throwing insults around how about demonstrating that the sources meet the GNG and discuss Sand not his role in the ESC? That;s the policy compliant way of dealing with this. Insulting people. Well that's just shitty lazy churlish playing the man instead of the ball. Spartaz Humbug! 05:43, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is there anything in your comment that are supposed to sound mature and reasonable? I guess not. Work your case instead of doing simple outbursts. Your comment above hardly help your case. In fact makes it null and void per vindictive and aggressive behavior. It is sad to see, really.BabbaQ (talk) 10:44, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • BabbaQ, your comments here are immature. You could have countered the arguments by analysing the sources and showing that the subject has been covered outside this event. But you didn't. Your assertion of IDONTLIKEIT is also not applicable because many of the delete votes have done the hard work of analysing the sources. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:39, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He's been covered in multiple reliable sources, and is the executive of a major international talent competition. To me, this meets WP:GNG. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:29, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Long significant career. Major role in Eurovision organization. Very well referenced article. werldwayd (talk) 23:10, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well referenced and visited article about a significant person in European broadcasting. Article of obvious interest. --Ooo86 (talk) 10:17, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep CEO of Eurovision, an entity with an intense public following, with correspondingly broad, enduring coverage of his career.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • He is not a CEO. The CEO of Eurovision is Jean-Paul Philippot. This person is just a mid-to-high level exec/manager, but not the CEO. If you look at "Eurovision_Song_Contest, he is mentioned only in the following section which describes his position: "Since 1964 the voting has been presided over by the EBU scrutineer, who is responsible for ensuring that all points are allocated correctly and in turn. The following are the scrutineers and Executive Supervisors of the Eurovision Song Contest appointed by the EBU: Jon Ola Sand (2011–)". This is not even saying he is the Eurovision main executive manager (frankly, the article doesn't say who that would be, even). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He is the person most directly responsible for management of the contest and second-in-charge on the reference group. His title may not read CEO, but that does not make him a "mid-to-high level". Further, you appear to be confusing the Eurovision Song Contest with the European Broadcasting Union. Philippot is President of the EBU, not ESC. -- Whats new?(talk) 05:35, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. There is no firm agreement that the sources found by Cunard contribute enough for the subject to be notable. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:03, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Diamond[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Jason Diamond (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable plastic surgeon, appearing on a few episodes of a show for promotional purposes. DGG ( talk ) 02:42, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete We need to have sources that reference the subject, which we entirely lack. The only sources are the subjects own websites, and that is not enough to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:17, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Certainly non-notable as a surgeon, and his appearances on television from time to time do not confer notability within the terms of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I nominated this article for deletion in April 2014 (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Diamond) and then I wrote "The external links (the nearest there is to any references) are to Jason Diamond's personal web site and to the web site of his business." Two and a half years later, that is still so: nobody has ever produced a single independent reference for the article.
(The 2014 discussion was closed by a non-administrator as "no consensus", but in fact the only opposition to deletion was from one editor whose reasons were unrelated to Wikipedia's guidelines and policies, so in my opinion the closure was wrong. The two reasons given for keeping were (1) that Jason Diamond keeps a list of his television appearances on his personal web site, and (2) that the guidelines accept as notable anyone "recognized by popular media as experts", which is simply not true, unless it is tucked away somewhere in the guidelines where I haven't managed to find it.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:21, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:36, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:36, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:36, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete got a little celebrity for TV role; fails GNG. 00:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jytdog (talk • contribs) (per this)
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Maier-Schwartz, Sagit (2013-05-29). "Bringing Beverly Hills Cosmetic Surgery to the Middle East". The Atlantic. Archived from the original on 2016-10-16. Retrieved 2016-10-16.

      The article notes:

      Dr. Jason Diamond wasn't aware that his E! reality TV series Dr. 90210 was being aired on the other side of the planet. That is, until patients began arriving at his Beverly Hills office from all different parts of the Middle East. A facial specialist, Diamond was one of a group of prominent plastic surgeons featured on the show from 2005 through 2008. His new clientele included members of some of the most powerful and wealthiest Arab families in the world, including royalty from different countries in the region. They all wanted him to perform plastic surgery.

      Diamond treated these patients in the United States initially. Over time, though, they began to ask if he'd be willing to travel to provide his services for them and their families at home. Eventually he decided to give it a shot. It took a year to get his license there and to settle on a medical facility where he could operate, but he eventually settled at The American British Surgical and Medical Centre in Dubai, founded by British plastic surgeon Mendy Kahn.

    2. Snead, Elizabeth (2013-07-26). "Why Hollywood's Plastic Surgeons Decamped to Dubai". The Hollywood Reporter. Archived from the original on 2016-10-16. Retrieved 2016-10-16.

      The article notes:

      Dr. 90210 began titillating American viewers in 2004 with its salacious, sometimes gruesome look at the physical transformations of Beverly Hills' beauty-obsessed denizens through breast implants, reductions, face-lifts, rhinoplasties, liposuction and whitened smiles. Its tagline: "If you weren't born with it, buy it."

      After the E! show went dark in the U.S. in 2008, it continued to air in 22 other countries, including the United Arab Emirates. As a result, its stars have become hugely in-demand surgeons, with all of the attendant hoopla -- and additional business -- that comes with fame. "Anyone who has any kind of media exposure here is considered an A-list celebrity, not just a reality TV asshole," says Jason Diamond, Dr. 90210's former facial expert. He also is the ringleader of a 90210 plastic-surgeon posse that is part of a lucrative partnership with the American British Surgical & Medical Centre, a facility that brings U.S. and U.K. doctors to the Middle East, located on Abu Bakr Al Siddique Road in Dubai's Deira district.

      After being approached by the ABSAMC, Diamond, who specializes in noses and face-lifts, brought in other former 90210 docs including Kevin Sands, the Kardashians' family dentist who also has created winning grins for Charlie Sheen, Miley Cyrus, Kanye West, Emma Stone, Robert Downey Jr. and Britney Spears.

    3. Carrington, Daisy (2014-09-05). "Dubai, the world's plastic surgery hub". CNN. Archived from the original on 2016-10-16. Retrieved 2016-10-16.

      The article notes:

      Dr. Jason Diamond knows what it's like to be sought after. The Beverly Hills plastic surgeon -- first made famous by reality show "Dr. 90210" -- has operated on a range of A-list celebrities (though he declines to name them). Yet even he was unprepared for the clamor that met him when he first visited Dubai in what was meant to be a one-time gig as a guest surgeon.

      "For that week, I literally had people waiting until 2am for a consultation. The waiting room was filled 20 people-deep all day long," he recalls.

      That was in 2009. Since, Diamond has returned to the city every two to three months as part of a partnership with the American British Surgical and Medical Centre. Over the years, he has enlisted the Who's Who of Beverly Hills surgeons to join him at the practice.

    4. Corwin, Tom (2008-04-27). "'Dr. 90210' star sees job changing". The Augusta Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2016-10-16. Retrieved 2016-10-16.

      This article quotes Diamond extensively.

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Jason Diamond to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 03:30, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely unclear what kind of encyclopedic content would be generated from those sources. Useless for WP. Jytdog (talk) 00:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I only declined the prod, because there were two previous prod, and prod contestings. Not because of any inherent quality of the topic. So that is not a vote either way. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:06, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, DGG. He's a busy surgeon. So what? Bearian (talk) 21:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per WP:GNG. Sources provided by Cunard. And many more independent reliable sources listed here. I have no personal opinion for or against Doctor, such as "He's a busy surgeon so what" or "He's a great surgeon.". Rather I look at evidence ie. the existence of sources, per our core guideline WP:NOTE. -- GreenC 00:09, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
yes we know he has been on TV a lot. does not contribute to N. celebrity =/= notability. Jytdog (talk) 00:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The notability guidelines allow for specialists in a field who are recognized by popular media as experts. He's not a "celebrity", he is a notable doctor. -- GreenC 02:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, he is just a celebrity or maybe a celebrity doctor; not notable that I can see. Jytdog (talk) 04:31, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Just a celebrity" contradicts the evidence (he is a doctor); and celebrity doctor's can be notable, we don't discriminate against celebrity doctors on Wikipedia. -- GreenC 14:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sources cited above, combined with what's already in the article, meet the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 04:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question' Let us suppose for the moment he were in some other profession. Would the TV appearances given here make him notable ?
  • Delete as the Delete votes are concurring this is simply an advertisement for a surgeon who has happened to get some news attention to TV and events, none of that inherited notability especially if it's simply for advertising the man; the sources themselves simply advertise ehat there is to know about him and his business and it goes to contain blatant PR quotes. Therefore by considering these sources as "independent and substantial" is not the case and we must certainly not think of them being otherwise simply because of the publication's name. SwisterTwister talk 20:14, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  Meets notability and WP:NOT requirements.  A source of sources was shown at the previous AfD. 

    Note that the policy WP:PROMO itself merely requires NPOV, whereas the argument here is that anything said that shows the commercial attraction of the entity has the effect of promoting the entity.  But the article would fail NPOV if the commercial attraction of the entity were omitted, so the argument is self-contradictory.  No problems with promotional tone have been identified, and if there are any claimed, they can be fixed with WP:Editing policy. 

    Note also that the arguments to notability have not properly reviewed the alternatives to deletion, where this topic is a major element in Dr. 90210.  The sources provided by Cunard include the statement five years after Dr. 90210 stopped production, "its stars have become hugely in-demand surgeons, with all of the attendant hoopla -- and additional business -- that comes with fame... [Diamond] is the ringleader of a 90210 plastic-surgeon posse that is part of a lucrative partnership with the American British Surgical & Medical Centre...in Dubai's Deira district."  The challenge for Wikipedia here is to continue to encourage both our content contributors and our AfD participants to understand and support our policies and guidelines.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:04, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Every doctor listed in Dr. 90210 is either currently under AfD or already deleted; all but one were initiated by DGG
David Matlock
Linda Li
Gary Motykie
Robert Rey
Will Kirby
Surely some of these could be saved or recreated per our policy of WP:PRESERVE. -- GreenC 15:33, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd think it reasonable to make redirects to the show. DGG ( talk ) 04:08, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 07:47, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I assume this is what the article looked like. It was found non-notable, until someone recreates it with proper sourcing (see Lourdes comment) and makes a 10 minute effort to defend it from deletionists through AUTHOR and/or ACTOR. It's too bad no one did that, made an effort, WP:PRESERVE is our policy. -- GreenC 14:18, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I do not see any sources which substantially discuss the subject. There are a bunch of sources which quote him (as having participated in a tv show), but nothing substantial to enable us to write an article. If you actually look at the coverage presented above, much of it is limited to 1 or 2 sentences and this is not significant coverage. More importantly, most of the coverage is essentially about the TV show than the subject which makes this tend towards a BIO1E. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:12, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is incorrect. The article in The Atlantic, for example, is not "limited to 1 or 2 sentences":

    Dr. Jason Diamond wasn't aware that his E! reality TV series Dr. 90210 was being aired on the other side of the planet. That is, until patients began arriving at his Beverly Hills office from all different parts of the Middle East. A facial specialist, Diamond was one of a group of prominent plastic surgeons featured on the show from 2005 through 2008. His new clientele included members of some of the most powerful and wealthiest Arab families in the world, including royalty from different countries in the region. They all wanted him to perform plastic surgery.

    Diamond treated these patients in the United States initially. Over time, though, they began to ask if he'd be willing to travel to provide his services for them and their families at home. Eventually he decided to give it a shot. It took a year to get his license there and to settle on a medical facility where he could operate, but he eventually settled at The American British Surgical and Medical Centre in Dubai, founded by British plastic surgeon Mendy Kahn.

    ...

    In Dubai, about 60 percent of Diamond's current patients are Arabs who all speak fluent English. The remaining 40 percent are expatriates from Australia and Europe. Within the Middle Eastern group he sees local Emirati, as well as patients from other GCC countries like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Qatar. He also has patients who fly in from India, Africa, and Russia. ...

    The first physician Diamond recruited into his new practice was Dr. David Matlock, who specializes in several procedures that he pioneered such as VASER Hi Def Liposculpturing (also known as "advanced surgical bodybuilding"), laser vaginal rejuvenation procedures, and Brazilian butt augmentations.

    Cunard (talk) 03:22, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you actually look at the coverage presented above, much of it is limited to 1 or 2 sentences and this is not significant coverage. Yes, I am glad you agree that the other sources are not useful. Except for one, others are not significant coverage or are simply quotes. There is nothing substantial for GNG to be satisfied. Also a BIO1E. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hard to understand your position. There are multiple paragraphs about his practices, patients, employees, locations.. exactly the kind of information to write an article with. If this isn't significant coverage I don't know what is. -- GreenC 04:08, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I do not agree "the other sources are not useful". From The Hollywood Reporter:

    ... Jason Diamond, Dr. 90210's former facial expert. He also is the ringleader of a 90210 plastic-surgeon posse that is part of a lucrative partnership with the American British Surgical & Medical Centre, a facility that brings U.S. and U.K. doctors to the Middle East, located on Abu Bakr Al Siddique Road in Dubai's Deira district.

    After being approached by the ABSAMC, Diamond, who specializes in noses and face-lifts, brought in other former 90210 docs including Kevin Sands ...

    Another 90210 star Diamond enlisted is David Matlock ...

    Diamond once made the social error of accepting the dinner invitation of three young female patients, daughters of a wealthy man. ...

    Diamond's fees also vary from patient to patient. ...

    Expect the plastic surgery invasion to continue unabated across the map: Plans are in the works for ABSAMC and Dubai ringleader Diamond to create similar surgical clinics in Kuwait, Singapore and Qatar. Diamond recently was invited to Russia by what he calls "powerful people" for talks to set up his own shops in St. Petersburg and Moscow.

    The CNN article provides five sentences of coverage about him. WP:BIO1E is inapplicable. The sources discuss Diamond as a doctor on Dr. 90210 and as a businessman who recruited other plastic surgeons to work at a new surgical practice he started in Saudia Arabia.

    Cunard (talk) 03:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a lot of inherited coverage from the TV show. Nothing to show that the subject is independently notable. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:33, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cunard that is not stuff one can use to create a WP article. Not substantial discussion, but some gossipy details.Jytdog (talk) 04:01, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The copy of the coverage is clearly promotional: "Diamond recently was invited to Russia by what he calls "powerful people" for talks to set up his own shops in St. Petersburg and Moscow" -- nothing but promotional content can be developed from this, and Wikipedia is not a promotional platform for otherwise unremarkable business people. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:04, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is reliable information to write an article with. "Diamond's fees also vary from patient to patient" .. "part of a partnership with the American British Surgical & Medical Centre" .. "Diamond, who specializes in noses and face-lifts" .. "Diamond enlisted David Matlock" .. this is all factual material that be be built on in conjunction with other sources and research. -- GreenC 04:14, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the sources are gossipy/fluffy. Stuff like "Diamond's fees also vary from patient to patient" isn't exactly what we can put in the article. Most of the coverage is also inherited from the TV show. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:33, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of it being supposedly "factual": ""Diamond's fees also vary from patient to patient" .. "part of a partnership with the American British Surgical & Medical Centre" .. "Diamond, who specializes in noses and face-lifts" .. "Diamond enlisted David Matlock"" is all advertising and something only the company cares to advertise about itself, because it sure as hell isn't something a publishing company is interested to say unless it too was paid for it; therefore actually going to specifics about what the fees are is basically appealing to clients, are we here for advertising about that? Absolutely not, therefore it's unacceptable. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 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 no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 10:37, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pioneers press[edit]

Pioneers press (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be non-notable. Searches failed to turn up significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources that would establish notability under either the GNG or NCORP. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 21:49, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 21:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 21:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, yep, looks like I accidentally plunked the wrong link in. Amended above. Safehaven86 (talk) 15:30, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment terrible article, but if we can turn up a couple more RSes this might swing it - David Gerard (talk) 10:23, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm seeing a good amount of regional coverage with a simple google news search. Appears to pass WP:GNG to me. Yes, it could use some editing and be careful to avoid WP:COI and WP:ADV.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:30, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify (let it go through AFC)Updated below. It is very clear that author has a COI here (off-wiki evidence, so I will not link anything) and they have not declared. The article is terrible and of borderline notability. It's a waste of volunteer time to work on this draft and encourage more WP:BOGOF editing. Let the creator work on the article, make it a better quality and let it go through AFC. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:23, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    As nominator I could get behind draftifying the article as an outcome. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 16:47, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm unfamiliar with any policy or guideline that recommends deleting an article because cleaning it up would be a "waste of time" ???--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:34, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Paulmcdonald: WP:TNT, but this isn't an egregious enough case to warrant that, in my opinion. I would support draftifying so that reliable third-party sources can be added and the article re-submitted via AfC. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 18:48, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not sure of the value of draftifying this article and sending it through AFC. We haven't uncovered enough sources to establish WP:GNG for this article, so it seems likely to be deleted. If it's not notable, which seems probable, it's better to just delete it now than to send it through AFC, only for another volunteer to have to deal with it then. Safehaven86 (talk) 18:57, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and only Draft if time has passed and someone is willing because I myself am only finding a few mere mentions, the links above are simply trivial themselves and are not the substance we would actually need for both a confirmed notable and improvable article. SwisterTwister talk 19:09, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, edit, and fix the title capitalization. In addition to the Pitch article noted above, there's a substantial article about this independent publisher in the Beyond the Book podcast series produced by the Copyright Clearance Center. [39] --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:27, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as spam. If any volunteer editor is willing to create an article on this topic, all the power to them. But let's not encourage paid editors by keeping such articles. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:22, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: do you have an opinion on the subject's notability? I would rework it myself if I thought it met WP:GNG. I'm not aware of a policy that says paid editing negates notability. I don't think paid editing is the issue here, though. I just don't think this publisher meets our notability guidelines. Safehaven86 (talk) 05:30, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I thought of giving it time, but it seems the press is simply not notable at the moment. Coverage is entirely local and some of them are in sources which may not pass WP:AUD. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Pioneers Press has received significant coverage in this article in The Pitch and this article from the Copyright Clearance Center. The article can be improved; Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required. I do not consider WP:TNT applicable to this article.

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Pioneers Press to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 21:56, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Analysis - These sources cannot be considered or taken seriously as independent and significant as the first source is actually PR advertising what the company is and what the company services are, the "article" goes to end with a biography of the businessperson herself (naturally containing only information she would say herself).... Next, the company is only mentioned between weaving in and out times when the article is actually focused about a family's story of life instead, therefore it cannot be considered as focused substance for notability. As the Delete comments have shown, there is enough shoeing there is not what is needed for both substance and a convincing article. SwisterTwister talk 23:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on sources
  • There is sufficient significant non-interview coverage in the first source:

    Remarkably, though, the stock that flourishes best on the Hard Fifty are books and do-it-yourself style “zines.” Pioneers Press, headquartered there, is a combined publishing house and small press distributor. The publisher’s catalog focuses on issues in survival and sustainability on the farm and in the city, as well as health, gender and sexuality.

