Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 October 3

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 2 October	4 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy deletion. Apparently a test page of some kind. Whatever it was, it's been twice deleted now at CSD. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Borzoni[edit]

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

Page unnecessary Joeyborzo (talk) 17:22, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 November 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:29, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. As mentioned, the current title isn't suitable for a redirect. But, if anybody wants to create a redirect with a more concise title, go ahead.

I did take the liberty of adding the image to List of crossings of the Connecticut River -- RoySmith (talk) 01:09, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Route 3 Bridge over the Connecticut River[edit]

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

No References, I just looked all around, and I couldn't find anything but mirror sites for this article.--JJBers (talk) 11:01, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 September 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:05, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:04, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very ordinary, small concrete bridge built in the 1960s. No notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:17, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:17, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment(humor alert!) "... built in the 1960s. No notability.", not that there is anything inherently non-notable about something being built in the 1960s ... Coolabahapple (talk) 15:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. Or Move to a more concise title and redirect to List of crossings of the Connecticut River. MB 22:21, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Close, I think it's been decided that this is just a redirect. I'll wait for another 12 hours (12:00, 10-1-16, UTC), but if nothing happens, I close this, move the page, and redirect it.— JJBers (talk) 00:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As the nominator had closed this AFD I'm not entirely sure if it would go unknown so am relisting - I have no objections to any admin or Non-Admin closing this under any outcome, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 23:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 23:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. In my opinion it is obviously better to redirect the article than to delete it, probably to List of crossings of the Connecticut River. No reason to antagonize the contributors to the article, and they weren't really obviously wrong to create the article. I see that JJBers was concluding Redirect is the correct outcome already. --doncram 06:33, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- What's the point of redirecting? Who on earth is ever going to search for or link to that cumbersome and artificial title? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:41, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Transformers: Energon characters. Up to editors whether to merge anything from the history. Sandstein 11:05, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Omnicon[edit]

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

This subset of characters currently fails to establish notability for the grouping as a whole. As there are numerous character lists, there is no need for this to act as a list of characters either. TTN (talk) 22:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 22:34, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Transformers: Energon characters. The information in the article not related to this particular show isn't sourced. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:02, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect There is now nothing to merge that is sourced (both sources are included at Strongarm (Transformers)). I am against including more WP:OR into any target article but am open to a redirect to Transformers as a potential search term. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:59, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or, if anyone genuinely cares, trim and merge. No evidence of real-world notability. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:07, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per ArgentoSurfer. Lists like those are where information like this should go. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:54, 11 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" 11:58, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Lúgaro[edit]

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

promotional - candidate for election. Not otherwise notable. Rathfelder (talk) 21:55, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk · contribs) 23:43, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:44, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:44, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:POLITICIAN. Bulk of coverage about her has been in regards to campaign, which doesn't meet WP:GNG per aforementioned policy. Safehaven86 (talk) 03:51, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unelected candidates need a lot more coverage than we see here to pass notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:19, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as by far not convincing for WP:POLITICIAN and nor should she be as there's literally nothing else aside from that 1 event. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Michig (talk) 08:11, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miami–Nebraska football rivalry[edit]

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

Unsourced, only 12 meetings and no trophy. p b p 21:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Google search shows several reliable, secondary sources calling the teams rivals. Sports Illustrated, Athlon Sports, Fox Sports, USA Today, Associated Press. Easily passes GNG. Lizard (talk) 22:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk · contribs) 23:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk · contribs) 23:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:41, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:41, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The sources provided above by Lizard the Wizard show that WP:N is met. Note that the article is sourced at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:42, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there's no number requirement for a rivalry that I'm aware of. There's no requirement for a trophy for a rivalry to exist. And the sourcing is something easily fixed by editing rather than deletion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - GNG is passed per available sources. --Mhhossein ^talk 16:36, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Greyhawk characters. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:25, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cat Lord[edit]

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

This article currently fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 21:15, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Greyhawk characters. BOZ (talk) 21:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. No independent coverage. Grayfell (talk) 00:43, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BOZ. The concept of animal archetypes/personifications has a long history in literature (Death of Rats springs to mind), but I don't really see a way to create an article on such archetypes in D&D, and defer to BOZ' suggested targeting. Jclemens (talk) 04:35, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:02, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Utter bit of trivia: are article is somewhat wrong. I believe this character started in a piece of fiction in Dragon magazine in the 80s. Good fiction too. But yeah, merge is fine. Hobit (talk) 04:40, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 12:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Sorenson (recording engineer)[edit]

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

Appears to be the same person as John A. Sorensen Rathfelder (talk) 21:11, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Two instances of the same article, neither ideally named, with the earlier instance nominated here. I am going to redirect the 2016 copy to this article to simplify matters and preserve contribution history. AllyD (talk) 07:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I am literally finding nothing and none of this suggests an actually better article at all, there's certainly nothing here suggesting otherwise so that's not surprising there are no hopes of improvements, of course let alone substance. Naturally, there's no serious independent notability by simply having named people and groups listed. SwisterTwister talk 02:45, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable recording engineer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:43, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --an underdeveloped LinkedIn profile. Nothing notable about the subject, while it attempts to WP:INHERIT notability from more notable entities. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Greyhawk deities. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:25, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lendor[edit]

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

This article currently does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 21:11, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:11, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:11, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Greyhawk deities. BOZ (talk) 21:13, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BOZ. Jclemens (talk) 04:33, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:02, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Greyhawk deities. Lots of in-universe, non-independent sources, but there's nothing that can establish notability. Google Books results are slim and don't help much, either. The entry in the list needs to be expanded, so I recommend against deletion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:07, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:46, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Avani Technology Solutions Inc[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Cited sources amount to local coverage, press releases, and a listing in the INC 5000. No evidence of any significant, in-depth coverage. Borderline WP:SPAM. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: my searches yielded only WP:TRIVIALCOVERAGE. I see no evidence of WP:GNG. Safehaven86 (talk) 03:13, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:39, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable, as only local coverage. Also somewhat promotional, for instance the spam quoting in the references. Joseph2302 07:03, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 07:04, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 07:04, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject not notable, references all appear to be based on press releases. Maproom (talk) 07:31, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete — Per nom and CSD A7, CSD G11. CSD tag added to article. Murph9000 (talk) 09:55, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Speedy declined (by another editor). The spam issues can be addressed, and the company is not unambiguously non-notable, which is why we're having this discussion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:36, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  I didn't see a WP:CCS in there when I added the CSD tag, I still don't see one now. I have no issue with the CSD being declined, it just seemed quite possible that the article might well meet the criteria, saving some time for everyone. I don't see notability either in the article or in Google. It's not so promotional now that it has been trimmed down, but still feels like a probable CSD A7 to me. Murph9000 (talk) 13:07, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam, likely written by a paid editor. In fact, I'm about 100% sure that the editing was paid due to sections on "History", "Locations" and "Products". Wikipedia is not a WP:WEBHOST for a company's web site material. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:41, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 08:18, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

C. Narayanan[edit]

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

Almost no relevant information has been provided about the subject, so it is very difficult to know for what he is notable, but from the titles of the references (about elections at the ward level), it appears he does not meet the notability guidelines for policitians. ubiquity (talk) 20:11, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He is a candidate for the 2016 local elections on the AIADMK party list in the Dindigul district. He certainly does not meet WP:POLITICIAN for now. I couldnt find anything elese on him, he does not seem to be notable for WP:GNG either. It should therefore be deleted, especially as the article has currently no content other than an infobox. Dead Mary (talk) 06:44, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete: appears to be failing WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Anup [Talk] 17:59, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing in article suggests he has ever actually held elective office.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:21, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and salt.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:01, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pragma SSH ClientSuite[edit]

(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)

Was PRODed with the rationale "non notable software-- no evidence of significance" which seems fair enough to me given the complete lack of any RS references. It has since been dePRODed by the author with the comment "We object to the deletion. Pragma SSH ClientSuite is a major commercial successful ssh client with thousands of paying customers at Fortune 500 and US Govt/US DoD. The entry will be improved in coming days, thanks for your patience." I a sorry to say that, when I realised that the author shares a name with the CEO of the company that makes this product, my patience pretty much evaporated. The article about the company does not demonstrate notability and is unreferenced too. Its original author also shared a name with a then senior employee of the company. The whole thing smells promotional and, following an (admittedly cursory) search for anything that demonstrates notability, I think both articles need to go. There is some sort off a relationship with Cisco but I'm not seeing much apart from press releases that could source it and notability is not inherited anyway. DanielRigal (talk) 19:47, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 20:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt all name variants I speedied it as well. Then it came back, and it hasn't grown any notability. I couldn't even find category reviews. GNews is three press releases. There is no evidence anyone cares about this software - David Gerard (talk) 23:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here are comments from the article author who is a co-founder and current CEO of the company. I (quamrulmina the author) represent Pragma Systems who publishes "Pragma SSH ClientSuite" SSH client package. We were creating wiki entry for it and add to "ssh client comparision" table that is in wikipedia also. We are a legitimate good SSH vendor and this product is used by many for Windows SSH needs.

On the product's notability and Cisco relationship aspects. Pragma SSH ClientSuite is the only Cisco tested and certified RFC 6187 software in the market for SSH access to Cisco devices. Over 4 years partnership of Pragma with Cisco this software was developed. Cisco developed the RFC 6187 compliant SSH on the server side and Pragma developed the client side. US Govt IRS just bought on Sept 29, 2016, a large licence of Pragma SSH ClientSuite to manage their Cisco SSH networks. US DoD, US Army, Canadian Air Force are also big users of Pragma SSH ClientSuite. Oracle Cloud, McKesson, HSBC bank, Hilton hotels and many other companies are large users of Pragma's SSH offerings ( Pragma SSH ClientSuite and Pragma Fortress SSH Server ). US Govt OMB mandates RFC 6187 based 2-factor Govt PIV smart-card based authentication in place of password/SSH public key. Pragma SSH ClientSuite fills the need and that is why Cisco certified us and is promoting our client for use in Cisco networks. Our Cisco-Pragma white paper on 2factor ssh can be found at: http://www.pragmasys.com/products/support/cisco-2-factor

Oracle has OEM licensed Pragma SSH clients and servers for use in Oracle cloud. HSBC bank uses our SSH clients and servers worldwide in over 50 countries. McKesson ( Fortune #6) embeds Pragma SSH servers and clients in their Imaging stations. All these we are talking about paid customers. Thanks. Quamrul Mina. Co-founder, Pragma Systems, Inc. Quamrulmina (talk) 21:41, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 22:39, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as spam; strictly "product brochure" content on non notable software packages. Salt all as well. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:06, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:07, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SNOW Delete and Salt as this is blatant advertising and it has become so serious that it simply restarts a ridiculous amount of times where it becomes severe, none of this establishes actual independent notability and substance and I'm not seeing anything to suggest there is otherwise. SwisterTwister talk 03:09, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:44, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Venezuela at regional beauty pageants[edit]

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

Did not meet WP:GNG. The list of representatives did not received significant coverage. This is an original research. Richie Campbell (talk) 18:57, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:36, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- unreferenced original research and WP:LISTCRUFT. Not something one would expect to find in an encyclopedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:17, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another unneeded list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:15, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) ubiquity (talk) 13:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Harry McKirdy[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NFOOTY. ubiquity (talk) 17:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator: as noted below, I misinterpreted the article. ubiquity (talk) 13:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Struway2 (talk) 18:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nominator is mistaken about subject not meeting WP:NFOOTY. When the creator removed the proposed deletion template, they also added a reliable source for subject making his debut for Stevenage in Football League Two, a league listed as fully professional, and thus meeting WP:NFOOTY criterion 2. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I was also going by the article itself which says "Mckirdy is a product of the Aston Villa academy but has yet to make a first team appearance." Is that incorrect? ubiquity (talk) 19:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think that means he hasn't yet made a first-team appearance for Aston Villa. Which is correct, but his subsequent appearance for Stevenage is still enough to make him presumed-notable per WP:NFOOTY. I'll clarify the wording in the article in the morning when I'm awake. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 23:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets NFOOTBALL; needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 19:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:33, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:33, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:33, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes NFOOTY, has played in a fully professional league or in a match in the competition proper (i.e. not qualifying rounds) of a cup competition which involved two teams both from FPLs. Fenix down (talk) 10:28, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per the latest uncontested sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:46, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gary D.[edit]

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

Not an obviously notable DJ, mainly underground performances without significant commercial success (although to be fair that probably wasn't what he wanted), a search for reliable sources brings up very little. Article creator was subsequently blocked. Causes of death are unsourced. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:10, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While i was able to find what I thought was one, slightly reliable source in regards to his death, the entire article is copy and pasted from this wiki page. Lack of reliable sources in regards to his music career leads me to believe notability cannot be verified and the page should be deleted. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 21:13, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think he (just) meets WP:MUSICBIO and here's a another source mentioning his death. More sources: [1] and [2]. The article needs a lot of work, though. Yintan 21:44, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:11, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:11, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 17:07, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If one discounts the "per X" opinion by Tomwsulcer, there are only two editors who support keeping the article. Although they make valid arguments about media usage of the term, they fail to convince the substantial majority on the "delete" side, who also make valid arguments according to which the sources do not establish the concept in the way the article presents it, which makes the article OR by synthesis. In response to a concern raised in the discussion, there is no basis in policy for taking any particular holidays into account when closing the discussion. Sandstein 08:58, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian settlement[edit]

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

Not a term of common use, a bad attempt at equivalency. The article seems to be in response to Israeli settlement, but that is a topic well-covered by reliable sources, whereas this is not. A search on "Palestinian settlement" does get a large number of hits, but nearly all are about an "Israeli-Palestinian settlement", not supposedly illegally built localities in the West Bank. Nableezy 16:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Nableezy 16:41, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Nableezy 16:41, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as obviously invented by the article's creator. Failing that, delete and salt. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:52, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete what an absurdity; the only "Palestinian settlement" "of note" was the tent-camp Bab al-Shams...which existed for the whole of two days...... and has its own article, (with the same material added to multiple articles on Wikipedia). Sigh. Huldra (talk) 20:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as synthesis and soapboxing. Compare Palestinian law , which I created, or even Legal status of the State of Palestine, with this disaster. Bearian (talk) 23:56, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. So, I read the article, and this discussion, and I admit that although there is an enormous amount of illegal (without building permits) Arab construction in the Palestinian territories and in Israel proper, I had not seen this term used. But there's this great thing called google that lets you check assertions, including the assertion that the only settlement described in these terms is Bab al-Shams, or the assertion that this term is "invented" by article creator.

A $1 billion bet on peace: Qatar funds huge Palestinian settlement in West Bank, NBC News [3]
"Mockingly referred to by some as ″the first Palestinian settlement," Rawabi is... Qantara.de, [4]
"For instance, the father of the Palestinian settlement of Rawabi in the.."Jerusalem Post opinion column by Caroline Glick [5]
Building the first 'Palestinian settlement' BBC [6]. "Some have called Rawabi the first 'Palestinian settlement'." (add quotation form article).E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:47, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Rawabi has made Masri a controversial figure. The city has been widely described by Palestinians and Israelis alike as a Palestinian settlement, because of its Israeli-style architecture. Masri responds that he has taken steps to avoid settlement associations. There will be no red roofs, for example." The Forward [7] This article, in an American Jewish left -wing, anti-settlement newspaper, describes Rawabi as a site purchased and funded by a highly political Palestinian-American businessman, and casts the construction of Rawabi as a deliberate inversion of the Israeli settlement paradigm in which American businessmen purchase land and fund Israeli settlements.

