Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 September 6

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 5 September	7 September >

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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:49, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bert Hubert

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

WP:TOOSOON. Even if subject's PowerDNS software may be notable, it doesn't imply the author itself is notable enough for Wikipedia with very few if any third party reliable sources (WP:RS). The only reference being mentioned is an RFC where the article subject is an author, and that is not enough to establish facts per for biographies of living persons (WP:BLP). COI editor in PowerDNS article. WubTheCaptain (talk) 02:26, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable software developer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:43, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Could not find the needed coverage to establish notability. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:35, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:40, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:40, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without much better sourcing for a BLP - David Gerard (talk) 08:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete concur with nom, no indication of notability. MB 18:03, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

51degrees

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

Software company that does not meet WP:CORP or the GNG. I've only been able to turn up one independent source that mentions the company [1], and it's a trivial mention. Joe Roe (talk) 23:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Joe Roe (talk) 23:46, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Joe Roe (talk) 23:46, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete as it stands per nom - David Gerard (talk) 09:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please advise as to why Forrester Research and Glanton do not meet the standard of "reliable independent source". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiwiprof (talk • contribs) 21:48, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Analysts are literally sources of sponsored content reports - David Gerard (talk) 21:56, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Glanton is a self-published source advertising 51Degrees as a service they provide to customers. I can't tell the context in which Forrester 'Research' mentions the company as it's behind a ($349!!) paywall, but again it's an article appearing on their own website, so a self-published source. Joe Roe (talk) 22:05, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Similar software providers listed on this site, DeviceAtlas and WURFL, are not nominated for deletion yet their references appear similar in source. Can you assist in providing examples of sources on their pages which could be used as examples for this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiwiprof (talk • contribs) 08:03, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Unfortunately, Wikipedia has many articles that do not meet its inclusion standards. That is why we have a process for deleting them. Joe Roe (talk) 10:18, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:CORP or WP:GNG. There is no in-depth coverage from multiple independent sources to establish notability. I agree with David Gerard and Joe Roe that neither Analysts or Glanton help establish notability.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:41, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO. In addition to sourcing issues, the article reads like an advertorial and is non neutral in nature. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:19, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Neutrality^talk 05:40, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant in its field of device detection. Deployed on 1.5 million websites. Kiwiprof (talk) 15:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete company is notorious for its marketing stunts — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.171.122.156 (talk) 15:54, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete company is not notable. No independent reliable sources that significantly cover this topic are available. This appears to be an attempt to use Wikipedia as a promotional platform - please see WP:PROMO for what Wikipedia is not. Steve Quinn (talk) 16:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
CommentAccording to these comments, 51Degrees is both "non-notable" and "notorious"! Conflicting reasons, amended reasons, and the permitting of competitors, DeviceAtlas and WURFL leads me to suspect foul play. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiwiprof (talk • contribs) 11:50, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:49, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Berg (journalist)

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

not a notable topic; subject has already been through the deletion process in 2016; attempt is to use Wikipedia as a resume Zefr (talk) 23:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage found to satisfy WP:GNG. It should be noted, however, that the previous deletion was per WP:BLPPROD--as this article was created by a different account and has sources (however weak), the previous deletion should not necessarily be held against the current version. Also, despite the flaws of the article, it's not obvious here that the intent "is to use Wikipedia as a resume", and we should remember to assume good faith on the part of the creator. Finally, the nominator blanked the article prior to applying the AfD tag--this is simply not the way to proceed. --Finngall ^talk 23:38, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:33, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:33, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, insufficient notability found.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:44, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#A10. (non-admin closure) Mr. Magoo (talk) 23:19, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky Logan

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

Topic already covered in the article Logan Lucky, which is the correct title NathanielTheBold (talk) 23:11, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:21, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged the article for speedy deletion. --Cavarrone 06:44, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Close AFD as I agree that under an incorrect name, the newer article duplicated the information of the older... both authored by Captain Assassin!. Sorry Captain, you need to check your contributions before writing new articles on topics you've already contributed. I have speedy deleted it per WP:A10. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:11, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please notice that WP:A10 applies to articles "where the title is not a plausible redirect". We may want to put aside the fact that Lucky Logan was started by the editor who started Logan Lucky, but we may conversely see it as added proof that Lucky Logan is a plausible redirect title. A search for "Lucky Logan" -"Logan Lucky" reveals that Variety used the title Lucky Logan in February, and that multiple other sources have used it since. Hence, as Alternatives to deletion suggests, deletion was not required, as a plausible redirect could have been boldly created per WP:ATD-R, categorized as a {{R from modification}} and {{R unprintworthy}}. Pinging collaorators (NathanielTheBold—Cavarrone—Captain Assassin!—MichaelQSchmidt). — Sam Sailor 14:42, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

VF2413

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

This is a VF radio station that exists solely to provide information and music relating to exhibits at the Saskatchewan Western Development Museum. As has been established in several other recent AfDs, neither VF stations nor tourist information stations receive the presumption of notability for broadcast stations. In addition, the article itself admits that whether or not the station is still operating is "uncertain"; in the years since VF2413's 2003 licensing, the CRTC has exempted tourist information stations from licensing. (While technical authorization from Industry Canada is still needed, that's not enough, and unlicensed stations also do not enjoy any presumption of notability.) The call sign seems an unlikely enough search term that I am not recommending a redirect to the museum's article (WP:BROADCAST suggests that such a redirect might be an alternative to an article, but I don't believe this is required); I definitely doubt that it has any notability independent of the museum, much less sufficient coverage in reliable sources to satisfy the general notability guideline. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As with almost all stations of this type, the overarching problem here is the total unverifiability as to whether such a station is still in operation or not — for low-power specialty stations like this, the CRTC licenses have always typically been the only potential sources we ever really had in the first place, so as soon as it got a license exemption its status became impossible for us to verify any further. There's also little substantive public interest to be served in maintaining an article about such a narrowcast topic, since people are profoundly unlikely to be looking for information about it as a standalone thing. Nominator is also correct that a redirect wouldn't be useful here — VF call signs are such an obscure bit of technical insider baseball that even if somebody actually was looking for information about it, that still isn't the title they'd search for. Bearcat (talk) 17:03, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Forgotten Realms deities.. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eshowdow