    Since its launch in 2012, Pioneers Press has brought out titles that have made the bestseller lists of independent bookstores around the world, including Powell’s Books’ number one bestselling small press title for the last three consecutive years, The Do-It-Yourself Guide to Fighting the Big Motherfuckin’ Sad. In 2015, Entropy Magazine named Pioneers Press as one of the best small presses in the country.

    This Copyright Clearance Center source meets WP:AUD, which says, "at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary". Not every source needs to meet WP:AUD so it is fine that the reliable but local source Pitch does not meet WP:AUD.

    Cunard (talk) 05:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 07:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The amount of "non-interview" coverage is 3 sentences. That is not "indepth coverage" in any way. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:59, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a company and WP:CORPDEPTH needs to be satified here which requires in-depth coverage. That is is not satisfied here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:49, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The consensus appears to suggest that the subject doesn't meet the notability guidelines, especially after evaluation of Marathi language sources in addition to English language sources. —SpacemanSpiff 14:03, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sukhada Kane[edit]

Sukhada Kane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about an Indian Kirtan singer that was speedy deleted under A7 earlier today. Neither normal searches nor a WP:INDAFD search suggest that she meets the basic notability guideline for people or is notable under the additional criteria for musicians. Article is closely paraphrasing http://www.artists-india.com/vocalists/Sukhada-Kane. — Sam Sailor 11:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 11:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 11:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please suggest how the article can be improved. It is important that wikipedia does not discriminate and includes prominent indian artists, where many don't have huge access to internet marketing etc (mostly musicians of the older generation), but are still very known well in their field. There are multiple recordings of Mrs Kane online to prove she is a musician of a high calibre. These musicians of the older generation of the highest calibre must be recognised as equals by wikipedia, and not just including those younger musicians who understand and have the access to the internet publicity but are actually not at such a high calibre of musician.
  • Please suggest what can be done to prove why this article should not be deleted. Thanks Shahanaks (talk) 12:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any kind of independent, third party source you can cite, much like providing references for any kind of study or research, will help make your case. But they do need to be independent. It shouldn't matter if it isn't internet searchable (although that makes it difficult for editors to verify) but you do need to indicate where and when the reference was published or broadcast or otherwise disseminated. If they are indeed notable such references would exists. If they don't exist then it's a pretty good indication that the person truly isn't notable on scale worthy of a wikipedia entry. But we do need verifiable evidence of notably beyond a statement of belief that a person is notable. Regarding the sources provided here, they largely confirm that she exists, but that can't be justification. The only one here that comes close is a mention in the book Between Two Tampuras, but it's a trivial mention so it's not enough. I suggest taking this to a sandbox to work on it and give yourself more time to find the really good, strong references. Good luck. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:26, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for your suggestions. Please could you tell me how to transfer the article to the sandbox? Shahanaks (talk) 14:54, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not an expert on those kinds of things, but this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About_the_Sandbox may help get you started in the right direction. I guess you can also contact the person who nominated this article for deletion and ask the nomination be withdrawn while it is in the sandbox and in the process of being improved. ShelbyMarion (talk) 17:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have searched many Indian newspapers and found hard copies of newspaper articles which clearly mention Sukhada Kane. I will have them scanned and added to the references in the next few days (as an English online copy I could not find). I hope this will be enough as independent third party sources for the nomination for deletion to be removed. Shahanaks (talk) 17:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Shahanaks: I have posted on your user talk page, if you WP:PING me over there, I will be happy to help. — Sam Sailor 18:05, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • @ShelbyMarion: Kane is not mentioned in Vāmana Harī Deśapāṇḍe (1 January 1989). Between Two Tanpuras. Popular Prakashan. ISBN 978-0-86132-226-8. The citation only supports that her teacher Kamal Tambe was a student of Mogubai Kurdikar. — Sam Sailor 18:20, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple credible references have been added from large newspapers. This should suffice as evidence of Sukhada Kane's significance as a vocalist to be included on wikipedia. I will expect the deletion nomination to be removed now. Please do let me know. Shahanaks (talk) 19:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Apart from the sources that are disallowed or that are not about the subject or those which are only fleeting mentions, other references are non reliable sources or local newspapers. For this article, dedicated reports in papers such as the Times of India or The Hindu are of the quality required. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which references are 'disallowed'?. I don't seem to understand what you are implying. The Maharashtra Times is one of the biggest newspapers in India and the other local newspapers are also very big newspapers in Maharashtra. And there are no references mentioned which are not about the subject. All the references refer to the subject and all references talk extensively about Sukhada Kane and her singing. If you can understand what is written in Hindi, the newspaper articles clearly are totally relevant, and show her as a renowned vocalist. Please explain as I see no problem with the references given. @Sam Sailor: Shahanaks (talk) 21:54, 13 September 2016 (UTC) In addition, you cannot rely on the Google translation of these newspapers as the translations are only half translated, often incorrect, and many times people's names are also translated to their literal meanings instead of just stating the name of the person. Therefore it is necessary to keep the articles in the Hindi script to understand the true meaning. Shahanaks (talk) 22:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I see no credible indication of the person's notability, nor do I see anything of particular interest in the article that would justify retaining it under our General Notability Guidelines. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sam Sailor: please explain why the sources provided are not enough? The only thing I can think of is that the editors cannot understand the hindi and so don't realise all that has been written about Sukhada Kane. Please do explain...when there are so many other articles on wiki of musicians that have much less credible references and are still allowed to be kept on wikipedia. Also, please could you explain how some of the largest newspapers in India and Maharashtra can be called as not credible. Just because they are not in English does not mean they're not credible. I see no reason why the sources provided are not enough. And there have been discussions about Sukhada Kane on social media etc and people reading the wiki and so she is obviously of some interest to some, even if indian classical music is a niche subject. I would be very grateful if you could explain to me what is the problem, as right now I see no problem. Many thanks Shahanaks (talk) 08:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Shahanaks: I have made a source review on the article talk page, find it for convenience hatted here below. I include some wikilinks to guidelines and policies, they are worth skimming; often the lead or just the nutshell box will provide the needed understanding for how we work. In short, we lack significant coverage in reliable sources. Take away the text in the article that is directly copy-pasted or closely paraphrased from http://www.artists-india.com/vocalists/Sukhada-Kane, her resume, there is almost nothing left, and no sources to build a rewrite on. — Sam Sailor 15:30, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Source review

  • "Sukhada Kane – vocalist".
    • Source is Artist-India, a website that is "inviting resumes from artists" for the "sole purpose ... to promote the artists and let the world know about Hindustani classical music".[1] If we are to believe what is written, All India Radio gives Kane a "B High Grade"; ("There are four grades – B, B-High, A & Top awarded to artistes which is purely based on performance quality adjudged by a Committee of Eminent Musicians/ Experts in the field."[2]) The resume was updated today with a photo of Kane.
      • We can assume that this resume was written by subject herself or her agent, so it is not independent (see WP:IS), and does not count towards establishing notability. The overshadowing concern here is that the article was written primarily based on this self-published source. That is a violation of WP:BLPSELFPUB#5. Earwig's Copyvio Detector reports a 61.7% violation possible, and several lines are simply copy pasted. (See WP:COPYPASTE). I have tagged the reference with {{third-party inline}}.
  • "Centennial Silver Jubilee Ceremony, Deval Club, Kolhapur 27th April 2009". Loksatta (in Marathi). loksatta.com. 28 April 2009. Retrieved 13 September 2016.
    • Quote: कोल्हापूरच्या सांस्कृतिक जीवनाचे अविभाज्य घटक असलेल्या गायन समाज देवल क्लबच्या शतकोत्तर रौप्यमहोत्सवी वर्षांचा सांगता सोहळा अक्षयतृतीयेच्या पूर्वसंध्येला सुखदा काणे यांच्या गायनाने प्रातिनिधिक स्वरूपात झाला. आवाजाचा शुद्ध निकोप लगाव, रागस्वरूपाची शिस्तबद्ध मांडणी, आकर्षक बोलताना याद्वारे काणे यांनी आग्रा व जयपूर घराण्याच्या गायकीचे सुश्राव्य दर्शन घडविले. काणे यांनी दिवेलागणीच्या कातरवेळची हुरहुर लावणाऱ्या सायंगेय ‘श्री’ रागातील विलंबित त्रितालातील बंदिशीने कार्यक्रमाची सुरुवात केली. त्यानंतर जयपूर घराण्याची खासियत समजला जाणारा राग ‘डागुरी’ सादर करून रसिकांची वाहवा मिळवली. मधुमधुरा हे नाटय़गीत व अच्युता अनंता हा भैरवीतील अभंग सादर करून दोन तासांपेक्षा अधिक काळ रंगलेल्या मैफलीचा समारोप केला. काणे यांना गिरिधर कुलकर्णी यांनी तबला, तर अण्णाबुवा बुगल यांनी हार्मोनियमसाथ केली. कार्यवाह श्रीकांत डिग्रजकर यांनी प्रास्ताविक केले. कार्यक्रमाला प्रभाकर गोखले, डॉ. शुभदा वायंगणकर, सुधीर पोटे, डॉ. नंदकुमार जोशी, प्रकाश पुरोहित, सुभाष आठले, अरुण कुलकर्णी आदी उपस्थित होते.
    • Source is Loksatta, an old and widely read Marathi newspaper. Web page is not a bylined article, its a "What happened yesterday"-page. Kane gets a short mention in the last paragraph, she sang at the Silver Jubilee the night before in the Deval Club, Kolhapur.
      • Source is reliable, secondary, and independent (see WP:IRS and WP:SECONDARY), and subject gets slightly more than trivial mention. Still, it's not a regular, bylined article, and it's not much more than a few lines about a concert, so it is not significant coverage (see WP:SIGCOV) about Kane.
  • "Sukhada Kane – teacher and training".
    • The source does not mention Kane at all. I assume this is just a mistake, and that the URL is wrong. But the text string Sukhada Kane – teacher and training is only found here on Wikipedia. That could be a matter of translation.
      • The source obviously does not count towards notability. The citation should be corrected or deleted. I have left the three references to this source in the article for now.
  • Vāmana Harī Deśapāṇḍe (1 January 1989). Between Two Tanpuras. Popular Prakashan. ISBN 978-0-86132-226-8.
  • "Pt. D.V. Kane".
    • Citation to website dedicated Indian Classical music. Source is about another one of Kane's teachers, one Pt Kanebuwa. Kane is mentioned as as a disciple.
      • Trivial mention, does not count towards notability.
  • "Lokmat Newspaper - Sukhada Kane performs, Upaj Kalamanch, Kolhapur, 2009".
    • Source is Lokmat, a read Marathi newspaper and one of India's largest. Kane is mentioned.
      • Source is reliable, secondary, and independent, but the mention of subject is trivial.
  • "Alladiya Khan programme Chembur".
    • Source is a Chembur community website, the page is a concert program from 2006.
      • Trivial mention.
  • "Alladiya Khan festival 2006".
    • Website about Indian classical singer Alladiya Khan. The referenced page lists Kane as a performer at an event in 2006.
      • Trivial mention.
  • "Esakal Newspaper - Sukhada Kane performs 8th Feb, 2011, Ichalkaranji".
    • Unknown source, link is dead, and has neither been archived to WebCite, Archive.is, nor The Internet Archive.
      • Unable to vet the source, but Sakal is a reliable source.
  • "Tarun Bharat Newspaper - Music competition 15 Dec 2015, Deval Club, Kolhapur".
    • Tarun Bharat is the seventh-largest-selling Marathi daily newspaper.
      • Tarun Bharat is a reliable, secondary, and independent source. Kane gets a non-significant mention regarding a music competition at the Deval Club, Kolhapur in 2015.
  • "Maharashtra Times - 'Guni Govind' Sat. 14th Jan, 2012 at Dombivali (east)".
  • "Maharashtra Times - 28th Nov 2014 - Sukhada Kane's disciples perform, Kolhapur".
    • Source is The Times of India.
      • Kane gets trivial mention in connection to a youth singer festival.
  • "Sukhada Kane student".
    • User-generated website where quote "If you are a sitar teacher, a tabla teacher, or an instructor in any form of Indian dance or music, you can add your name to database."
      • A user states they are a pupil of Kane. Not useful here.

— Sam Sailor 15:30, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.artists-india.com/Are-you-an-artist
  2. ^ http://allindiaradio.gov.in/oppurtunities/music/pages/music.aspx


Hello, Thank you for you comments. I would just like to make a few comments. Firstly

1. 

* "Centennial Silver Jubilee Ceremony, Deval Club, Kolhapur 27th April 2009". Loksatta (in Marathi). loksatta.com. 28 April 2009. Retrieved 13 September 2016.
    • Quote: कोल्हापूरच्या सांस्कृतिक जीवनाचे अविभाज्य घटक असलेल्या गायन समाज देवल क्लबच्या शतकोत्तर रौप्यमहोत्सवी वर्षांचा सांगता सोहळा अक्षयतृतीयेच्या पूर्वसंध्येला सुखदा काणे यांच्या गायनाने प्रातिनिधिक स्वरूपात झाला. आवाजाचा शुद्ध निकोप लगाव, रागस्वरूपाची शिस्तबद्ध मांडणी, आकर्षक बोलताना याद्वारे काणे यांनी आग्रा व जयपूर घराण्याच्या गायकीचे सुश्राव्य दर्शन घडविले. काणे यांनी दिवेलागणीच्या कातरवेळची हुरहुर लावणाऱ्या सायंगेय ‘श्री’ रागातील विलंबित त्रितालातील बंदिशीने कार्यक्रमाची सुरुवात केली. त्यानंतर जयपूर घराण्याची खासियत समजला जाणारा राग ‘डागुरी’ सादर करून रसिकांची वाहवा मिळवली. मधुमधुरा हे नाटय़गीत व अच्युता अनंता हा भैरवीतील अभंग सादर करून दोन तासांपेक्षा अधिक काळ रंगलेल्या मैफलीचा समारोप केला. काणे यांना गिरिधर कुलकर्णी यांनी तबला, तर अण्णाबुवा बुगल यांनी हार्मोनियमसाथ केली. कार्यवाह श्रीकांत डिग्रजकर यांनी प्रास्ताविक केले. कार्यक्रमाला प्रभाकर गोखले, डॉ. शुभदा वायंगणकर, सुधीर पोटे, डॉ. नंदकुमार जोशी, प्रकाश पुरोहित, सुभाष आठले, अरुण कुलकर्णी आदी उपस्थित होते.
    • Source is Loksatta, an old and widely read Marathi newspaper. Web page is not a bylined article, its a "What happened yesterday"-page. Kane gets a short mention in the last paragraph, she sang at the Silver Jubilee the night before in the Deval Club, Kolhapur.
      • Source is reliable, secondary, and independent (see WP:IRS and WP:SECONDARY), and subject gets slightly more than trivial mention. Still, it's not a regular, bylined article, and it's not much more than a few lines about a concert, so it is not significant coverage (see WP:SIGCOV) about Kane.

@Sam Sailor: The section where here name is mentioned talks all about her singing and her performance in detail. The translation is bad. So this is more than a trivial mention.

2.

  • "Sukhada Kane – teacher and training".
    • The source does not mention Kane at all. I assume this is just a mistake, and that the URL is wrong. But the text string Sukhada Kane – teacher and training is only found here on Wikipedia. That could be a matter of translation.
      • The source obviously does not count towards notability. The citation should be corrected or deleted. I have left the three references to this source in the article for now.
    • Quote: Smt Sukhada Kane Disciple of Pandit Limayebuwa and Pandit Kanebuwa, Smt Sukhada Kane (Kolhapur) guided Mukul systematically and laid a solid foundation for future training.

This clearly shows that she is mentioned as a teacher and also about her own training. Therefore, the source is not a mistake.

3.

The link works fine. I am able to see the whole news article perfectly. There must be a problem on your end. Please do try again.

4.

Kane is mentioned as a judge for the music competition. Doesn't that show significance?