This [8] article in The Daily Telegraph also describes Rawabi as a Palesitnian settlement responding to Israeli settlements.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vice (magazine): Bab al-Shams: The Short Life of a Palestinian Settlement [9] describes Bab al-Shams in much the way the articles cited above describe Rawabi: as a "Palestinian settlement" established as a political response to the construction of Israeli "settlements".E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:46, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Haaretz cites Israelis advocating removal of what they describe as "an illegal Palestinian settlement" in the Kidron Valley, [10].E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My searches found the term in use to describe a number of other instances of politically motivated Palestinian construction: "organizing haphazard Palestinian settlement across the territory... built without Israeli permission and contravene international law..." Aid or political meddling? Israel, EU spar over Palestinian buildings, [11], Times of Israel.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Among the more interesting of these for our purposes this one, Fatah and Hamas laud activists for E1 tent village, "Fatah on Saturday called on its members to head to the hill (Bab a-Shams) and fight 'the monster and the cancer that devour Palestinian land through settlements' (by building a tent encampment)... PA dailies lauded the first Palestinian settlement drive as..." [12] In other words, in 2013 Palestinian settlements were being actively promoted by the Palestinian Authority.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Summing up: My searches make it clear that "Palestinian settlement" is in fact a term in the increasingly wide use by mainstream media to describe the political phenomenon of pro-Palestinian activists and funders responding to Israel settlements of disputed legality with Palestinian settlements of disputed legality. The wide circulation and mainstream use of this term, and its notability as a phenomenon, ought not to be in dispute - because the sources exist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You should read your sources. The first NBC article never once calls a Palestinian locality a settlement outside of the title. An opinion column by Caroline Glick is not a reliable source for anything other than the opinion of Caroline Glick. The Telegraph peace never once describes any Palestinian locality as a settlement. Bab al-Shams has been covered by Huldra and has an article. The Times of Israel attributes the idea that Palestinians are building settlements to Regavim (NGO), a pro-settler group that is not a reliable source. In sum, none of your articles support your claim. Not a single one. nableezy - 16:35, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You need to refrain from making sweeping accusations that are false. (See direct quotations above, in linked articles).E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:49, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You need to actually read what you cite. I made no sweeping accusaitons [sic] that are false, I actually went through each article. Try doing that once in a while instead of googling "Palestinian settlement". nableezy - 16:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I urge editors to read the articles I cite; where I put "quotation marks" it is because I am quoting material that is in these articles. The phrase is in use by major ~~news agencies~~ (replace with media: the phrase is in use by major news media). The fact that you dislike Caroline Glick does not alter the fact that she is a notable figure in the IP conversation; her use of this term is therefore significant. WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT is not a valid argument.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not in use by major news agencies, and you shouldnt mislead people like that. When an opinion writer says something its not a news article, sorry to tell you. When a news article quotes Regavim as calling something a Palestinian settlement, that is the news agency attributing that phrase to Regavim. We dont base our articles on fascist NGOs or op-eds sorry to say. nableezy - 16:48, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa. fascist?E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG calls for reliable sources, while these certainly include headlines and use in the BBC and by NBC News, notability is not restricted to "major news agencies," an assertion I view as a form of WP:BLUDGEON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:10, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Try reading the articles and not simply the headlines. Nowhere in either article does it call anything a Palestinian settlement. Once again, actually read wha you cite. And um, you are the one that claimed that the phrase is in use by major news agencies. I was responding to that blatantly false assertion. nableezy - 17:31, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I wrote of the "increasingly wide use by mainstream media." Not of "major new agencies, which worul refer more narrowly to Reuters, AP, AFP.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:46, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus christ, your words are right here on this page. I have no idea why bs about what is still on this page. You wrote: The phrase is in use by major news agencies, which is not true. nableezy - 18:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some of us find your language highly offensive.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:36, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And thats a response to your repeated false statements about what you wrote how? nableezy - 20:38, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, now I see. I did what I perceive you as doing: typing while angry. I knew that that is not the sort of assertion that I would have made, I see now that I did write that, a case of typing while angry; a just anger caused by your failure to read the sources I provided - or to carry out a careful search before flinging accusations at me. It was not in my original comments. I have now corrected it. I do correct errors of both judgment and of fact.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:36, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I havent failed to read the sources, you apparently however have. Keep your "perceptions" to yourself. nableezy - 20:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Laugh at myself, for apologizing. Articles are sourced to both the BBC, which operates both as a broadcaster and as a news agency, and to Agence France-Presse.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:12, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an Israeli diplomat writing in 2009 in the National Review, this is WP:RS for the use and notability of this term. "Recently announced plans for a new, upscale Palestinian settlement in the West Bank are impressive. The projected town, some six miles north of Ramallah, will one day house some 40,000 people, making it the same size as the Israeli settlement towns of Beitar and Modiin. The settlement is named Rawabi, and Qatar is a primary investor...." [13].E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:14, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
From the Palestinian side of the political spectrum we have Palestine Monitor "its critics call it a 'Palestinian settlement' and say..." [14].E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an academic discussion of "the leftist critique of Rawabi as a 'Palestinian settlement' that is ubiquitous in the cafés and bars of Ramallah." Reimagining resilience; Urbanization and identity in Ramallah and Rawabi, Arpan Roy, City Journal Vol. 20, issue 3; July 2016 [15].E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Rawabi is a 'Palestinian settlement' currently under construction at a cost nearing US$1 billion. It is located..." [16].E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"A model of Rawabi, a proposed Palestinian settlement on the West Bank ..." The Daily Telegraph [17].E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"This is a Palestinian settlement, not a city." Arutz Sheva [18].E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:00, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign Policy: "Some even describe it derisively as a "Palestinian settlement,..." [19] E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:03, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There's already an article for Rawabi, so most of the above links are useless; anyway they do not have anything to do with the subject of the article. "Settlements" in English can simply refer to a place where people live. Rawabi is simply a planned city in the West Bank - there's nothing really special about it. "Israeli settlement", on the other hand, is typically used for a specific kind of settlement, namely on occupied territories. This page is simply a not-too-subtle attempt at false equivalence with Israeli settlement. Some of the links above can potentially be used on the Rawabi page. There are some people who derisively call Rawabi a "Palestinian settlement" but that's simply a criticism connecting the two concepts and not a literal description. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 18:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, because reading the article or the sources above shows that the term has been applied to a number of settlements built by and for Palestinian settlement, including, but not limited to, Bab al-Shams, and sources above describe these settlements and failed attempts to build settlements as a political response by Palestinian activists to the Israeli settlement movement. In other words, the use of this term in RS goes well beyond Rawabi.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:36, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sources do not do that. You take a single mention of a "settlement" from a caption in an article that repeatedly calls it a "suburb" and never once in the prose of the article says anything about a Palestinian "settlement". I really do not understand why bluster when anybody can check the links and see you are not being honest about their contents. nableezy - 18:53, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Bab al-Shams stuff has nothing in common with Rawabi. The former was a temporary tent encampment, which lasted all of two days. The latter is a big planned city. The fact that you're Googling "Palestinian settlement" which returns results for two totally unrelated things is an indication of the uselessness of this page. Rawabi is not a "resistance village" set up by activists - its sponsors include Qatar and was promoted by Tony Blair. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 19:04, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What Rawabi has in common with the several "resistance villages," beyond the shared label "Palestinian settlement," is reliably sourced goal of building new settlements as a direct, political response to the the building of Israeli settlements.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2 articles linked below from a guy at the University of Oslo say it does. Kingsindian, Nableezy, you need to run some searches, because there is a lot out there - much of it from anti-Israel activists and academics, some from Palestinian sources, but you won't find it unless you look.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:15, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting pro-Palestinian source (now added to article) describing these Palestinian settlements as resistance villages. "The resistance villages are a kind of Palestinian 'settlement' on Palestinian land occupied by Israel. Activists arrive in an area of the West Bank controlled by Israel and set up a tent camp and then start renovating the area and building simple infrastructure, such as paths, , latrines and sheds. They also set up a village council and assert their right to do this because the land is recognized to be Palestinian according to international law and UN resolutions. These villages are a way of asserting ownership of the land. The first one, Bab al-Shams, the Gate of the Sun, was established in an area east of Jerusalem that is slated for extensive illegal Israeli settlement building. The initiative was widely covered in the media and very popular, since it meant taking the initiative away from the Israeli state and turning the practice of settlements against them. Bab al-Shams in turn inspired four similar initiatives across the West Bank, including Ein Hijleh village outside Jericho in January–February 2014, where the activists managed to stay on the land for one week before they were forcibly evicted by the Israeli military. In all of these initiatives, political and ideological differences were put aside in order to concentrate on the common enemy. Several young Fatah activists participated in the planning and execution of both Bab al-Shams and Ein Hijleh. Important features of these villages are...." [20] (scroll down to section subhead: Renewed Non-violent Activism) British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A detailed look at the Bab al-Shams settlement here [21].E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:15, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please read what you cite. The only time it says anything about a Palestinian settlement is:

The independent youth are certainly well attuned to the culture around them. Their activism is simple, concrete and popular among Palestinians. One example is the recent ”settlements,” like Bab al-Shams, that establish Palestinian ”facts on the ground”. Another is the ”Open Shuhada Street” campaign, run by the Youth Against Settlements group, which each year gathers thousands of demonstrators to protest against the permanent closure of Shuhada Street in central Hebron as a result of the presence of Israeli settlers in the center of the city.

Notice how it has "settlement" in quotes? Compare to when it discusses Israeli settlements:

On January 11, 2013, a group of about 200 Palestinian activists, most of them youths in their 20s and 30s, erected tents on a piece of land between Jerusalem and the West Bank settlement of Maale Adummim.

Notice how there are not any quotes around "settlement" there? nableezy - 20:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly I saw that; I cited it with precision. The use of quotations marks in this manner is a familiar style in academic articles. It does not negate the fact that this young scholar discusses the phenomenon of Palestinian settlements in detail in two longish articles.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesnt actually, it uses the term once, and through quotes shows this is not a typical way of discussing the topic. Quotes are used to say this is not my word by the author. nableezy - 20:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In your nomination, you assert that "this is not" "well-covered by reliable sources," a not implausible nomination rationale. Now you are arguing that... what, precisely are you arguing? I have brought academic article that discuss this phenomenon in detail, and so many sources from RS media that I had actually begun to think that over sourcing would make this discussion so long that it would be off-putting to editors coming to the page, although, certainly, there are more RS I have not yet brought.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:11, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Youve done no such thing, the academic article does not in any way discuss this phenomenon in detail, please dont distort things. It is quite off-putting. nableezy - 21:27, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"The academic article"? As though I had brought only 1 article? There are are in fact 2 articles by Høigilt alone, both with substantive consideration of this phenomenon are 2 articles. In addition to an interesting parsing of the concept by Arpan Roy in City Journal and a the detailed consideration in Foreign Policy all linked above. That's quite a lot of scholarly consideration for a relatively new phenomenon. I hope that editors will look at these, in addition to the numerous articles in the daily press linked above, to which I would like ot add an intelligent, reported article in the Daily Mail (yes, I know it prints lots of nude women - British papers do that) here: [22] Now I suggest that we both back off, and allow time for other editors to look at the sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:59, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except they dont do that. The Foreign Policy article says that opponents to a specific localaity call it a Palestinian settlement. That is not in any way a detailed consideration of the supposed topic of this article. You cant take a throw-away mention or an article quoting somebody as something being a settlement and pretend that this is a "detailed consideration". That is quite dishonest. nableezy - 22:32, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your perspective. I read it too, it goes into great detail detail about the construction of a new city that, switching out "Israeli" for "Palestinian" could describe any of the larger Israeli settlements, right down to the internecine politics: "Fellow Palestinians have denounced it as a pet project of the Israelis and Americans. Some even describe it derisively as a 'Palestinian settlement'..."E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:03, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing editor. I now see that this article has been here since January 2103, but was only brought to AFD on the first day of Rosh Hashanah. I wish to point out that many Israeli and Jewish editors do not log in for 48 hours over Rosh Hashanah, and that many will be too busy to log in between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, which comes exactly 7 days later. This is, in other words, probably the precise period when editors likely to do the work necessary to source and improve this page, editors with the local knowledge useful to assessing notability, and editors with the ability to search and bring Hebrew sources are least likely to be editing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:16, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete discussion etiquette is to create one subsection for yourself and add your comments there. On this page you have created at least 10. Kindly desist. Zero^talk 23:41, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please give a policy based argument for deletion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:02, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think I will vote for deletion? Actually the only thing that keeps me from voting to keep the article is your attempt to turn it into something that is not useful by adding irrelevant topics like Rawabi. Zero^talk 00:13, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in its current form. There is in fact a phenomenon that could be the subject of a useful article, but it would not be called "Palestinian settlement" (an entirely phoney attempt at parallel with "Israeli settlement") and it won't include localities like Rawabi that are 100% different in size, in support, and legality under Palestinian, Israeli and international law. Some of the sources in the article, such as Høigilt's paper, could be used to create a small but useful article on the topic of Palestinian protest outposts, but this isn't it. Zero^talk 00:48, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been revised to describe the dual usage of this term.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:13, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no case for an article on uses of the term. Actually the appearance of the term is the worst thing about the existing article and the first thing that should disappear if a proper article is created. Zero^talk 03:24, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename - certainly passing WP:NOTABLE, though under current title the article is a stub, because there is only a minor organized "settler movement" among Palestinian Arabs. The phenomenon of land takeover and squatting is however an integral part of the Arab-Islamic culture in the region for centuries and took an organized style across the Arab League throughout the 20th century. We should consider a wider scope for the Palestinian land takeover under a slightly different title.GreyShark (dibra) 10:51, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Kingsindian or delete in current form as per Zero. E. M.Gregory just tried to define Rawabi, a newtown built in Area A, as a settlement built by Palestinians (sometimes with external support) in areas of the West Bank under Israeli rule and in violation of Israeli military or civilian law,' when in fact Rawabi is in Palestinian territory, built with a Palestinian permit, and Israel has no authority there. Worse, he had Regavim in mind, because he referred to Rawabi as Regavim (NGO), an organization dedicated to the destruction of any Palestinian housing that does not have an Israeli building permit. which is in Area C means virtually the whole of the Palestinian infrastructure. The article is clearly manipulating an encyclopedia to create a propaganda parity between Israeli settlement (moving from the state of Israel into an occupied territory to settle it) and Palestinian housing development (building on one's traditional land, without moving anywhere). Nishidani (talk) 15:00, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per E.M.Gregory.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:26, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Are we in a far-right Israeli bizarro world where Palestinians build "illegal outposts" and "settlements" on land that's not theirs? Even the heading of the article's only section ("Illegal Palestinian settlements") is pure propaganda. But while the article could be made more neutral in tone, it still lacks notability. What are "Palestinian settlements"? Protest-camps that get demolished in a week's time? Or Rawabi, which is a city being built on land that even Israel considers Palestinian, i.e. Area A of the West Bank?

I don't understand Greyshark's argument about the "phenomenon of land takeover and squatting" that's been an "integral part of the Arab-Islamic culture in the region for centuries" and which "took an organized style across the Arab League throughout the 20th century", or how that argument is relevant to this article; it looks like a political statement trying to link the medieval Arab-Muslim conquests and 20th-century Baathist Arabizaton efforts to a form of Palestinian non-violent activism. Meanwhile, E. M. Gregory's efforts to find whatever source containing the words "Palestinian" and "settlement" amounts to grasping at straws and border-line OR. If someone wants to create an article (or section) about the building of makeshift protest camps in the West Bank, which is apparently an embryonic form of non-violent Palestinian resistance to Israeli occupation and settlement building in that territory, that's another story. --Al Ameer (talk) 03:47, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be clear - PLO's Palestinian nationalism and Ba'thism are pretty close ideologies, though of course differ among various branches. However, symbolism (flag etc.) and ideology are almost the same. Finally, when i created the article Palestinian settlement, the idea was to describe "building of makeshift protest camps in the West Bank", named "Palestinian settlements" by some, which is a sidelined but still notable phenomenon. If you have a better idea for proper naming i'm sure i will consider to support it (maybe Palestinian protest camps?).GreyShark (dibra) 08:34, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that article is now strongly sourced and tightly focused on what the According to the leftist, anti-settlement, aggressively British newspaper Peace News, describes as a movement "to create ‘facts on the ground’ by founding a Palestinian settlement on privately-owned Palestinian land." Palestinian settlement was a term used and apparently coined by the Palestinian anti-Israel activists who created ththe Palestinian settlement settlement movement as a means of anti-Zionist activism.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:14, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note. Booth's article on Susya nowhere calls it a Palestinian settlement, and will have to be removed. All you need to do is read the page on it: it has been settled since the 1880s, Ruth Kark Israel's foremost authority on these issues, recognized their legal title to the land on which their dwellings were located, before they were blown up, bulldozed and destroyed by the IDF on several occasions. So this is Regavim POV pushing and WP:SYNTH. By the way, that nonsense that building in Area C violates the Oslo Accords is a pure fiction. Nishidani (talk) 19:25, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EMG, please desist from making sections all over this page. Put all your comments in one place, except replies to others. This article has nothing to do with reality. Also you keep misrepresenting sources: the Peace News source (not an WP:RS by any stretch of the imagination, but let's leave that aside) says the following. The purpose of the Bab al-Shams (‘gate of the sun’) occupation was to create ‘facts on the ground’ by founding a Palestinian settlement on privately-owned Palestinian land (my emphasis). The sense of "settlement" here is the dictionary sense: "a place where people live". This is not equivalent to Israeli settlements in occupied territory. It is absurd to compare the two and blatantly violates WP:NPOV. If you want to describe construction in Area C, there is already an article for that: Area C (West Bank). There's also Regavim (NGO). Do it in those places in an encyclopedic manner, not like this. There's also no connection between Bab al-Shams (which was a tent encampment lasting two days) and Susya. It is pure WP:SYNTH. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:01, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - in line with Al Ameer's remark - perhaps we can settle on renaming the article to Palestinian protest camps and get done with it?GreyShark (dibra) 08:40, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is a possible solution, but not a good one, imo. Firstly, the topic of the article is ill-defined: it keeps changing on whatever EMG manages to come up with using Google. Secondly, there are already articles on Susya and Bab al-Shams - the latter should be deleted, but oh well. Thirdly, the topic is WP:SYNTH. Mercifully, Rawabi has been removed from the article, but for some random reason Susya has been added. There is little connection between Bab al-Shams and Susya. The former was a protest camp lasting two days, while the latter is an already existing community. The whole framework is flawed and WP:TNT is the way to go. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 10:58, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I could go with "Palestinian protest camps" if Bab al-Shams is merged into it, since otherwise I don't think there would be enough material for an article. The topic would not include al-Bustan, or Susya, certainly not Rawabi, nor random houses built without permits. Zero^talk 12:47, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed Susya, which is patently absurd. That article was unbalanced by a sock assuming the role of spokesman for Regavim (it should re reverted to the state prior to his interference). The record is clear. It has been in continuous habitation since at least the 1880s, with title. They lived in the archaeological ruins, underground; they lived in local shepherd dwellings and caves; they have lived in tents and huts, and refused to budge, despite endless demolitions and being trucked at gunpoint away. Since I'm working north West Australian aboriginal articles, it would be the same as calling aboriginal dwelings 'settlements' because they were driven, shot, and harassed off their native land for a century by 'settlers'. In any case, some of the sources there, Booth, do not speak of 'Palestinian settlement' and had to go.Nishidani (talk) 13:50, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:02, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hyona Park[edit]

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

The cited source does not provide evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and her greatest significance seems to be once being a runner-up in a not very notable contest. (PROD removed by a single purpose account, without any reason being given.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:05, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk · contribs) 17:28, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Top searches on Google were for social media-related stuff and I couldn't find much on her. —MRD2014 (talk · contribs) 17:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:03, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:03, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:03, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Every beauty pageant that exists at all does not confer an automatic notability freebie on every contestant in it — it takes reliable source coverage about her, not primary sourced verification of her existence, to get her in the door. Bearcat (talk) 01:43, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no indications of notability; the event itself is not particularly notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:03, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We lack any articles on the winners of the international titles. No evidence that winners of this title at the national level are notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:14, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy redirect to Andy_Warhol#Films_2. If no one objects, I've done the redirect and merge, importing a bit more content and the Guardian news ref to the target page. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:18, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Warhol (film)[edit]

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

Too Soon and per WP:NFF. The film is just announced. Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 15:45, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per TOOSOON, Can't find much on the film at the moment so it's better off deleted for now & can be recreate when more sources pop up. –Davey2010^Talk 17:03, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per below - Can easily add a sentence to the film section –Davey2010^Talk 12:33, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Andy_Warhol#Films_2, where a single sentence is sufficient to indicate this film is in the planing stage. We don't have articles on films until they have commenced shooting, and there is no equivalent article to merge to (i.e. no article on Warhol: The Biography). --Animalparty! (talk) 19:00, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:08, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:31, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete by Anthony Bradbury (G3: Vandalism) (non-admin closure) — JJMC89 (T·C) 16:04, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doomscrewed[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary! Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 15:20, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 17:49, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hala Al Turk[edit]

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

A contestant on a TV show who has signed to a record company. The refs tell us even less and clearly fail WP:GNG. She may yet be notable in years to come but this is way too soon. Previous history of deletion tagging by (inexperienced?) editors, but whatever the underlying justification, this just isn't notable. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:34, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The singer is very famous all over Gulf countries. It is unfortunate to see the proposer not even doing a google search before posting it here. I am a person from Kerala and her songs are popular even here. So much so that a recent song from the Malayalam movie Bhaskar the Rascal is a remake of her song "I Love You Mama". Some recent edits seems to have removed some references to that article (that I added when created the page). Aravind V R (talk) 16:41, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:30, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bahrain-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:30, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: - meets WP:GNG. Article could use improved referencing and expansion, not deletion per WP:ATD. Was already nominated in AUGUST 2016 w/ consensus KEEP. Hmlarson (talk) 16:13, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A Train^talk 11:09, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assoun[edit]

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

acks notability. All the clan articles in the category of 'Jat Clans of Punjab' face the same issue. Most of them are as if there are listed in a clans directory, WP:NOT. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:24, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:24, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:24, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:18, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Anup [Talk] 16:45, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 13:55, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. Much of the information is self-contradictory. Bearian (talk) 17:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG. With no sources, it's difficult to determine even whether this information is real or not, but either way notability isn't established (and would probably be very difficult to establish). FalconK (talk) 05:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to List of acquisitions by Cisco Systems. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:32, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lancope[edit]

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

Puff piece for a company that fails WP:CORP and has since been bought out. The previous AfD was withdrawn, but the sources that caused the withdrawal don't seem to be suitable - those that aren't dead links or links to the company's website are minimal. FalconK (talk) 13:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only because the company was acquired by Cisco and most of the company's coverage in RS is of the acquisition. Meatsgains (talk) 14:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:29, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:29, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:29, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Leaning Delete~~ the PC World interview is the closest I can see to evidence anyone cares, but otherwise coverage I can find is just of their acquisition. Is there a suitable Cisco-related redirect target? - David Gerard (talk) 08:01, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the first AfD was a pathetic excuse of an AfD and deletion listing, all sources are entirely unconvincing PR and simply republish what the company says, the listed interviews are speaking for themselves instead it's not actual news efforts of course, and nor should it be, it was simply to fill time and advertise the man and his company, there's no hopes or improvements when something only exists for advertising, and that's exactly what gets deleted. SwisterTwister talk 08:03, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a WP:DEL8 notability argument, or a WP:DEL14 WP:NOT argument? Unscintillating (talk) 02:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong forum As this topic is part of Cisco Systems, it is a significant topic, so cannot be deleted, as per policy, for WP:DEL8. Unscintillating (talk) 02:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I certainly wouldn't mind if it were merged into Cisco Systems, if that is what you're getting at here, though there is precious little to merge. FalconK (talk) 07:11, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - I would suggest List of acquisitions by Cisco Systems, but Cisco Systems is also quite plausible - David Gerard (talk) 12:04, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of acquisitions by Cisco Systems; the company does not appear to be notable independent of the acquisition, and no additional sources have been presented at this AfD. Otherwise, it's an advertorially toned content not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia, such as:

In one second, StealthWatch shows you everyone infected by a particular piece of malware and which was the first device hit.