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 22:40, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 22:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 22:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to List of Forgotten Realms deities. BOZ (talk) 00:06, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:00, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Forgotten Realms deities. No evidence of independent notability, but good content can be preserved there. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:46, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per JMilburn. Jclemens (talk) 22:05, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Forgotten Realms deities per JMilburn's suggestion. Aoba47 (talk) 00:34, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Forgotten Realms deities. Lacks any clear evidence for notability. Aoba47 (talk) 00:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Ruppert

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

I worked on this article to tone it down. I'm also unhappy about the complete lack of sources, especially when the article was in its prior form. There's an interested party displaying SPA characteristics who has been questioning me about my actions, and upon reflection, especially after seeing the delete debate on StreetRunner and numerous other contributors to music releases (engineers, producers etc) and the result of those discussions, couple with searches on google and high beam (return nothing - literally nothing on highbeam and just discogs on google) made me think this was a candidate for AfD. nothing that in any way conveys notability. I personally feel producers and similar contributors are unjustly treated by WP:Music but this guy seems to fail GNG substantially. Rayman60 (talk) 22:38, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

delete BLP without RSes. His name is slightly known and he has done stuff, but I'm having trouble turning up actual sources about him, even unreliable ones. We need the RSes (not hypothetical ones). (The correct search is "Ralph P. Ruppert", if you miss the "P." you get very little.) - David Gerard (talk) 17:48, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a WP:PROMO article with no RS. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:43, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 LGBT culture in New York City. Procedural close; merged as basically a duplicate article. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 05:29, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LGBTQ Americans in New York City

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

Delete. Badly constituted and illogical article topic. The article is titled as being about LGBT people but nearly all of the content here is about things such as the Stonewall and Chelsea and Greenwich Village and Hell's Kitchen -- content which would belong in the already existing LGBT culture in New York City, not in an article claimed as being about the people -- and outside of that, all that's really left is a random and very unrepresentative list of people's names. (Listed under Broadway: David Burtka, Neil Patrick Harris...and nobody else. As if they were really the only two queers on Broadway.) Worthwhile content can and should be merged to LGBT culture in New York City if it isn't already there, but this isn't suitable as a separate article from that. Bearcat (talk) 22:21, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:28, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:28, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:28, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maintain. I'm sure you're kidding, right? That logic is ridiculous, with all due respect. First of all, it's a stub, and a new one at that. It's supposed to be developed, with people adding more names to the list and more information, similar to many of the other demographic articles about NYC. I just started the article, but I can't do all of the work, and by no means is this article comprehensive or complete at this point – it's simply a good start to a fresh article with a very different subject of emphasis. Of course, there can be some commonalities, but there will be mostly significant differences, and Wikipedia policy dictates that all new viable articles with verifiable sources be nurtured in good faith. There's absolutely no reason that both articles shouldn't or couldn't co-exist on Wikipedia. Why don't you add information in good faith, such as other LGBTQ names on Broadway, rather than being closed minded about its great potential (without good reason, I should add)? For example, there co-exist LGBT in the United States and LGBT rights in the United States, and they carry very different emphasis. Castncoot (talk)