Please do suggest any more improvements. I will be acting on your comments towards other sources. Thanks for all the help. Shahanaks (talk) 17:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • 1. Yes, as I wrote: "slightly more than trivial mention". 2. Apologies, my mistake. But me missing the mention goes to show how trivial it is. 3. Still this error is reported: "The resource you are looking for has been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable." My 100 Mbit connection works fine. 4. No. — Sam Sailor 00:01, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sam Sailor: thanks sorry my apologies. I will sort out that link. I have found and scanned newspaper articles dedicated to Sukhada Kane with her photo as well and are definitely not just trivial mentions. Please advise how I am supposed to cite these as they are hard copies. Thanks for all your help Shahanaks (talk) 08:40, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier the website was down, now the esakal website is working and I can read the whole article. I don't know how to add screenshots for you to see. Please do advise about how to cite the hard copy of the newspapers @Sam Sailor: Thanks Shahanaks (talk) 11:28, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sam Sailor: Please can anyone help me. Please explain how can I cite hard copies of newspapers which I have scanned. I don't know how to add scanned files to references. Shahanaks (talk) 08:27, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shahanaks Can you upload those copies somewhere on internet? To cite sources, see WP:REFB (leave url field blank for offline sources). Anup [Talk] 08:54, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE: Lack of significant coverage (i.e. at least 2-3 paragraph dedicated to subject) in multiple reliable sources makes subject ineligible to meet WP:GNG or any other Wikipedia's notability guideline. Anup [Talk] 08:54, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Anupmehra: @Sam Sailor: @ShelbyMarion: Hello all, I have recently added 4-5 scans of credible newspaper articles which I was able to get hold of, which clearly show Sukhada Kane in the photo and talked about extensively in the article. I have now managed to cite these. I hope this will be sufficient. Please do let me know soon. Thanks for all the help Shahanaks (talk) 16:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that no one has objected to the article after the most recent changes and additions to the references/citations following the suggested improvements. There have been no responses in a week, so should I assume that the proposed deletion is no longer necessary as all the problems have now been fixed? Shahanaks (talk) 11:51, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 1
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Looking at the current version,[40] this seems a useful, well-balanced, verified article to me. The notability guidelines are to suggest what sort of topics that may be suitable for such treatment. If in this case they suggest otherwise (and I'm not at all that they do) then this article is one of the occasional exceptions allowed for. Thincat (talk) 07:26, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the response. As no one else has responded, does that mean that there are no further issues regarding the article and therefore the proposed deletion can be removed, and the page can be kept on wikipedia without any issues? Thanks Shahanaks (talk) 18:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it means that we wait for someone uninvolved to close this discussion saying what is to be done according to the the rough consensus. WP:CLOSEAFD Thincat (talk) 18:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain Having commented earlier in this discussion, my follow-up opinion has been requested. However, since all the new references are in a script/language I don't understand, there is no way I can assess the merits of these sources. ShelbyMarion (talk) 01:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Never heard of a thing like "exception to notability guideline"; I don't believe we have any such article on any topic. The article is presently WP:REFBOMBed, to hide the lack of "substantial coverage" in "multiple secondary, independent and reliable sources". Anup [Talk] 08:06, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Notability explains the situation about occasional exceptions. Thincat (talk) 13:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see any such advise within notability guideline. Can you please quote the relevant paragraph and the situation where it applies? Anup [Talk] 15:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Anupmehra: All the sources recently added are from 'secondary, independent and reliable sources' by the nature of the newspapers and their popularity in India. In addition, the articles are dedicated to Sukhada Kane and include photos of Kane as well. @ShelbyMarion: I think that it is stated somewhere in one of the wiki essays that the references for an article may be of a different language other than English. This means that the sources are still allowed and contribute to the validity and significance of the article. Shahanaks (talk) 15:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Language of sources is not the problem. I saw those sources. There is nothing anything like what the term "substantial" describes. Anup [Talk] 15:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Anupmehra: Please explain how multiple newspaper articles which are focused on Kane and include her photo are not 'substantial'. In these articles, Kane is given the main importance. The definition of 'substantial' is: 'of considerable importance' or 'concerning the essentials of something' via Google, of which both of these conditions are satisfied by the coverage of Kane in the articles which are dedicated to her. Shahanaks (talk) 15:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please comment on this so that any remaining issues can be solved asap if necessary? Thanks Shahanaks (talk) 23:55, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It seems we need more views on the presented sources. Sam Walton (talk) 14:49, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 14:49, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- weak keep; See note below: Sorry but I am having a few problems. While I can appreciate the stampede of pleas to save the article, as well as the demands "I will expect the deletion nomination to be removed now.". My main issues are things like "And there are no references mentioned which are not about the subject. All the references refer to the subject and all references talk extensively about Sukhada Kane and her singing. If you can understand what is written in Hindi, the newspaper articles clearly are totally relevant, and show her as a renowned vocalist.", along with "In addition, you cannot rely on the Google translation of these newspapers as the translations are only half translated, often incorrect, and many times people's names are also translated to their literal meanings instead of just stating the name of the person.", as well as "Therefore it is necessary to keep the articles in the Hindi script to understand the true meaning.". I can assume all the good faith in the world but if I am told I can't verify source or references, because they can't be translated, I don't think they belong on the English Wikipedia. WP:V; "This page in a nutshell: Readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up.". That is not really too complicated nor hard to understand. People (that includes editors) have to be allowed to check the source. 45% of the population of India know Hindi and 25% claim it as their "mother language". When we are talking nearly half a billion people, I for one, find it so improbable that we have to assume more faith than policy mandates and just accept that the sources can't be translated. Yes! we can use non-English sources but please read that section and hopefully understand that "it can't be translated" is not good grounds to argue acceptance. However, since a super-consensus (10 to 4) was over-ridden to keep List of Prime Ministers of Australia with facial hair, I would say do not stop because you might get your article anyway. Otr500 (talk) 02:06, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Otr500: Thank you for your comments. But may be I should clarify, that of course it can be translated. All the newspaper articles can be translated. But they must be translated by someone who understands the language, is what I meant. Google translate does not translate the articles properly - the result is just a load of words, half English, half phonetically written Hindi words in English, and the translation mostly makes no sense. My comment was purely for google's translation of the articles, and not about the ability for the articles to be translated in general. Of course they can be translated. Hope this clarifies your query. Shahanaks (talk) 16:34, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: And what you are now stating is a lot better than what I quoted that you stated. I am for inclusion on Wikipedia of things that are notable, referenced and verifiable. "If" you read WP:NONENG there are solutions provided, that includes asking for translators for the relevant references that provide notability BUT also references that backs up what is in the article. Just slapping a bunch of references on an article, is not even close to what Wikipedia is about. The content of an article has to be backed up by reliable sources, to prevent original research or the related synthesis. This also prevents anyone with a conflict of interest from affecting articles or being shills. At this point, with concerns of references just being pasted to the article, which means editors may not take the time to try to check them out, this might have backfired.
In the section Lineage and training there is the content "she received training from the late Kamal Tambe of Jaipur-Atrauli gharana", with three references. The first is a document of a newspaper clipping. We can't do anything with that. The second has nothing to do with the subject, and the third is another document. I see valid concerns, and a red flag, with the over citing to lend notability.
If I am not mistaken this is a living person so on Wikipedia a WP:BLP. This means that this reference, showing a phone number and email address, probably should be removed, even though it does back up content. Otr500 (talk) 04:02, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Otr500: Thank you for your comments. However, I think may be I need to clarify a few more things. Firstly, I added references everywhere that was asked - one of the wiki editors had added many 'insert citation here'comments throughout the article, which I then provided the sources for. Secondly, I was asked by one of the wiki editors to add the scans of the newspapers as documents because I had no other way to prove the hard copy sources. In addition, the sources were not 'slapped' on, as they were added in reference to the parts of the article that were asked for citations. And actually, all the sources added were put there to prove the questions and queries that the wiki editors asked for. Therefore, though I agree with what you are saying about the wrongness of added random and irrelevant sources, however, I think that this issue cannot be relevant for this article as all the references were used to satisfy queries and suggestions asked for by other wiki editors. Shahanaks (talk) 09:59, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With all the circular talk please address the one English reference (that would be actually clarifying "a few more things"), of the three that has no mention of the subject. Slapped on, ref bombed, put on to enhance notability, or whatever other word you would like. Those scans don't prove anything to me, and if they do to anyone else please let me know. You are provided with comments and "here we go round the mulberry bush". You are not really reading the comments, because we should not put phone numbers of people on Wikipedia, two things I specifically mention, you avoid. I randomly looked at one group of messages, out of like 21, and I could find no relation to that one, unless I use another reference that is inappropriate, which I covered above. Otr500 (talk) 11:06, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Otr500: Thank you for your comments. I have acted on your comment about the phone number and have replaced the source, so now there are not any phone numbers shown on any of the sources. As for the one English reference you referred to, that is proof that Kamal Tambe is disciple of Mogubai Kurdikar, as many small points like these had been requested I prove, so it does provide the evidence for what is written. However, if you think that it was not needed of me to prove this, then I can remove such references of these kinds of clarifications, though they were asked for. I just included it cause it was pointed out. And, concerning the scans of the newspapers, please see:

Please explain how can I cite hard copies of newspapers which I have scanned. I don't know how to add scanned files to references. Shahanaks (talk) 08:27, 17 September 2016 (UTC) :Shahanaks Can you upload those copies somewhere on internet?...Anup [Talk] 08:54, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Therefore, my only option was to upload them on google docs as I had no other way of proving the existence of these hard copy newspapers which are dedicated to Sukhada Kane. I hope this clarifies all of your queries. Shahanaks (talk) 21:38, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Change of !vote above. I will tell you from my point of view, remove the scanned copies that are unverifiable, and put them in a reference section on the talk page. Go over the list of references you have provided, and remove those that do not specifically support the content they show to be supporting, and that are actually, intentional or not, refbombing. You can ask if someone will help in translating some of the references, as per my suggestions above. I now see evidence that not only support the name of the subject, but also that you appear to be sincere in improving the article. With that I am inclined to change my !vote. Otr500 (talk) 00:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Otr500: Thank you for all of your comments. I have acted on your point of putting the scanned copies in a reference section on the talk page, as per your suggestion. In addition, I have removed sources which do not specifically talk about Sukhada Kane and were merely just small clarifications of some statements, as per your advice, and so now I hope that the supposed refbombing will be sorted. Please do let me know your feelings on the article now I have made some changes, and do let me know if I can do anything more to improve it. Thanks for all the help. Shahanaks (talk) 19:25, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Now we wait for a closing admin who will hopefully see the improvements and consider them enough. Otr500 (talk)
  • Delete I had a look at the sources and the analysis of the English language ones. Sorry but the analysis is correct and it cannot help satisfy GNG - we are strict about our RS requirements. The scanned copies seem to be local news articles - which I am hesitant to use because (1)We don't know how reliable the source is and (2)Local sources give undue weight to certain aspects. From what I looked, the subject is a local musician but nothing suggests they they are notable at a regional/national level. As the coverage is sparse, I will go for a delete per WP:WHYN. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:37, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Lemongirl942: Thank you for your comments. However, I notice a few flaws in your justification. The first one is where you have said 'they appear to be local news articles...we don't know how reliable the source is'. Actually, if you read the Hindi, the newspaper names are written there. The newspaper articles scanned are from Tarun Bharat, (which is the 7th largest Marathi newspaper in the whole of India), and Sakal newspaper, which is the number 1 most popular newspaper in the whole of Maharashtra state (which has a population of 114.2 million via Google) and the newspaper is read outside the state as well. Therefore, I think from these facts it is clear that the news articles are not from mere local town or even city bounded newspapers, but are actually very large newspapers in India where the population is nearly 1.3 billion. Therefore I urge you to please reconsider your initial prejudgement that 'nothing suggests they are notable at a regional/national level'. Thanks Shahanaks (talk) 13:00, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand that India has a large population. However, the quality of the coverage seems lacking here - like for example bylined newspaper articles. Usually a notable musician will receive some awards as well/have some notable album releases. I do not see that here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:28, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Lemongirl942: Many of the greatest Indian classical vocalists have never released albums, as it is not such a popular thing to do among classical musicians in India compared to US and UK. I currently don't have knowledge of if Kane has published any cds, but I think it is irrelevant. Plus I know that Kane has sang multiple times on All India Radio, proof of which can be found from her profile on 'artist india' and 'meetkalakar' websites. In addition, Kane was awarded the Sushilabai Gaanu Award which has been written already in the article. How many news articles do you expect from some of the largest newspapers in India before it is considered sufficient coverage? Thanks Shahanaks (talk) 13:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue is not about how many articles but about the depth of coverage. If the coverage is of enough depth, we can have an article. I had a good look at the analysis of sources done by Sam Sailor and I was satisfied that the sources are not good enough. A passing mention of the subject in the context of an event is not enough for notability. Even if the subject hasn't released an album, they should have at least won a notable award. I don't see that here. My suggestion is to create this article on the Marathi wikipedia as the notability requirements might be lower over there. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Lemongirl942: Thank you for your comments. I don't know anything about marathi or hindi wikipedia. Just one point, the sources analysed by Sam Sailor are not the same sources I have used now. I have improved the article a lot since then. Please treat it as new and look at what has been shown now, instead of then. Thanks Shahanaks (talk) 10:32, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final. Will need admin support Nordic Nightfury 07:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 07:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sportsfan 1234: Hello. Though I appreciate constructive criticisms, you are merely a 'flyby' voter. To vote, you must give some strong reasoning which some proof shown. 2 word statement is not sufficient. Thanks Shahanaks (talk) 09:27, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SSTflyer 12:03, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Actually claims no notability. Some trivial mentions in news for being one amongst many stage performers. Not a single dedicated article or even a para in either of the languages. Not convinced that she is notable especially when some SPA has taken so many efforts to prove it and the result still is this. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 02:42, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dharmadhyaksha: Thank you for your comments. Just wanted to check, did you see the scanned hard copies of the newspapers in the reference section on the talk page? There are paragraphs and whole articles about her and her singing and include her photos. Thanks Shahanaks (talk) 09:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes i have, not fully but partially and from that too i had to add citation needed and verification failed tags. But knowing that all your edits have been in regards to this article, i trust that all the possible information is already in the article lets summarize it: Kane learned music from A B & C studying in P Q & R gharanas. She has sung in X Y & Z stage shows. Thats all and nothing of it claims any sort of notability. We have no notable awards for her, one certificate is mentioned which has no proven value. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 12:10, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- a tribute / vanity page on an unremarkable individual. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:02, 3 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. MBisanz talk 22:54, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aubrey Wade[edit]

Aubrey Wade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Extensive and specific PROD massremoved yet it had the exact and specified concerns in that there are no substantial claims of notability, there's no inherited notability from simply having some art appearances and features, and I noted I not only found nothing better, but that's because this career is not actually advanced yet to come close to it. SwisterTwister talk 05:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I deprodded the article, but it was not "massremoved". These WP:ASPERSIONS need to immediately stop, because they are uncivil in nature and suggest bad faith. My edits are educated, and are based upon source searches and other variables. For example, when I deprodded, I left the following rationale, "Subject has been featured in the British Journal of Photography per a preview page on the website, but cannot access the source. However, this suggests potential notability. Declined prod." (diff). Stop casting aspersions. North America1000 05:58, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I state the concerns because they apply considering the PROD remover has literally removed over 2 dozen of my PRODs today alone and within minutes of each other. Therefore it's relevant to state this is why we are therefore at AfD now. SwisterTwister talk 06:00, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I routinely patrol prods listed at Category:All articles proposed for deletion. The nominator proposes a great deal of articles for deletion using prod. Focus on content, not contributors. The casting of WP:ASPERSIONS provides nothing regarding the subject's potential notability or lack thereof. North America1000 06:08, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to closer - It is relevant, however, there's a noticeable comparison of my PRODs quickly being removed, especially when they are random, which is otherwise only accessible by visiting my own contribs logs. Therefore they are bad-faith removals if a user has in fact been targeted as such by this. SwisterTwister talk 06:09, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom a WP:BEFORE shows no RSes actually about the subject. And Northamerica1000, if you don't want aspersions cast on your behaviour then it helps not to provide substance for such by querulous behaviour around deletion issues, as multiple users have noted you being in the past week or two. Please cool it - David Gerard (talk) 10:29, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I declined a prod. This is allowed, and does not constitute any type of misbehavior whatsoever. See WP:DEPROD for more information. North America1000 10:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HOUNDING is precisely doing things that are technically allowable in a harassing manner. You're an admin, you should know better than this - David Gerard (talk) 10:47, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
None of my actions regarding this article were deviant. I deprodded an article listed at Category:All articles proposed for deletion. Again, this is allowed. I have also deprodded articles proposed by other users today, which were listed at said category. Please try to assume good faith. North America1000 10:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Here are some sources that I based the deprodding upon, which provided a suggestion of notability. North America1000 10:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  • Comment. He won a Photo Imaging Council Award in 2002/3 (confirmed in a press release from the PIC which bizarrely I can't add a link to due to overzealous blacklisting) - not sure how prestigious that is. I found the issue of British Journal of Photography at issuu ([44]) but unfortunately it doesn't include the part of the magazine that the website mentions includes coverage of Wade. Clearly an accomplished and widely published photographer, but I think we would need to identify more coverage to keep it. Given that prod is there for uncontroversial deletions only, I think removing the prod based on finding evidence of coverage was reasonable. --Michig (talk) 10:43, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – The availability of sources online is not necessarily an absolute indicator of notability, but as it stands, not much is actually available online. Perhaps other offline sources are available. It comes across that the subject could possibly meet WP:CREATIVE, but without access to sources, it's unable to be discerned. North America1000 11:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep The article fails to clearly demonstrate notability, but turning up sources since convinces me that it's justified. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:09, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Added prominent articles in Die Zeit (Hamburg) and CNN (Atlanta). Obviously he is pretty prominent.--Meister und Margarita (talk) 19:17, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The references are not about him. They're in connection with one topical book of photographs,and the interest is inthe topic, not the photographs. DGG ( talk ) 22:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The photographs are appearing unusually often: Guardian. And he's interviewed here. -- Hoary (talk) 07:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request. Could SwisterTwister please rephrase the nomination? I don't understand it. (What's "extensive and specific" about the PROD? What does "this career is not actually advanced yet to come close to it" mean?) In the meantime, I note that Wade is a member of the Panos Network, quite a distinction for a photographer. -- Hoary (talk) 12:34, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, sources, including those added since the beginning of the AfD, seem to me to meet GNG. Smmurphy(Talk) 17:10, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 07:45, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The asserted significant reference in Die Zeit is a credit for a photograph. The BJP article is an article by him. Where's the required substantial commentary? DGG ( talk ) 04:12, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wade's project, No Stranger Place, certainly gets a lot of significant coverage, as does Conciliation Resources and to a lesser degree the movie Talking Borders made by C-R with Wade as major player. In both cases, the sources suggest notability of the project more than of Wade, so it may be suggested that Wade should not inherit notability from his associations. However, I'm hesitant to accept that argument when someone is active in multiple notable projects - one could imagine each of those projects having articles and an article on Wade existing if, for no other reason, to connect those articles. We usually look for print resources, but the interview on FM4 is definitely about him and his role in No Stranger Place, not simply about the project itself. So my count is one in depth piece about Wade (the FM4 interview) and multiple in depth mentions of multiple independent (although I'm not sure that the two main projects here are completely independent) works in which he has played a key role. I don't know much about FM4, perhaps it is not reliable enough and/or an interview is too primary to count in some people's minds.Smmurphy(Talk) 16:07, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: DGG, you say "The BJP article is an article by him. Where's the required substantial commentary?" but this is in fact a 4 page article written by Izabela Radwanska Zhang and overwhelmingly about Wade and the project. It is made up of exactly 50% writing and 50% photographs, and very much about the development of Wade's project as well as it is about the families and refugees he photographed, and to a lesser extent about UNHCR and other organisations who came on board to Wade's project as it developed. It includes both Zhang's commentary on Wade and the project, and quotes from Wade -Lopifalko (talk) 16:05, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Meets criteria #3 of WP:CREATIVE. Struck part of my comment above. North America1000 13:00, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, thanks to good source-gnoming by various contributors and to very recent improvements by Lopifalko. -- Hoary (talk) 12:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: His medium appears to be photography projects with multi media dimensions, such as exhibitions and web, and in the case of at least one, No Stranger Place, he seems to be notably successful in that field. -Lopifalko (talk) 12:47, 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.