K.e.coffman (talk) 06:22, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to List of acquisitions by Cisco Systems, which will improve the merge target article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:36, 11 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) GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 17:48, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anatoliy Andreyev[edit]

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

No infobox, two refs, two lines of text -- this article only contains two sentences, and definitely not enough references for a biographical article. It's barely standing due to the fact that he composed some important music; it also is using a wrong type of referencing. I was going to tag this as A7 but because this person composed a country's anthem music, I decided against it. Wiki Pancake ^{✉ 📖} 13:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The corresponding Russian article uses the same two refs (both of which are poor as RS). The only information on any Anatoliy Andreyev in English language texts was an intelligence officer. This person may qualify per WP:COMPOSER, but if there are no sources from which to create a biography we can't invent a bio, and he's credited in the Anthem of the Republic of Buryatia article. Wikipedia is WP:NOTWHOSWHO. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:38, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:28, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:28, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I located this reference to the subject having authored an opera:

The Buryat epic Geser, a gem of the multi-faceted Buryat oral tradition and an outstanding monument of the world’s epic poetry. Geser: Buryat Epic is a digital publication providing information about the main oral versions of Geseriade in the Buryat language and about its best-known narrators, collectors and researchers. The database contains a bibliography on Geseriade (more than 500 entries), an e-library (152 texts, 6 digital versions of the best-known editions of the Buryat version of Geser in the Russian and Buryat lanaguages), rare photographs, audio and video footage, a video lesson, and a videotaped production of Anatoly Andreyev’s opera Geser in the Buryat language. Source: Linguistic and Cultural Diversity, p. 287, issued by Comission of the Russian Federation for UNESCO.

Here's a bio article from the web site "Academic Music of Siberia": ANATOLY ANDREEV: COMPOSER AND HIS TIMES. Google Translate shows that it's a reasonably in-depth, by-lined article.

I suspect that more sources would be available offline, given that most of his career took place in the pre-internet era, and / or in Russian, as the subject appears to be one of the leading composers of the Buryat nation. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:54, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- I added content and references to the article. Now meets WP:COMPOSER #1 (has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition) and #2 (has written musical theatre of some sort (includes musicals, operas, etc.) that was performed in a notable theatre). K.e.coffman (talk) 08:29, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:45, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rafael Pallais[edit]

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

Borderline G11/A7 speedy, this is an author whose work is primarily offered through vanity press lulu.com. Guy (Help!) 15:23, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article indicates publication in the 1970s through Champ Libre. I think that in itself would be enough to defeat a CSD A7. AllyD (talk) 17:05, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 13:19, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom, and unreferenced BLP. My basic BEFORE shows third-party sources only about other people of the same name - David Gerard (talk) 07:38, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find any secondary sources. Has entries in the French and Spanish Wikipedias, but they have no secondary sources either. 2602:306:3A29:9B90:608C:C2F8:2526:C3A4 (talk) 08:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- There's versions in other wikipedias too, but they're all even worse than the en: article - David Gerard (talk) 10:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 08:36, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yū Kamonomiya[edit]

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

ANN search results:

1) Takuya Kamikita (Little Busters - minor role)

2) Young Kyosuke (Little Busters - minor role)

No lead roles to speak of; subject is not notable in the least. Subject also has no news coverage nor secondary sources to assert her notability; fails both WP:GNG and WP:ENT. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 13:15, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk · contribs) 13:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk · contribs) 13:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject is not covered in any reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 15:45, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Why propose a deletion, when you could just jump right into the AFD process? Yes, I'm not supposed to make any more AFDs at this current moment, but seeing as someone else has already proposed a deletion, I might as well speed up the process." - (Sk8erPrince) This is because it causes more work for the admin, you also didnt speed anything up. Had you not removed the proposed deletion, this article would have been deleted on 13:19, 7 October 2016. Now because this is an AfD discussion, and lasts 7 days you extended it to October the 10th. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:04, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Getting people to agree with the deletion is what I want to see. That justifies my reasons, and makes deleting the page worthwhile. It's a sense of fulfillment. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:14, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And might I add, that if anyone deleted your proposed deletion tag, nobody could post the same tag again? You never know who might do that. According to the PROD page, "Any editor (including the article's creator) may object to the deletion by simply removing the tag; this action permanently cancels the proposed deletion via PROD."

That means even trolls could remove it if they so desire, leaving AFD as the only option for deletion. AFD is a much better way of handling this, so that nobody could trample with the proper deletion process. By the sounds of it, you honestly sound like you're in a hurry to get rid of this article. What's the big rush? I could wait three more days to see it get shut down, and I'm pretty sure those that were and will get involved in this AFD could make reasonable, strong points to explain why this article deserves to be deleted. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 03:49, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only Little Busters! is a noted role in ANN. That's about it. And the "young" version is as a supporting character. The main characters are grown up for the series. ANN. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:25, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:25, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:25, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For the record nobody would have contested the PROD, this article has no indication of notability. When someone contests a PROD they are expected to show sources/meet the prodder's concerns. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:03, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How would you know? Trolls lurk everywhere on Wikipedia. You can't be absolutely certain. However, I am glad that you voted "Delete". --Sk8erPrince (talk) 00:26, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the Prod tag could be removed on any given circumstance. That's why I'm afraid that trolls would take advantage of that. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 07:23, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 08:40, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Alliance (Canada)[edit]

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

No indication that this organization is notable. I had intended to clean up the largely unreferenced article based on reliable third-party sources but had to conclude that those sources simply do not cover the organization in any detail, causing severe verifiability issues with possible BLP concerns (especially since this article apparently was used to target specific individuals without reliable sources backing up the allegations). The best sources are two pieces of local news, neither of which provide much information on the group itself. Note that this book took its content from us and is not an independent source. Huon (talk) 12:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Mike V • Talk 17:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom - not sure there's a reasonable redirect target, Category:Canadian far-right political movements doesn't have a main article or list - David Gerard (talk) 10:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT; the article does not make much sense. Local coverage is insufficient to support an article on what appears to be a minor incident. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:43, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. No significant coverage in reliable sources to assert notability for organizations. Katnimara (talk) 06:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:01, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sughada[edit]

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

Delete-This is character have no importance in the epic and there is very little information have about her in Mahabharata. Also this violate the copyright rules of wikipedia.That's why I think this article is not needed and should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tupur16 (talk • contribs) 07:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Created page for user as they created the page but did not include all the correct code. -- GB fan 12:02, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-But her name even not mentioned in the original epic. So I think the article give only wrong information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tupur16 (talk • contribs) 12:44, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removed delete comment, already noted above, in the nomination statement. -- GB fan 12:59, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@GB fan: your username reminded me of one conversation that I had with you and as far as I remember I didn't behave very nice. I'm sorry. Anup [Talk] 17:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:04, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:04, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:04, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certainly no expert on the content, but a Merge to yuyutsu appears better than deletion. The entire section on literary elements here could use some better cleanup and referencing, however. Jclemens (talk) 04:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In Mahabharata her name was never mentioned there she refered as vaishya women. Thus there is no need of a article in her name. The name here is used it is taken from folkfore. It is not the only name what folkfore state about her. There are other name also like: Suvali,Sukhda etc. Sukhda is most popular among this name. As her name mention in the epic for that i think this article should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ishi2345 (talk • contribs) 05:20, 4 October 2016 (UTC) — Ishi2345 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: I failed to find any sources using Gnews, Gbooks, WP:INDAFD search engines and JSTOR (not surprised!). If one could find some, it should better be redirected to Dhritrashtra or Yuyutsu, otherwise just delete this unverifiable thing. Anup [Talk] 17:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as potentially unverifiable. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:23, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:46, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jacqueline Lord[edit]

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

Procedural AFD - expired PROD, but was killed once at PROD already. Concern was "Not notable. Lacks multiple significant roles in notable productions." I concur - doesn't seem to pass WP:NACTOR or WP:MUSBIO. A basic WP:BEFORE barely turns up unreliable sources, let alone reliable ones, and news coverage is passing mentions. David Gerard (talk) 11:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 11:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 11:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 11:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I said in the prod. There is no notability here. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:42, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:21, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete If somebody wants to work on this in their userspace (as was suggested a couple of times in the discussion), with the undertaking that it will not be moved back to mainspace without substantial improvement, let me know. Vanamonde (talk) 09:18, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Gurian[edit]

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

The books of photos might be notable, but there is no substantive coverage of this author at all. This article appears to be brought here from Memory Alpha. That's where it belongs. Guy (Help!) 11:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given the statement that the book series itself might be considered notable; it seems to logically follow that the author of a notable work would then be considered notable as well by virtue of being the creator of the titles. However, a Google search on the author's name does reveal mention and/or quotes in a number of well recognized media sites/news sources including The Telegraph here, USA Today here, the pair of io9.gizmodo.com articles cited in the proposed Gerald Gurian Wikipedia article itself, and the IMDb website reference where the personality is noted to have made an appearance in a recent Smithsonian documentary on Star Trek here. As well, there is further significant coverage of the author and his works (including a Bibliography that lists 8 separate published bodies of work to which this individual contributed) on Memory Alpha here as noted by JzG. It might be favorably argued that this person is well known within the large Star Trek memorabilia collecting community and some portion of the fanbase.

It should also be noted that Gerald Gurian, aside from being listed hundreds of times in the pages of author Marc Cushman's These Are The Voyages - TOS trilogy for his rare photo contributions to that book series, Gurian is also referred to as 'Star Trek historian and archivist' (Volume 3, pg. 104), 'Star Trek archivist and curator of startrekpropauthority.com' (Volume 3, pg. 126), 'Star Trek archivist and prop curator' (Volume 3, pg. 147), and 'Star Trek archivist' (Volume 3, pg. 298 & 424 & 587)within the work and quoted extensively on pages 104, 126, 147, 298, 424, and 587 of the third volume in the series. The entire approx. 2,100 page trilogy is regarded by many as the definitive historical work on the making of the '60s era Star Trek television series.

Additionally, in the Foreword to the second season book authored by Gurian, which was written by Academy Award and Emmy Award winning production artist Doug Drexler, Mr. Drexler refers to Gurian as "the Library of Congress for on stage Star Trek" on page x.

So, given that this multiple book author has been quoted/reported on multiple times in international media, included in a Smithsonian television documentary on Star Trek, interviewed and referenced on multiple occasions in an award-winning history book series on the '60s show, and discussed in exemplary terms by a very prominent Star Trek production artist - could this not cumulatively be considered as "substantive" coverage. Tosresearcher (talk) 19:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC) — Tosresearcher (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Notability is not inherited. You added sources like PR Newswire, which is not independent. This looks more and more like an autobiography. Guy (Help!) 22:19, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The PR Newswire article documented a press release issued by General Motors Corporation - which is a multinational, automobile manufacturer and an independent entity not under the control or influence of Star Trek author Gerald Gurian. A google search employing the same title of the PR Newswire story resulted in numerous matches from other sources. So, in consideration of your concern, the citation in this Wikipedia article has been changed to the story found on www.autoblog.com; in the hopes that it will appropriately be regarded as an independent source. Concerning the comment that Notability is not inherited, does that not assume the notable source is pre-existing or independent and unrelated to the person/object seeking association with it; as opposed to this situation where the individual is the creator of the notable work. It is agreed that simply befriending someone famous or of royal heritage does not confer that status on the new individual, if he/she possesses no other meritorious qualifications. Tosresearcher (talk) 23:43, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So you changed a poress release to a blog? OK. you don't get this Wikipedia thing, do you? What's your connection to the subject? It's rare for someone with so little experience of Wikipedia to create such a long article. Guy (Help!) 06:41, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you could kindly provide a more meaningful elaboration on your remarks / apparent objections to the subject matter contained in this proposed article; that would sincerely be helpful. You initially charged that Mr. Gurian was not the focus of substantive coverage at all; and so I expanded the article to include multiple newspaper and book references to him, as well as writings by a highly celebrated Star Trek production artist. This was done purely to show evidence of greater notability. Your response seems to entirely dismiss this, and focus on an assertion that one press release which was cited is not "independent". This seems particularly perplexing ... are you suggesting that Mr. Gurian controls the press releases of General Motors, or do you doubt the historical accuracy of the citation that this individual received an engineering award from the automotive company? My intent in listing the citation was merely the desire to fact check some of the biographical information entered in the Career section of this proposed article - that I copied from the biography on a book cover; rather than replicate the content from the book cover entirely without any attempt to fact check. A more detailed explanation of your dismissal of the significance of the added newspaper coverage, as well as the meaning of your "not independent" concern with a corporate press release, would be appreciated. You've also honestly ignored my "transfer of notability" query. To rephrase it, you seem to suggest that an artist can not be considered notable based on the notability of his creations. So, for example, does this mean that you feel the Wikipedia article on Ludwig van Beethoven should be deleted since, none of the significance or notability of any of his musical compositions can be transferred to him personally? I do admit that I am a newcomer to editing Wikipedia; and am anxious for a more meaningful elaboration on your objections, as opposed to just additional unflattering statements or suggestions of inappropriateness. It was not my intent to pollute Wikipedia with undeserving content. If an individial is considered by the Smithsonian institute as being worthy of inclusion in a documentary, and is quoted extensively in a highly regarded history book on Star Trek as well as by international media, I truly do not comprehend the grounds for your persistent objections to an article on someone you say has authored a book series that might be considered noteworthy. Tosresearcher (talk) 07:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:BLP1E. Writing a marginally notable book (if it is indeed such, I remain unconvinced) does not confer notability on the writer. This is, bluntly, fancruft. Guy (Help!) 23:33, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding BLP1E, which single event are you asserting that this individual's claim on notability is being based upon? Is it:
- his inclusion as a Star Trek rare memorabilia collector in the Smithsonian television documentary, or
- his creation of large 600+ article fan site that documents the Art and Production history of the Star Trek franchise, or
- his contributions to a half-dozen notable published works on Star Trek (listed at memory-alpha) in an editorial/photo contributor capacity, or
- his identification as a Star Trek historian/archivist and multiple references/interviews included in the pages of the Saturn-Award winning Star Trek history book by Marc Cushman, or
- his authorship of the Season One volume of 'To Boldly Go', or
- his authorship of the Season Two volume of 'To Boldly Go', or
- his multiple mentions/quotes in major international newsmedia such as The Telegraph and USA Today, or
- the fact that he is the recipient of a prestigious engineering award from General Motors Corporation (which you seem to be unconvinced actually took place.)?

Also, classifying 'Star Trek' as "an obscure branch of popular culture" that is "of importance only to a small population of fans", as you seem to be attempting to assert with your use of the term fancruft, seems to "just not get this Star Trek thing" using your own phraseology. In response to the question "How many fans does Star Trek have?", which I just googled, Answers.com has the response "To Date Star Trek has over 40 million fans worldwide (40% recorded from America)". I can not attest to the accuracy of this figure; but I am confident that someone who believes it to be "an obscure branch" is clearly in error. Perhaps you might enjoy reading this Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_influence_of_Star_Trek or you could use your cellphone to confer with a friend who is more literate on the Star Trek phenomenon (and you might thank Star Trek for helping to inspire that device). There appears to be many, many pages within this Wikipedia devoted to Star Trek content, and just this single page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek appears to have about 10,000 views per day - which might give you some impression of the popularity of the subject matter. (Extrapolating, that's 3.65 million views annually.)