— Note to closing admin: Castncoot (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:10, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yes the first half does seem to duplicate LGBT culture in New York City; the second half, a list of LGBTQ people in New York that may or may not survive Afd -- this place is picky when it comes to such lists. LGBT in the United States and LGBT rights in the United States coexist so well because the rights article is so clearly and distinctly defined. You haven't done that: you've created a duplicate place for people to look for pretty much the same info, and that is not how we do things. I would say WP:REDUNDANTFORK applies here, at least for the first half of the article. I wonder why you didn't begin by trying to improve the pre-existing article Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:35, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I wasn't even aware of the existence of the other article until within the last hour or so, when I received the notice on my Talk page. So that tells you that my focus was entirely different to begin with. And the foci are indeed different. Any duplication that is coincident happens to be relevant to the subjects of both articles, and this is seen throughout Wikipedia. If, on the other hand, you believe that there is information which is out of context in one article, then you would selectively carve that material out - not throw the baby out with the bath water, as the expression goes. And I've clearly noted in my passage above that I was the creator. This article has tremendous potential and should be given a chance to be developed to that potential before any premature judgement (like what I'm seeing here) is made. Castncoot (talk) 01:38, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've just added the other article as a "See also" in this article. There's no reason that two articles can't have a similar base but then diverge in two very different ways. This happens all the time in Wikipedia. Castncoot (talk) 01:42, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at the other article now in some depth. The two articles have very little if anything in common. Castncoot (talk) 02:38, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say any of the content in this article was already duplicating content in the culture article — nearly everything here, however, is stuff that rightly should be added to the culture article. Individual bars are an aspect of the culture article, not of a "people" article; gaybourhoods are an aspect of the culture article, not a "people" article; historical incidents are an aspect of the culture article, not a "people" article. The content here, however, isn't about people apart from the list of names — it's about the culture, and should be added to the culture article if it isn't already there. Bearcat (talk) 18:11, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as partially duplicating LGBT culture in New York City, Stonewall Riots, Greenwich Village, etc and partially just list of people with their own articles. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 07:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There has to be some background to start an article, and another editor has already adjusted for this in the article's edit summary. That's certainly no reason to delete an entire article, which is nascent at this time.This, by the way, is mutually exclusive of the other article introduced to me yesterday, which I had been unaware of and which has a very different focus from this article altogether, notwithstanding the similar title. Castncoot (talk) 02:35, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion yet on keeping or deleting but, if this is kept, it surely shouldn't be restricted to Americans but include foreigners who live or have lived in New York. Quentin Crisp springs to mind. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 08:02, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your suggestion. I don't think that the notables list (which, by the way, the other article introduced to me yesterday doesn't even address, simply because that is not its focus) necessarily has to include only Americans. As long as the entrant has been or was a New Yorker for a significant period of time, that entrant should be eligible to make the list. Let me look into it, and please feel free to do the same. Castncoot (talk) 02:35, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you were absolutely correct! He identified with New York to the extent that decided to make a move there permanently. Thank you for your constructive and encouraging suggestion to nurture this new article and help it along to further develop its focus! I have added him per your suggestion. Castncoot (talk) 03:19, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was mainly concerned with the title of the article rather than whether any particular person should be included. Why did you think it a good idea for it to be about LGBTQ Americans in New York rather than LGBTQ people in New York? I would expect anyone interested in LBGTQ matters to understand the importance of inclusivity. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 15:09, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the article on LGBT culture in New York City. This article was started in good faith without the creator realising that another article already existed covering the same concept, but it is the same concept. There is no reason why content from here can't be added to the pre-existing article to improve it, maybe including a list of people who have contributed to LGBTQ culture in New York. I would urge Castncoot to concentrate on improving LGBT culture in New York City rather than develop a separate article covering the same ground. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The title was originally started with the intention of being parallel in line to Ukrainian Americans in New York City or Korean Americans in New York City. Hence, the word "Americans" came into the title, but that can be changed very quickly to the title you suggested, namely LGBTQ people in New York City, and I've now created a redirect to accommodate room for that title. What I think would be a more appropriate merge if anything, however, is that the other (near namesake) article could be merged into this one, not vice versa. Please also look at Filipinos in the New York City metropolitan region. That article includes a description of the various Little Manila neighborhoods in the region.This article, even in its nascency, appears to be far more detailed and comprehensive than its near-namesake article. I still think that no die (dice) should be cast so early on, and I urge people to give this article (and the other one as well) a conscious attempt and chance to diverge and to maintain both articles while (consciously) developing them further in different ways, to highlight the differences in concept and emphasis. Castncoot (talk) 00:49, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merging, if done properly, treats the content in both articles equally, taking the best content from each, so it makes no difference which way round it is done, and, per WP:CONTENTFORK, Wikipedia doesn't work in the way that you describe, with multiple articles covering the same content. None of what I say should be taken as a criticism of your efforts in creating this article. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to respond to you so delayed, it's been very busy in real life. Thank you for your constructive comments. Just to clarify where I stand, I don't really have a problem with the articles being merged, say into a single article named LGBTQ people in New York City. After all, I wasn't even aware of the existence of the other article when I created this one. My only suggestion and request would be to give some time to give both a chance to further diverge, with one focusing more on people and the other focusing more on culture. Clearly this article is more detailed and comprehensive in its depth and breadth as they currently stand right now. Perhaps some communication should be made to the primary editor(s) of the other article, out of respect for their work, to inform them of this discussion and and to gauge their thoughts? Castncoot (talk) 03:39, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Pretty clear path forward here, it seems... The title needs to be fixed, it's not a history of gay people as a de facto ethnic group in NYC, which would be an encyclopedic topic, in my view. And we already have LGBT culture in New York City, which is what it needs to be fixed to, which makes this a fork... Ergo, it seems that a merge is in order. Carrite (talk) 16:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- - - - OK, let's merge both articles. Again, there's WP:NODEADLINE. Who does this? (I don't know how to. And also, how do you squeeze a 22kB article into a 12kB one?) Castncoot (talk) 22:06, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        I figured it out. Merge accomplished. Castncoot (talk) 22:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 notability is not established yet for this topic. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:51, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mel Thillens

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

Delete. Article, written like a campaign brochure as these things almost always are, about a person notable only as an as-yet-unelected candidate in a forthcoming election. As always, this is not a claim of notability that gets a person into Wikipedia in and of itself -- if you cannot credibly demonstrate and source that he was already notable enough for an article for some other reason independent of his candidacy, then he has to win the seat, not just run for it, to collect notability from the election itself. No prejudice against recreation in November if he wins, but nothing written or sourced here gets him a Wikipedia article today. Bearcat (talk) 22:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:11, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:11, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. All sources appear to be about his present candidacy too - David Gerard (talk) 17:50, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article. I appreciate your comments. Can you please provide links to the Wikipedia policies that back up the statements you've both made:

"if you cannot credibly demonstrate and source that he was already notable enough for an article for some other reason independent of his candidacy, then he has to win the seat, not just run for it, to collect notability from the election itself" - Can you please cite and link to the Wikipedia policy that says a subject must win an elective seat before being notable for an article?
"No prejudice against recreation in November if he wins, but nothing written or sourced here gets him a Wikipedia article today." Please see my notes below.
"All sources appear to be about his present candidacy too" - Can you please cite and link to the Wikipedia policy that makes the state of being a candidate a disqualifying factor?

For the rules regarding a subject getting their own article (notability requirement): "Notability is the standard of whether a subject can have its own Wikipedia article." To be pass the Notability test: "If a topic has received significant coverage [two news articles] in reliable sources [newspapers are deemed reliable] that are independent of the subject [subject has no control or influence over these publications], it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." WP:GNG https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability

If my comments come across as harsh, it is unintended and I apologize. My intention is to be very specific here and to adhere to the WP policies as best as I can, while learning too.