Graham Kerr[edit]

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Schwede66 10:10, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Kerr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to pass notability guidelines. He has made appearances on cooking TV shows and there are a couple articles about his work in print, but not enough to build a bio. The tone of this article is overly promotional. Delta13C (talk) 07:45, 25 October 2016 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator Sorry about that! Delta13C (talk) 21:28, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep. Easily meets notability. One of the first international television celebrity chefs, made over 1800 programmes worldwide.[51]. Two Emmy nominations, etc, etc. Sure the article needs some work, but that does not detract from his notability. Paora (talk) 09:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep. He became massively famous in the late 1960s as "The Galloping Gourmet". Here are articles from LIFE [52], The Oxford Encyclopedia of Food and Drink in America [53], the Los Angeles Times [54], The New York Times [55], Chicago Tribune [56][57]. Lots more is apparent in simple searches. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:50, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BEFORE and WP:SNOW. Kerr was one of the biggest pre-Internet TV cooks, and I remember his show. There is no question that he was and is notable. Bearian (talk) 19:57, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A ridiculous nomination. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:47, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep. Absurd nomination as shown by the sources already in the article, let alone Arxiloxos' additional input. Brianhe (talk) 22:21, 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 no consensus. No consensus for a particular action has emerged within this discussion. North America1000 01:23, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph P. Watkins[edit]

Joseph P. Watkins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recreation of recently PRODed paid promotional article. PROD reasons still apply: highly questionable notability, sources look good on the surface but are mostly tangential, primary, or accurately cite information that does not in any way show notability. WP:TNT even if he were notable, though Google/GNews is not promising at all for prospective RSes that are actually about him. If notability can't be turned up, I recommend SALT - David Gerard (talk) 19:02, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:03, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:03, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's clearly been a very professional WP:REFBOMBing job done here, but none of the cited sources, nor any that I can find elsewhere, meets the required standard of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:49, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A quick search at The Philadelphia Inquirer site turns up some articles that might indicate notability: Search results
    • Political action committee head named to guide Chester Upland's recovery
    • Judge: Embattled Chester Upland chief can keep job
    • State calls for removal of Chester Upland receiver
    • Joe Watkins quits as receiver of Chester Upland schools
The author(s) of this promotional bio should be aware that if this is kept, Wikipedia should cover this, to have a balanced article. – wbm1058 (talk) 11:11, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I saw a pile of these. It's possible this stuff could amount to enough coverage for GNG, but basically in political terms he's a party worker of decades' experience but little evidence there's readers for an article or content about the subject to do a BLP; anything that was actually a notable incident should be in the relevant article, and mostly these aren't incidents that were themselves notable - David Gerard (talk) 11:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:25, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Republican Strategist" Joe Watkins had another soundbite on tonight's NBC Nightly News, this time to opine on Donald Trump's support for "stop and frisk". wbm1058 (talk) 02:00, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Making no comment on the current content of the article, it looks like the subject meets WP:GNG, appearing as a primary source in multiple news articles, TV news programs, and so forth. This makes him notable. Cleanup is certainly advised, and there may be room for some aggressive cutting, but as a political analyst, his opinions seem to be notable enough for the news to go into depth about them, so he should be notable enough to appear on Wikipedia. Fieari (talk) 04:40, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:PROMO; strictly a vanity page and online resume. "...appearing as a primary source in multiple news articles, TV news programs, and so forth. This makes him notable" is not reflected in Wikipedia policies and guidelines. This does not make a subject notable; WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources does, but it's missing from this page. Accepting such promotional articles on insignificant subjects is not in the best interest of the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:28, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:30, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 20:03, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There seems enough here in the way of sources for a decent article. He was in charge of cleaning up Chester's notorious schools. I might have to start this as a stub from scratch though, since it is in dreadful shape. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 15:09, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and WP:OUTCOMES. Lots of little refs don't matter. Bearian (talk) 14:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure what outcome you are referring to. Have you actually examined the references? They are generally in-depth and easily satisfy GNG. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 21:33, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sources suffice to meet WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:30, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per WP:GNG. per good sources. the shape of the article overall has no baring on its notability.BabbaQ (talk) 23:32, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 07:45, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep no WP:POV violation that I can see. Subject meets WP:GNG through sources already pointed out. Just because someone is in a political party doesn't mean that the page should be deleted.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:56, 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 22:54, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Hugh Smith[edit]

Charles Hugh Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable author. WorldCat shows all of his books are self published, and held in essentially no libraries (I cannot tell if Trewe Press is strictly a self-publisher, but their one book of his is in 1 library only. DGG ( talk ) 19:28, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 20:31, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable blogger; fails our notability tests, and probably should not have been restored after sound speedy deletion. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:33, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I concur with the genuine and exact nomination, none of what we would need for a convincing article has been satisfied and I'm not finding better. SwisterTwister talk 20:38, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:42, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:48, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only conceivably legitimate claim of notability might be the CNBC reference, but even that is rather brief and sparse. It's enough to ward off a speedy deletion, but this hardly constitutes significant coverage. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:39, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I suspect that Trewe Press is actually CHS's own printing firm, as his book seems to be the only thing they have printed. In any case, WP:PRIMARY. The remaining sources are insufficient to pass WP:AUTHOR, not demonstrating broad coverage, popularity, or long-term influence. Muffled Pocketed 08:29, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I verified that the author has published the books listed on the page. As the Amazon model pushes self-publishing and there are many popular self-published authors on Amazon I don't see why whether the books are published by Amazon or another publishing house matters. I checked his blog popularity on http://www.trafficestimate.com/oftwominds.com and it shows more than 100,000 views per month, which seems notable. Michael614 (talk) 10:53, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It's because a self-publishing 'house' will publish anything if paid enough, with no review, checks or balances as to the quality, accuracy etc of what they are publishing. Also, although the thing takes forever to load, the blog aggregator kindly informs us that 'Monthly visitor traffic is down 34.1%' since last year. Muffled Pocketed 14:25, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Amazon deletes books for lack of quality frequently. It also flags for other issues found. If no Amazon published authors are to be listed in Wikipedia that is troubling as many popular authors are chosing this model. Example NYT bestseller Barry Eisler turned down a $500K deal from his publisher, St. Martin’s, in order to self-publish his next book. http://www.writersdigest.com/editor-blogs/there-are-no-rules/digitization-new-technology/bestselling-author-turns-down-500k-deal-to-self-publish Michael614 (talk) 19:50, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that isn't troubling in the least. An author doesn't automatically become notable by publishing books. If the books or the author get no significant coverage in reliable sources, they don't merit inclusion in Wikipedia. Arguing about bestselling authors is a non-sequitur. Such authors already have ample independent coverage of themselves and their works to merit an article. We are discussing this author, and so far none of the 'keep' arguments have brought forth anything meeting WP:NAUTHOR criteria. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:20, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether the blog traffic is down or up this year it is still above 100k views per month. Is that not notable? If not then what is a notable viewship in the blogosphere? Michael614 (talk) 19:50, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Web traffic has never been a criterion for notability on Wikipedia. As someone who has been around here since 2004, you should know that. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:14, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment:. You may get many SPA keeps from now. I've answered over 100 e-mails yesterday at OTRS complaining about the deletion, that the deletion is politicly driven, etc.. Those who asked, I have directed to this page Ronhjones  (Talk) 15:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete blogger and commentator whose work and books have not received the level of attention to constitute notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:32, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This delete is entirely political and undeniably pro-Clinton. This delete discussion began precisely after Charles Hugh Smith published a blog article regarding foundation frauds, and specified the Clinton Foundation as one of many foundation frauds. C.H.S. writes prolifically, has myriad visits to his site each month ( [58] ) and has published at least 16books on current subjects. [59] [60]
-
The fact that his books may or may not be self-published is of no consequence and completely irrelevant. He writes on topics that are current and relevant to the evolving economic sphere of America and its "partners". More importantly he writes about the flailing American Empire and its coming implosions, ( his analysis ) which is of great importance if the things he foresees come to pass. I have no external source for this opinion of mine, I simply read his posts daily and I can think.
-
THIS DELETION WAS ENTIRELY POLITICAL and censorship of the very worst kind.
-
If writing thousands of blog posts, that are visited millions of times, and writing SIXTEEN books that sell well on Amazon is not notable, then I need an explanation of why it is not.
-
Again, it is irrelevant, and demonstrably so, that self-publishing is not a factor.
-
Signed
SnowieGeorgieSnowieGeorgie (talk) 20:52, 9 October 2016 (UTC) — SnowieGeorgie (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
@SnowieGeorgie: No comment on the projection, your post completely goes against WP:Assume good faith, a site cornerstone. Everyone else has listed reasons based on site policies and guidelines, such as WP:GNG and WP:Verifiability. Unless you can prove (using WP:DIFFs) that any editor here would be doing this on behalf of the Clintons (no, !voting "delete" is not proof in itself, you need other evidence), your post is malicious and discredits your argument.
If you are incapable of viewing other editors as potentially honest human beings who are operating by this site's standards (and not some paranoid inversion of your own obvious politics), you should leave this trust-based project and start a blog. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:44, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The assertions on motives on deletion are incorrect on date as well as motive. The article was deleted last June [61]. It was however deleted without debate Wikipedia:Proposed deletion, so that's why we're here now, and accusations definitely don't help any argument. Tom Ruen (talk) 17:19, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Politically motivated. BOOOOOOO! DISQUALIFIED!! By mere fact that you have votes to keep, it shows Charles is "notable'. Your laughable "notability tests" are a despicable shame to the archival process and to journalism. You should be utterly ashamed of yourselves, you miserable miserable thought police you. Know that all the greatest scholars and compilers of history look down upon you with contempt, and one day your grandchildren will curse your names when they learn YOU were responsible for turning WAR into PEACE, IGNORANCE into POWER. Shame on you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Codymckibb (talk • contribs) 18:37, 11 October 2016 (UTC) — Codymckibb (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
@Codymckibb: Shame on your complete failure to assume good faith. Take off the tin foil hat and either present sources or quit crying. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:54, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No crying here. Just doing what Hunter S. Thompson would have done. Think about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Codymckibb (talk • contribs) 19:15, 11 October 2016 (UTC) — Codymckibb (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Not really, you seem pretty set on the belief that your views are authoritatively objective. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:20, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep more for reason of notablilty due to blogging at this point, since his publications are self-published (at this time). The Web Page of Charles Hugh Smith receives a significant 6,000,000 visits per year. In any case his self-published books are selling at an increasing pace (I need to get figures for those). He has been interviewed 100+ times by the mainstream media and you can see highlights of these at this link: https://www.youtube.com/c/CharlesHSmith . I believe that Wikipedia needs to be more consistent with its standards of notability as there are more than a few author/blogger articles of people would be considered less notable than this. Perhaps this article should me moved to a "sandbox" loaction until the notability of CHS increases to some standard which will satisfy most Adminitrators as it most certainly will in the next year or two. Bruinfan12 (talk) 05:04, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's standards for notability are consistent: WP:GNG makes it pretty clear that there needs to be multiple independent reliable sources specifically about the subject. Web page hits mean nothing alone, self-publishing means nothing either. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:33, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't see any GNG claims by any keep votes, and blogs, even those hosted by CNBC or Business Insider, don't usually qualify as in-depth coverage. Smmurphy(Talk) 17:05, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 07:44, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sources have been provided, most of the keep !votes appear to be politically motivated (and possibly trolling in one case). Ian.thomson (talk) 09:23, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nordic Nightfury: Why did you Relist this? That was completely unnecessary as the discussion was both ongoing and in depth and involved multiple editors. Muffled Pocketed 09:29, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: I think your point rather proves it? If there is an ongoing consensus then the way forward is to allow other users to participate and not to let it stagnate in an old log? Nordic Nightfury 11:22, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No; it merely proves your disingenuity... the discussion was not moribund. Muffled Pocketed 11:27, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- a vanity page on an unremarkable individual. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:43, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable; WP:promo and a vanity page; also, WP:RS and primary source problems. Kierzek (talk) 20:01, 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. MBisanz talk 22:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pensole[edit]

Pensole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I still confirm my extensive PROD which shows all this company has for itself and actually then starts by its own actions is PR and that alone, the listed sources and information are either merely satisfying the company's own needs for PR or repeating their own PR words, none of this establishes independent or notability, let alone non-advertising. SwisterTwister talk 18:39, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:40, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 21:11, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 21:11, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per significant coverage in reliable sources. Some starter examples of those sources:
Any WP:NPOV issues are WP:SURMOUNTABLE and an invalid reason for deletion of a notable organization. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 21:58, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 22:18, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is a trade school, not an accredited degree awarding institution. It gives 11 week courses in various aspects of a particular trade. Honestly, does it offer a Bachelor's of High-tops? At best, this place might give you a certification that holds no real validity. Its association with other schools is covered by WP:INHERIT. John from Idegon (talk) 08:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as creator. Also, unless the nominator works for these publications, how do they "know" the authors just repeated what the organization is saying. Not to mention, where in the GNG does it say that if all an author does is repeat what the sources say, then suddenly there can be no notability? It does not, because this is how news general works. Now, if all the sources lacked a byline for an author, then you would have something, but I think all of the articles have an author byline. Frankly, none of the "criteria" listed by the nominator actually exists in GNG, it is just that editor's opinion. In the end, there are multiple sources over several years (and there are more recent ones) about this entity by a variety of news outlets. The fact that it is a for-profit school does not matter, as we do not have a special criteria for those. Aboutmovies (talk) 15:45, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Actually, the existence of the Fast Company satisfies WP:AUD. This is a monthly paid print magazine that is based in New York, New York (see link), and has a nationwide circulation totaling 757,858 (2012). Also, the MarketWatch source also satisfies WP:AUD; it is owned by Dow Jones & Company, which is based in New York City. Pensole is based in Portland, Oregon. North America1000 09:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The sources are pretty bad. This is no "School" but rather a private institution. Half the sources are local sources failing WP:AUD and the other half are trade journals and startup media which should not be considered independent sources (redressing of press releases doesn't make them independent). In addition some of the sources are actually basing the story on the quotes of an employee (which is explicitly not allowed per WP:ORGIND! None of this helps to satisfy WP:NORG. This is a small recently opened academy and not yet actually notable. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but this notion is not on the guideline page at all. There is nothing there that "every source" has to satisfy AUD whatsoever. See the bold emphasis I provided below, part of where it states "at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary". "At least one" certainly does not mean "all", not by any stretch of the imagination. I understand that you want the article deleted, but your analysis of the guideline page is flawed. The guideline page states the following I have copied below. North America1000 09:31, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The guideline defines a minimum On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability. It doesn't say that simply having 1 regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source guarantees notability. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that the MarketWatch source is essentially quoting the founder for the vast majority of the article/facts and this is not useful for notability per WP:CORPIND other works in which the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself—whether published by the company, corporation, organization, or group itself, or re-printed by other people. Also using the founder's quotes as a story source is considered routine per WP:CORPDEPTH. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:43, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The way you worded matters above, you stated that all sources must satisfy WP:AUD to qualify under NCORP, "Every source (for the purpose of NCORP) needs to satisfy WP:AUD" This is simply not the case at all. Also, I have made no claim of "guaranteed notability" here. Regardless, two available sources do satisfy WP:AUD for this topic. Also, reporters sometimes speak with people involved in the topics they cover; it would be biased for them not to. North America1000 09:53, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the sources are not independent, they are not useful for notability at all. If the source which might satisfy WP:AUD doesn't satisfy WP:CORPIND, it is just not useful for notability. So the question of WP:AUD doesn't matter in this case. Literally more than half of the Marketwatch article is (actual/paraphrased) quotes by the founder which doesn't satisfy WP:ORGIND. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition some of the sources are actually basing the story on the quotes of an employee (which is explicitly not allowed per WP:ORGIND![citation needed]
  • A quote or some from company employees does not mean it fails AUD or CORPDEPTH or CORPIND. If you actually spend time reading the business section of your newspaper or say a business journal for a major city, you can easily learn what CORPIND is mean to exclude. This "article" is one that does not provide notability to BNI. This also is what CORPIND is meant to exclude. Same with this one that has no author byline. But articles with reporter's byline's attached are usually considered independent. Also, for the millionth time, The Oregonian is not a local newspaper, it is a large regional paper. Same with the Portland Business Journal, it is the regional business paper for Oregon and SW Washington. Follow the link in AUD that will explain a local/regional newspaper, and since The Oregonian does not cover only part of a large city, it is regional. Aboutmovies (talk) 16:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • From WP:CORPDEPTH

    Acceptable sources under this criterion include all types of reliable sources except...quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources

  • From WP:CORPIND

    Sources used to support a claim of notability include...except the following...other works in which the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself—whether published by the company, corporation, organization, or group itself, or re-printed by other people.

    --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:40, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice cherry picking. The "except" to CORPDEPTH is in regards to trivial coverage, not that quotes disqualify an article from providing notability. There are literally articles out there on companies or organizations that are a sentence or two announcing that the company issued a press release, followed by the press release, and similar types of articles. Those are of the type that do not confer notability. Articles like this are similar, and what CORPIND are meant to address. Also, re-printed dos not actually mean printed by others, but the actual "re-print" as in if a press release is "re-printed" in another source. That is, re-printing the entire press release is a re-print, quoting from it is not re-printed. Aboutmovies (talk) 21:23, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The guideline is pretty clear that using "quotes as story sources" is an example of trivial coverage which cannot be used for CORPDEPTH. The reason behind this is that when journalists attribute quotes to the employee, they are technically not required to fact-check the information themselves. This reduces the source to claims by an employee. In such a source, the actual amount of secondary coverage is not in-depth. The guideline doesn't specify that reprinting is only about about reprinting the entire press release - in fact no one reprints entire press releases these days. The press release is often redressed and put out as news (such as this "news" in Oregon Live and this actual press release). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are right, the guidleine does not define reprint. Why, because it does not need to since it has a meaning already. You are confusing re-print/reprint with quoting, and those are different words.
  • "The reason behind this is that when journalists attribute quotes to the employee, they are technically not required to fact-check the information themselves."[citation needed] That would depend on the media organization, as there are no laws.
  • Otherwise, there is a big difference between an article with a byline that quotes a source (who else are they supposed to get info from about a company, other than the company?) and one that has no reporter byline, or a byline to an employee. The first adds to notability, the other does not. Aboutmovies (talk) 00:55, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All of these listed sources are and have in fact been (above) cited and analyzed as not being independent or substantial, the local Business Journals are now largely notorious and known for accepting and publishing local advertising and PR, and it has been so blatant and damning, it is no longer actually listed as a convincing source, let alone something significant; the next one is that the sources themselves, including MarketWatch and the other ones are simply advertising what the company wants to say about itself and its company, hence advertising, regardless of where it was published. This is exactly why churnalism exists in these sources, because of such blatantly obvious cases of company-influenced or initiated advertising.
There interviews are also blatant cases of simply advertising the company and this has been established as it is; there we cannot simply state "interviews are good" without actually considering the damages they cause because it means anyone could be interviewed about any single thing, and hence it would be mistakenly called "significant" or "coverage" (literally see above where it is stated the company businesspeople and employees themselves either supplied company information or simply republished their own company quotes); that emphasizes the blatancy of company advertising and it's something we should not take lightly as "well, at least they were republished PR, that must mean something". Also, it would essentially be the same thing as accepting sources which blatantly contain said republished PR such as "The company supplied this information" or "this journalist is a special contributor here today" (which is quite common here), showing how the article was curiously not by the publication itself at all. We are in fact capable of fixing and keeping this Wikipedia guaranteed non-PR, we simply have to be hard and serious about it. SwisterTwister talk 05:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So what does all of this have to do with Allan Brettman, a reporter for The Oregonian? There are I believe 5 articles over about 3 years by him alone, and sportswear is part of his beat (keep in mind footwear is a rather big industry in the Portland area, thus why both the PBJ and The Oregonian cover it extensively). I would also argue the same as to the articles written by Kish and Siemers at the PBJ, as not every article in the business journals is crap. Yes, there are many examples of what you describe, but that is not the case here. I have provided examples of how you can pick out the crap from actual articles. I also have a general aversion to your anti-company stance. Honestly, should we also have less articles on politicians since they send out press releases? For better or worse, journalism has often revolved around press releases, as how else do journalists know when there is something to report? Aboutmovies (talk) 17:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 07:44, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Fast Company article and the extensive and substantive Oregonian coverage are sufficient to pass GNG. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:24, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. MB298 (talk) 02:16, 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 no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 10:39, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happn[edit]