Finally, you do realize that we are engaging in this discussion in a non-twitter environment, so you should feel free to exceed 140 characters when generating your responses. It seems as if your personal entertainment tastes or lack of affection for Star Trek and/or science fiction might be clouding your judgement here. Tosresearcher (talk) 01:49, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, I've discovered that, after doing a bit of research within Wikipedia, every single episode produced during every season of filming for all the different years that the 5 Star Trek television series were broadcast (= a total of 28 years/seasons of programming) has its own separate Wikipedia page. That means over 700 different pages dedicated to summarizing just the episodes themselves ... not including prominent actors pages or other pages somehow associated with different aspect of the franchise. Wouldn't this establish beyond any doubt that user JzG's assertion of fancruft could not be more incorrect and inappropriate? Tosresearcher (talk) 03:52, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For what its worth the original series of Star Trek is called TOS by Trekkies, so hence 'Tosresearcher' I guess? Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 07:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Tosresearcher reflects TOS, Paste. It seems that there has not been any significant new non-fiction books casting light on the early series for many years now until the fairly recent release of the book series by Marc Cushman a couple of years ago and now these ones by Gerald Gurian. Tosresearcher (talk) 08:06, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO with a doze of WP:TNT; a barely readable vanity page. Not something one would expect to find in an encyclopedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:07, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough coverage of him to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:45, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly satisfies GNG to justify an article. Per K.e.coffman remarks, Career section has been reworded to read as a neutral presentation of facts. Tosresearcher (talk) 02:00, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wildly promotional piece built on poor sources about non-notable person. Alexbrn (talk) 05:48, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete - fails GNG - many of the sources are from his own website or book (they fail WP:INDY, a basic requirement of notability) - or are press releases or in-universe mentions, which again are not independent. I get it that he is a substantial figure in the world of Star Trek fandom; that is not the world WP inhabits, although we do struggle to keep our head above the water in fields where there are active online communities and sources are generally bloggy. But this is indeed fancruft and shouldn't exist in WP. Jytdog (talk) 06:35, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tosresearcher, Your major hurdle here is that currently Gurian doesn´t seem to be WP:NOTABLE in the WP-sense, so take a hard look at WP:GNG. Now, forget wikis/usergenerated (Memory Alpha), for this discussion all blogs, his own websites, and also, passing mentions like [23]. IF the article survives some of this could be of use, but right now it´s irrelevant. The book may be WP:notable or not, but per WP-logic, that doesn´t mean the author is automatically notable in himself. Of the sources currently in the article, [24] is the one that helps your case, but far from enough. You need stuff like that, only more and better. Until that happens, this article shouldn´t be on Wikipedia. You could try asking for input at the talkpage of Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Trek. Also, if you are Gerald Gurian (username sorta hints it), please follow WP:COI. Good luck! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:53, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also, based on your edit-history, you should take a look at Wikipedia:Canvassing. You´re new here, and we learn the ways of WP as we go along. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:32, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughts, Grabergs Graa Sang, but my initial goodwill and esteem for this website has been greatly diminished by my opening encounters with small minded, arrogant admins and their mean-spirited cohorts. For example, just Google the userid JzG who started this deletion request, and see the hatred on the web for him at the website Encyclopedia Dramatica (which lists his long history of profane behavior on Wikipedia, indeed along with its own profanity). And you'll be amazed and ask yourself how in the world could this environment be allowed to exist with no meaningful oversight. So I don't anticipate I will care to waste much more time in this sad place. Tosresearcher (talk) 09:24, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tosresearcher:, did it ever occur to you they might be lying? The website claims I have no college degree - in fact I have a BA from Yale University, a post graduate Diploma from LSE, an MSc from the University of London and several other postgraduate qualifications. Doug Weller talk 15:57, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is your choice, of course. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ED is not a reliable source for anything. From the ED about page: "In other words, expect blatant, biased lies, and expect boring truths to get deleted quickly." It's funny, but only occasionally accurate. --tronvillain (talk) 17:43, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy for the time being. I'll readily acknowledge I was canvassed but believe my opinion shouldn't be discounted for that. Agree with Gråbergs Gråa Sång - the canvas exposure was very well written BTW - great care should be taken with COI if applicable. While at first blush we have an obvious fail of notability, hence no keep from me, the new editor should have some time to determine this for him/herself. Allowing a userfication would allow for that at minimal risk. It may be userfied into my userspace if there are any concerns about allowing it as a backdoor article / not allowing its' presence forever, or to the editor's if not. I'd work with the editor (Tosresearcher willing) and we'll see if we can polish it to Notablility or take it down. As to the other, JzG is sometimes perceived as less than a huggable cuddly, and I myself sometimes wonder if his two heads conflict with each other.... but he's one of the best Admins WP has IMO. There are other Dispute Resolution mechanisms available for the user conflict and it doesn't change the listing here as I'm sure it was done without malice by JzG. Who knows, though, I might be biased to both Trek and HHGG grounds on the article, the admin, and everything. LaughingVulcan ^{Grok Page!} 12:22, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looking carefully at the article's reference, I do not believe that the criteria for notability is met. Sources are thin and do not amount to significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Gnome de plume (talk) 12:57, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep is what I say, tentatively, although open to a merge suggestion, say merge to something like List of StarTrek fan authors. I'd like some StarTrekkers to give some insight on how Gerald Gurian ranks among StarTrek authors/fans, but it sounds like GG is up there and the StarTrek world is big and even "important". I would think top 10 authors in the area, say, should be individually notable, and that anyone in top 50 would be list-item-notable. Of course the sources are going to be within the StarTrek fan world; I don't expect they would be New York Times articles.

FYI, I saw notice of this AFD by Tosresearcher's complaint post at User talk:Jimbo Wales. I bow to new editors generally, and I tend to sympathize with new editors' perceptions of unfairness in Wikipedia's processes (it is in fact _reasonable_ to complain, in general, about being hauled to AFD), and I think we should not let the fact of their complaining be held against this editor and this article. I wish they would tone it down though and not trumpet what some website says negatively about one editor.

Per some comment(s) above, one or more of Gerald Gurian's books is agreed to be notable. If so, then consider the article to be a combo article about the book and the author (or require it to be adapted a bit to cover the book more), and then it would seem peevish to insist on deleting this. Adapt it, keep it, rather than seem to be punishing. Can some editors help adapt the article to cover more about the book(s) by this author? And comment about what is required for the book(s) to be considered notable. The book(s) have multiple reviews. --do ncr am 13:14, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I reworked the article into this version featuring the photography book series first and the author second, which I think works better. So "Keep" although a rename/move is appropriate. --do ncr am 13:42, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your efforts Doncram, but trying to hang an article about the author on a claim that one of his works was notable just seems really awkward. If a book is notable, then we should have an article on the book rather than trying to shoehorn that into an article about an otherwise non-notable person. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:44, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now there is a clash between title and content that doesn´t work, and I think "agreed to be notable" is exaggerating what is in the comments. Currently I don´t see Wikipedia:Notability (books) being satisfied in this article either. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:53, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no evidence of enough coverage in independent RS to make this person notable. Seems pretty clear-cut to me. If the book is notable, then we can have an article on that. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:44, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per Fyddlestix, there aren't enough significant independent reliable sources here to meet WP:BIO. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and userfy. Running a Google for GERALD GURIAN (exact) + STAR TREK isn't gonna get us over the GNG bar. I do find the nominator's idea that the BOOK SERIES might be notable to be provocative. Assuming that several legitimate, mainstream reviews can be mustered, a rewrite from this angle which also includes author information might get us all where we need to go, with notable content added and the encyclopedia expanded. As an aside, I found the whinging about this AfD nomination at Jimbotalk to be more than a little ridiculous. Carrite (talk) 15:42, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carrite, I do appreciate your good faith insights in this discussion, but I must stress that I don't feel my "whining", as you suggest, could be termed "ridiculous". I sincerely believed I'd given multiple independent reasons/events why Gurian might be considered noteworthy in my proposed article (and even submitted a list I composed with eight points at the top of this discussion); which, in all honestly, Usr JzG dismissed out of hand without the courtesy of an explanation and insisted Gurian might be notable for a Single Event (I believe he referenced BLP1E). To me, there are truly eight, as multiple book authorship or a television appearance or multiple newspaper appearances or quotes in highly respected history book series on Trek or a prestigious engineering award, etc. are not negligible things. I think it's quite uncommon for a person to be the recipient of all these things. Plus, I was concerned with JzG's attempt to trivialize or negate the validity of my citations without any decent explanation why. For example, I still don't understand why a Press Release from a multi-billion dollar corporation like General Motors attesting to the fact that it bestowed a significant internal engineering award on Gurian can not be considered a valid reference/citation. Do people here believe that Gurian - who was/is obviously a lower level employee, not an executive at GM - controls the content of the Press Releases of that company? I can certainly understand how if Gurian himself had issued a Press Release claiming he'd received such an award; then that would not seem independent. When I attempted to change the citation from the GM Press release to an article on some general autoblog I googled, which was posted on the net by some automotive enthusiast that could not possibly (I imagined) be associated with Gurian or GM; JzG again immediately dismissed this action with some snide remark that clearly implied ... oh, you've substituted garbage for more garbage and you don't understand anything about Wikipedia. Thus, I sincerely feel I am not being "ridiculous" to suggest that my initial good faith attempts to compose an article here were not met with civility. Regarding JzG, I thought "who is this individual, to be so dismissive and uncivil like this and be an apparently powerful admin?". So I Googled his username and found an amazingly hated-filled, profanely ranting page about him on the net. So, if his actions have so enraged someone to go through the bother of producing such an article, that certainly can't speak to a universal affection for this particular admin, can it? And the hate page claimed JzG used excessive profanity in his discussions at Wikipedia and posted links. I admit that I just clicked on a single link, not all, and indeed found a rather offensive outburst by JzG on some talk/discussion page. Which seemed to suggest to me that perhaps my initial unfavorable view of JzG might be warranted. And I note that immediately after I "whined" about JzG, as you suggest, the very next person to make a post on Jimbo's talk page issued a more severe complaint about this same admin. I'm certainly not perfect, but I honestly never spout profanity / curse words when I write or even in my spoken conversation. There is never a situation where someone need resort to spewing filth to make his argument. That is how I was raised. So I honestly don't feel my initial vocal protests over JzG are entirely unwarranted. However, I do see that, based on the multiple, clear Delete assessments posted about my article in these discussions by other seemingly unbiased, good faith members here -- that I truly must have underestimated the notability threshold that the subject of a new article here must surpass. (It does amaze me that someone who appeared on TV, international media, quoted in books and an author of multiple books, and is the focus of multiple articles on the memory-alpha wiki etc. is so hastily termed completely irrelevant here. That just boggles my mind. I would not have composed this proposed article if I had not sincerely felt the subject matter was appropriate.) Thanks again for sharing your insights, and if JzG blocks me for sharing my honest perceptions, that is fine. As I've said previously, I have sadly lost considerable esteem for this place by virtue of such a truly uncivil welcome. Kind Regards. Tosresearcher (talk) 18:31, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if my assessment of your escalation rubbed you wrong. Perhaps this is cultural, Wikipedians do not like (and frequently refuse to have) the same debate in multiple venues. From a new article to an Articles for Deletion debate to Jimbotalk to rail against a "corrupt" (your word) administrator to the Foundergod is an all too neat, very tiresome escalation. But let us let that be. Newcomers to WP misunderstand the deletion process, which is actually one of the more rational, reliable, and predictable aspects of Wikipedia. Consider AfD a sort of traffic court, in which the most common verdicts are being released unscathed, largely immunized against future prosecutions — or the death penalty. It is a tough neighborhood. Essentially, once challenged, defenders of an article must demonstrate the existence of multiple, independent, published sources of presumed reliability dealing substantially with the subject of the article. Press releases? Not published. Most blog posts? Unable to demonstrate presumed reliability. What we are all looking for here — and I say this without hostility and with a desire to preserve what is preservable and to defend what is defendable — are mainstream newspaper articles or significant book mentions or academic journal articles dealing substantially with Mr. Gurian.

Come up with 3 of these, and life is golden, because "notability is not temporary" as we say, and the subject will have run the gauntlet and emerged unscathed. Short of that, we are in damage mitigation mode. It doesn't look to me, in a cursory glimpse at the internets, that such sources exist. What I advocate is that the article be kicked back to you to see if you can get to the place where notability requirements are satisfied approaching the matter from another angle. If Mr. Gurian's BOOKS are covered substantially in multiple, independent, published, presumably reliable sources, that's the way out of the maze. If they aren't, chalk it up to a fair cop by the traffic officer on the beat and move along to your next topic. Carrite (talk) 02:34, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your valuable insights, Carrite! Just a question now, with regard to the notability of Mr. Gurian and specifically dealing with significant book mentions. As I noted earlier, Gurian is quoted extensively in the Season Three volume of Marc Cushman's These Are The Voyages: TOS history books on Star Trek. Both Marc Cushman and each of the first two Books in the trilogy have separate pages here at Wikipedia, however, I don't believe a page for the Season Three book has yet been created. FYI, here's a link to the Season Two volume ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/These_Are_The_Voyages:_TOS,_Season_Two. Would any of the Gurian book mentions in the 6 different episode chapters that Cushman refers to him be able to qualify as a "significant book mentions or academic journal articles" source you said was required to establish notability. One such mention of Gurian takes place on Page 298 of the book in the Chapter dedicated to the episode "For The World Is Hollow and I Have Touched The Sky". The mention spans about 12 lines and roughly a couple of hundred words. It begins "Star Trek archivist Gerald Gurian said, 'For The World .... is yet another outstanding episode, based on the quite interesting concept of a multi-generational ship disguised as an asteroid. And it was wonderful to have an episode focus so prominently on Dr. McCoy" ... etc. etc. for the remainder of a fairly lengthy quote that discusses some interesting aspects of the show. So, Carrite, is that something that might be considered a significant book mention? There are about 6 of those in total spread out in different chapters of the book, and some are longer quotes, some are shorter. One immediate problem that I can see, even if the quotes are considered significant, is that they are to be found in the physical pages of the hard copy book and not displayed online, as far as I know, anywhere on the internet. But they are quite real mentions and lengthy quotes of Gurian's impressions of different episodes. Thanks for your thoughts in response to this. Kind Regards. Tosresearcher (talk) 06:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, when I clicked the "Scholar" link at the very top of this page in the Find Sources: "Gerald Gurian" region, this new citation emerges, apparently in a book/paper authored by a L Geraghty ...

“A Reason to Live”: Utopia and Social Change in Star Trek Fan Letters L Geraghty - Popular Media Cultures, 2015 - Springer ... he provided the world with “a glimpse of the future”, implying that it will happen, and that future utopia will be “one where mankind didn't fight over land and money, where there was no hunger, and it didn't matter what color, race, or gender you were”.11 Gerald Gurian goes one ...

and another L Geraghty work, looks like a Book also shows up, which I imagine indicates Geraghty mentions Gurian somewhere in the pages of this work ...

[BOOK] Living with Star Trek: American Culture and the Star Trek Universe L Geraghty - 2007 - books.google.com Page 1. LINCOLN GERAGHTY LIVING WITH STAR TREK AMERICAN CULTURE AND THE STAR TREK UNIVERSE Page 2. Page 3. UVINCj wiTH STAR TRGiK Thls One Page 4. Page 5. UVINCj wiTH STAR TREK AMERICAN ...

There is also this citation listed, apparently related to Gurian's engineering work ...

[CITATION] Vehicle Re-Sequencing and Discrete Event Process Simulation G Gurian, J Shore - SIMULATION SERIES, 1997 - SCS SOCIETY FOR COMPUTER … Related articles Cite Save

and of course there was the somewhat lengthy mention of Gurian in the Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/10652413/Oscars-the-award-for-the-most-valuable-prop-goes-to....html

and the recent mention/quote in USA Today: http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/tv/2016/09/06/far-fetched-gizmos-star-trek-todays-tech-toys/85658282/

Tosresearcher (talk) 09:46, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I'm a HUGE Star Trek nerd. I've been to conventions. I own autographs & on-set paraphernalia. My oldest child could recite the opening monologue at the age of 3. So this is not an unbiased opinion: Delete this article. It reeks of WP:COI, lacks any appreciable indication of notability, and is patently about a book, despite being titled after the author. To be clear: I own and regularly read this book. I truly enjoy it. I still think it doesn't deserve an article, however the sources given are certainly good enough to include this in Cultural influence of Star Trek. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:46, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed; though to be fair, it's been substantially rewritten since being nominated for deletion with the idea of making it about the book rather than the author.--tronvillain (talk) 21:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be the correct way forward, assuming that two or three good, serious reviews can be mustered. Carrite (talk) 02:18, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As far as articles/reviews on Gurian's books themselves, here's what I've just seen from around the web:

http://io9.gizmodo.com/to-boldly-go-provides-a-rare-look-behind-the-scenes-of-1767366137

http://io9.gizmodo.com/a-fascinating-look-at-life-behind-the-scenes-of-star-tr-1786711120

http://www.geekalerts.com/star-trek-to-boldly-go-rare-photos-from-the-tos-soundstage-season-one/

http://www.fiz-x.com/original-star-trek-series-rare-behind-scenes-set-photos-surfaced/

http://scifidesign.com/2016/03/29/to-boldly-go-rare-photos-from-the-tos-soundstage-season-one/

http://geektyrant.com/news/rare-behind-the-scenes-set-photo-from-the-original-star-trek-series

http://www.blastr.com/2016-9-27/fascinating-check-out-these-rare-bts-pics-star-trek-tos-season-2

http://www.ilcineocchio.it/tv/star-trek-18-rarissime-foto-dal-dietro-le-quinte-della-stagione-2-della-serie-originale/ Tosresearcher (talk) 09:18, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

this is exactly what i meant about low-quality, bloggy sources. ack. Jytdog (talk) 09:35, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog, do you know that Gizmodo is one of the biggest technology/pop culture/media sites around? Over the last 30 days, its various pages attracted 38.9 million unique global visitors. Well over a million people a day. https://www.quantcast.com/gizmodo.com#trafficCard May I say that I'm getting the feeling some folks here might just be predisposed to belittle whatever evidence I submit in good faith to support my cause. Please, Jytdog, tell my why Gizmodo is so very low quality and unacceptable? And what are some examples of more substantial/pop culturally significant sites to cover a Star Trek book release? Tosresearcher (talk) 10:13, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep there are two gizmodos there; both already cited in the article and not great. and the other six low-quality bloggy sites you posted? Look, the book isn't Das Kapital or even Everything and More (book). It is for fans of a TV show; the sources are going to be low quality blogs, not the NYT Book Review or the London Review of Books. Don't have a cow. Jytdog (talk) 10:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, the two Gizmodos are dedicated entirely to the books written by Gurian; they do not merely mention the books in passing and they speak very positively (although, briefly) of the works and also display large galleries of imagery from them. So I certainly wouldn't condemn these mentions as inferior as you seem to be doing. It seems to me that many here are being overly dismissive of this proposed article because they cannot see the forest for the trees. On one hand, you seem to be critical of the books for not having NYT Book Reviews and then in the same breath admit that one shouldn't expect such huge interest because they are, as you say, books "for fans of a TV show". I propose that they have indeed drawn notable praise from the correct sources that one would normally hope for in this case ... a tremendously popular media site like Gizmodo, multiple Trek/scifi blogs, certainly significant people in the Star Trek universe like Academy and Emmy Award winning artist Doug Drexler who is overflowing in his praise, and Star Trek historian Marc Cushman who authored the foreword to the first book. And another example of not seeing the forest for the trees is this continually frowned upon -- for no intelligently explained reason -- Press Release from General Motors about Gurian receiving an award. It should be obvious to even the most addle brained members here that the huge multibillion dollar corporation GM is not the mouthpiece of Gurian. So a press release from them confirming that they did indeed bestow a prestigious award on him should be regarded as legitimate, should it not? Yet multiple individuals here have indicated that PRs are strictly forbidden!!! Without, it seems, considering the circumstances of this situation in the least. It is obvious to me that if it is Gurian himself issuing the release then the fact could certainly be in doubt and require verification. Yet a huge corporate press statement listing Gurian along with a few dozen other award recipients should be accepted in good faith, should it not? When a lawyer attempts to prove a fact in a court of law, does he not prefer reliable first hand testimony as opposed to hearsay? Why, on this PR issue, is the word of GM considered untrustworthy while the word of some unrelated newspaper journalist (who, by the way, guess what!!! ... would have composed his article UPON RECEIVING the previously discussed GM press release) be so highly sought after here? This place defies common sense. Tosresearcher (talk) 18:37, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And has no one any response/insights to the "Scholar" search links / citations, new book mentions of Gurian I discuss above on Gurian himself, and my inquiry on the lengthy Cushman book quotes/references to Gurian -- that Carrite seemed to suggest was the type of thing we are looking for? Please see my remarks a few paragraphs above. I am still proceeding to forward my case with a good faith presentation of facts/thoughts, anxiously awaiting the next dismissive observation.