--Michael Powerhouse (talk) 19:38, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- WP:NPOL. Just being a candidate isn't enough in general. WP:POLOUTCOMES lists how politician articles tend to fare in deletion discussions. If he's had unusually more news coverage of his candidacy than the typical candidate, that might convince - David Gerard (talk) 19:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat and per WP:POLOUTCOMES. The article, in its current form, cites two local news articles about the subject's positions on issues (and another article that does not reference the subject. Previous AfD's have concluded that being a candidate for office is not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. These discussions of candidates for elective office recognize that reliable sources cover the candidates only in the context of a single event, in this case, an electoral campaign (see WP:BLP1E). As WP:BIO1E states, "The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person." From a practical perspective, articles on candidates for public office have the effect in turning Wikipedia into a campaign brochure, and containing information that is difficult to verify (see WP:V. Enos733 (talk) 20:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Per POLOUTCOMES, "Losing candidates for office below the national level who are otherwise non-notable are generally deleted." She hasn't won or lost. The election is in November. Also, I appreciate your effort in your argument, but it read like a legal brief, citing arcane rules and regulations. Makes me think of the most basic Wikipedia rule called "Ignore all rules." It goes, "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." WP:IGNORE. At any rate, whatever the community decides, I'll support. I'm just trying to learn.--Michael Powerhouse (talk) 18:52, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 this topic is not yet notable to have an article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:58, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay Parkhurst

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

Delete. Article, written like a campaign brochure as these things almost always are, about a person notable only as an as-yet-unelected candidate in a forthcoming election. As always, this is not a claim of notability that gets a person into Wikipedia in and of itself -- if you cannot credibly demonstrate and source that she was already notable enough for an article for some other reason independent of her candidacy, then she has to win the seat, not just run for it, to collect notability from the election itself. No prejudice against recreation in November if she wins, but nothing written or sourced here gets her a Wikipedia article today. Bearcat (talk) 22:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I understand your personal feelings on the matter. Can you please reference the Wikipedia policy you are saying?

To the best of my knowledge, Wikipedia's policies do not require that a person need to be "already notable enough for an article for some other reason independent of [their] candidacy." For the rules regarding a subject getting their own article (notability requirement), the independent sub-requirement refers to the sources. The sources must be independent of the subject.

"Notability is the standard of whether a subject can have its own Wikipedia article." To be pass the Notability test: "If a topic has received significant coverage [yes, in more than one newspaper where it's ABOUT her, not just mentions her, in addition to the political websites] in reliable sources [newspapers are deemed reliable, as is Ballotpedia] that are independent of the subject [subject has no control or influence over these publications], it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list."

WP:GNG https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability

--Michael Powerhouse (talk) 19:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually Ballotpedia is not considered a reliable source — it's a user-generated source which will contain (usually self-published) content about every candidate for every elected office in every election in the United States. And yes, when it comes to satisfying WP:NPOL, an unelected candidate is not considered notable just for the fact of being a candidate — either she was already notable enough for a Wikipedia article for some other reason before becoming a candidate, or she does not become notable enough for an article until she wins the election. Bearcat (talk) 00:57, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:58, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:POLITICIAN, just a candidate for a subnational office, has not won anything yet, purely local coverage, and not a whole lot of that. Nsk92 (talk) 23:01, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unelected politician. Carrite (talk) 16:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Carrite is absolutely true. Equally true is this: the United States Secretary of State is an unelected politician. Carrite, will you go delete John Kerry's article please? He is an unelected politician. You are an expert on Wikipedia rules. Because he is an unelected politician, he MUST not have a page. (I'm just going with what you said). But allow me to elaborate. If being unelected is (especially in the short matter-of-fact manner in which you write it) a disqualifier for being the subject of an article, then why has their existed since 2005 the Wikipedia category American political candidates (which includes subcategories for positions as far down the totem pole as mayors)? Carrite, will you go please delete that category? Clearly a category that's named after a rule that disqualifies a topic from being an article must be erased immediately. After all, as you state, an unelected politician cannot have a page. Allow me to pose another discussion. If someone is a candidate, they can only have a page if they are the incumbent (because the other candidates who are not the incumbents are not elected). Carrite, if you are 100% confident that what you wrote is correct, then you would have to logically agree there should not exist a category called "American political candidates" because such a category would allow for the rule-breaking pages of candidates who are not yet elected. Carrite, are you affiliated with the Democratic Party at any level, any Democratic PAC, or the campaign of the individual who Lindsay Parkhurst is running against? If so, you must publicly state that on Wikipedia. For the record, I have no affiliation or connection to the subject of this article. My core purpose is to give non-incumbents running for the state legislature their fair space on the 6th most heavily trafficked website in the world (as long, of course, as they are notable and covered in credible news sources). (The following is my opinion: The political system is so rigged and the deck is stacked against non-incumbents so bad in Illinois, that if we pile on to that stacked deck by refusing to allow CANDIDATES to be the subject of articles, then shame on everyone. --Michael Powerhouse (talk) 16:05, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that once a discussion has been closed, you are not permitted to keep the discussion going by posting new comments to it almost a month after it's closed. That said, your logic is faulty. John Kerry holds a notable position to which he was appointed, and he did hold an elected position for many, many years before that — he is in no way analogous to a person who is notable only as an unelected candidate for office. The existence of Category:American political candidates does not mean that all candidates are automatically accepted as notable just for being candidates — there are some instances of people who were already notable for other things and then by the way also happened to run for office and lose (see, frex, Jack Kevorkian) and the category exists to file them in it; it does not mean that we automatically accept articles about every candidate in an election, if "candidate in an election" is the only notability claim they have. Wikipedia is not the media, and is not bound by an "equal time for all candidates" rule; we are an encyclopedia, and are bound by a will people still need this information ten years from now rule. That means people get articles for winning election to a notable office, and not just for being candidates — and no, it's not a bias either, because the same rule applies regardless of whether the candidate is a Democrat or a Republican or a Libertarian or a Green or an independent. We are an encyclopedia, not a repository of campaign brochures for political hopefuls. Bearcat (talk) 21:01, 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 Userfy to User:Zazpot. --MelanieN (talk) 21:25, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EOMA-68