Happn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Like with other recent articles of the same subject her at AfD, this one is no different in that Draft:Happn had been started but it was speedied after I caught it, it was blatant advertising and that alone, this one essentially has the same eminence, and despite I listed my concerns here, it was removed with the unconvincing basis of "decline speedy", I still confirm it because what I found from my searches simply found PR and PR-like sources, and that's not surprising because all of this, including the other recent subject articles, seem to be part of an advertising PR campaign, not to mention the sheer persistence of it all (like with my listed PROD, it is certainly concerning when a Draft is advertising, deleted and then actually restarted at mainspace as if nothing). SwisterTwister talk 06:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

this article is app for dating which has famous news on nytimes:http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/04/nyregion/a-dating-app-happn-to-find-a-match-nearby.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhanglei123456 (talk • contribs) 11:46 am, Today (UTC+5.5)

  • Delete G11, blatant advert like many of this author's other articles. Cabayi (talk) 10:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is this article a "blatant advert"? It is written in an entirely neutral tone, has no puffery whatsoever, and is based upon what reliable sources state about the app. North America1000 09:52, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 10:36, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 10:36, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stub articles can typically be improved, particularly ones that have received a great deal of coverage, as this topic has. For more information about the philosophy of improving stub articles, check out WP:NOEFFORT. North America1000 09:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TOOSOON; nothing to establish notability or significance at this time. The app is getting some buzz in blogs, but that's about it. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:12, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The topic has actually received a great deal of coverage in news sources, such as The New York Times, The Telegraph, International Business Times, The Washington Post, and several others. Note the sources denoted below in this discussion. North America1000 09:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:CORP from coverage [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83], [84], [85], [86], [87], [88]. Doubtless the deletionists will reply that The Daily Telegraph, widely cited as a newspaper of record, is a "blog"; that an article about how the app is creepy and encourages stalking is "promotional"; that The Economic Times, the #2 business newspaper in the world by circulation, is "churnalism" (though this term isn't anywhere in Wikipedia policy); that stories about large funding rounds are "routine" and "trivial coverage", even though WP:CORPDEPTH doesn't actually say this; that Marie Claire doesn't "count" because it's a women's magazine; that The Independent and The Courier-Mail aren't "real" newspapers; and that this article from the print edition of The New York Times, which was linked and then completely ignored, is... I don't even know, maybe they'll call it a "VaniSpamCruftIsement" or "VSCA". But, hey, what can you do. 99.162.153.185 (talk) 01:01, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and analysis - Simply because it's a large number of sources means nothing if they are in fact advertising and PR, and that's what they are; notice how those articles all contain information from the company itself either by a blatant "from the company","company said", etc. None of this will be enough, and there can be no compromises if the basis if still an advertisement especially given the past deletions, I'll then note experiences suggest thus would likely in fact be restarted, simply because that's the nature of PR and it's activities. Simply a note, I find it peculiar you seem so experienced and knowledgeable of Wikipedia and its nature, this suggests peculiarity, especially since there were 2 similar IPs with the same methods and speak within the last 24 hours as it is.... SwisterTwister talk 01:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very sorry but i have ot note (as was noted in the ANI against you a while back) that I find someof what you say to be entirely incomprehensible. What does "None of this will be enough, and there can be no compromises if the basis if still an advertisement especially given the past deletions, I'll then note experiences suggest thus would likely in fact be restarted, simply because that's the nature of PR and it's activities." mean? 104.163.141.133 (talk) 11:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:42, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To pick the clearest single case, this source (source #3 above) has a headline of "Concerns over dating app’s ‘creepy’ tracker", or (in the HTML title) "Happn dating app: Concerns over app’s ‘stalking issue’ GPS tracking". It then goes on to say:
"CYBER safety experts have warned of the dangers of a dating app which allows its users to track “matches” through the use of GPS. Happn, which is available in the App Store and on Google Play, has been likened to a “more dangerous version of Tinder”. (...) Susan McLean, a police officer for 27 years turned cyber safety expert, told The Sunday Mail that Queenslanders should not be allowing any smartphone app to track ­locality. “Tinder uses location when it shows you that the person is five or 10km away but that’s not like this where it is tracking movement — this is particularly creepy,” Ms McLean said. "It’s dangerous and absolutely has a huge potential to become an issue.""
The claim that this article is "advertising and PR" for Happn is... implausible in the extreme. There are, therefore, only two possibilities. Either deletionists will not look at articles provided as sources, even to spend two seconds glancing at the headline. Or, deletionists believe that all coverage of a business is "advertising and PR", and therefore invalid, even when that coverage describes a business's product as "creepy", "dangerous", and a "safety risk". In either case, there is not much point in having a deletion discussion at all, since people's minds are obviously made up already.
Indeed, I have edited Wikipedia in the last two days with other IP addresses. The change in IPs is not deliberate, my ISP just assigns addresses dynamically. 2602:306:3A29:9B90:D987:B3C7:631D:3031 (talk) 07:35, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's an example of an actually non-PR source (and a good repudiation of those who think that it's unreasonable to expect sources not to be inspired by company PR outreach) ... do we have any more? (although the Courier-Mail may well count as a tabloid, and that's not a well-written article) - David Gerard (talk) 12:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A bit more input on the latest sources is desirable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:21, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:21, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sufficient coverage in independent reliable sources. --Michig (talk) 10:23, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Simply stating Keep without actually either acknowledging and considering the specific anaylsis above or making one's own anaylsis is not the same thing to simply then actually say "There's sources!". SwisterTwister talk 15:52, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sufficient examples of significant coverage in reliable sources have already been put forward in this discussion. The analysis above doesn't make a convincing case to ignore these sources. --Michig (talk) 16:48, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And sufficient commentd have stated this article is still an advertisement, especially since a user had the sheerness to restart it despite a past deletion. Simply listing "significant sources" means nothing if the contents themselves are simply republished company information and words. SwisterTwister talk 17:17, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by 'sheerness'. Just because a draft was deleted due to the content and tone, that doesn't make the subject non-notable. It isn't an advertisement now. It's now two sentences stating basic facts about the subject, so concerns of advertising have been addressed by editing and that is therefore not a reason to delete. Clearly the sources available could be used to expand it into a better article. --Michig (talk) 17:40, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the tone / promotionalism has been addressed, but the article (two sentences) is now a WP:DIRECTORY listing. Available sourced would not allow expansion (in a neutral fashion) and Wikipedia is WP:NOT a directory of minor companies & their apps. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:50, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Except...the available sources would allow expansion in a neutral fashion, and it is notable as demonstrated by the available sources. --Michig (talk) 21:23, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Simply stating there exists sources is not taking away or changing the stated facts this is a restarted advertisement, and it was blatantly and boldly restarted despite the advertising Draft also being deleted, therefore it shows the blatant persistence of why the company wants this advertisement, therefore there are no compromises when it comes to advertising. As such, nothing takes away the soundness of WP:ADVERTISING and WP:NOT. SwisterTwister talk 04:58, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry but the above statement is entirely incomprehensible.104.163.141.133 (talk) 11:07, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Advanced search for: 
"Happn"
In books/documents 
Google Books  · Questia
Internet Archive  · WorldCat
In the news 
Google News: recent  · archives

Questia  · New York Times
Los Angeles Times
Wall Street Journal · Washington Post
Financial Times · BBC News
The Age · The Hindu
News Limited · Fairfax Media

In academic/legal journals 
and reference works 
Google Scholar: academic  · legal

Microsoft Academic: new  · original
Oxford Reference  · JSTOR
PUBMED Central  · Questia
HighBeam  · Internet Archive

World Wide Web pages 
Google Web Search  · Advanced Search
Searx 1  · 2  · 3  · 4
Bing  · DuckDuckGo  · Startpage
Yahoo · Yandex · Gigablast
Images (free) 
Google  · Flickr
More 
Wikipedia Free English newspaper sources
The Wikipedia Library
  • Keep – Meets WP:GNG per a review of available sources. The article does not have a promotional tone at this time; it does not extol the benefits of the application, use peacock language, or encourage readers to use the application. North America1000 02:46, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this dating app is popular in france which it deserves a Wikipedia page.if anyone still has issues with this entry.please see the reference .plus,I created this page firstly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhanglei123456 (talk • contribs) 09:17, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't you been blocked yet? Cabayi (talk) 10:05, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
what does that mean?Cabayi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhanglei123456 (talk • contribs) 10:26, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not much to say about it now that the promotion was removed. If it lasts more than a couple years, then might be notable some day, but zillions of apps come and go. Too soon for this one. W Nowicki (talk) 17:48, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that per WP:NTEMP, notability is not temporary, and note the sources I have provided below (in the box), which demonstrate sustained coverage about the app over the years. Also note that the app has actually already received coverage for more than two years. North America1000 09:50, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's now two sentences stating basic facts about the subject. not ad！我真的不知道这些提出删除建议的人如何判断有广告嫌疑的？ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhanglei123456 (talk • contribs) 04:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is not, however, what I showed in my analysis, which showed everything that has been involved this advertising, going as far to state how it was restarted yet again after being deleted before as an advertisement! SwisterTwister talk 04:58, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the sources mentioned by the IP. Several of them (e.g. Economic Times, NYT, Telegraph, The Independent, etc.) are enough to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:07, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Simply stating there exists news sources means nothing if the contents themselves are PR and the analyses above have explicitly shown this, so stating they were otherwise acceptable is not only unapplicable but also unconvincing. As I also stated above, there are persistent attempts at restarting this advertisement which is something that should be taken seriously, not "Well.....Hey, there's sources!!" or else it's literally damning the encyclopedia of the original concept it once had and was, deleting this would surely save us yet another wave of restarting attempts, because it's clear to say, this will be started again if the user cared to actually go around Draftspace and publish it themselves (ignoring AfC reviewing that stated it was unacceptable of course)! SwisterTwister talk 05:14, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this version of the Wikipedia page is different from the deleted version .plus the new version of page only contains 2 sentences about sayying this app's function and App market.I don't know how your guys think this is an ad! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhanglei123456 (talk • contribs) 05:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to closer - The user above has been making numerous attempting at repeatedly restoring their several "Keep" votes in an apparent campaign to "save" this article by simply restating what their own beliefs of the article are, however I have repeatedly now changed them to "Comment" instead. Let me also note that the Keep votes are all still simply, not only ignoring the actual concerns listed here, but then simply still basing their comments from existing sources, instead of actually caring to analyze and exhibit their own concerns of the sources. SwisterTwister talk 05:15, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agreed Patar knight voice.because as the reason you mentioned above.Tinder(app) Wikipedia page is also unacceptable ,which The app was publicly reported on NYT with "A Dating App, Happn, to Find a Match Nearby" it only tells us what;s the function of happn.obviously it is acceptable and convincing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhanglei123456 (talk • contribs) 05:48, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Zhanglei123456, have you been paid or otherwise canvassed to edit this? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:46, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lemongirl942 (talk)No I did't get paid for this ,the only reason I create this article is I used this dating app in china ,its a so pop app which it deserve a wikipage with nytimes and other internet news , I just wanna explain why this app is pop in china ,if you cant read Chinese .maybe its time for you to learn chinese, here is the chinese news about the dating app:happn:
  • Delete Per WP:DEL14 This is nothing but WP:CORPSPAM. This is an app which received spiked coverage for a while. There is enormous promo pressure here with the creator using sockpuppets to spam the article. Notability is not the only reason for deletion - borderline notability combined with the intention to use Wikipedia for promotion is a good enough reason as well. Volunteer resources are finite and these articles with borderline notability but promo pressure suck up enormous volunteer efforts. We should not encourage this kind of WP:BOGOF editing as it ultimately increases the WP:SYSTEMICBIAS on Wikipedia. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that the article creator has been briefly blocked for socking and is now spamming on Wikipedia. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the notion of this mobile app supposedly having received "spiked coverage for a while", this is not the case whatsoever. Note that this app has actually received sustained coverage over the years. For example, notice the dates of publication for the sources below. Note that these are examples, and more sources are available. Also note that the article has absolutely no promotional tone whatsoever at this time. See also WP:NTEMP, "Notability is not temporary". North America1000 09:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • See WP:NOT which says Wikipedia is not...a means of promotion. It doesn't restrict the definition of promotion to simply the style of writing. The intent matters. This was clearly intended to promote the app and get it up on Wikipedia - and if not for outing, I would have presented the evidence here. See also WP:IAR. Just because volunteer editors are available, doesn't mean that they should clean up CORPSPAM. Pushing this burden on volunteer editors is problematic and is encouraging our WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:59, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is absolutely no promotional tone whatsoever at this time in the article (link). Not even a trace. North America1000 12:14, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, it's not about promotional tone. It's about doing the right thing with a focus on the long term. We can continue to encourage and incentivise this kind of BOGOF editing and increase our systemic bias. Or we can take a stand and show that this is not tolerated. I certainly do not want to encourage BOGOF, so I would like this article to be deleted. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:34, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After u read this,you can decide this article is notable or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhanglei123456 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per wide sourcing. A few editors have been after the article creator, who despite his repeated transgressions is very likely a well-intentioned editotr whose first language is not English. There is a bit of a gang mentality attacking the article creator. they made some mistakes, but let's lighten up on the content that is acceptable-- like this article.104.163.141.133 (talk) 10:45, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know what? I have actual off wiki evidence that this is paid editing. But I don't want to present it here because it will possibly result in WP:OUTING. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd already just before blocked the IP for 48 hours for disruptive editing after repeated warnings. Do we take it to the arbcom or would various admins be enough? GorillaWarfare, as an arb how should we proceed? - David Gerard (talk) 16:07, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • But it encourages more undisclosed paid editing, more paid advocacy and a huge burden for volunteers to keep the information NPOV and factual. Done on a large scale this ultimately reduces the credibility of Wikipedia as a source for reliable and NPOV information, because volunteer efforts cannot keep up. When we keep and clean up articles like these, it gives an incentive to undisclosed paid editors to do more of this. Which is why I do not see a good reason to encourage this. I prefer to encourage paid editors to disclose and go through AFC (which is a form of peer review) and work transparently. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:03, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and analysis - At this level, simply tossing a mountain of links is overweighing this overloaded AfD as it is because what takes the serious matter is the fact this has literally been and still is a paid advertising article and there's the manipulation of accounts and hired people to show it above; to analyze the listed sources, they are once again in fact emphasizing and confirming exactly what the nomination and analyses earlier have shown, they are simply republishing advertising the company wants to mention and talk about or then actually simply republishing the company and its employees' own quoted words; none of that is actual journalism, because it simply means republishing their own advertising.
We have seen enough damages to articles because of accepting such advertisements and we seriously have to keep to mind and consider the actual effects of keeping this and saying "Hey, we kept an obviously paid advertisement because it was somewhat changed and some republished PR was offered!". The Keep votes themselves above acknowledge the fact this is still advertising and would still be if changed at all, therefore it shows we cannot confidently keep an article of which no one can honestly improve to a satisfying change. Looking once again at the listed sources, there's even the blatancy of the company blatantly and firming announcing its own business plans and activities, including stating their own thoughts and feelings about said money plans and therefore it shows the blatancy of PR advertising, as if the paid advertising information-article and accounts, shown once again above, are not enough to suggest the said sheer advertising.SwisterTwister talk 05:32, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- now that the promotional tone has been removed, the page is literally this:
  • Happn is a mobile dating application[1] developed by FTW & Co. The application is compatible with Android, iPhone[2] and Windows[3].
Wikipedia is not a directory of unremarkable apps; there's nothing in this AfD that suggests that the article can be developed beyond that in a neutral fashion. Thus, the article should be deleted as created as part of a promotional push and not adding value to the project (and actually detracting from it as evidenced by this extensive AfD). K.e.coffman (talk) 23:29, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article has significant potential for expansion, and the topic is remarkable, both per the significant coverage it has received through the years. North America1000 23:38, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – There has been discussion herein that the creator of this article engaged in paid editing, but no evidence has been presented to qualify the assertion. The article creator, Zhanglei123456 has directly stated above in this discussion that they were not paid to create the article. Furthermore, the undeveloped nature of the article throughout its history is a strong indicator that paid editing has not occurred. It is very highly doubtful that a company would pay for such a tiny, unformatted stub article, which was in this shape before I began some work on it. It is important to not assume that paid editing has occurred (e.g. per this discussion "We can continue to encourage and incentivise this kind of BOGOF editing", "this has literally been and still is a paid advertising article...") via proof by assertion claims and personal opinion alone. Furthermore, the article does not have a promotional tone whatsoever. North America1000 07:04, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 07:44, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for apparently borderline notability in conjunction with being a target of promotionalism, which unduly absorbs scarce editorial time.  Sandstein  11:02, 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 keep. Article has since been improved and consensus is to keep, This should never have been relisted but anywho closing as keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 22:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zachary Braiterman[edit]