Here is yet another new book review that appears to have been published just today on the second Gurian book. It actually is quite lengthy and is still another enthusiastic endorsement of these works. Here's a particularly favorable quote: "The final line: Without question, this is a must own publication for every Star Trek fan. This is the Star Trek celebration that fans have been looking for. It’s extremely rare to find anything new for a show fifty years old, but Gerald Gurian has done it. If you know any Star Trek fan, this is what to give them for the upcoming holiday season. Highest possible recommendation. Overall grade: A+"

http://www.scifipulse.net/in-review-to-boldly-go-rare-photos-from-the-tos-soundstage-season-two/ Tosresearcher (talk) 20:55, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the links you provided above and I didn't see much about Gerald Gurian himself. Feel free to provide excerpts here from those links (indicating each corresponding link) that give information about Gerald Gurian himself in case I missed something. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:01, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Bob K31416. The single scifipulse.net link above was provided as a possible significant new source to aid in the conversion of this article to a book article rather than a Gurian himself article. And, re: Gurian himself, I'd actually provided new material not in the form of those 6 or 7 links, but rather the Cushman book quotes I discussed in the paragraph below Carrite's comment on October 8th. Best. Tosresearcher (talk) 19:48, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at your message of 06:29, 8 October, which I thought was what you were referring to, and I had the impression there wasn't much information about Gurian himself in the Cushman book. If there was such information about Gurian himself, you can provide the excerpts here for discussion. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:21, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your reply. Those book passages were not about Gurian, they are lengthy quotes (200 to 300 words) from Gurian regarding his impressions about the various Star Trek episodes. So I'll assume they are also irrelevant for Wikipedia purposes. Tosresearcher (talk) 20:52, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per, well, per what everyone else is saying. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:47, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coca Xie[edit]

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

This article doesn't have reliable sources that confer notability. The sources are self published or affiliated with the subject. DarthVader (talk) 10:02, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Speedily. Blatant promotion. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:24, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:24, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:24, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO; pure unadulterated spam. I requested a speedy deletion. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:40, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Goodix Inc[edit]

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

Non notable company. A Google search brings up some results, but nothing that would merit its own article at this point. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 06:59, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; Note that the user who created the page wrote that edits would be incoming. I added an under construction tag to the article for them. This seems a bit premature, however, I can't see how notability is going to be established for this one either. Insert CleverPhrase Here 07:05, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article creator is at ANI now. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:55, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete notability not asserted. . . Mean as custard (talk) 14:59, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete as it stands I see some mentions in RSes, but they're mostly passing with a soupcon of churnalised press releases. Closest I've seen to evidence anyone cares is [25] and that says "blog" at the top. I'm willing to be convinced, if someone wants to dredge GNews and screen out the churnalism ... - David Gerard (talk) 18:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OMG 'churnalism' is my new favourite word... Insert CleverPhrase Here 22:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:23, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TNT this article please. It's totally useless the way it is. The creator seems to be on a spree of creating articles like these without adding any references or working on them. They have been brought to ANI for disruptive editing and I don't see any indication that they will stop. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:03, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam; 'nuff said. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:28, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete as entirely advertising, from specifying the company information to its services and then followed by business partners, there's nothing here for substance and I'll also then note this is unsourced, explained therefore by the fact this was advertising and that alone (advertisers will never care about what genuinely goes to an article because that's not the mindset of advertising). SwisterTwister talk 23:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. consensus has consistently been that local and student newspapers are not sufficient for the notability of local student athletes. DGG ( talk ) 01:24, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nadya Gill[edit]

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

fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 06:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons stated by the nominator. Not enough independent coverage for WP:GNG. No longer a penguin (talk) 09:28, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not good at football. But am confused. Isn't the under 17 FIFA world cup a Tier 1 international match as per FIFA? And therefore, would not playing two matches by the subject in the FIFA under 17 World Cup be considered significant per NFOOTBALL? (As I mentioned, I am bad at football and might have got this wrong). Lourdes 13:28, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, tier one means a match between the senior national teams of two FIFA members. WP:NFOOTBALL explicitly excludes youth football: Youth players are not notable unless they satisfy one of the statements above, or if they can be shown to meet the wider requirements of WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sir Sputnik and thanks. Is there some site that shows which matches are classified at what Tier? The FIFA link in the guideline only provides a summary statement (e.g. representative A teams), but does not clearly differentiate. Lourdes 02:44, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A teams = senior team. MbahGondrong (talk) 20:38, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MbahGondrong, which is the RS that confirms this? And the FIFA link also says that even scratch teams can be playing Tier 1 matches. My point is, is there any RS that defines what matches or cups are Tier 1 and so on? How do editors get to know that the FIFA u-17 World cup is not a Tier 1 international match? Thanks. Lourdes 01:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is a scratch team if I may ask? IMHO youth players (even national players) can be seen as reserves for the senior team (A team), I have never heard of any B team/Tier 2 team of an U17 national team. Again its my opinion based on my knowledge of football. MbahGondrong (talk) 15:34, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Probably WP:TOOSOON Now that the article's been cleaned up and refs added, should make things easier if/when it's re-published in the future. Hmlarson (talk) 19:43, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:22, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:22, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:22, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Qualifies on BASIC easily and even on GNG per the following reliable sources which discuss Gill extensively:Concacaf news report feature on Gill titled Canada’s Gill rises to occasion at CWU17, Quchronicle news feature on Gill, Sportzedge news report feature on Gill containing 4-5 paragraphs of reviewing Gill and subsequently an interview too; the report is titled 17-year-old sophomore Nadya Gill leads Quinnipiac soccer into 2016 season, There's one more feature report on Gill ([26]) which can be used within the article, but as it is a University TV channel, I am not considering it. Nevertheless, the other reports comfortably put the subject above BASIC and GNG. Most of these have been included in the subject's article. Lourdes 03:30, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Quinnipiac Chronicle is a university student newspaper, so it's deprecated as unable to carry notability for the same reason that q30television can't. Sportzedge is "powered by News8" — but "News8", WTNH, is a local television station in Quinnipiac University's own local media market, so it's not a source that can carry WP:GNG all by itself. And because she's played in CONCACAF league events, CONCACAF's own website is a primary source that cannot aid in showing notability. Bearcat (talk) 19:58, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - definitely fails WP:NFOOTBALL, and after a review of the sourcing does not quite meet WP:GNG yet. Giant Snowman 07:09, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GiantSnowman, from the sources I have mentioned, could you please specify which source does not meet GNG requirement and the reasons you think so? Could you also additionally comment on each source and why do you think the same does not meet the BASIC requirement? Thanks. Lourdes 08:14, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Fails NFOOTY, but passes wider GNG. Significant, non-routine coverage can be found in the following sources amongst others:

Quinnipiac Chronicle - semms like a relatively local source, but nonetheless is a significant article on the career of the player so far
News 8 - lengthy interview with player from website run by Connecticut news station. State-level coverage
CONCACAF - dedicated article on player from continental football association

There's also plenty of more routine coverage out there on her college / international career that can be used to flesh this article out. Fenix down (talk) 08:46, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:BASIC and WP:GNG per @Lourdes:. Article could use expansion, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 14:48, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources being bruited about here do not confer passage of WP:GNG. One (Quchronicle) is the student newspaper at her own university, which is a class of sourcing that is specifically deprecated as not able to carry notability at all (which Lourdes already knows, because they did deprecate another piece of student media sourcing as not assisting the case — they just maybe didn't realize that this source was also student media); one (Sportsedge) is the local television station in her university's local media market, and is thus not enough to carry notability as an article's only GNG-eligible source; CONCACAF is a primary source since she's in CONCACAF. So no, BASIC and GNG have not been met by those sources. Bearcat (talk) 19:58, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CONCACAF, is not of close affiliation to her nor "directly involved" - much like if FIFA has an article about a player. If it was her team, that would be another story. Hmlarson (talk) 20:14, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's what's known as a distinction without a difference. It's neither unprecedented, nor even particularly unusual, for CONCACAF to publish press releases to its own website about the ongoing career development of people who've played on CONCACAF member teams — so it's not "unaffiliated" just because she's one step removed from direct personal membership in the organization. Bearcat (talk) 21:24, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So who is she "directly involved" with at CONCACAF? For editors who may not be familiar with the hierarchy:

Player --> Team --> League --> National Federation (Canada Soccer Association) --> Regional Federation (CONCACAF) --> International (FIFA)
or in this case...
Player --> Team --> National Federation (Canada Soccer Association) --> Regional Federation (CONCACAF) --> International (FIFA) Hmlarson (talk) 21:52, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter how many in-between steps there are in the tree of association. If she's had any form of association with CONCACAF at all, then CONCACAF is still an affiliated primary source regardless of how many intermediaries you can add to the relationship diagram. And even if you ignore that fact, it's also the case that CONCACAF isn't media, but an organization, and thus still wouldn't count as a notability-conferring source anyway. Bearcat (talk) 17:01, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. Primary sources may or may not be independent or third-party sources." WP:PRIMARY Your interpretation is a bit different than other editors here. Hmlarson (talk) 20:30, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, I need to rephrase myself, because that isn't actually in conflict with what I said. If she's had any form of association with CONCACAF at all, then CONCACAF is still directly involved. Bearcat (talk) 17:48, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Obviously fails WP:NFOOTBALL, and I don't think that twiddly student newspapers and a couple of local blogs read by a collective audience of 17 are enough to carry through WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnTombs48 (talk • contribs) 13:24, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I initially thought of WP:TOOSOON, but there is enough here for GNG. This discussion seems to be following the usual pattern whereby sources are demanded, then when they're provided there is the pretence that they're not good enough sources! Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 15:47, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a "pretense". All possible sources are not created equal — some kinds of potential sources (student media, the subject's own self-published social media presence, community weekly newspapers, purely local media coverage of a person whose notability claim doesn't actually exceed the purely local, iTunes/Amazon, etc.) do not count as satisfying GNG, and people frequently try to bolster notability by leaning on the existence of that kind of "sourceability". So it's not a "pretense" to point out why a potential new source doesn't pass muster: it's an objective analysis of that source. Bearcat (talk) 17:43, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Objective to you perhaps; not to other editors. It is somewhat common for some editors to set the requirements higher for articles about women and women-related topics than a guideline advises. Whether this is done in an attempt to keep articles about women excluded from Wikipedia is obviously debatable. Hmlarson (talk) 19:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I most certainly do not have different, artificially inflated notability standards for women than I do for men; a man at the same level of achievement wouldn't get an article on the basis of this kind of sourcing either. Bearcat (talk) 07:33, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly meets WP:GNG as per sources quoted above. Nfitz (talk) 16:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What sources quoted above meet GNG? It's certainly not the student newspaper, because student newspapers don't count toward notability. It's not the primary source, because primary sources don't count toward notability. And all that's left is a single local news report on the local television station covering the area where the university she attends is located, which is not enough. Bearcat (talk) 07:33, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sources are either routine/minor mentions, very local, or Primary. Eldumpo (talk) 21:37, 16 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. Unopposed. Sandstein 08:47, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GJ 3959[edit]

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

The article makes no claims for notability per WP:NASTRO and I can't find any myself. It is one of millions of red dwarfs, very faint, relatively close to the sun but not notably so. It is listed in tables or catalogues in a number of research papers, but none are specific to this star. Lithopsian (talk) 13:37, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My searches didn't turn up additional sources on this. Fails WP:NASTRO. In particular I note this line from NASTRO: Being mentioned alongside other similar objects, such as in a table of properties of 200 newly discovered supernovae, does not constitute non-trivial coverage. The two sources in the article are titled Trigonometric Parallaxes for 1507 Nearby Mid-to-late M Dwarfs and Wide field search for nearby faint stars, both of which address bulk groups of stars rather than focusing on individually noteworthy objects. Alsee (talk) 19:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:06, 27 September 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) 05:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Unopposed. Sandstein 08:46, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Causal Inference[edit]

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable, relatively new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded by creator without reason stated; PROD reason still stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 18:09, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:38, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or move to Draft space. This journal has been around a few years and is headed by Judea Pearl, a Turing award winner who wrote the book on causality. None of that confers notability, but does confer respectability. This journal isn't indexed in the indices mentioned in WP:NJournals, but it is part of the Thomson Reuters - Emerging Sources Citation Index which does seem somewhat selective. I don't think I could convincingly argue that the ESCI by itself is enough to pass notability, but it is enough to park this in Draft space until indexing in our preferred databases becomes available. --Mark viking (talk) 23:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care much for ESCI: Jeffrey Beall on his blog has already noted that it even includes some obviously predatory journals... --Randykitty (talk) 08:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A few more opinions desirable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:50, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:50, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Recepient of at least two prominent Slovenian awards, thus notability is not an issue (I added it to the article). Tone 20:00, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adriana Maraž[edit]

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

Delete: as insufficiently notable. Also delete redirect -- Adriana Maraz. Quis separabit? 05:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. No such user (talk) 20:36, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. No such user (talk) 20:36, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, recipient of the Prešeren Award, a dozen News hits, including necrologues in the national press, has two exhibits in the Tate Gallery [27], [28], mentions in several books. No such user (talk) 15:44, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:18, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:18, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETEish given the low input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:48, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maan clan[edit]

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

Lacks notability. All the clan articles in the category of 'Jat Clans of Punjab' face the same issue. Most of them are as if there are listed in a clans directory, WP:NOT. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:48, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:48, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:48, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 September 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:23, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It probably does exist (eg: this) but I can't find any substantive mentions in reliable sources. - Sitush (talk) 16:27, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I'm going to close this as "no consensus to delete" but I want to see an RfC (at WP:NPOL and with notes at WP:POLOUTCOMES and WP:DIPLOMAT essay at least) about whether being an unelected holder of a top-level political office for major a country (such as an ambassador) represents sufficient notability by itself to justify inclusion as an article, because this is clearly the principal point of disagreement. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:09, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Karunatilaka Amunugama[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:DIPLOMAT, simply being a former ambassador for a country does not confer automatic notability. Lacks significant or in depth coverage and therefore fails WP:GNG. Dan arndt (talk) 05:22, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 05:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 05:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 05:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 05:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 05:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Ambassadors to such significant countries as China and Japan should always be considered notable, despite what the deletionists will no doubt claim. This is common sense. He is also a permanent secretary (i.e. the professional head of a government department). We usually consider them to be notable too. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:13, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely zero inherent notability in being head of government department nor being an ambassador to China or Japan. LibStar (talk) 14:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You continue to have a strange definition of notability. The head of a government department isn't notable? Really? You genuinely stand by that statement, do you? -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. There is no inherent notability in such positions. Please state actual notability guideline which gives automatic notability. LibStar (talk) 16:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, you confuse Wikipedia with a bureaucracy where imaginary rules trump common sense and nothing is determined by discussion or opinion. See the second entry at WP:POLOUTCOMES. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:46, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You mix up "common sense" which is really your opinion with established consensus . You invent criteria first that all ambassadors are notable to all ambassadors to major countries are notable , now it's all heads of government departments are notable. What's more surprising is not once on any AfD concerning ambassadors have you ever bothered to search for evidence of sources which is actually the best way to establish notability. The fact you spend time arguing non established inherent notability instead of finding sources says it all. LibStar (talk) 22:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're getting confused, I'm afraid. I'm not inventing criteria. I'm expressing an opinion. That's what AfD discussion is all about. If it was just about quoting policies then we wouldn't bother having these discussions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:23, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Diplomats and heads of government departments can get articles if those articles are substantive enough to be more than just a mere statement that they exist, and sourced well enough to pass WP:GNG. But neither diplomats nor bureaucrats get an automatic presumption of notability just for existing, if the sourcing is as minimal as it is here. Bearcat (talk) 18:10, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

agreed. Necrothesp has a habit of assigning inherent notability rather than actually making the effort to find sources to support a keep !vote. It's bordering on lazy that he never looks for sources in AfDs instead using the failed non consensus that position X gets a free pass keep. LibStar (talk) 23:36, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:23, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You claim to be using common sense when everyone else has put a case for delete. That's a strange form of common sense. LibStar (talk) 15:08, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:16, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:BIO. Coverage merely confirms he held the ambassador position rather than him being subject of coverage. LibStar (talk) 14:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A diplomat can get an article if he can be sourced well enough to pass WP:GNG, but does not get any automatic presumption of notability just for the fact of existing as a diplomat. I'm certainly willing to reconsider this if somebody can beef the sourceability up well enough to satisfy WP:GNG, but nothing here gives him an automatic "keep because he exists, who needs sourcing?" pass. Bearcat (talk) 18:10, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete A search for news sources finds nothing better than one-sentence mentions, which is not quite enough, in my opinion, to clear GNG, even though there are quite a few of them. The positions he has held are also below the level required for WP:NPOL; but this is a close call. If members of parliament are considered notable, one may certainly make the argument that foreign secretaries are also inherently notable...Vanamonde (talk) 09:26, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Vanamonde93: Does he not meet WP:NPOL#1? The office he has held can be identified as international or at least national. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:13, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

he is not an elected politician. LibStar (talk) 12:20, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As Libstar says, his is not an elected office, so isn't really covered under that criterion. Vanamonde (talk) 14:40, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ -- Pls see below /Original comment: does not meet WP:NPOL & insufficient coverage to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:52, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As the op of their professor ambassadors to major nations do have notability. The consensus has not always supported it, but it's compatible with what we do in other professions. I also take into account the difficulty in findand working with sources from the country involved. DGG ( talk ) 01:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

being ambassador to "major nation" does not give free pass to notability. LibStar (talk) 05:21, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Just being an ambassador, by itself, doesn't give a pass. However, we're talking about an individual that has served in major, important posts. And he's also been mentioned by reliable sources, just unfortunately not in that much detail. I'm somewhat persuaded by the arguments to keep this page. We're not talking about some random, no-name politician here. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:POLOUTCOMES. I think the consensus is that diplomats who have held three or more ambassador-level posts, or to/from major "imperial or world powers" ranks as notable. Bearian (talk) 18:43, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the consensus. There is no such thing. You're just inventing notability criterion to suit this discussion. LibStar (talk) 22:20, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- switch vote taking into consideration WP:POLOUTCOMES & being an ambassador to a major country. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:48, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mahr Jat[edit]