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

This article is subject to heavy WP:COI editing. I am really struggling to find any sources which meet the required tests of being both reliable and independent. The sources we do have are mainly the company promoting the thing, posts on other wikis by the editor who is the main proponent on Wikipedia, and blogs. I think this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Guy (Help!) 21:50, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

i've told you already until i'm blue in the face, Guy: there *is* no "company" behind EOMA68. if you actually bothered to do your research into the 5-year history behind the project, you'd know that fact. nevertheless, with all the references having been deleted or justified for deletion in the minds of people whom i can only describe - accurately - as "wikifascists", you're absolutely, absolutely right. as the author and Guardian of the EOMA68 Standard, i SUPPORT the deletion of this article as it is simply taking up too much of my time, and risks bringing the EOMA68 Standard into disrepute due to attempts to do "technical writing by consensus". The discussions *about* the page are far in excess of the length of the actual page, which is totally ridiculous and utterly inappropriate. has the Q-Seven page had this kind of ridiculous vilification, blatant lack of trust and false information entered by SIX separate individuals in the span of under ten days? What about the PC-104 standard? or the 96boards standard? total hypocrisy and violation of Wikipedia's own policy. Therefore i SUPPORT deletion of this page until Wikipedia editors and Administrators start acting with integrity, trust, and plain common sense. Lkcl (talk) 01:13, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lkcl, please do not call other editors names. See WP:Etiquette. Thanks. zazpot (talk) 09:53, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

soo.... *i* am not allowed to quotes call other editors names quotes (when in fact i am simply describing a perspective *on* an Administrator's inappropriate behaviour) but that Administrator is permitted to make serious allegations and commit severe breaches of Wikipedia policy, and even states brazenly "i've been here longer than you have"? (i'm referring to JzG's "warning", where he makes several clearly-biased and factually-wrong accusations) Lkcl (talk) 18:48, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lkcl, please see two wrongs don't make a right. This isn't aimed at you personally: for an editor to call other editors names like "wikifascist" - even if they disagree about editing decisions - is much more offensive than I could turn a blind eye to, regardless of who did it. Had JzG done it, I would have called JzG out on it. Please note that by calling you out on it, I am not defending JzG's edits. I appreciate that feelings were running high in the EOMA68 edits on the evening of 6 September and early morning of 7 September, and I have remarked elsewhere that I found some of JzG's edits that evening regrettable. I feel that both of you made have made some belittling and regrettable remarks to each other. But I am asking you (and everyone here) to turn the other cheek, and put that behind us. Fundamentally, we're all people here. We all have feelings (and those feelings can be hurt). And we're all Wikipedians: we're in this together. So, let's all try to keep cool and treat each other with respect: you, me, JzG, and everyone else who is participating in this discussion. Sound good? It does to me. I really hope we can all do that :)

On a personal note, assuming you are who you say you are with respect to EOMA68, please don't treat any of us on Wikipedia in a way that would make me regret having backed your crowd-funder, even if you do feel wronged. I backed it because it seemed like a project that - from the technology right through to the developers of that technology - was taking a valuable moral stance: a project that respected computer users and wanted to create a solution in which people would not be abused by computer vendors. Abuse can come in many forms, however. Vendor lock-in is one form of abuse, and I appreciate you are trying to solve that; but calling people names or being dismissive of their concerns can also be abusive or at least feel abusive. I have friends who are not Wikipedians, and who backed the crowd-funder for the same reasons I did. We are all following EOMA68 discussions in various places online. I'm sad to say that we are all starting to wonder if we made the right choice. I hope you will take all this in the spirit that I intend it: i.e. not as an attack, but as a desire for mutual respect and understanding, and for calmer discussions. Thanks. zazpot (talk) 22:13, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

zazpot, i appreciate what you're saying... but it works both ways. i do not expect to be treated with such distrust and enormous disrespect (in direct violation of wikipedia's own policies) such that i feel it is necessary - with good justification - to even use the word "wikifascist" to describe JzG's behaviour. more importantly even than that, simply asking "stop calling people names" when the "names" are in fact an accurate summary and assessment of someone's behaviour has a dangerous side-effect of being denial of their behaviour. thus, by asking me to "stop calling people names" it is in fact endorsement of JzG's completely unacceptable behaviour, in direct violation of what you have just asked me to do! so, on the one hand you are asking me to be "respectful" (when others are not), yet i do not see any evidence of JzG altering his behaviour to be correspondingly respectful. this is an extremely common thing on wikipedia: people with Systems Administrative privileges are "protected" - people are too afraid to call them out, for fear of reprisals (having their accounts terminated, blocked, etc.) so their behaviour is never questioned, even if it is unethical. I have absolutely no such fear: i speak truth, and i do not back down if i see something as being important to bring to people's attention. i have no "vested interest" in Wikipedia, nor any kind of reputation to uphold except that of speaking truth. Lkcl (talk) 23:58, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lkcl, you say you want to delete the article for two reasons: it is simply taking up too much of my time; and it risks bringing the EOMA68 Standard into disrepute due to attempts to do "technical writing by consensus". I think I can address both those concerns, which I hope will convince you to change your mind to keep. To address the first concern, I would like to point to WP:NOTCOMPULSORY and (again) to WP:COI. That is, you are not required to spend any of your time on the article; and in the long run it would probably be for the best (both for your stress levels, and to alleviate other editors' concerns about WP:COI) if you adopt a hands-off approach to it: maybe check in once a month or something and add a note on its talk page of any inaccuracies you perceive, and other editors will weigh these up and do their best to address them within Wikipedia's guidelines. To address your second concern, I wish to point to WP:NOR, and to my previous point about helping other editors to address inaccuracies in an unrushed manner. Please sleep on these suggestions, which are well-meant, and, if you are amenable to them, please switch your preference to keep. Thank you. zazpot (talk) 10:25, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