Zachary Braiterman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete-No notability except being a proffesor in a (reputed??) university.Article sources are closely associated with subject! Keep-I think the improvements by Squeamish Ossifrage has taken the article to another level! Aru@baska❯❯❯ Vanguard 15:09, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:24, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:24, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:24, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete doesn't seem to be notable at all. 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 15:27, 7 October 2016 (UTC)Struck vote, and changed to Keep based on much improved article. 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 20:51, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per the materials available, he doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG or WP:PROF. Alansohn (talk) 16:02, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete only one source used, and it's from the university he works at. Too closely affiliated on its own to warrant an article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:51, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, having hopefully met the Heymann Standard. I came to this AFD with the assumption that a cursory source search would reveal the big fat nothing that these one-line substub article subjects always produce. But actually, there's quite a bit out there. His first major book is cited all over the place, and his second received a full review in a scholarly journal (and nontrivial references in a few other places). I slapped together a somewhat better, more thoroughly referenced version. It's still a stub, and I don't think it's going to get much better, but I do believe it now crosses the inclusion threshold. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:31, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a tremendous improvement, but I'm still not sure what the claim of notability is. The lack of articles / books about Braiterman remains as an issue. I'm willing to consider changing my vote, but I'm not sure that we've crossed the line yet. Alansohn (talk) 20:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because he's an author in academia, I don't think we're going to see a lot of personal biographical details in reliable sources. There's quite a bit of discussion of his theology in the cited literature, though, which I think arguably gets us to WP:NAUTHOR #2 (for his concept of antitheodicy) or WP:PROF #1. The alternative would be to consider that his first book might be itself notable under WP:NBOOK #1 and #3, and that his second is possibly notably under NBOOK #1--but that he himself is not notable. That's a logically defensible position under policy, but it would result in two even stubbier articles without anything connecting them; all else being equal, this serves the reader better. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:07, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I basically second the views of Alan and Snuggums. But that(1)-Lack of reliable sources & (2)-doubts about the claim of notability is a gray area!(Edit 1-Sorry for not strikethroughing the 1st point in the last edit.I did not notice by mistake earlier!Sorry for the inconvenience.)(Edit 2-I think the comment by Squeamish Ossifrage has to be accepted.It's no doubt a great point. Strikethroughing the 2nd part) Aru@baska❯❯❯ Vanguard 12:52, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The assertion that the citations are from unreliable self-published sources couldn't be further from the truth. Did you even look at Squeamish Ossifrage's improvements before writing that? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 14:09, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If my previous comment appears puzzling it is because ARUNEEK changed his or her comment after I had replied to it. Even after that change the comment is still obviously erroneous, as all of the sources are reliable. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 08:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is correct. Having stated that- just to take the journals- the peer reviewed Manchester Journal of Jewish Studies, Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion, A Journal of Jewish Art and Visual Culture, and Religious Education are self-published sources, apparantly ARUNEEK now believes them to be not reliable ones, either. Most curious. Muffled Pocketed 09:37, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weakish delete. GS h-index of 6 slender, even for theology: WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:29, 7 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. Squeamish Ossifrage has demonstrated clear notability. I don't think that h-index is relevant in this field. What counts is the nature of the citations by others of Braiterman's work. Many of them are not citations that simply substantiate assertions, as are most citations in the natural sciences, but are examples of other academics responding to or otherwise engaging with what he has written. There are also examples of responses to Braiterman outside academic writing shown by the news search linked above. I would also add that there are reviews of Braiterman's books in Theology[112], The Journal of Religion[113] and AJS Review[114]. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 14:05, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've cited those reviews in the article. I find it difficult to understand why, if they are here to build a neutral encyclopedia, some editors piled in so quickly with "delete" opinions in a deletion discussion about a Jewish theologian who has opposed a particular view about what opinions Jews are supposed to hold, and restated those positions in the face of clear evidence of notability. Jews, just like anyone else, are allowed to hold differing opinions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:28, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These are major academic books, and he is notable as WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR. h index is utterly irrelevant in the humanities. DGG ( talk ) 01:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - full professor in a high-prestige field at a major university. Bearian (talk) 19:10, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Those are not criteria to satisfy WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:25, 18 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep -- well referenced article at this point, with notability clearly demonstrated. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- the reviews mentioned by 86.17.... meet NAUTHOR 3 last clause, there are other paths in policy that also demonstrate notability, but I think NAUTHOR 3 is probably the most clean-cut. --joe deckertalk 14:42, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per nom. Smmurphy(Talk) 16:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 07:44, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- the article has been completely re-written; I don't believe that further discussion is necessary as the OP has withdrawn the nomination. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the comment above. This was relisted unnecessarily by an editor whose speciality seems to be to perform unnecessary relists, and should have been closed a week ago. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, you might want to ask an admin to look at this and close "early." 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 20:51, 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. MBisanz talk 22:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Buttercup Creek[edit]

Buttercup Creek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I cannot find any sources beyond the article's photo to show this stream exists. GNIS searches turn up nothing, and Google searches turn up only wiki, wiki-mirrors or unrelated streams and housing developments outside of New York. Searching within the article's only reference (a dead link, but currently available here) does not turn up any results in NY. I'd really like to be proven wrong here, as WP:GEOLAND standards are rightfully low for geographic features, but I can find nothing - except for the picture with the sign, which I guess at least proves this is not a hoax.

In fairness, the article creator (who did not edit except to create this article in May of this year) contested a speedy by saying: This page should not be speedily deleted because... The creek is fed from a cold spring which reduces the temperature of the waters downstream to allow the trout to spawn. It is the only known spring fed tributary of the important kinderhook creek, hence having more than ordinary significance.

If sources are found, I would support keeping or merging the content to Kinderhook Creek, which this stream claims to be tributary to. Antepenultimate (talk) 00:48, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If deletion is supported, I wouldn't mind if the article was moved to my userspace in case I can locate offline sources at a later date. Antepenultimate (talk) 01:14, 7 October 2016 (UTC) Given new information about the stream's dimensions revealed below, I doubt this would ever be a subject needing its own article. Antepenultimate (talk) 22:12, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:17, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:17, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I found Gifford road in Canaan on Google Maps, and it is very short and only crosses one creek on that map which was unnamed. Assuming it was Buttercup Creek, it is a tributary of Stony Kill which is a tributary of Kinderhook Creek. (Note that Stony Kill Falls is located on a different Stony Kill, but also in NY State.) That it drains into Stony Kill (not Kinderhook Creek) is stated in Canaan, New York also. I also found this creek on a USGS topo map [[115]] and that map doesn't show a name either. It looks to be about .75 mile in length - no wonder it doesn't have a widely recognized name. MB 05:33, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I also used the interactive NYS DEC mapping tool (the one reference in the article) and found it is indeed classified as C(T) as indicated in the article. This map also showed no name, just a blue line. Have not found any other sources and conclude this stream is too small to be notable. Other than this entry in a database of all water bodies in the state of NY, can't find any map with it's name or any other reference. MB 15:52, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to piece all of this together MB, it's a much clearer picture thanks to what you've found. Searching for the road in order to find the stream was very clever. Given that this seems to be an extremely minor stream, I'm striking my request to userfy as it seems that this subject could be adequately and briefly covered as part of a downstream article (if anything identifying it by name is ever found, that is). Antepenultimate (talk) 22:12, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Whaddya know, I actually found something, though it changes little. The name "Buttercup Creek" is currently a proposed name for the stream, having been submitted to the U.S. Board on Geographic Names for review sometime before June of this year. See pages 12 & 13 of this document. It confirms that the naming is intended to refer to the Caltha growing on its banks, FWIW. Also interesting: the proposal summary, in assessing usage, notes that "The name Buttercup Creek is the subject of a short entry in Wikipedia, although there is no information to suggest it is in local use". Citogenesis in action! Nevertheless, the stream is still officially unnamed, and even if adopted, I still feel it best to include any information about this stream in an existing article for a larger stream fed by it. Antepenultimate (talk) 01:59, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting - good find. So it's actually 1.5 miles long. Where I grew up, there were many big ravines with little tiny creeks at the bottom and all were unnamed. If the name makes it into the GNIS, someone may recreate this article. But for now, I'm sticking with delete because it is one of thousands of short, tiny, and un-notable waterways. Hey, Antepenultimate I just realized we crossed paths a couple of months ago when you improved West Canada Creek. MB 02:54, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I recognized your sig, and I was glad to see someone who may have more local familiarity with the area take an interest in this deletion discussion (I really don't much care for deletion of geo features, in general - I was pretty reluctant to start this one). Good to see you! Antepenultimate (talk) 15:22, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 07:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete fails GNG by a mile. why is there a picture of a ditch in this article?? Jytdog (talk) 08:27, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No RS indication of existance or use of the name. Earlier comment about proposal to name the ditch is good evidence it is not a recognized, named feature. JbhTalk 15:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although I lean towards keeping geo articles, this one seems to be a minor stream with no official name on any map. There is no coverage which can help us write an article and the concerns about potentially serving as a WP:CIRCULAR source of information makes me go with a delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:02, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, for the purpose of clarity since I raised the possibility of supporting a merger in my nomination - as no reliable sources using this name have been found, and all evidence points to there being none currently in existence (per the USBGN, noted above) - I would argue against a merger. There simply is no sourced information to merge. Antepenultimate (talk) 23:51, 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. MBisanz talk 22:56, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Picavet[edit]

Christine Picavet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete: insufficiently notable painter/equestrienne; fails artist and athlete. Quis separabit? 07:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:14, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:14, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:06, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:06, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:37, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable no coverage in multiple secondary sources nice paintings though sorry she died so young Sassmouth (talk) 06:44, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 07:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - lack of coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject; fails WP:GNG Spiderone 16:44, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SSTflyer 12:25, 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. Black Kite (talk) 10:40, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GroceryRun[edit]

GroceryRun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable company. Nothing significant but another startup company. For being in Wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become a Startup directory. 1000s of startups happens every day. Just another one. Notability required repeated significant coverage by media as well as significance in itself. building Wikiepdia page for their publicity. covered mostly by Startup blogs not the notable media. Popular media used only for Press or news for company. Nothing significant coverage by these media. Once in a lifetime coverage. Nothing notable to be here. Merely for misleading. Thousands of online stores are there. Wikipedia is not store directory. Light2021 (talk) 19:51, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Hardly "another startup company"; reasonably significant and has been around a while now ago. It has plenty of coverage in mainstream newspaper sources - this seems like a cookie-cutter nomination in which the user tried to push their particular ideological barrow without actually checking the specific sources. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Citing a Google search isn't enough, you need to check the sources. Churnalism is unconvincing. Also, personal attacks in deletion discussions are less than convincing - David Gerard (talk) 07:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • If a nominator claims that there are only "startup blogs" and not "notable media" covering the subject, and then five minutes in Google News turns up a bunch of stories in the Sydney Morning Herald, The Australian and other major metropolitan newspapers, I feel like it's reasonable to assume that the nominator probably didn't do their homework. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Some good depth-of-coverage in a couple of Australian news sites and lots of news hits, but not a slam dunk for WP:GNG either. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The sources are good examples of advertorials they merely quote the company, which is just one of them any copycat companies in this area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) per this.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- wholly unremarkable; does not rise to the level of encyclopedia notability. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A google search produces few results about this company, with the news coverage being highly limited and lightweight in nature. There seems to be no reason to think I've missed anything: this is a small internet company. Nick-D (talk) 10:11, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The coverage is essentially a bunch of brief coverage in the context of other companies of a similar nature. Nothing indepth about the company itself. Also WP:TOOSOON. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:52, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(Update) SwisterTwister's analysis of the sources is convincing. They are thinly redressed PR. Also, some of the sources presented for example
  • QRCodePress doesn't seem reliable - it seems to be a self published blog which claims to have an "editor".
  • The Lifehacker piece is one of the most blatant pieces of churnalism I have seen. With stuff like As with most bargain sites, there are good deals to be had, but you need to consider whether you would buy that product otherwise, and whether you'll save enough to offset the postage charges. 200g of Nescafe Gold Blend for $7.95 (less than half the regular price) is definitely a deal I could be tempted by (though as it happens, that one has already sold out this week). If you're already an organised shopper and know what your regulars usually cost, this could be a useful addition.
That leaves the sources from SMH which alone are not enough to pass WP:NCORP. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:13, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unremarkable company and not enough coverage. -- Dane2007 talk 20:39, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 07:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please refrain from personal attacks and limit comments to the matter at hand.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:03, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see any personal attack made on you. " The company is just not notable" above ? Light2021 (talk) 14:09, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Absolutely no personal attack whatsoever. Paulmcdonald, referencing an accepted essay and commenting on notability is exactly what is meant to happen here. You will have to evidentially prove the point I'm afraid. Muffled Pocketed 14:13, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let's move on--I've discussed with the editor and I don't think there was any bad faith, just confusion. I took it as picking a fight.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Trenwith, Courtney (2011-09-28). "Perth spends twice as much on online discount groceries than other cities". The Sydney Morning Herald. Archived from the original on 2016-10-26. Retrieved 2016-10-26.

      The article notes:

      Perth shoppers have led a surge of interest in online discount grocery buying, spending at least twice as much per capita on a new dedicated website.

      More than $1.5 million worth of non-perishable groceries was bought in just the first two days of groceryrun.com.au's much-talked-about launch last Wednesday.

      ...

      About $225,000 of that came from residents in Perth and surrounding areas, according to the website's co-founder Gabby Leibovich.

      ...

      The website - owned by the operators of group buying websites Scoopon and Catch of the Day - is the first in the Australian market to offer discounted grocery items such as pharmaceuticals, cleaning products and non-perishable food.

      It promises discounts of 50-80 per cent on 200 items each week.

      But its niche is to only offer the products for 48 hours from 10am Wednesdays, which Mr Leibovich said allowed the company to avoid poor deals that wasted customers' time.

    2. Kidman, Angus (2011-09-21). "GroceryRun.com.au Offers Discount Goods Two Days A Week". Lifehacker. Archived from the original on 2016-10-26. Retrieved 2016-10-26.

      The article notes:

      Discount online grocery retailing has been a fairly quiet space in Australia (the two major chains aside), but competition is starting to increase. GroceryRun.com.au offers discounts on a bunch of brand-name goods, but only sells them two days a week.

      GroceryRun.com.au has some obvious similarities with Supermarketdeals.com.au, which we’ve looked at recently, including the emphasis on brand names and the $11 flat shipping charge to anywhere in Australia. And just as Supermarketdeals.com.au is run by an existing online retailer (DealsDirect), GroceryRun.com.au is from the founder of CatchOfTheDay.

      The unusual feature of GroceryRun.com.au is that you can only order from the site on a Wednesday or a Thursday. That’s likely to create more of a rush on the cheapest items, but the unpredictable nature of the specials means you wouldn’t be able to use the site for your entire grocery run, despite the name.

    3. Collins, Jesse (2012-10-19). "Mobile commerce strategy unveiled by GroceryRun". QR Code Press. Archived from the original on 2016-10-26. Retrieved 2016-10-26.

      The article notes:

      GroceryRun.com, an online grocery store, has just announced the availability of a new mobile commerce application for iPhone and iPad users.

      This launch has aligned itself with the strongest growth that GroceryRun has recorded in a single quarter.

      The website currently receives approximately 15,000 on a weekly basis, and has seen a significant demand from suppliers who have been rushing to add their offerings to the site. This has been bolstered by the notable shift that supermarkets are making in order to place their primary support on their own home store brands as opposed to promoting those from other companies.

      There is editorial oversight according to http://www.qrcodepress.com/about/authors/WebCite.
    4. Wells, Rachel (2011-09-22). "Grocery run with a difference from serial entrepreneurs". The Sydney Morning Herald. Archived from the original on 2016-10-26. Retrieved 2016-10-26.

      The article notes:

      A NEW breed of online grocery retailer is not only slashing grocery bills, but giving food manufacturers a second chance to sell things the big supermarket chains will not touch.

      GroceryRun.com.au - the grocery arm of the daily deals website CatchoftheDay - yesterday joined a growing number of online grocery stores, including SupermarketDeals and OffYourTrolley, offering non-perishable grocery products at up to 50 per cent off. The grocery e-tailer will operate for 48 hours, Wednesday to Friday, every week, and will sell between 200 and 300 discounted products, from coffee to cleaning products for a flat delivery fee of $11.

      GroceryRun co-founder Gabby Leibovich says one of the reasons it works is because it acts as a clearing house of sorts for suppliers left with excess stock because supermarket chains have cancelled orders, deleted products or won't accept stock nearing its use-by date. "We approach suppliers with the simple message of 'what do you have in your warehouse that you want to clear?" says Mr Leibovich.

      ...

      On one occasion when GroceryRun was trying its discount groceries on its CatchoftheDay site it sold 330,000 Ferrero Rocher chocolates in 48 hours. Michael Rajch, a director of the confectionary group Eversweet, which also distributes other leading confectionary brands, says online grocery stores such as GroceryRun have given suppliers other alternatives outside the big supermarkets.

    5. Zappone, Chris (2011-09-21). "Online grocer to nibble on supermarket dominance". The Sydney Morning Herald. Archived from the original on 2016-10-26. Retrieved 2016-10-26.

      The article notes:

      Groceryrun.com.au, an offshoot of CatchoftheDay.com.au, offers up to 200 discounted products from well-known brands and charges a flat shipping fee for deliveries anywhere in Australia. But it comes with a few catches. There will be no perishable items. The products won't always be the same and might not be available from one week to the next, and nor will customers be able to shop whenever the need arises. The deals will only be available on Wednesdays and Thursdays.

      The launch follows a one-year trial of grocery sales at Catch of the Day that netted sales of $1 million a month through two days of sales and is a grab for a piece of the $80 billion a year Australian grocery market.

      ...

      Catch of the Day's growth is being funded by the $80 million of private equity raised in June through the investment of such groups as James Packer's Consolidated Press Holdings and Tiger Global. The group, which also owns group buying site Scoopon, says it grew 100 per cent in 2010-11, racking up revenues of $120 million.

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow GroceryRun to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 06:18, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note the such blatant triviality as:
  • It promises discounts of 50-80 per cent on 200 items each week. But its niche is to only offer the products for 48 hours from 10am Wednesdays (this is literally advertising where, why and when the company will be available for clients)
Take the next one:
  • offers up to 200 discounted products from well-known brands and charges a flat shipping fee for deliveries anywhere in Australia. But it comes with a few catches. There will be no perishable items. The products won't always be the same and might not be available from one week to the next, and nor will customers be able to shop whenever the need arises. The deals will only be available on Wednesdays and Thursdays and:
  • A NEW breed of online grocery retailer is not only slashing grocery bills, but giving food manufacturers a second chance to sell things the big supermarket chains will not touch....It promises discounts....GroceryRun offers discounts on special items two days a week (blatant advertising about the company's own words)
We literally cannot take any of this company-supplied advertising as actual substance and coverage, when it cares to name and number such specifics as the "amount of chocolates sold today....current orders of this week...."operate for 48 hours, Wednesday to Friday, every week, and will sell between 200 and 300 discounted products, from coffee to cleaning products for a flat delivery fee of $11"...."current trials and funding"...."You can only order Wednesday or Thursday!"
Once we literally start taking such blatant advertising when it's clearly the company's own words, we are severely damned because we could not take matters seriously. We cannot actually come close to say it's significant because it's only that in the company's own eyes! SwisterTwister talk 06:35, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is factual information that the editors and journalists of The Sydney Morning Herald considered of interest to their readers. It does not make the articles unreliable. Cunard (talk) 06:41, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's thinly-disguised PR material of little use in an encyclopedia IMO. It also appears to have been published on a section of the SMH's website focused on spruiking small businesses, rather than the serious business news sections. Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I apparently had not commented for deletion yet although I've been heavily watching this article since, explaining my analysis above; as for the article, literally everything is simply PR advertising and the Delete votes are concurrent and exact with the concerns, showing how this is clearly only existing to advertise what the company is and the hopes of clients and investors. The sheer 2 advertising-only accounts also explain this therefore there's nothing we can take as honest non-advertising contributions or information. SwisterTwister talk 07:05, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- the sources offered at this AfD are not convincing, and are filled with promotion and / or aspirations of the company, as in "promises discounts"; "well known brands"; "new breed of retailer"; "much-talked-about launch" etc. The coverage relates to launch publicity and does not rise to the level of WP:CORPDEPTH. WP:TOOSOON & WP:NOTNEWS apply as well. Let's see if it's indeed a "new breed" as promised and then create an article. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:30, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is procedural vote, to balance User:Paulmcdonald's "keep" vote; User:Paulmcdonald's behavior here has been so egregiously bad -- browbeating and implicitly threatening a user on her talk page, for absolutely zero cause, for an anodyne comment made here appears to be an attempt to chill discussion, and we simply can't have that. Delete the article now on principle. Herostratus (talk) 19:13, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response there was some confusion on my part that we cleared up. But are you honestly saying that you are taking the position of delete because you don't like me? That's not a reason to delete. If you believe my behavior was that bad, please feel free to discuss it with me on my talk page or if you like you can take any of the suggested actions at Wikipedia:Disruptive editing.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:16, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:14, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Olivier de Sagazan[edit]

Olivier de Sagazan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability. WP:MILL Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 15:07, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:30, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:30, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:30, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:31, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:41, 10 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, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 07:42, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:11, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Hermanson[edit]

Barry Hermanson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable individual. Fails WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage. Fails WP:POLITICIAN as someone who has run for, but not won, political office. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:34, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:34, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:34, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:41, 10 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, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe keep as a perennial candidate. Bearian (talk) 00:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perennial candidates don't get kept for being perennial candidates. They get kept if there's sufficient sourcing for them. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Candidates for political office do not get an automatic presumption of notability just for being candidates, not even the perennial kind. But there's no real WP:GNG claim here either — about half the references in the article are to primary sources that cannot assist GNG at all, and all but one of the remaining sources are local blogs and local alt-weeklies. Only one source here, East Bay Times, actually counts for anything at all toward meeting GNG — but one source can't carry GNG all by itself. Local coverage of local elections is routinely expected to exist, so an unelected candidate doesn't get to claim GNG on local election coverage alone — a candidate for office doesn't have a GNG argument until the coverage of them nationalizes. Bearcat (talk) 16:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Nothing notable that meetings the WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN guidelines. -- Dane2007 talk 20:41, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 07:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm unable to find any third party reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Someone else has said passes, if they can provide those sources I'll flip.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:48, 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 22:56, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gholāmḥusayn Ṣefātī-Dezfūlī[edit]

Gholāmḥusayn Ṣefātī-Dezfūlī (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete: as insufficiently notable or merge with Zohreh Sefati (his brother sister). Quis separabit? 14:22, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:12, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:12, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Coolabahapple -- thanks. Quis separabit? 00:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:53, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:54, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can only find sources that give passing mention, and has little relevancy anyways, as his only accomplishment is being the brother of another unotable person. layla, the remover 11:51, 17 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Layla, the remover (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 07:41, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:DEL7. I am unable to find sources to verify the information in the article, although I didn't search in Persian. However, English searches are only showing Wikipedia mirrors. As this is a BLP, I will go for a delete. Due to verifiability concerns, I do not prefer a redirect. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:07, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:41, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Forever Yours Priya[edit]

Forever Yours Priya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I came across this as a speedy deletion as a promotional page, but it's not so promotional that it would make for a clean speedy. A look at the page shows that it hasn't released yet and won't until next year, when it's put on YouTube. Since it hasn't been released yet it doesn't entirely fall under the criteria for web material, so I'm uncomfortable speedying it under that criteria either, so I'm bringing it here.