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

Lacks notability. All the clan articles in the category of 'Jat Clans of Punjab' face the same issue. Most of them are as if there are listed in a clans directory, WP:NOT. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:48, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:49, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:49, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 September 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:22, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: thoroughly non-notable in any category or respect. Quis separabit? 06:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per outcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barhiya; citations to Facebook and MyCities do not inspire confidence. I would also possibly suggest a group AfD in the future for similar articles. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:01, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETEish given the low input despite two relists. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:49, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marrar clan[edit]

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

Lacks notability. All the clan articles in the category of 'Jat Clans of Punjab' face the same issue. Most of them are as if there are listed in a clans directory, WP:NOT. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:48, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:49, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:49, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:49, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 September 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Seemingly fails WP:GNG. Anup [Talk] 16:29, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seems like there is no evidence that the org itself is notable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:50, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TheCommunity.com[edit]

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

Promotional in nature. References are given to coverage not related to the article. Nothing significant or notable so far about the website to be here. Article goes on writing about coverage. Not notable. Light21 07:27, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing about the site itself or why it's noteworthy - David Gerard (talk) 17:06, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Influential organization that organizes Nobel laureates and other public figures into notable petition drives. Safehaven86 (talk) 22:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- This says nothing about the organisation, however. If cut to RSes the article would be about a sentence - David Gerard (talk) 22:52, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:05, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:20, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Once in a lifetime coverage, nothing Encyclopedic genuine. Only thing written about website in NYTimes is " he joint letter was organized by two of the laureates, Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa and former President José Ramos-Horta of East Timor, and is part of a broader online petition campaign at TheCommunity.com, whose chairman is Mr. Ramos-Horta. An advance copy was provided to The New York Times." Something is associated with something does not make it significant itself. Light2021 (talk) 07:02, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Not seeing any WP:CORPDEPTH; having Nobel prize winners on an advisory board is laudable but not enough to satisfy WP:GNG. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:31, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the following comment was posted in response to a comment by Light2021 that has since been deleted. Ohnoitsjamie agreed with your deletion nomination, and you are complaining. This really makes no sense. Safehaven86 (talk) 17:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete instead as what's currently listed is trivial and unconvincing and I'm only managing to find one merely trivial mention, nothing here suggests not only what we would need for substantial improvements, but also an actually convincing article. SwisterTwister talk 22:13, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't satisfy WP:NWEB or WP:NORG at this time. There is very little significance coverage "about" the website itself. Simply being quoted in a couple of places is not enough and the website cannot inherit notability from these mentions. The NYTimes mention for example, is a pretty trivial mention. All of these show that it exists, but there is hardly any reliable secondary coverage about the website itself. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:26, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to FastMail. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:14, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mindsmack[edit]

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

Article is written only for promotional and advertising purposes. References are very poor. References are just some profile made in popular media. No significant coverage by independent media. Nothing significant or notable about the company to be here. does not meet notability criteria. Light21 13:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:52, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:52, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:52, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:52, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

not sure - the first Inc. article is substantial RS coverage, but that's the only example. I'd honestly expect more - David Gerard (talk) 15:51, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable as developer of FastMall, which has been covered in New York Times among other outlets. Other RS include Inc and Bloomberg. Safehaven86 (talk) 17:16, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- That sounds like a reason to merge to FastMail, particularly the Bloomberg cite - David Gerard (talk) 19:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to FastMail per Safehaven86 - David Gerard (talk) 19:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to FastMail; I'm finding only trivial coverage on the company. I don't think we need an article for both the company and the product. Whatever is useful can be picked up from the article history. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:57, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:20, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, there is no significant information here beyond the founding date. If we cannot tell whether it's a multi-million dollar company or a couple of guys in a garage (or both), there's no point in having a separate article about it, and there's nothing to merge. Huon (talk) 18:20, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to FastMail Over here the product looks like it has received more coverage than the company. Per WP:INHERITORG, I would go for a redirect here. I don't think a merge is necessary (given that the content in the article isn't particularly useful) and in any case a redirect preserves the article history, so any useful information can be selectively merged later. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:16, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Cox Media Group. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:04, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adify[edit]

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

Rely only on non-credible media sources. Merely Press Release on media. Article is written only for company promotional and advertising purposes. No significant coverage by independent media. Nothing significant or notable about the company to be here. does not meet notability criteria. Light21 15:24, 18 September 2016 (UTC)Light2021 (talk) 14:53, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blatantly promotional per nom. Delete and redirect to Cox Media - David Gerard (talk) 16:48, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 16:57, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 16:57, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There is substantial coverage of this company in highly reliable sources such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, and others. Article should likely be moved/renamed to Cox Digital Solutions, as sources say the Adify name hasn't been used since 2011 after a buy-out/merger. If nominator believes an article is blatantly promotional, they should prod it under WP:G11. But if an article is AFD'd and meets WP:GNG, like this one, the fact that it may be promotional in tone isn't a reason to delete it. In any event, this article isn't blatantly promotional. Safehaven86 (talk) 20:48, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be reluctant to call those two "substantial" - a severe lack of WP:CORPDEPTH. A kept article on that basis will be about a paragraph. Also, it's depressingly easy for an article to be blatantly promotional and not quite qualify for speedy - David Gerard (talk) 23:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Not a tremendous amount of depth of coverage, but enough non-PR articles to squeak by. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:33, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:01, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

News covered by popular media NyTimes and Washington post is for Press only. They both are writing only one thing The Merging of two companies. Company merge evrery day, and definitely it is written on newspaper daily. Nothing makes them significant for this part. Merely coverd by popular media is not important. What is covered is more important. I have read those articles. Nothing is there except press. Light2021 (talk) 07:06, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect as it's clearly by far best known for that, and nothing else is suggesting otherwise, what's listed is simply repeating that and then what the company information was about and there's simply nothing else actually suggestive of a convincing independent article. SwisterTwister talk 22:05, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. and move to Cox Digitalon the basis of the NTarticle. This is significant coverage. DGG ( talk ) 01:27, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Besides WaPo and NYT, there's Business Week, Mercury News. I think it might be less confusing to readers, and less wordy to write, to keep Adify where it is and instead redirect Cox Digital Solutions to Cox Media Group. You can first read that Adify did X, Y, and Z, then click through to the Cox article to read what took place after it became a subsidiary under a new name. Keeping and moving as DDG suggests is acceptable too, but requires more disambiguation in the text to keep track of what was done under one name/ownership and under the other. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cox Media Group. This topic is not historically significant. It is another startup or youngish company that was bought by a larger company. This is business as usual. Also, just because there is coverage in publications like The New York Times and The Washington Post does not mean this topic is notable. Both of these published articles are small business announcements and do not qualify as WP:CORPDEPTH sources. The coverage is routine business announcements with a quote from a company source - a senior vice president . The other sources mentioned do the same. Coverage in these so-called "news" articles rely only on company executives for information. This is not independent coverage as required when using reliable sources to determine notability. Steve Quinn (talk)
Merge/Redirect to Cox Media Group so that the business can be discussed in the particularly helpful, broader context. This addresses as well the sourcing concerns since it's not that notable on its own. Issues with promotional-type wording and the like can be solved in the merging process. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Cox Media Group. Sources are acceptable for coverage within that article, concerns of PR and promotion seem a bit strong. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:15, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:45, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Iuliana Tudor[edit]

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

There's really nothing to indicate this individual is anything but an ordinary news presenter, and no indication of coverage outside routine announcements or the tabloid press. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 16:00, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 16:00, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 16:00, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable television personality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: We need to look at Romanian sources, if she was on a national program as a host for 8 years, the is likely enough for her to be notable in her homeland. Montanabw^(talk) 04:51, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I did look at Romanian sources, and like I said, the coverage either deals with routine/unquotable trivia (how her boss saved her life by lending her money, how she found a husband) to tabloid trash (how her first boyfriend broke her heart, how her husband stayed faithful, who was her surprise wedding guest, her advice on beating the heat). - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:33, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:01, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - numerous Romanian news references available. I've added a few to start. Article needs clean up and improved referencing, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 03:48, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, you've added some meaningless trivia - I've taken the liberty of writing out what those sources actually say, rather than dumping them in the first line, in contravention of WP:CITELEAD. Fulfillment of WP:BASIC remains elusive. - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a gossip rag, and that seems to be the quality of the available references, including Romanian references (thanks Biruitorul!). I don't see that these sources allow us to write a meaningful encyclopedia article. Huon (talk) 18:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a weakly sourced vanity page at this point; no indications of notability or significance. Sources provided at the AfD have not been convincing. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:50, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kongu piratti[edit]

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

Subject lacks coverage in reliable sources. PROD was also removed by page's creator. Meatsgains (talk) 19:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If this article is to be kept, it needs a complete rewrite. Readers who are unfamiliar with Hindu tradition are unlikely to be able to make any sense out of this article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:02, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:52, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No effort has been made since this AfD began to make this article any more comprehensible to those unfamiliar with the subject. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:55, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:52, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this article is a complete mess. I cannot tell from the article whether the subject is real or mythological, or if she is real, what millennium she lived in. The sources are not reliable. Turning this page into a valid encyclopedia article amounts to rewriting it in its entirety; there is nothing worth saving here. Huon (talk) 22:23, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Upper ontology#DOLCE. Preserving history in case someone has anything to copy over. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:51, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Descriptive Ontology for Linguistic and Cognitive Engineering[edit]

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

This article is entirely sourced from primary material. The term does not seem to have any currency outside of its original proponents and their group, who seem to be the authors of all the cited sources. Guy (Help!) 20:31, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:17, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect into the DOLCE section of upper ontology. No evidence the term is used outside the small group who apparently wrote the articles? Currently way too much detail, perhaps move the sources into the upper ontology article since that is pretty thin too. W Nowicki (talk) 22:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Upper ontology#DOLCE, where it is briefly discussed. A Gbooks search reveals that DOLCE has brief mentions in some ontology guides. A Comparison of Upper Ontologies discusses DOLCE in some depth, seems independent, and as an academic technical report, is semi-reliable. These sources aren't enough to reach notability threshold per WP:GNG, but they are enough sourcing to support a brief section on the upper ontology at Upper ontology#DOLCE. As this is a plausible search term, a redirect is warranted. I agree with W Nowicki that transferring some of the sources, or the tech report above, to the target article would strengthe the section, but a full merge would expand the section to one of undue weight. Hence, redirect now and selectively merge as desired seems best. --Mark viking (talk) 22:36, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETEish given the low input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:51, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joachim Kahl[edit]

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

A long and admiring article without a single independent source. No evidence this meets WP:PROF as he's a "freelance philosopher". Guy (Help!) 21:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable philosopher.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:29, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:54, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:41, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:15, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:17, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Nebraska Cornhuskers football. MBisanz ^talk 22:52, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charles "Cy" Sherman[edit]

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

Coming up with the name "Cornhuskers" for the University of Nebraska isn't going to satisfy WP:JOURNALIST. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:40, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:40, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KeepSeems that creating the "Cornhusker" name meets #2 of WP:JOURNALIST, "The person is known for originating a significant new concept. . ." However I could also see a case being made for renaming/redirecting the article to the origination of the Cornhusker name per WP:BIO1E. Barkeep^Chat 05:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A nickname for a college footbal team is far from being the type of "significant new concept" envisaged by WP:JOURNALIST. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 08:04, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The nickname was then given to the entire state and Sherman was honored on the occasion of the state legislature officially adopting the nickname for the state, for what it is worth. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes GNG. [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37]. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 18:41, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge pertinent information to Nebraska Cornhuskers and then delete (not a plausible search term). Only tangential coverage, and seems to be a case of WP:BLP1E. ¡Boz zio! 05:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:40, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect over to Nebraska Cornhuskers since he doesn't appear to be that notable as an individual, just having notoriety in the particular context relating to them. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:40, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I added some more detail; the obit I added was from the Star, but was widely reported, as was his connection to the AP Poll. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Local obits do not show notability , and merely naming a team is not a major new concept. Consider madding the info in a single sentence to the article on the team and making a redirect, after the article is deleted. DGG ( talk ) 01:29, 18 October 2016 (UTC) .[reply]

Just to be clear, while I'm not sure if a local obit cannot show notability, after looking through the obits I found, it seemed that the Star obit was the most useful one for making a good contribution to the page.Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is deleted, performing a merging of info "in a single sentence to the article on the team" will be difficult for most users to perform, who won't have access to the deleted article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:51, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Historical figure, known for something ongoing, and subject of a detailed published obituary including multiple claims (https://www.newspapers.com/clip/7061146/the_lincoln_star/ https://www.newspapers.com/clip/7061235/the_lincoln_star/) even if non-independent. If not for keeping, merge to Nebraska Cornhuskers football, as per any WP:BIO1E case. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:22, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I added a citation to a non-Lincoln version of the obituary, the one I added was from Arkansas and was the next one I found at newspapers.com. I also added some material about Sherman's role in Western League Baseball (Class A minor league, I think), which he helped restart after WWII and of which he was a franchise owner. I don't mean to overstep, but I wanted to point out another addition which speaks to the issue of the local obituary (I've added a non-local printing of the obituary and can add more if requested) and the issue of being notable for only one thing. I count four things: coined the cornhusker nickname for the team which was then adopted by the state, played a roll in the creation of the AP college football poll, franchise owner and league treasurer of a Class A minor league team, co-owned and edited the Red Lodge Pickett in Red Lodge, Montana - all cited to Lincoln newspapers and to newspapers outside of the state. Smmurphy^(Talk) 07:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Nebraska Cornhuskers football, per WP:BIO1E. Really only famous for one thing, and while the sourcing is improved with some primary sources, there doesn't seem to be anything secondary, substantial, and independent, which we need to get over WP:N. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete and then mention at other article at the amount as needed, because none of this is actually substantiating independent notability for a convincing article. SwisterTwister talk 05:33, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources linked by WikiOriginal-9 (talk · contribs). WP:BLP1E/WP:BIO1E does not apply because the subject died in 1951 and because he is notable for being a newspaperman for nearly 60 years. The obituary in The Lincoln Star provides very substantial coverage about him. The obituary demonstrates Cy Sherman's national impact as a sports editor and sports write:
In 1936, Cy advanced the idea for the Associated Press members' national poll of top ten college football teams — the poll generally accepted today as designating the national champion.
He has received coverage in other sources like this article in the Omaha Bee and this article from the Lincoln Evening Journal ("Nationally Known Sports Editor Named to 'Sports Hall of Fame'"). Sherman clearly meets Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
I oppose a merge to Nebraska Cornhuskers because the sources demonstrate that Cy Sherman's notability is not solely tied to the Nebraska Cornhuskers.
Cunard (talk) 05:47, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not only are the listed sources above simply local news stories, they actually emphasize the fact (as the comments earlier have also noted), it's still not enough for an actually convincing article of his own, and not something that would be confident for meaningful improvements. Simply that he was "known in his work" is not alone enough to actually save this article, therefore the comments earlier have shown the one local story obituary of his death is not alone inherited notability or any other means of automatic acceptance. Also, as for merging, any meaningful information can simply be mentioned at the other article with a limited amount, since that other article is about the entire subject, not the man himself alone. SwisterTwister talk 06:53, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, all the sources I linked weren't local. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 18:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to Nebraska Cornhuskers football, which presently has no mention of the subject. This will improve the merge target article by making it more comprehensive and accurate for Wikipedia's readers. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:50, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Of note is that the nominator has essentially withdrawn, stating in part, "I'm satisfied it now meets notability ..." in a comment within the discussion. Overall consensus is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:48, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decanter (magazine)[edit]

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

I can't seem to find notability. I searched through google but a considerable number of search results only showed standard pages associated with magazines (i.e. subscription offers). Couldn't find anything independent, reliable, significant etc. It did have considerably more content 3 years back that was non neutral/COI in nature https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Decanter_(magazine)&oldid=545263043 which was subsequently removed. On top of the perceived lack of notability, the article is very short of useful info and sources (the 3 sources also being primary). Rayman60 (talk) 00:26, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:52, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:52, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete yeah, a promotional article that got cleaned up and there's nothing left after the cleanup - David Gerard (talk) 07:24, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I just expanded the article. Among other things, the magazine has been described as " "arguably the most influential wine periodical in the world" (Wine Wars by Mike Veseth, Rowman & Littlefield), or "one of the world's leading wine magazines" (Wine Marketing: A Practical Guide by Colin Michael Hall and Richard Mitchell, Routledge) and its website as well is "widely recognized as a leading online wine magazine" (Wine Brands: Success Strategies for New Markets, New Consumers and New Trends by Evelyne Resnick, Springer Publishing). Clearly notable (and authorative) in its field. Cavarrone 09:51, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- in addition to above listed sources, this presents WP:SIGCOV on the subject: Wine Brands: Success Strategies for New Markets, New Consumers and New Trends by Evelyne Resnick. The book is published by Palgrave Macmillan so it does appear to be RS. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:57, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:13, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Initially I just saw a lot of self-referenced, unverifiable claims of its position within the wine world. I'm satisfied it now meets notability and the article is looking better.Rayman60 (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sort of WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:00, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EGames.com[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:GNG. Non-notable company. Topic lacks significant coverage form reliable secondary sources. None of the sources currently used on the article contribute to the topic's notability. The first is a user-generated database entry, the second is a self-published blog, the third is a pr piece from the company itself. The1337gamer (talk) 07:32, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 07:32, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 07:32, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, no coverage from independent reliable sources to establish notability. Also the name of the author suggest that it may be an auto-promotional article written with a WP:COI. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:50, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:34, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:11, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Discussion about redirecting to Cylinder (geometry) can proceed on the article's talk page. A Train^talk 16:47, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right circular hollow cylinder[edit]