i genuinely appreciate your efforts as well-meaning and well-intentioned, zazpot, but please bear in mind that we did not properly complete the review of COI that i told you was needed (and would be beyond the ability and authority of a single Wikipedia Administrator to resolve). i also simply do not have time to even "check in" on a regular basis on a *talk* page for goodness sake, to correct continuously-false information. six *separate* editors providing easily-demonstrably false factual statements in as little as ten days, man! no, it's much easier for me to place a warning at the top of the standards page on elinux.org, warning people that false information is being added, and false declarations are being made in direct violation of Wikipedia's own policies ("to assume good faith and to trust editors" is the main one that's been violated here). now, i do appreciate your offer to take responsibility for editing the page: however as i've already stated from experience of dealing with three prior separate highly-technical "unusual" pages (this will be the fourth) i have absolutely no confidence from the 100% *FAILING* track record of wikipedia's "multi-editor" approach to produce informative (and technically factually accurate) articles. three of those articles i was entirely independent: they *still* resulted in what can only be described as "wikifascist behaviour" (defined as the "hypocritical, reactionary application of wikipedia rules with blatant and unethical disregard for the harm caused"). anyway - again, i'm taking up far too much time here, i have over 2,000 people relying on me to deliver on my promises to them. Lkcl (talk) 18:48, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have been a (German) Wikipedia editor since 2004, and I have just started to improve this article about an admittedly young subject. Unfortunately, my edits were reverted citing WP:COI although I have no conflict of interest. Why can Guy not wait for this article to evolve? Please do not disturb. --Thüringer ☼ (talk) 22:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The COI edits were made before the change you made, and were substantial. However, the sources you added still were not reliable and independent. Guy (Help!) 23:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, your definition of COI seems to include everybody with the slightest bit of knowledge on the article's subject. Your definition might be reasonable for political or profit-oriented subjects, but this one is neither. --Thüringer (talk) 23:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

he hasn't bothered to look up the history of the project, Thuringer. this is hardly surprising as it's only just come to prominence with the Crowdfunding campaign, but that's no excuse. anyway: just keeping the page from containing factually plain wrong statements is taking up far too much of my time: the simplest thing to do is walk away from Wikipedia, and to protect the standard and not have it brought into disrepute the simplest thing is to support the page deletion. Lkcl (talk) 01:13, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The features that make EOMA68 notable are not able to withstand controversy because there are too few secondary sources. Instead of limiting the article to technical details that don’t need to be on Wikipedia, we should ~~delete~~ it for now IMHO. Pelzflorian (talk) 06:04, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added more secondary sources now. Some of them are not in English because this standardization effort (which started 5 years ago) has received international media coverage. --Thüringer ☼ (talk) 07:49, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thüringer, per WP:AFDFORMAT, please can you clarify whether your preferred resolution is "Keep", "Delete", or something else? I guess, from your "do not disturb" comment above, that your preference is "Keep", but I would be grateful if you could confirm that here. Thanks! zazpot (talk) 09:45, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the reasons I gave above. --Thüringer ☼ (talk) 13:57, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thüringer’s and Zazpot’s arguments convinced me that there indeed are sufficient reliable sources to ~~keep~~ the article due to media coverage. I’d like to see reliable sources for it being an open standard (CC-BY-SA does not mean open standard; there could be patents) but the article does not need these to remain. Pelzflorian (talk) 13:30, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pelzflorian, you were one of the people who made factually-false edits. you should have consulted with me before making the factually-false edits that you made. regarding patents: if you'd *asked* me - or did even the smallest amount of research into my background - you'd *know* that it's a genuinely open standard. i'm a SOFTWARE LIBRE DEVELOPER. do you know what that means? it means we DON'T LIKE patents! for safety reasons i had to research this, to find a way.. why am i even spending time talking about this?? Lkcl (talk) 18:48, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the false claim (on the COI noticeboard; I never edited the EOMA68 article) that you added the “designed for reducing e-waste”. I am sorry for that; I mixed up who did what and blamed you wrongfully. As to being an open standard, Wikipedia is more about verifiability than about mere truth. Since you have researched and IIRC posted about patents somewhere, it would be helpful to know why/if you believe noone else has patents on interfaces used by EOMA68 (because of the age of these interface standards?). I am not familiar enough with patent law, but I believe an explicit disclaimer of any patent rights you may have (even if you do not have any) also is legally safer than relying on your mere claim that you have no such patent rights. Please correct me if I’m wrong; IANAL and I do not know how to disclaim. Pelzflorian (talk) 14:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. There is no need to hurry; not having enough time for work on EOMA68 is much more harmful to EOMA68 than incomplete Wikipedia articles and false claims on Wikipedia. Pelzflorian (talk) 14:32, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pelzflorian, that's great! As for whether EOMA68 is an open standard, and whether its Wikipedia article should comment on that, I agree this is worth addressing. Let's do that here. Thanks :) zazpot (talk) 14:37, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (or, failing that, userfy). The subject of the article meets WP:GNG: it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. For example:

an article in ZDNet;
an article in the Russian language edition of PCWeek;
a piece in the German language edition of Linux Magazine;
several articles in Liliputing: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7];
a post by Cory Doctorow at BoingBoing;
a post by Elena Re Garbagnati in the Italian language edition of Tom's Hardware.