All that aside, a search brought up nothing to establish that this unreleased film has received the coverage necessary to pass WP:NFF. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:44, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 03:49, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 03:49, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 07:40, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:45, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bioregulatory medicine[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Bioregulatory medicine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG; article that was moved here from draft version was huge load of WP:SYN, wrapping anybody associated with systems biology (like Leroy Hood) or personalized medicine under this umbrella. There are no reviews in Pubmed] discussing this kind of "medicine" and a look at the International Society website shows something pretty FRINGEy. Did a google search too and that only came up with all kinds fluffery. There are not enough independent sources to create an article; not even enough popular media sources to write about a cultural phenonenon. This appears to just be a neolgism from 1994 that has gone no where. If last AfD is replicated we may get a crush of socks coming....Jytdog (talk) 04:36, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 04:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with the concerns already outlined by the nominator. With the synthesised material stripped away, all that remains in this article is essentially a claim that bioregulatory medicine is notable by virtue of there being some associations that are concerned with this across several continents. I looked at the UK-based site. It claims to maintain a specialist register, although in the UK regulation of doctors is something that falls to the General Medical Council, including specialist registers. There is not a single mention of "bioregulatory" on the GMC website. There are other types of practitioners with voluntary register that are looked after by the Professional Standards Authority, but again not a single mention there either. Looking at the website of the UK bioregulatory foundation, it is run by a organisation that has changed its name several times and is currently the biomedic foundation. It is registered with the Charity Commission and has a declared income of around £50,000 a year. [118] Other parts of this UK bioregulatory website refer to a limited company. Profiles of the people associated suggest the company deals with selling educational materials aimed at an alternative medicine audience. So I think WP:FRINGE applies here too. Drchriswilliams (talk) 11:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nom and Drchriswilliams are correct, this is definitely WP:FRINGE. If anyone's in any doubt, try this: "Bioenergetic Health - realignment of bioresonance, quantum biofield and deblocking energetic points and associated feelings." Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no idependent verification of notability. Look like nothing but a new promo buzzword, akin to "holistic". All sources are form "bioreg" practicioners. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 07:40, 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 22:56, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dirt Bike Maniacs[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Dirt Bike Maniacs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nominating again, seeing as not a single person bothered to respond to the last AfD. Topic fails WP:GNG. Lacks significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. The1337gamer (talk) 06:43, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 06:44, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 07:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dennis Bratland and Czar's comments. Aoba47 (talk) 18:58, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Czar's accurate analysis. Found anything supporting a claim of notability except the noted ag.ru link, which is not enough. Cavarrone 08:21, 2 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. Third Relist was not necessary - unopposed for 23 days. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:09, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Jacobson[edit]

Mark Jacobson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be a competent jobbing journalist. Almost nothing is sourced and the one source provided simply shows him doing his day job. No evidence of any notability here. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   13:28, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • While I agree that the article is poorly sourced and formatted I think it is a good candidate for rehabilitation. Dude has written articles and books with reasonable cultural impact--the stories that led to both the TV show Taxi and the film American Gangster, for example. This article could stand to be more concise, sure, and it has far more biographical detail than is probably warranted, but I think a description of his work and a bibliography/filmography would prove a valuable resource. I propose this article be marked for cleanup and revision rather than deletion and will happily embark on making those edits once the article is out of danger. Shiner bock 81 (talk) 15:28, 2 October 2016 (UTC)— Shiner bock 81 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:45, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:01, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:01, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:01, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist Nordic Nightfury 07:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 07:39, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:50, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek Kumar Amber[edit]

Abhishek Kumar Amber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable poet. The sources, composed as they are of blogs and tabloids, do not meet WP:RS. They are therefore unable to support the claims of notability made: fails WP:GNG. The subject is not 'regarded as an important figure' and neither 'is widely cited by peers or successors'; he is not 'known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique'; and has not created 'a significant or well-known work or collective body of work.' Fails WP:NAUTHOR. Muffled Pocketed 08:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek kumar Amber is a famous indian hindi literature poet. his name is also added in Rashtriy kavi Sangam's directory which is national list of indian poets. His poems has published in many newspapers and magazines of india. Amber's poetry has also published in many online magazines like Hindi Kavita, Sahitya manjari , Swarg Vibha, Hindi Sahitya kavya Sankalan, Rachnakar, Hindi satire, Sahityapedia-Encyclopedia of hindi literature, Literature in india, Saavn.in. his poems has also published in bharat darshan which publish from New zeland, Anubhuti which publish from United States of Emirate. he is called the poet of love. He has also awarded by many awards like Anjuman-Farog-e-Urdu Award and Sahitya shri etc. His new poetry book will be publish soon. Arunim005 (talk) 11:54, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:08, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Previously submitted unsuccessfully by User:Abhishek Kumar Amber who was still trying to place the subject's name on Wikipedia until less than half an hour prior to the start of similar activity by the current WP:SPA editor. However the question here is whether any notability can be demonstrated. Notability is not inherited from having performed alongside others and, as the nomination says, the references look poor, with blogs and user-submitted sites. However it would be good if these and the awards claimed above could be evaluated by someone from Wikiproject India? AllyD (talk) 15:45, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If it's an autobiography (what it seems to be); I would suggest author to promote himself on his blog. Wikipedia is not a place to be famous.Anup [Talk] 20:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 07:39, 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. Relist was not necessary, consensus is clear Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Allchinatech[edit]

Allchinatech (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Speedy deletion tag removed. Non-notable startup, no references to reliable secondary sources. Article created by single-purpose conflict of interest account for promotional purposes, contrary to Wikipedia's WP:NOT policy. Citobun (talk) 12:49, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I can find only trivial mentions of this company and no significant coverage. Safehaven86 (talk) 01:59, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No sources provided to back the article outside of the company's website and twitter account. GreenMountainGate (talk) 18:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)Blocked sock. MER-C 13:05, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 07:38, 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 keep. The article will need significant expansion from the sources, with inline citations where appropriate. Will tag as such. (non-admin closure) Nordic Nightfury 11:51, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Godville[edit]

Godville (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG. ubiquity (talk) 14:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Izno (talk) 14:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per sourcing provided by Izno. Even if that was deemed somehow "not enough", the fact that it received dedicated coverage from the New York Times is probably a good indicator that there's more out there as well - that's pretty high level sourcing for a video game. I'd be open to discussing a redirect considering how little content is present in the article, but I'm not aware of any targets that would make sense... Sergecross73 msg me 14:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per the sourcing found, as well as a few more hits including Kotaku, TechnologyTell, and even a Russian RS, using the list maintained at WP:VG/RS. -- ferret (talk) 14:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of those were passing mentions. I didn't check the Russian RSs. --Izno (talk) 21:34, 20 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 22:56, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jazz Jaunystė[edit]

Jazz Jaunystė (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A search for significant coverage in reliable sources, even in Lithuanian, failed to find anything except brief mentions (usually mentioned along other jazz festivals in Europe) and event profiles. I couldn't find significant coverage specifically about the event. Given the event's age, it's possible more coverage exists offline, but as it stands, I can't find much. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: there's no sourcing available from which we could reasonably write an encyclopedic article. Safehaven86 (talk) 15:44, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is high time we remove all articles from Wikipedia that have no sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:41, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 07:37, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lack of reliable sources suggests that it isn't notable. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:48, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:59, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of universities in Thailand that offer international programs[edit]

List of universities in Thailand that offer international programs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NOTDIR (Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations). Paul_012 (talk) 16:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Dane2007 talk 18:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- in addition to what's said above, this list appears to be a promotional directory judging by the included URL. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:24, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 07:37, 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. Black Kite (talk) 10:40, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Invoca[edit]

Invoca (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I still confirm my extensive PROD here as this is still an advertisement and the sources following along with this state. SwisterTwister talk 01:48, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:48, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article is factual and contains no puffery – only objective summary information to inform the reader about this company. It contains 13 source citations, only a few of which are self-published (e.g., referencing the company website). It's brief, but it's reasonably solid. If you want to look for biased articles about non-notable topics, you'll find those elsewhere – this isn't one of them. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:55, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it is because the authoring account was a confirmed paid advertising user who contributed and started several advertisements for his clients, and this is clearly one of them, since all of the sources essentially involve what the company wants to say about itself, regardless of the source's name. When an article has to focus this heavily with what the company wants to talk about which is about its own money activities and its hopes for obtaining larger amounts of it, that not only confirms the fact the authoring user was paid by the company to start this advertisement, it shows that's the only intentions here, especially since (1) the advertising user has not been here for quite some time now and (2) this article has never been touched by anyone else at all. There are no compromises when it comes to blatant activities such as these. SwisterTwister talk 02:04, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that "this article has never been touched by anyone else at all". There are various editors in the article history (including about 20 edits by me, and I clearly have no COI here), although I won't dispute the fact that there has been some COI editing. If you're looking for an article that reads like an advertisement, take a look at the article about the company's competitor, CallRail. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and I have nominated all related articles to this for deletion so that's taken care of, but the mere and simple facts this is still an advertisement containing literally only what the company paid for what they wanted to include here, along with sources that largely contain this also, by either the company publishing their own PR or people republishing it for them. Even if there are a few other users, the PR environment still stays and it's something that cannot be improved if (1) those were the intentions all along and (2) searches are not finding anything else than said PR, therefore we cannot compromise or otherwise choose to keep such a questionable article. Also, even now that I have nominated all articles related, that would not be a complete defense for keeping this, if it too is questionable. SwisterTwister talk 02:28, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
After further review of the edit history, I do agree that the bulk of the edits look like potential COI edits, and the remaining edits (including mine) are mostly just gnoming. But I still think the article's not so bad. It fulfills the basic purpose of giving the reader information about the company in a reasonably neutral way, and it's good to be able to find basic summary information like this about companies. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:33, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did not author this article but I did perform some paid edits to it earlier this year, which I clearly disclosed per Wiki policy. I also followed Wikipedia guidelines by seeking input from the Wikipedia community on my proposed edits on the Talk:Invoca page, vs. just making the edits. Also, I purposely did not remove a highly unflattering addition to the article about Invoca's CEO. All that aside, I maintain that the article has a neutral tone, does not contain puffery, and that the company is notable enough to justify an article. JNorman704 (talk) 19:08, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:59, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – The article does not have a promotional tone. The article does not use peacock language, encourage readers to do business with the company, or extol the benefits of the company. North America1000 03:18, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I meant by "no puffery". —BarrelProof (talk) 06:10, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was addressing part of a concern stated in the nomination. However, we appear to concur... North America1000 06:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:PROMO; the article exists solely to serve as a client / investor prospectus, and provides no value to the project. The subject is an unremarkable, run-of-the mill minor private tech company. Article was created by Special:Contributions/Media_Star_Ungulate with few other contributions, and paid editing is about 100% certain, which is against policy. Please see WP:BOGOF: let's not encourage spammers by keeping this article. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  18:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 07:37, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually sources such as TechCrunch are not considered independent since it has a history, and its own article shows this, of publishing advertising and including the company's own PR to help publicize that company, and it also shows in the sheer fact the TC articles will literally say "information supplied by the company", "the company says today:", etc, Noozhawk is clearly some indie website so it cannot be taken as an actual independent source. Also, the Fortune article itself is simply trivial and never amounts to actual substance; therefore we cannot say this is independent, substantial or even significant.
Looking at that Fortune article mereley finds simple mentions, including "the company is based in....", "The company's services are....", "Invoca is in the business of....", "Here's what the Invoca President said:", "Invoca, another fast-growing player in this category is Chicago-based DialogTech, which counts companies like Uber, Zendesk and Terminix among its customers", "the company said" ....and that's literally all the Fortune article says. It shows the pattern I noted above, about how the company's own information is simply being republished, therefore it would not matter the publication's name if the contents are simply republished business listing-like information.
Also, the comment about "it has deep coverage about its funding" is not applicable, regardless of publication name, because the contents themselves in and of itself suggest it's simply the company publishing its own business financials and statements, that's not independent and it sure as hell is not significant, because it's literally publishing the company's own words. Especially since this said article itself goes to literal specifics about the company's own investors and clients and its current needs for obtaining them, that says enough by itself: Advertising PR. SwisterTwister talk 22:54, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 22:57, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 22:57, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:41, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alec McClure (actor)[edit]

Alec McClure (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. WP:BLP of an actor with no strong claim to passing WP:NACTOR and no strong reliable source coverage -- as written, the article states but fails to source that he's "best known" for a minor character role in a television series, and then goes straight to listing his filmography without actually containing any further substance about him. And the only reference present in the article at all is a film review which isn't even for his purportedly best-known role, and which just glancingly namechecks his existence as a minor supporting character in that film while failing to be about him in any substantive way. As always, an actor is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because he exists -- but neither the sourcing nor the substance here is enough to get him one. Bearcat (talk) 17:01, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete He has not had enough significant roles to pass our inclusion guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:26, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:07, 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) 19:00, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist Nordic Nightfury 07:37, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 07:37, 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 keep. MBisanz talk 22:56, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lost Society[edit]

Lost Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced, questionable notability Jac16888 Talk 21:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:27, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:27, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete & salt - recurrent A7. Cabayi (talk) 11:10, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can someone look at that Finnish article? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 07:37, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I translated the entire article from the Finnish Wikipedia into English and I put all eleven sources from it onto the English article with some rough translations that still need to be cleaned up. -- PK2 (talk) 02:40, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY. The band appears to be notable in their native country. I am not familiar with the sources which were added except for MTV, but they seem to be reliable (eg. Soundi, Yle, Blabbermouth.net, Kaaoszine, Keskisuomalainen). They also meet NMUSIC#2 as two of their albums charted in the Finnish album chart. Kudos to Jo-Jo Eumerus for noting the Finnish article was decently sourced and to PK2 for improving the page. Cavarrone 07:56, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Donnabella Mortel[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Donnabella Mortel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable actor. Page is here to promote someone else. Mortel lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. She does not have multiple significant roles in notable productions as asked for in WP:NACTOR. Per the consensus from the last afd, this article should be deleted. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:47, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:15, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure that the last AfD reached consensus, but regardless, delete. Does not meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. I looked through what she is done and the only major credits I could find associated with her were for Retail, The Value of Ex, and Hoodrats 2: Hoodrat Warriors. These works, however, are not notable; they do not meet WP:MOVIE and accordingly none of them have their own article. Sjrct (talk) 02:42, 9 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) 19:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Actor has a number of minor roles[119] but I couldn't find any coverage at all of Mortel in Highbeam, General Onefile, Questia, or Google, other than 4 press releases and a few articles about TV shows in which Mortel's name appears in the cast list near the bottom of the article. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As I mentioned to the admin who closed the previous discussion, not only did 3 participants (the nominator and 2 other editors) share a consensus for deletion, but the only "keep" comment wasn't based on any policy or guideline, and not defended when challenged. I have been unable to find any sources that suggest she meets any criteria in WP:NACTOR. The closing admin had no objection to re-nomination, however. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 07:35, 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 keep. MBisanz talk 22:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning[edit]

AfDs for this article:
International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article describes a journal published by a non-notable publisher (article recently deleted, new information since last AfD), which is described in a newly published paper as a vanity press with questionable practices.

The founder and current editor is David Parsons from his office in New Zealand. The article was started by user:Dparsonsnz. In other words, it's an advert.

Most of the content is primary sourced: X is indexed in Y, source, Y's entry on X. Some of the indexes look like resume padding to me.