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

Not notable. Specifically: The subject is a specific example of the use of the formula for a cylinder, using simple arithmetic. If this subject should be anywhere in Wikipedia, it should be a small part of the article Cylinder (geometry). Anita5192 (talk) 20:07, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Subject is notable and topic notable too. As in cubes,cuboid,prisms,cones and pyramids etc. only formula are used for calculation similarly formula are used in cylinder ,right circular hollow cylinder,hemisphere,sphere etc.
More utility of hollow cylinder is found in daily life in comparison of cylinder,more utility is found in various machines,irrigation,engineering etc.
cube and cuboid are separate articles with minor difference
cuboid and parallelepiped are separate articles having with minor difference.
tetrahedron and cube are separate articles with minor difference.
Why not cylinder and Right circular hollow cylinder are separate articles?Nagric (talk) 03:56, 26 September 2016 (UTC)Teacher1943[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is WP:NOTTEXTBOOK, especially for so elementary a topic. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KeepIs cube,cuboid,prism,pyramid ,sphere,cone are not elementary topic,why are these topics are separate ? Please do not say elementary topic. Without Right circular hollow cylinder solid geometry will be incomplete.Nagric (talk) 16:19, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:04, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:04, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, is there any reason why this can't be merged with Cylinder (geometry) appearing under Other types of cylinders?, as for other "elementary topics" being separate, merge discussions can be started on their respective talkpages if editors think WP:OTHERSTUFF. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per Clarityfriend above. This does not add anything of mathematical value; it does not say anything of engineering value either (there could be stuff about calculating the internal volume of a cylinder made from a rectangle of sheet metal of a certain thickness, but none of this is notable, it is just elementary calculations on more or less arbitrary shapes. Imaginatorium (talk) 13:15, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete a trivial construction from two cylinders, not notable in its own right.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:54, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google books shows that the snippet for Space Power Systems reads, "The shape of the fuel--a right circular hollow cylinder--was arrived at as a compromise between heat transfer and mechanical or fabrication concerns. It is desirable to place the fuel at the end of the heat source close to the area where surplus..." This article is far from trivial, requiring the math to understand the object being described, as the object includes the volume between the two cylindrical shells, but not the volume in the central core. The idea that there is any justification for not covering this topic in the encyclopedia I can't imagine. Definitions appear to be needed for orthotropic right circular hollow cylinder and isotropic right circular hollow cylinder. There may also be room to add discussion of "The resonant frequency νn of an evacuated right circular hollow cylinder...", as this is mentioned in more than one source. Unscintillating (talk) 23:02, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:08, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Cylinder (geometry) seems the most sensible option. Polyamorph (talk) 12:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above and perhaps selectively merge, trivial subtopic. Sandstein 08:45, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It pains me to say this, because we should have more math articles. But, as I look at this article, and look at Cylinder (geometry) to see if it makes sense to merge, I just can't see it. This really is a trivial topic. There's nothing fundamental about a cylinder with a hole down the middle. The formulae for surface area and volume of this shape are straight-forward application of the general rules for building complex shapes composed of simpler ones. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:11, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 08:01, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hubert Tully[edit]

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

Delete: inherently non-notable -- notability not acquired solely through "victimhood" (see here), which is a subjective term but I'll go with it. Quis separabit? 04:59, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:57, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:57, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:57, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable trivia; Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Kierzek (talk) 19:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have a real problem when editors list books and provide no page numbers. Neither book (here and here) has text online so it's hard to easily check. With the POV issue going on here I'm not AGFing. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:10, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. EricSerge (talk) 21:03, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article has serious POV issues, and no indication that good sources exist that could overcome them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DElete -- Thoroughly NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:52, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Bacolod[edit]

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

Article does not satisfy WP:ANYBIO or basic notability for that matter. — •KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ• ^Speak! 04:01, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete May be self promotion judging by the same account uploading this^[1] under own work.Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Karen_Bacolod_face_pic.jpg

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:01, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:01, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if the claim that at 27 she is the youngest planning commissioner to date in Artesia (they have 5 people in this postion at any given time) is true, it is not very impressive. Very rarely does someone become notable for being the youngest x, when being x is unnotable. Being a planning commissioner is not even default notable in New York City, but in Artesia?John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:58, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:52, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nima Namgyal Lama[edit]

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

Lacks claim of notability and unable to locate anything in-depth to show notability. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. CNMall41 (talk) 03:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:00, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:00, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article in very first paragraph claims that subject is recipient of Padma Shri, that one thing makes him eligible for inclusion per WP:ANYBIO. But the tone of article doesn't adhere to WP:NPOV and the article reads like a pure advertisement. I'll go with WP:TNT here. It also smells like a bit WP:COPYVIO. Anup [Talk] 17:19, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. The original nominator has expressed a 'keep' opinion, and there are no outstanding 'delete' !votes. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BESM (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Procedural nomination per the result of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/BESM (disambiguation). result: speedy keep. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it contains three valid links to wikipedia article and a relevant wiktionary link. Including these in a hatnote would be too clunky. Uanfala (talk) 06:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep, after 3rd item added. - üser:Altenmann >t 07:22, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, as the editor who elevated this past TWODABS level. I've also gone ahead and added a fourth entry; the project's coverage of rock mechanics topics is wretchedly inadequate, but this use of "BESM" is well-established (and rock stress estimation techniques in general would be a viable article topic), even if no one has gotten around to writing about it here yet. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. Drmies (talk) 02:59, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Shahjahan Miah[edit]

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

Despite what the article claims, according to existing sources, the subject is an assistant minister, not a minister. Existing sources are bare mentions, nothing directly detailing. A reasonable search is hindered by the existence of another person of the same name, a musician. What can be found does not seem to be sufficient to meet GNG. BusterD (talk) 03:44, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--Withdrawing nomination per POLOUTCOMES. BusterD (talk) 22:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep- Full disclosure I created the article. Now he is former state minister of the National government of Bangladesh which is verified by reliable sources. There is no such thing as assistant minister. He was the minister in charge because there was no full minister during his term. He has held a national post and thus satisfies notability guideline.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 03:57, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. My mistake, a misreading of the third source. Per WP:POLOUTCOMES I'm going to withdraw this nom. My apology. An additional apology for nomming before you'd had much chance to flesh this out. As I mentioned in my nom, there's nothing directly detailing. A reasonable search doesn't find anything. Since you're better acquainted with the material, I'd appreciate it if you'd improve this. BusterD (talk) 22:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Seems like this article barely meets GNG judging by the !votes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uganda International[edit]

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

No evidence of notability and fails WP:GNG. MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 02:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 02:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 02:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This tournament is at the lowest level mentioned at the main badminton article. No additional sources or mentions ere found with a quick Google search. Tazerdadog (talk) 03:47, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The 'level' of an international badminton tournament depends on the amount of money it offers in prize – lower money means lower 'level'. It has nothing to do with the notability. It just shows that the country's organizing association isn't that rich. What matters here is that it's the only BWF-sanctioned international badminton tournament organised in Uganda. BTW, quick Google search does provide healthy amount of sources – uganda international badminton. - NitinMlk (talk) 17:04, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is the regular and important international badminton tournaments organised in Uganda, sanctioned by BWF. I already added some sources. Poke Florentyna, KGirlTrucker81, NitinMlk Griff88, Aleenf1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stvbastian (talk • contribs) 08:22, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I don't think those references are all that reliable. --MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 06:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the details of the above tournament at the Badminton World Federation's official website: 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010. - NitinMlk (talk) 16:32, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – It is the only international, BWF-sanctioned badminton tournament organised in Uganda. Badminton World Federation's official website is www.bwfbadminton.org. And to check the tournament's details, one can see the tournament calendar at BWF's official website or at its 'Fans Website'.

As far as WP:GNG is concerned, the tournament gets healthy coverage in the reliable independent sources, e.g. New Vision — [38], [39], [40], [41]; The Observer (Uganda) — [42]; Xinhua News Agency — [43]; China Network Television — [44]; Global Times — [45]; News24 — [46]; Uganda Radio Network — [47], [48], [49]; Bukedde — [50]; O Jogo — [51]; [52]; [53]; [54], etc. - NitinMlk (talk) 16:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't understand why this was flagged. The government is clearly notable and warrants inclusion in Wikipedia. It passes WP:GNG. –seanhaley1 (talk) 23:31, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Suspicious account: Please note that the above contributor has recently created an account, rapidly made 10 edits and then started !voting on multiple AfDs, many of which don't make sense. See Special:Contributions/Seanhaley1 for their edits. There is a possibility that this is an undisclosed paid editor/canvassed editor/sockpuppet who is probably voting on multiple AfDs to hide the actual target. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:49, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- @Seanhaley1: I proposed this for AfD because it doesn't seem to have any notability on it's own. Just because the governing body that oversees the tournament is notable, doe not automatically make the tournament itself notable. --MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 04:52, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are enough sources here to pass GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:03, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weakest Keep. All opinions that refer to GNG are using the wrong standard for our discussion. When we look at WP:N(E) and specifically WP:Routine, the standard is clearer: "Wedding announcements, sports scores, crime logs, and other items that tend to get an exemption from newsworthiness discussions should be considered routine. Routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc. may be better covered as part of another article, if at all." Thus, news reports of the type--"Olga Siamupangila and Chongo Mulenga have won a bronze medal in the mixed doubles of the Uganda International Badminton"--do not help us ascertain 'significant coverage' for notability. So, with that in mind, most of the sources provided do not pass WP:N(E). We need sources that go beyond routine sports coverage. Lexis had 31 hits, Newsbank had 49 hits. Of those, with some duplicates, four sources go beyond routine coverage at any point. What passed for me is that they come from diverse geographic areas (Africa and Asia) which is a positive sign of notability, see: WP:GEOSCOPE. This was difficult, but passes by the thinnest margin. AbstractIllusions (talk) 16:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1) Re: "Routine events such as sports matches...may be better covered as part of another article..."

Actually, we are discussing the "another article" here. The discussion is about a tournament article, which keeps record of its 'routine events'. Had it been the AfD for a particular annual event of the above tournament, let's say 2016 Uganda International, then the above quote would've been suitable. But here we are discussing the notability of a tournament as a whole, instead of its individual matches.

2) As per WP:GNG, 'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Around ten sources provided by me are solely dedicated to the tournament and they are discussing its various issues/details in a non-trivial way.

Finally, one should remember that the above tournament is sanctioned by the BWF & it provides world ranking points. In badminton, the Olympic qualification is based on the world rankings. So, as far as badminton is concerned, the above tournament is inherently notable. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I thought about this and don't find any of this convincing. I see the logic behind the points and won't push it, but for me the routine coverage standard is this: Is there details about the event itself (notable) or just about the matches in the event (non-notable)? For example, the Olympics we get coverage about the politics of selecting the location, the construction, the drug testing, the pageantry, etc. Also, the Olympics get re-reported afterward with profiles and books about the matches (hence they have lasting significance). As I noted above: only a few articles even have anything about the hosting of the event. In the end, we got to the same point just in very different ways. Skoal. AbstractIllusions (talk) 23:37, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - looking at some of the winners (Carolina Marín, for instance), this tournament clearly attracts some very good players - if not those at the peak of their career. While mention is largely routine, there are details like AbstractIllusions mentions in some news articles that could be added. Possibly rename to "Uganda International Badminton Open". Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. After sources have been added. Sandstein 15:48, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tuxis Pond[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No citations to show for its notability. Article doesn't show how important the place is to the things it is associated with. ~~Also probably A7, although I do not wish to tag it for speedy as I'm unsure.~~ Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 01:57, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically, this article fails WP:NGEO, especially WP:GEOLAND which says: For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river.

Comment The article creator, User:Cormac Nocton messaged me regarding the article, saying, "I see no reason that my article should be deleted, and would greatly appreciate it if you told me how to improve my article. I realize that the subject is quite obscure, but it is nonetheless an important part of the local geography, ecology, and especially folklore. I would be thankful if you removed the tag. Removing this article would conflict with my article on Tuxis Island, as well." Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 02:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Cormac Nocton: Please try to help me by finding some sites or sources which talk about the location. I tried finding them myself but I couldn't find anything verifiable to place onto the article. If you can't find them, I won't be able to help you. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 02:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has potential. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:23, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean article has potential? Do you mean potential as in potential third party sources available? Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 07:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverified. May be worth a mention in the Madison, Connecticut article if it can be verified. Mjroots (talk) 08:08, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added GNIS sourcing and Native American etymology to the article, and some information about a walkway that's admittedly small fry but demonstrates the subject's potential coverage in regional news sources (which are rarely freely available online). It should also be noted that the Folklore section seems verifiable based on results of a Google Books search, however the relevant sources offer only snippets; nevertheless this indicates offline sources exist and there is no requirement that references must be accessible online. WP:GEOLAND also reads: Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This requirement has been met, and searches seem to indicate that more exists beyond the low-hanging fruit of Google. Antepenultimate (talk) 06:23, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as Antepenultimate has added some much needed information and references. Sea Captain Cormac 23:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cormac Nocton (talk • contribs) [reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:40, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GFI Software[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Still fails WP:CORP; most content is merely documentation that the company exists. FalconK (talk) 01:43, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as we seriously cannot take literal what happened in 2005, a time when Wikipedia was certainly at its worst considering all levels, this is still not having any actual significance and, let alone for actual notability. There is nothing suggesting what would be needed, since it is not improvable by any means. SwisterTwister talk 01:36, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:59, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:59, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:59, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment PC Mag and InfoWorld magazines contain several reviews of their software. You may check these on Google books. I will add direct references to the article later (today, I hope...). Pavlor (talk) 05:54, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- That'd be useful - I had a look and didn't see those - David Gerard (talk) 08:02, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I added in the "Further reading": 3 + 3 reviews in InfoWorld/PC Magazine, article on The Register about SORBS purchase and article on iX/heise.de about TeamViewer sale (there may be more of this kind in the German press/news). All these sources are available online (I can add direct links to magazines on Google books, but it is easy to find them with current full references). Pavlor (talk) 17:32, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete - I can't find anything except corporate acquisition details - David Gerard (talk) 08:02, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an unremarkable SW package / company. Not notable per available sources. Article content was mostly spam / "product brochure" advertorial. Article created by Special:Contributions/GelegerGFI so paid editing is about 100% certain, which is against policy. Let's not encourage the spammers by keeping this article. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:34, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- May I ask what sources could show notability for Wikipedia purposes, if even several reviews in published magazines aren´t enough? Pavlor (talk) 18:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:53, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fox-IT[edit]

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

No assertion of notability; and the page reads like promotional text that could be on its website. No 3rd party coverage of significance except an announcement that NCC bought them. FalconK (talk) 01:34, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete blatant advertisement with unconvincing sourcing - David Gerard (talk) 08:11, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam with marginal sourcing. Strictly a "investor prospectus" / "product brochure" content; no value to the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Michig (talk) 07:55, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Norton (engineer)[edit]

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

I believe that this article was created by the subject of the article based on the fact that the article creators only contributions have been on this article and the affiliated article: Dublin Institute of Technology, and all edits to the page have been done by that person or other persons affiliated with the Dublin Institute of Technology based on analysis of user contributions and trends. David Condrey ^{log talk} 01:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination statement may well be true, but it doesn't contain any valid reason for deletion per WP:DEL-REASON. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 13:08, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 13:08, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:57, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:57, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment clearly promotional, and with conveniently unclickable refs, but the claim of notability makes this one not an instant dismiss under WP:PROMO - anyone want to go dredging the refs? - David Gerard (talk) 07:31, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I found:

Is behind a paywall at https://www.irishnewsarchive.com/, but this is probably similar
Found here
Can't find this via Google, the Irish News Archives, or the Irish Times archives. The name of the reference looks mangled. Might be similar to this article, which is paywalled but available via Google cache
If this is anywhere, it's behind a members-only login at the Public Affairs Ireland website
Is behind a paywall here. From the Google cache, looks like only a passing mention
Online here. The text doesn't mention Norton; the video is a 30-second speech by Norton advertising the new buildings
No idea where this is supposed to be from. "Astronomy Today" is a blog that doesn't mention Norton anywhere. There's a primary source here covering the announcement, but no media coverage I can find
The link is broken, this looks like the proper link. Confirms Norton's membership, but has no further detail
Is here

The rest look like things Norton himself wrote, so I won't bother to look them up. Google News turns up lots of articles quoting Norton, but none seem to cover him in substantial detail. If you ask me, I'd say that he fails WP:GNG, but probably qualifies under WP:NACADEMIC by virtue of being a university president and RIA member. 2602:306:3A29:9B90:608C:C2F8:2526:C3A4 (talk) 08:30, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If we did a strict cull to RSes, how long do you estimate it would it be? A line? A para? Two? - David Gerard (talk) 10:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Looks to me like a pass of WP:Prof 6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society and WP:Prof 3. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association. President of Dublin Institute of Technology (Evidence via one the refs listed http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/prof-brian-norton-reappointed-as-dit-president-1.1363627.) AND Elected to Royal Irish Academy (one of Ireland's premier learned societies and cultural institutions and currently has around 420 Members, elected in recognition of their academic achievements. WP page) (Evidence https://www.ria.ie/news/membership/admittance-day-2016). These would seem to me to meet this. Looks like needs tidying rather than deleting. (Msrasnw (talk) 13:55, 4 October 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Keep. Member of the RIA and President of DIT. Clearly meets the criteria of WP:PROF. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with a severe cull - WP:TNT this BLP, rewrite from RSes - David Gerard (talk) 16:17, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I culled spam and unreadable content (moving some to Talk) and believe the current version (link) can be kept. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:11, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:41, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PC-Telephone[edit]

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

Fails to assert notability, uses unreliable sources. [Belinrahs|^talktome⁄ _ididit] 00:55, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:57, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete my search didn't find any RSes in GWeb or GNews, not even category reviews - David Gerard (talk) 18:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam; this is a product brochure on a software package from a non notable company. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:05, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was Delete
This page is nearly identical to Think Again Conclave which has a history of deletion and then re-creation without cause. Here is the history of the deletion of the first article:

22:32, May 24, 2015 User:DGG deleted page Think Again Conclave (G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion)
07:42, May 21, 2015 User:Nick deleted page Think Again Conclave (G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Think Again Conclave)
19:34, March 4, 2015 User:Coffee deleted page Think Again Conclave (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Think Again Conclave)

The original page has been locked so only administrators can create it. The latest protection log entry is provided below for reference.

22:35, May 24, 2015 User:DGG protected Think Again Conclave (indefinite) (Repeatedly recreated)

I see no reason to wait for this AFD to continue, the decision has already been made by three other admins. Delete and Salt.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Think Again Conclave, BITS Pilani[edit]

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

Recreated version of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Think_Again_Conclave with minimal changes. Soni (talk) 23:53, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 14:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 14:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to BITS Pilani: Not enough coverage to justify a standalone piece. Anup [Talk] 22:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:31, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 00:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 15:47, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Engamma Maharani[edit]

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

Film does not meet general notability requirements. Meatsgains (talk) 00:49, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Team, please note that, online references are almost 'nil' for this film as it was made in the year 1981. It is a known fact that we have only offline sources for those late 70's early 80's or till year 2000 films. This film is notable for the extraordinary lyrics by Pulamaipithan that won him a state award. Anyhow I will be adding more sources soon. Rajeshbieee (talk) 04:37, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

in looking:WP:INDAFD: film Engamma Maharani, director M.A.Kaja, star Delhi Ganesh, star Vijay Babu, star Sumithra

Keep be being sourcable and proven improvable. We do not require English only sources and coverage nor does coverage have to be online. Tamil sourcing for a Tamil film is tp be expected. 12:36, 14 October 2016 (UTC)Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.}

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 principal argument for keeping this page was that a consensus should first be sought whether having multiple subpages for individual nations was an acceptable way of organising the material, and then either keep, or delete them all together. I sympathise with this position, but the fact is that it has no support in policy. The current policy position is that every page must stand or fall on its own merits. Subpages are not recognised in mainspace. In fact, the technical ability to create subpages in mainspace has been disabled because of the community's desire not to have them. This means that every page must individually establish notability, regardless of whatever other article it is associated with.