(If you wish, you may disagree that some of these are reliable or independent sources. But in order to justify removing the article for failing WP:GNG, you would have to demonstrate consensus among Wikipedians that no more than one of them is a reliable and independent source, and I doubt that such a consensus will emerge.)

Additionally, numerous Wikipedians have invested time into improving the article and addressing the WP:COI concern. It would be a pity for Wikipedia to lose that effort.

As for the WP:TOOSOON claim, I think this is amply rebutted by Wikipedia:Don't_demolish_the_house_while_it's_still_being_built. zazpot (talk) 09:45, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

they've *NOT* addressed the COI concerns at all! the "review" comprised an accusation that i'm an employee of a non-existent corporation, Zazpot! the "improvements" comprised reversion of factually-correct very specifically technically-worded information with factually false statements. to continue to have this page even exist serves one and only one purpose: as a demonstration and case study of how experienced Wikipedians (with no technical knowledge of a new subject) should *NOT* approach a technically-complex new topic. ever. Lkcl (talk) 18:48, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

also, JzG and a couple of other experienced Wikipedia editors have already noted that *all* of the news articles listed are... what's the phrase... "unreliable" sources. you can review a full list of all the "unreliable" sources here - i maintained a complete list as i could find them: http://rhombus-tech.net/crowdsupply/#articles_online - there's 64 of them which will need to be reviewed (that's just the ones that i could find or had been made aware of). None of these "matter" because they're *all* "unreliable sources" - many of them are done by experienced technical journalists, or by people who are respected in the technical journalism world... but because the technical journalism world is small e.g. compared to "The Guardian Newspaper" every single one of them can be disregarded. The Radio Shows - they're covering 200 stations across the U.S. but they're *talk* shows where i was featured. I'm fairly certain - without checking if it's correct - that someone knows a "rule" on wikipedia which says "if you're talking about your own stuff on a live radio talk show it's to be considered unreliable therefore is not notable". soo... after every single "not-notable" source is removed, we're left with articles which *only i* have written, because this is at an early phase of the standard's history and development. thus we may logically conclude that the entire article is "not reliable" and thus should be DELETED. it's too early, basically, Zazpot. i've taken a copy (snapshot) of the article at its best (before the cluster**** of factually-inaccurate editing began), put it on the elinux.org "talk" section so that it can be maintained there, so people's work is at least preserved, but right now it's best that this serve as a case study in how long-serving senior Wikipedia Editors and Adminstrators should *not* interact with long-serving technical experts (in their field). Lkcl (talk) 18:48, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! cool - thank you, i didn't realise there was an italian tom's hardware article. make that 65 "unreliable" sources. added it to the ikiwiki on rhombus-tech - thanks for alerting me to it. Lkcl (talk) 18:53, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of deleting the article I suggest keeping it small and limited to verifiable facts. I believe the media coverage Zazpot and Thüringer cite justifies notability and provides enough reason for this article to exist. False claims may appear from time to time, but deletion is not a good way for Wikipedia to resolve that (whether deletion would be good for EOMA68 does not matter here). Pelzflorian (talk) 13:59, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Don't_demolish_the_house_while_it's_still_being_built addresses only the promotion allegations, not the lack of notability IMHO. Pelzflorian (talk) 12:49, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:54, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Marginal notability. WP:TOOSOON applies. Might deserve a mention in the article of a company shipping such devices, if they ship and get good coverage. John Nagle (talk) 17:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- What kind of coverage would you consider necessary for notability? EOMA68 has coverage by international media and the FSF. Surely a device does not become notable just because it has been shipped. I do not understand why an article on a company is preferrable to an article on the EOMA68 standard. Do you think the EOMA68 article is not useful right now? Pelzflorian (talk) 20:31, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This new standard is worth documenting, because it's a free and open standard which can be implemented by anyone. How is that not notable? The problem is that editors who don't understand the technicalities have been meddling too much. Please, let the author of the standard help to document it, and stop replacing facts with FUD. User:ecloud —Preceding undated comment added 11:04, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As a member of the Free software movement I support the creation-existance of this article. Have in mind that the EOMA68 is still a new technology which is currently being developed, it has just passed the Crowdfunding campaign, therefore it might still lack external references about this project, which will appear later. It is one of the projects that will greatly benefit the Free software community. Please allow the original author-developer User:Lkcl to submit the important technical specifications to this article and try not to interfere-erase that content later, about which other people might not have sufficient background and technical knowledge. Instead try and reshape the content into the usefull format for Wikipedians. -- Prunk (talk) 13:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Unless the FSF provides continued coverage, I don’t see how this justifies the article’s existence in terms of Wikipedia policy. Of course the standard is already released and so are parts of the EOMA68-A20 implementation’s “source code”, but they are not notable yet and if Lkcl were to cease any further work, they may not become notable in the future. Userfying as Zazpot proposed (who still prefers to keep the article) seems more appropriate for now. Pelzflorian (talk) 06:52, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Multiple WP:NOT violations. Wikipedia is not for promotion, nor is it for documenting current events, especially when the documenter is the propagator of the events in question. Wikipedia is also not for writing about oneself or one's own work, and I don't think we're really outside the realm of press release on a lot of this material. I'm also left wondering where a viable product is. MSJapan (talk) 05:29, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

i wasn't the one that created the page, msjapan. i'm on record as being extremely alarmed when i heard that the page was being created, as i am keenly aware that Wikipedia has a long-standing track record of failing to accurately reflect the state of highly-technical subjects. i therefore stepped in to ensure that neither EOMA68 nor Wikipedia were brought into disrepute by well-intentioned people putting up false and misleading statements. those efforts have been interfered with, in ways that clearly violate Wikipedia policies. Lkcl (talk) 00:18, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the coverage is mostly about EOMA68 being announced. Is that insufficient for notability? People may look up EOMA68 on Wikipedia to find out what it is about from a hopefully neutral source. Wikipedia could say that it is a proposed standard for plug-in computer cards. Pelzflorian (talk) 07:02, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