There are no reliable independent sources offering substantive coverage of the subject itself. We can establish that it exists, but that's about it. Guy (Help!) 21:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Indexed in Scopus, so meets notability criteria of WP:NJournals and in my opinion, criterion #1 of WP:JOURNALCRIT. It is also indexed in the ACM digital library[120], which I consider somewhat selective. COI is a general concern, but the article was started 6 years ago and Dparsonsnz' last edit was 4 years ago. Promotion is a general concern, but in its present form the article is not particularly promotional. The article linked by the nom mentions IGI as a rogue book publisher, but says nothing about their journals that I can see. A notable journal and an article with surmountable problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 00:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The automated indexing argument used by proponents is a rehashing of 'it's in google so it's notable.' Stuartyeates (talk) 01:11, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Indexed in Scopus, which is fundamentally different from indexing in Google. Google (and GScholar) attempt to index everything. Indexes like Scopus only include a journal after it has been vetted by a committee of experts who judge the journal to be among the more important ones in its field. The only reason I !vote "weak keep" and not outright "keep" is that in my opinion Scopus is becoming more permissive than, for example, the Science Citation Index Expanded. --Randykitty (talk) 08:31, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Scopus doesn't talk about selection, but talks about "22,000 titles from over 5,000 publishers" which doesn't sound selective to me. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:29, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the Scopus selection criteria. While I agree with Randykitty that Scopus is less selective that it was in the past, it does have a transparent set of selection criteria that render it a selective index and distinguish it from a comprehensive automated indexing system like Google web search. --Mark viking (talk) 20:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering there are at least about 100,000 journals around, 20,000 is still pretty selective... --Randykitty (talk) 20:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 07:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The journal has it's notability and meets meets wiki indexing sources. Jessie1979 (talk) 06:19, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[Revert as per WP:BLOCKEVASION using strikethrough font.  20:30, 13 November 2016 (UTC)]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 22:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Snapheal[edit]

Snapheal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable WP:PRODUCT. Per WP:NOTCATALOG, "Encyclopedic significance may be indicated if mainstream media sources (not just product reviews) provide commentary on these details instead of just passing mention.". Product has reviews in the ususal product review websites, Macworld and CNET and so on, but that's it. Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No evidence of notability. Created by a WP:SPA, just lke the previous, deleted (PROD) article. Guy (Help!) 23:05, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete every app does not get an article. It appears the company might be called "Macphun" but that probably does not meet notability levels now either. Wait until there is enough. W Nowicki (talk) 23:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 07:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTCATALOGUE. An app needs to demonstrate notability independently of the parent company or the OS associated with it. Also, every app will receive the initial review but whether it receives coverage after that helps to indicate notability. In this case, I don't see anything which differentiates it from any other photo editing app - no widespread use or popularity. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:39, 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 22:58, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wichian Buri Grilled Chicken[edit]

Wichian Buri Grilled Chicken (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Confusing to say the least. The article does not necessarily tell me what exactly Wichian Buri Grilled Chicken is. Briefly "Mr. Sruang" is mentioned and the town of Wichian Buri, but nothing in here really supports the notability of the subject. Rather, it goes into detail as to all the different ways you can cook chicken, ferment chicken and some restaurant titled "Nai-Pae".

Possibly re-writing the article could satisfy notability concerns, but as it stands I think this needs to be deleted. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 21:54, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TNT. What a stinking mess. Bearian (talk) 00:34, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because whaaat is even happening in this article. Safehaven86 (talk) 01:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify to figure out what the topic of the article is supposed to be. Is it the regional thai chicken dish Wichian Buri, or is it the Wichian Buri Grilled Chicken Group that operates a restaurant chain, or even the Wichian Buri Grilled Chicken Festival operated by the same group? They all pass WP:V, but who knows about WP:N. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 08:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This appears to be part of an undocumented school assignment. For a few years now, around this time of year there's an influx of new articles, mostly Thai-cuisine-related, written in varying degrees of intelligibility. None of the authors have responded to queries regarding the nature of the class. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The article has been renamed to Wichian Buri grilled chicken. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 07:34, 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 22:58, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Godhong maple[edit]

Godhong maple (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable organisation. PROD was contested without explanation. This page was a school project; most others from the same class have been deleted already. – Fayenatic London 22:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 22:36, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 22:36, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 22:36, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a local Indonesian culture enthusiast group in Canada, but nothing to show it is notable. No claim of significance here. Hardly any coverage in RS to pass WP:ORGDEPTH. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Like other commercial and startups junks in here, NGO as usual want to do the blatant promotions on Wikipedia to show their notability. Just One of those so called NGO. Nothing to consider for Encyclopedic Material. Light2021 (talk) 17:02, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 07:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a largely unreferenced, promotional essay on an unremarkable organisation. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:50, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as stand alone article; could mention it in the city of Toronto article, but otherwise, non notable group and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Kierzek (talk) 20:35, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 22:58, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Fine Print and Other Yarns[edit]

The Fine Print and Other Yarns (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non Notable book Uncletomwood (talk) 07:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:19, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:19, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article claims that the book received a writeup in several major newspapers, however the only one I could find was The Sunday Tribune. The way that the article is phrased doesn't give up much hope that the mentions are substantial, given that it says that the papers only reported the book's release - meaning that they could have easily been a 1-2 sentence statement or a reprint of a press release. Barring those sources becoming available, I have to assume that they're WP:TRIVIAL coverage - especially given the statement "However, apart from this preliminary coverage, the Press has generally given the book a short shrift and there has not been any detailed review in any newspaper or journal. " I tried finding them in the WP:India search engine, but nothing came up with that other than the Tribune source. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now for failing WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG. I tried about half-an-hour but couldn't find any sources other than the one cited in the article and linked in above comment. There are few offline sources though from mainstream media but I don't really know what kind of coverage is in there. The author of article mentioned that, ...there has not been any detailed review in any newspaper or journal. and in the absence of accessibility, I'd stick to that opinion. Anup [Talk] 18:12, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete per CSD:A7. This article was a chopped down version of the one which was - correctly - speedy deleted, and contained nothing indicating why this topic is notable. The article creator was a SPA for articles relating to this firm.. Nick-D (talk) 22:55, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Switzer Super Report[edit]

Switzer Super Report (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable -- Whats new?(talk) 07:13, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:54, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:54, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:54, 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 22:58, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sandeep Garg[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Sandeep Garg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Obligatory afd submission. I don't what the version that was AfD'd before was like, but it seems like this draft has enough reliable, secondary sources. Voting keep as nominator. Prisencolin (talk) 05:45, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I don't know what you mean by obligatory submission (unless you mean you are bringing it here because it is a recreation; I don't think we have a rule that recreations HAVE to go to AfD, through it is not a bad idea). However, I do not see any reliable, secondary sources. The subject is mentioned in passing, never in-depth, and many sources are low quality; many read like press releases or are based on some (ex. [121]). The best source I see here is [122] and it does not look particularly impressive (and it is not about him but about how politics affected one of his businesses). This reads and looks like a spam entry, using Wikipedia:Bombardment tactic. In fact, if this is deleted, I would like to ask the deleting admin to screenshot this so we can add this to that essay as a textbook illustration. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was about to get speedied for WP:G7 but I thought this draft meets WP standards so I listed it at AfD instead.--Prisencolin (talk) 01:43, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete spam and duplication of previously deleted content and ABSOLUTELY a classic case of Wikipedia:Bombardment!!!--Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 06:31, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I'm been doing 06:58, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not Delete can you let me know what should be the criteria for notability. I don't think so this person is not notable enough as per your guidelines. All due refrences are provided. Most of coverages are in vernacular langauges which ofcourse won't be accepted by wiki norms and that's why they are not put forth. All mentions company are huge companies, having international recognizations. so i don't thik so notability shouldl be an issue to wikipedia. I have also put lots fo valied references about him. Ofcoursecrazy (talk) 10:51, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 15:51, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 15:51, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sources include: --Prisencolin (talk) 23:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

India Times: Last month, Indian entrepreneur Sandeep Garg, through his company Sandeep Gold Resources SARL, acquired seven exploration permits for $4.4 million from another miner, Golden Rim Resources , in western and southern Mali. One of these projects has confirmed reserves of seven tonnes of gold along with other discoveries, claims Sandeep Garg. The gold deal has been structured in such a way that Garg makes payments in three instalments. He plans to raise the $4.4 million from banks. "We planned to raise these funds internally and by way of debt from local banks in Mali. We also have plans to invest $15 million in the next one year and start producing gold in a year. On an average, we expect production costs to be $600 an ounce," he told ET.

The Hindu: “We have invested almost $100 million in the mine,” said Sandeep Garg, the Gurgaon-based former scrap merchant who set up Sahara Mining. “The total, including a fully integrated steel plant, will be more than $300 million.” ... The land is also home to hundreds of villagers who view the expansion of the mine with trepidation and are asking how they gain from the project. ... As licences and land become harder to acquire in India, businessmen like Mr. Garg are investing in African countries eager for big-ticket foreign investment. Africa could produce 10 per cent of the world’s iron-ore by 2025, according to a report by market research firm, Frost & Sullivan, and currently accounts for between three and four per cent of global supply. West Africa has emerged as the new frontier for exploration with 15 major mining projects, with a capital expenditure of $36.9 billion, in progress. ... Sandeep Garg built his network in West Africa in the 1990s by exporting scrap from countries like Senegal, Sierra Leone, Guinea Bissau and Mali to buyers in India. “The major source of scrap in Africa is old vehicles,” said Mr. Garg, explaining his buyers were induction furnace operators in towns like Ghaziabad, Chennai and Raipur. India accounts for about 5 per cent of annual global scrap imports. ... “Africa is more comfortable as there is no competition,” Mr. Garg noted. “Infrastructure-wise, there are a lot of things they have to build.”

Being cited by a few sources, which also describe one's business/career in few sentences, is not enough to be in an encyclopedia. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:10, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It meets GNG so it belongs on Wikipedia. This isn't Britannica.--Prisencolin (talk) 20:54, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non notable person. Being mentioned in newspapers isn't the same as meeting the WP:N criteria. Yintan  19:35, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Subject lacks substantial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Thus fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. If it is created one more time, G7 it, and salt the title. Anup [Talk] 19:47, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete:Mentioned in newspapers in a few lines and in minor websites do not constitute WP:Notability.
@Ofcoursecrazy:Yeah,you can put vernacular news reports!
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. withdrawing, due to sources found. Will someone else please remove the content that should be removed. DGG ( talk ) 20:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is SportsCenter[edit]

This is SportsCenter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Inadequate references for notability, which is not surprising, since it is complete trivia DGG ( talk ) 04:29, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep this is ridiculous, this was a well known campaign all over the United States, seen by million of sports fans, and featuring many famous athletes. I need to also warn that the user just deleted another of the pages I originated, Elizabeth Koshy (actress) without a deletion vote first. Furthermore I suspect-not saying he/she is but that I suspect he/she may be-the user is using many different usernames because a short while ago User:Deb deleted the Elizabeth Koshy page, again without any votes first. Please, before putting pages up for deletion, do your research.And before deleting it, please take it to VFD first. Wikipedia is not an autocracy. Also the user told me I could be blocked indefinitely for writing an inappropriate page? and then proceeded to block me! What does my edition of Elizabeth Koshy (actress) have that is so inappropriate? Antonio What The Heck Martin (User page:AntonioMartin|dime aca]]) 05:41, October 25, 2016 (UTC)
    • Uh, both you and User:DGG need some time out, how about WP:TEA? Antonio, DGG is a respect member of the community, and he certainly is not harassing you through sockets (or I will eat my Wikipedia t-shirt; don't have a hat). That said, DGG, are you a bit overworked? Leaving a generic warning message on a talkpage of a user who seems to AGF try to help out and is not a SPA is not very nice. Let's shake hands and be friends, ok? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:49, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can assure you I am not a sock of DGG! The idea of it is somewhat amusing, though...:-)Deb (talk) 08:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article can meet WP:GNG if reliable sources can be added to prove its notability, and these sources exist. Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 05:05, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but delete most of OR content. Wow. Well, first, let's all agree - this is a gigantic pile of WP:OR. Now, regarding the series of spots, it still has to meet GNG. What do we have so far? [123] and [124]. Well, they are not perfect but they seem sufficient. I also found Ray Gamache (13 July 2010). A History of Sports Highlights: Replayed Plays from Edison to ESPN. McFarland. pp. 169–. ISBN 978-0-7864-5664-2.. With all due respect to User:DGG, I think this time you missed the mark - the topic is notable. Again, the problem is that this article is 99% fancruft/OR, but we don't need AfD to blank most of that content.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:45, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus, not that it is germane to the present article, but look at the history of both Elizabeth Koshy (actress)) and Liza Koshy, most recently created by the user here. They have been deleted 5 times by 4 different admins; the people who nominated were also experienced editors. Except for the present editor, everyone who recreated it was a different single purpose account. My warning was for that article, and I should have specified. I also probably should have used level 3, not level 4. I think I would have been remiss had I not warned for that one. I would not have warned for this--I don't usually warn when I send to AfD, only for Speedy. DGG ( talk ) 15:57, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a very well known, long lived advertising series. These ads get discussed extensively in other sports media. Piotrus has already noted the AdWeek article about the series [125]. Here's something from TIME magazine [126] and some extensive content from a book about ESPN [127]. Lots more apparent in searches. There's not enough room in the main SportsCenter article to cover this well, so I think a separate article is warranted. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:43, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 08:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bromberg's[edit]

Bromberg's (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

User:TonyBallioni prodded it with the following rationale: "Unsourced article about a company that appears to fail WP:ORG and WP:GNG" It was deprodded by it's WP:SPA creator, User:Anne Rast yoder, who added some general sources ([128]). They seem difficult to verify, and seem like mostly local news coverage. As such, I concur with prod nominator: the coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement.. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:55, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:02, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:02, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the reason I didn't nominate for AfD after the original prod was that the references provided and further search suggested to me that it was notable. I'm inclined to agree with Arxiloxos here. It's in huge need for clean up, but I think it's notable. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:31, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH per a review of available sources. In addition to the sources posted above, see the article for more. North America1000 09:16, 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Meatsgains (talk) 23:21, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Pereira[edit]

Ivan Pereira (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly structured WP:TNT Meatsgains (talk) 03:30, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Bishops are notable, and the first sentence of this is fine. Some others could be salvaged too, probably. Delete few sentences, format, but nothing warranting TNT. It's just your average crappy stub. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:57, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per piotrus' reason. This nomination is a misuse of the WP:TNT clause. Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 05:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but the state of the article leaves a lot to be desired. Where's that article tidier that pops around from time to time when we need him? Karl Twist (talk) 09:28, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 23:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 23:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 23:06, 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 22:59, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley H. Zagora[edit]

Stanley H. Zagora (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I would like to ask if he (and most others at Category:County legislators in New York, but this is not a mass nom) meet WP:POLITICIAN. Looking at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Politicians, I note that we draw the line somewhere at province to municipal politicians. Well, what is province in the US context? Is a county in NY more important that a town in that region? Looking at this bio, I see nothing to merit inclusion in Wikipedia except if we argue that he meets POLITICIAN as a province-level one, which honestly suggests we are way to inclusive of such minor personalities, and that we may need to have a wider discussion about the wording of that policy. For now, I'd ask you all to review this bio and its sources, and think whether this person is notable or not. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:24, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A county in New York and any US state is higher jurisdiction than a town/village/city.Davidjarka (talk) 13:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:58, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Service as a county-level (US) legislator does not meet the presumption of notability under WP:POLITICIAN. A Google search does not provide any more references than the subject's obituary in the Buffalo News (and a handful of articles where the subject is name-checked in). - Enos733 (talk) 15:38, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While county-level office can get a person into Wikipedia under WP:NPOL #2 ("Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage") if the article is solidly sourced over WP:GNG, it is not a level of office that confers automatic inclusion rights on every county official who exists (see NPOL corollary #3) — for a county councillor to clear the Wikipedia inclusion bar, he must be sourceable to more than just local media as more notable than the norm for some substantive reason. This article doesn't satisfy either part of that equation, however: it's minimally sourced to the WP:ROUTINE level of purely local coverage that a county councillor would be expected to generate in the local media, and it's written very much like the kind of generic "our members" profile one might see on the county government's own website if he were still in office. There's just nothing shown here that makes him a topic the world needs to know about. Bearcat (talk) 17:03, 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 Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:13, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GreenTouch Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article has been deleted via prod before-company with a questionable notability. Wgolf (talk) 03:10, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah the article was recreated in July and never tagged it seems and someone patrolled it and nobody saw it ever. If it wasn't for the fact that it was on my watchlist and it reappeared I would of never known. Wgolf (talk) 03:35, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:30, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:30, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:30, 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. MBisanz talk 23:01, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kelsey Scott[edit]

Kelsey Scott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable actress who had guest appearances on two shows and minor roles in two films Meatsgains (talk) 02:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a clearcut case of only trivial works and then a listed interview to boot, none of it actually substantiates notability, let alone anything of a better successful career. SwisterTwister talk 03:00, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 23:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 23:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SSTflyer 12:40, 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. MBisanz talk 23:01, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Waldron IV[edit]

Richard Waldron IV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is nothing notable about Waldron. The trivial point about his earliest possible contribution to language is just that, trivial. The sources are weak, and do not indicate intestest beyond a few geneaologists. Waldron is just plain not notable. He was a teenager making a transcription, not a writer that anyone else read, so he did not impact language in any real way. John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Barely a WP:BIO1E situation. I have included a little additional information in Richard Waldron (Secretary)#Family. Redirect to preserve history might be required. I was thinking that selective merge to Toilet#Euphemisms would be useful, but the sourcing is questionable since it's a blog (though an expert one), no book sources could be found (OED just credits Harvard), the term used (cuzjohn) might be a precursor of "john" but there's not an obvious line since the first use of "john" appears to be 1932, and may be derived from jack/jakes... and Waldron didn't actually invent the term "cuzjohn" anyway but was copying an older source. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 10:04, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:10, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:10, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. Sources don't make out any real claim of notability. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:12, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • DElete obviously NN, even if his copy of the rules was the first extant use of the word. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:11, 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 keep. Article has since been improved and sources, Also towns etc etc are kept per GEOLAND, Anyway consensus is to keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 00:00, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Panjeta[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Panjeta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mass of red links. Fails WP:GNG. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:37, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:50, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:50, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article already mentioned the village in Ludhiana district. I have just expanded on that. The caste stuff remains as unverifiable as it was at the original 2013 AfD and should be removed, but that is not a reason to delete the remainder of the content. - Sitush (talk) 05:45, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the caste stuff. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:21, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NPLACE. Small-village stubs are perfectly acceptable provided they can be shown to exist (which this one does). Primefac (talk) 20:49, 31 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 23:01, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Burns (blogger)[edit]

Eric Burns (blogger) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't see anything at Eric Burns (blogger) that makes him notable. Most of the content was added by an anonymous IP address in 2005 [135]. Tom Ruen (talk) 00:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:23, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lack of coverage that would pass GNG. Webcomic creators and developers are very rarely notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:50, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I would count The Telegraph and "Graphic Novels and Comics in Libraries and Archives" at least as a start of notability, although I agree it could use more. BOZ (talk) 05:58, 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) 05:54, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:26, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The 25 Webcomics and Libraries source mentions the subject once in passing, which is hardly significant coverage. The newspaper is a localized source, and going by the headline (which refers to the subject as "New Hampshire man") it's a local spotlight, not significant coverage. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters (1974–76). Any material to be merged can be taken from the page history. (non-admin closure) TonyBallioni (talk) 01:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hydra (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

Hydra (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article does not establish notability. The mythological basis is not a reason to have an article. TTN (talk) 01:00, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 01:00, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 01:00, 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 merge to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 08:13, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gibbering mouther[edit]

Gibbering mouther (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 00:59, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 01:00, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 01:00, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2016_October_25&oldid=1142620774"