The delete camp therefore has a policy based argument whereas the keep camp does not. It is not for the delete camp to call for an RFC first on the whole group of articles. Far from it. Rather, it is for the keep camp to start a policy discussion to change the current subpage/subarticle policies. As the policy currently stands, it is perfectly possible that some <country> at <games> articles will be established as notable and others will not. SpinningSpark 18:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesia at the 2016 Asian Beach Games[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG notability and WP:NOTSTATS. - Mr X 13:18, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Other country articles in 2016 Asian Beach Games should be nominated too. Yogwi21 (talk) 14:00, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, however that's complicated, and I don't have time now to do it.- Mr X
Keep Notable international event. However, if the page is sparse in a year or so, I say nuke them all. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:22, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not an article about an event. It's and article about a country at an event. Absent sufficient reliable, independent sources, it fails WP:GNG.- Mr X 14:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose dealing with the individual article at AFD. I find a large number of articles of the format "(country) at the (year) (Asian Games/Asian Winter Games/Asian Beach Games/Asian Indoor and Martial Arts Games/Asian Beach Games/Asian Youth Games)". For example India_at_the_2011_Asian_Winter_Games. None of the articles appear to have significant individual sourcing other than for the raw stats. I suggest an RFC on Talk:Asian_Games to evaluate these articles as a group. Either they are all reasonable as subpages to organize Asians Games coverage, or they are likely all individually non-notable. (Note this is a repeat of my comment at WP:Articles_for_deletion/Palestine_at_the_2016_Asian_Beach_Games). Alsee (talk) 19:35, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:58, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:58, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:50, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Either nominate all or don't. Don't single some out. Pwolit iets (talk) 17:25, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTSTATS and fails WP:GNG. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 06:24, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are lots (hundreds; maybe even more) of similar articles like these for sports events. There is no point in singling one out and delete it, that would open a can of worms. Instead there should be some kind of community discussion about what to do with articles like that and action should be decided there for all articles of this kind. Otherwise AFD will get spammed with articles like that. I also want to add that I am very sure that Indonesian media covered the countries participation in this major sporting event, therefore I dont think this article would necessary fail WP:GNG if looked up in Indonesian media. Dead Mary (talk) 23:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If it is correct that Palestine did not participate then this page is entirely misconceived. If it is not correct see my closing comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indonesia at the 2016 Asian Beach Games SpinningSpark 18:35, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Palestine at the 2016 Asian Beach Games[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTSTATS. DePRODded as "notable international event", however this article is not about the event, it is about "Palestine at the 2016 Asian Beach Games". - Mr X 14:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose dealing with the individual article at AFD. I find a large number of articles of the format "(country) at the (year) (Asian Games/Asian Winter Games/Asian Beach Games/Asian Indoor and Martial Arts Games/Asian Beach Games/Asian Youth Games)". For example India_at_the_2011_Asian_Winter_Games. None of the articles appear to have significant individual sourcing other than for the raw stats. I suggest an RFC on Talk:Asian_Games to evaluate these articles as a group. Either they are all reasonable as subpages to organize Asians Games coverage, or they are likely all individually non-notable. Alsee (talk) 16:24, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:11, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:11, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:50, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nom all or none. Pwolit iets (talk) 17:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Palestine didn't participate in Asian Beach Games after all, this article should not exist. they were only in initial start list. Mohsen1248 (talk) 23:15, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage and WP:NOTSTATS. Let's call this Statscruft. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Just because an event or series of events happens to have international involvement doesn't make it notable. I don't see any particular reason to retain this article, and deletion appears to be the right move. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:25, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. clear consensus after relisting DGG ( talk ) 23:25, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SmashLAB[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article is written only for company promotional and advertising purposes. References are very poor. References are merely a blog written by company associates to various media. No significant coverage by independent media. Nothing significant or notable about the company to be here. does not meet notability criteria. Light21 13:43, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:57, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:57, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:57, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:58, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - David Gerard (talk) 16:12, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Strong evidence that company meets WP:GNG. Included on The Time Magazine Design 100. Vancouer Sun says "An online green initiative has helped Vancouver-based interactive design firm smashLAB gain the type of international exposure many companies can only dream of." Further good sourcing in The Globe & Mail. Safehaven86 (talk) 20:20, 19 September 2016 (UTC) Delete: Amending my !vote per discussion below. This article is part of a walled garden, and SmashLAB appears to be the most notable of the articles involved, but it is marginally notable so I'm fine with deleting it. Safehaven86 (talk) 22:15, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Once in a life time coverage on Popular media can happen for thousands of people or company, it is nowhere make them encyclopedic notable or significance. Light2021 (talk) 06:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I see few design digital design firms that meet WP:CORP, this one squeaks by enough for me. In addition to the cited sources, there are a fair number of Google news hits. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Amending my !vote after reviewing K.e.coffman's findings. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:13, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment - Wish that would have been right, and Second AfD would be avoided. But clearly not the case here. Google News hits makes something Encyclopedia notable? Light2021 (talk) 17:10, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete instead as the TIME "article" is simply a few mere sentences and is certainly not substance, or anything close to it, the VancouverSun article is then simply focusing with what the company said and then repeated businesspeople, hence the information came from the company itself in not 1 path, but 2, none of this is amounting to an actual substantial article with substantial sourcing. The same can be said about the GlobalandMail article which then also simply focuses with what the company is saying itself and then also simply repeating company and businessman quotes, none of it amounts to substance, and that's another that was clearly influenced by the company itself, therefore not independent or substance. The article currently still looks like an advertisement and, although informative and sourced, looking closer suggests otherwise since it simply boiling to an advertisement and what there to show and say about the company, instead of establishing an encyclopedia-material article. Once we start accepting mere trivial coverage as sourcing without thinking of the consequences and damages it can take, we are damned as an encyclopedia. SwisterTwister talk 22:11, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- the sources do not amount to WP:SIGCOV on the company. Separately, the article was created as part of the walled garden around the company, which also includes:

Sustainable graphic design (I PRODed this one)
Design Can Change
Eric Karjaluoto

All articles are advertorially toned and on marginally notable subjects, created by single purpose editor Special:Contributions/Petiep. At best, this could be redirected to Design Can Change (after Delete), as most of the page is about the project anyway. I don't think Wikipedia needs four articles on these related topics. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree we don't need four articles on these related topics. Perhaps they should all be redirected to Eric Karjaluoto? SmashLAB and Design Can Change could become subsections of that article. Safehaven86 (talk) 19:45, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that Design Can Change is particularly notable, and if it's not, then it's harder to argue that Eric Karjaluoto is notable. Personally, I think the whole garden should be razed at this point. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:05, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, looking at the other articles involved, they are really bad and I can't find any sources establishing that Eric Karjaluoto or Design Can Change meet WP:GNG. SmashLAB may be the most notable of this garden, and it seems its notability is pretty marginal. I would support deleting this garden as well. Safehaven86 (talk) 22:09, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable, no reliable sources. Promo piece posing as encyclopedic article. The 3 related articles are just as bad. Yintan 23:09, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I nominated the remaining articles for deletion:

K.e.coffman (talk) 23:55, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:06, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bathtub Dogs[edit]

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

Non notable college band. Awards are not major. Albums are not on "important" label. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:44, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:43, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:43, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Almost all of the coverage is in the Daily Nebraskan which is the student newspaper of that university and I do not consider it a sufficiently reliable/independent source. There's nothing else here which could pass WP:BAND, so delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:23, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:05, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BMX The Game[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Topic lacks significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. The1337gamer (talk) 07:26, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 07:26, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:43, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. Unreleased upcoming game that doesn't seem to have any coverage in reliable sources. I tried a WP:VG/RS Google custom search, but there doesn't seem to be anything there, either. Once it's released, maybe we'll see some reviews. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:39, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Products clearly not notable, the weak keep !vote - aside from being cautious - appears to be more pertinent for the marketing technique. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:56, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anything and Whatever[edit]

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

I created the article in 2007 in response to the launch of the products. Unfortunately the company has since stopped manufacturing the drinks, and the company has closed down.

The article only had one reference from a news source about its advertisements being tampered with. Other than that, there has been no further claim on its notability from any third-party source, except primary sources. Due to the discontinuation of the product, there is no chance of any further progress on the notability of the subject itself. All in all, a product of an extremely narrow geographical scope of interest and two mentions in third-party news outlets.

Therefore, this article fails WP:GNG, and may also fail WP:COMPANY. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 07:47, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:25, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:25, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The drinks may be notable more for the marketing/advertising concept than the products themselves. Few good sources, but a lot of blog mentions. However, they earned a page in a book on the marketing technique of not identifying which flavours were in which cans of soda. Pow! Right Between the Eyes: Profiting from the Power of Surprise (2009); Andy Nulman; John Wiley & Sons; ISBN 9780470443842; Page 38 - here. But I did not find more mentions beyond blogs, so I am torn as to whether the mentions are enough for WP:GNG and/or WP:ORG. Thus the weak keep !vote. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 21:18, 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 00:43, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. about a minor as it gets. A product introduction with not indication whatsoever of lasting encyclopedic significance DGG ( talk ) 06:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I see a bit of interest and that's it. This doesn't pass the bar of having enough material available to write a good encyclopedia article on. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:34, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - I wonder if this would have been challenged in a prod, or if it should have. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:01, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:53, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Memorial Chapel[edit]

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

Does not seem to meet notability guidelines for businesses. There is a claim of significance as this funeral home is a hundred years old, but my searches couldn't find any sources other than this business' own website or business directory listings. Article reads like a business listing. 331dot (talk) 08:32, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable private firm. Kleuske (talk) 00:43, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- self-cited WP:PROMO, likely created by the business itself: please see Special:Contributions/Jake3759. Paid editing is about 100% likely, which is against policy. In fact, it is, per User_talk:331dot#Todd_Memorial_Chapel. No indications of notability or significance either. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:35, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SOFTDELETE per no participation herein other than from the nominator. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:17, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mackenzie Sheppard[edit]

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

Delete. WP:BLP, based entirely on primary sources with no evidence of reliable source coverage shown at all, of a film director with no particularly strong claim to passing WP:CREATIVE. The Cannes Young Director Award is not, as one might think at first, connected to the Cannes Film Festival, but to the separate Cannes Lions International Festival of Creativity -- so it's an award that could be enough to get a Wikipedia article if the sourcing were solid enough to pass WP:GNG, but not one that confers an automatic WP:CREATIVE pass all by itself. As always, a film director is not automatically entitled to an article just because his own self-published primary source presence on the web technically verifies his existence -- it takes RS coverage verifying a claim that would pass CREATIVE for an article to become earned, but there's just nothing here to satisfy either part of that equation. Bearcat (talk) 18:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:22, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:22, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:19, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:41, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Possible merge target does not exist. Sandstein 09:00, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gellwe[edit]

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

I prodded it few years back with the following rationale: "Not seeing any indication of the notability here. While it owns some potentially notable brands (Frugo), as a parent comapny it is not a household name." I still think it fails WP:NCORP, but it was deprodded by User:DGG who wrote "del tag, since merge is suggested". I couldn't find any merge discussion, and the article still seems to be non-notable, so here we go. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:10, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Food CarePoland, which would need to be recreated first, at least as a skeleton; it was--correctly--deleted for copyvio DGG ( talk ) 04:31, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:35, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:35, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:35, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an unreferenced essay on a non-notable brand. If / when FoodCare Poland is created, the brand can be mentioned there. I don't see a reason to keep this article in anticipation of this happening. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:43, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now, or redirect if a good FoodCare article is created before the end of this AFD. (I note that pl:FoodCare exists, though a translation with those sources wouldn't survive AFD on en:wp.) - David Gerard (talk) 08:02, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Euryalus (talk) 00:59, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Qantas Flight 1623[edit]

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

There is no lasting or worldwide significance to this article. Accordingly, it fails WP:EVENT and should not have an article. —C.Fred (talk) 00:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No assertion of notability, and this is essentially just a rant about a bad flight. Also note, the author removed the AFD template. FalconK (talk) 00:48, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Yintan 00:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sarahj2107 (talk) 20:56, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Di Pauli[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 07:15, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:52, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:52, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are several articles about this player to meet GNG, e.g., [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60]. Some but not all of these are motivated by a transaction - his free agent signing with the Penguins - but even the transaction motivated ones are full articles with significant information about the player beyond merely reporting the transaction (which would be routine coverage). Rlendog (talk) 22:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rlendog has provided sources to pass GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 17:02, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources have been added Eccekevin (talk) 04:28, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:45, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CreditMantri.com[edit]

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

pure advertisement .Not one of the sources are reliable for notability. The Economic times is simply a reprint of the press release, as is usual for that source. The others are no better. DGG ( talk ) 00:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- strictly advertising with no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing but blatant promotions. No significance for being encyclopedic genuine. Light2021 (talk) 06:57, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It is exactly what Wikipedia is WP:NOT. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH as well. Anup [Talk] 07:23, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am seeing nothing better than the routine announcements and passing coverage typical for start-ups. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 07:45, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per nom and above.Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk→ Be a guest 12:47, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient WP:RS coverage for notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as what's listed is simply fluff and puff with none of it ever becoming actual substance for notability, this is imaginably part of another PR camapaign as this is usually the style of if, simply tossing whatever triviality is available but not actually adding significance. SwisterTwister talk 16:57, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is written like and advertisement page, should be deleted. Jessie1979 (talk) 14:13, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Revert as per WP:BLOCKEVASION using strikethrough font. 20:42, 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 keep. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:01, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Mentally Ill[edit]

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

I still confirm my PROD which not only listed the concerns but what I found, which was in fact nothing, so unless there's so buried news coverage from the 1970s somehow online, there's nothing to suggest actual independent notability and substance, let alone any manageable improvements. The basis of "current sources" is quite thin in that none of the sources are actually convincing or substantial. At best, all I'm still finding a few indie websites. There's also absolutely no inherited notability from the John Wayne Gacy connections. SwisterTwister talk 19:11, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete as it stands~~ I can't find mention even where I'd expect to - David Gerard (talk) 23:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawing this for now, Michig found passing sources that strongly suggest more sourcing would exist - David Gerard (talk) 10:40, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. There's a trivial mention (as having found musical inspiration in the California serial killings of 1977–78) in a book about the Dead Kennedys. There's one paragraph of coverage of the 2004 Alternative Tentacles issue in Maximumrocknroll #256 that serves as a review, more or less. There's another review of sorts in Perfect Sound Forever, in the context of the Killed by Death punk bootleg records. The 2004 release also got a brief (and not entirely positive) review in online zine/label/etc. In Music We Trust; that's bylined, and they actually have acknowledged staff writers, but I'm still not confident they meet RS. I feel like there had to have been coverage somewhere between 1979 and 2004, based on how the 2004+ sources talk about the band, but I can't find any of it. Whether the material that seems available is sufficient to demonstrate notability is very much an open question, and my weak keep vote is largely predicated on the idea that we're probably missing some print-only sources. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Not soure I'd count MRR as evidence of notability - they literally try to review everything that's vaguely punk-related. OTOH, I understand your point on expected coverage ... though I was surprised I couldn't find book references, given how picked-over much of the history of punk is in books in GBooks - David Gerard (talk) 14:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep does have an allmusicbio, and album review which the vast majority of wikipedia music articles do not have, especially those that are prodded. ( only having a listing or not even that). The online press coverage and reviews for this period seems to have disappeared or is behind paywalls as reviews are even hard to impossible to find for albums by artists as famous as Marvin Gaye as a recent afd could only find a few book sources despite that album being reviewed in every national newspaper in the western world. Atlantic306 (talk) 20:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- yeah, there is that. A lot of this stuff requires for referencing either a record collector who kept all their old papers, a reference library or both - David Gerard (talk) 21:00, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The Allmusic review is probably one of several reviews of the album, and the band get a few other mentions, e.g. [61], [62], [63], but quite brief ones. It's a bit thin, but enough for a decently-sourced stub. --Michig (talk) 07:39, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per above. If outcome isn't that, it should be redirected to mental disorder. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:17, 11 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) 12:57, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GSL Holdings Ltd.[edit]

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

Unreferenced for 4 years struggling to find any independent sources which would allow it to pass WP:GNG Theroadislong (talk) 20:55, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[User talk:Theroadislong] Independent sources now added, so this page doesn't need to be deleted anymore. --206.214.244.218 (talk) 21:45, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:52, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:52, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom - the one new source is a profile on Graham Lee, and might be evidence of his personal notability (though not enough alone to swing it), but certainly isn't of the company - David Gerard (talk) 10:30, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:DIRECTORY; typical corporate blurb devoid of any value to the readers. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:55, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources found though a GNews search do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:56, 11 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 by David Gerard as WP:CSD#A7 Sarahj2107 (talk) 20:50, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Manas Energy Management[edit]

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

Fails WP:COMPANY – no significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. PROD was removed by creator. --Lambiam 22:48, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:33, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:33, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, if not speedy as G11 - David Gerard (talk) 10:28, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:20, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete -- corporate spam. A "multinational corporation" with 150 employees? :-) I requested a speedy deletion. Also: the creator's Talk page (User talk:Wikimakerrs) contains several speedy / PROD notices, and these articles have been deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:46, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 20:48, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AXL Guitars[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. Basic article, little encyclopaedic info, poorly referenced. created and mainly contributed to by SPAs. Absolutely nothing in terms of conferring notability. Rayman60 (talk) 23:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:27, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:27, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I honestly consider this A7 and G11, considering it's all sourced by PR and unconvincing sources, the information itself is PR. SwisterTwister talk 00:43, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:20, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- nothing but a WP:PROMO / product brochure. No RS offered on the page or at AfD, and none to be found. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:46, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:47, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning delete - I can find a few reviews [64][65][66] that indicate they're a reasonably respectable guitar company, but nothing at all else in RSes actually about the company, and that's not enough to sustain an article on the company - David Gerard (talk) 07:55, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Karen_Bacolod_face_pic.jpg

[1]