i've had to add a warning at the top of the elinux.org page because of the amount of misleading information. the EOMA68 page's very first paragraph contains no less than SEVEN false and misleading statements. that's a staggering (likely unprecedented) level of inaccuracy for something that's supposed to be "a place where people find information from neutral sources". Lkcl (talk) 00:18, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is insufficient, either on the grounds of Wikipedia is not for promotion, or existence is not notability, and frankly, it doesn't really meet the general notability guideline either. MSJapan (talk) 03:34, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You convinced me. Thank you. Existence is not notability/Continued coverage applies; media coverage was only temporary and lasting significance cannot yet be determined. Regardless of the general notability guidelines, it seems we really should delete this article. I do think it can be revived after release and more coverage though (not from a snapshot; we want to preserve its history). Pelzflorian (talk) 06:19, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pelzflorian, if your preference is for the article's history to be preserved so that it can be resurrected in future with its history intact, you might prefer to vote "Userfy" instead of "Delete"? Your vote is completely up to you, of course, but I thought this would be worth mentioning in case you weren't aware of the "Userfy" option. I would be happy for the article to be userfied to my namespace if a consensus emerges for "Userfy". zazpot (talk) 13:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ah! didn't know about the userify option, yeah that's a good idea, plus, also, you appear to be a sensible person who both listens to and can write statements that contain consistent logical reasoning, so i'd trust you to... what's the word... be a "curator" of the article on a user-page. Lkcl (talk) 00:18, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Despite many comments, users Lkcl and Pelzflorian have not unambiguously voted, per WP:AFDFORMAT. Please add a "*'''MyVote''' ... --~~~~" There are programs which read and log AfD pages [8], so this matters. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 19:17, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

thanks john, appreciate the heads-up. Lkcl (talk) 00:18, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sorry, the required format was not clear to me. Pelzflorian (talk) 20:35, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy as Zazpot suggested. This way people can continue to work on the article even before there is sufficient continued coverage. Pelzflorian (talk) 06:01, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The EOMA68 standard has existed for at least 3 years. Here's a Youtube video from 2013 showing a card that meets the standard: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iM4cDjGY9vY It's true that the recent crowdfunding campaign makes it seem like maybe the standard is just a momentary phenomenon that won't take off, but I don't think the commercial success (or failure) of a given product that meets a standard is relevant. In the longer view, EOMA68 is the first open standard in the post-Raspberry Pi era of credit-card size computers; that's notable in itself. Pingswept (talk) 20:28, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

it's not a computer card standard! ye gods how many times does it have to be said when the page is right there on elinux.org! i'm actually going to have to add a FAQ entry to deal with this. i appreciate that you've pointed out this really interesting historical observation, but please for goodness sake read the standard! Lkcl (talk) 00:18, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to me it seems like it is *also* (not only) a computer card standard. Either way, being first does not mean it warrants its own article just yet. In the future it most likely will IMHO, so it seems best to userfy. Note that notability means fulfilling Wikipedia’s notability policy – if this discussion were about perceived importance, I would not switch sides all the time ;) . Pelzflorian (talk) 10:10, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy would be a good way to ensure that the page stays off of wikipedia (where people who are ignorant of the technical details, haven't read the standard etc. will feel less inclined to put false and misleading statements on it, thinking that they're doing some good), whilst at the same time preserving the efforts of those people who have spent considerable time working on it. i preserved a copy on elinux.org for the same reason. Lkcl (talk) 00:18, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) SST flyer 01:24, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda steele

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

No sources, last name not capitalized (although can be fixed via a redirect). There are some sources out there but wanted to nominate for deletion to see if the sources are enough to warrant an article on this person. Andise1 (talk) 20:28, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Here are some sources I have found via searching Google News:

W Magazine: YouTube Vlogger Amanda Steele Wants to Be a Model
Daily Mail: Stunning YouTube star, 17, who made her first video at the age of TEN, is hailed as a 'mini Kendall Jenner' after landing a modeling contract with IMG
Variety: YouTube Star Amanda Steele Signs With WME and IMG Models
Seventeen: Amanda Steele Reveals How She Got Rid Of Acne In Super-Honest Video
People: YouTube's Amanda Steele Dishes on Her New Album – and Why She 'Weirded Out' Everyone at Her School
Billboard: Makeup Queen Amanda Steele's Coachella-Inspired Compilation Album 'Just Gets You Pumped Up'
Tubefilter: Amanda Steele Is Next YouTube Star To Announce A Compilation Album
Tubefilter: YouTube Star Amanda Steele Plans Bank Heist With Funny Or Die On Go90
Bello Magazine: STEELE HER STYLE: AMANDA STEELE
The Video Ink: YouTube Beauty Vlogger Amanda Steele Signs with WME and IMG Models
Tubefilter: YouTube Star Amanda Steele’s Sunglasses Line Is Selling Out Very Quickly
Luxury Daily: Gemfields teams with M2M for style-centric content
EXCLUSIVE: YouTube star, 15, who boasts over two million subscribers reveals how the 'hobby' she started at age TEN earned her online fame - and a lucrative business
Daily Mail: Marcus Butler and US vlogger Amanda Steele have teamed up with Adidas for the Step In campaign, aimed to promote the company’s new shoe range.
Fanlala: YouTuber Amanda Steele has a Brand New Series Coming Your Way!
andPOP: MakeupByMandy24’s Amanda Steele Talks #TheSocialLife And Her Amazing Instagram Game
New York Times: Verizon and Hearst to Create TV for Mobile Millennial Viewers
Tubefilter: Kohl’s, AwesomenessTV Promote Fashion Line With Original Web Series

There are plenty of sources out there which are about Amanda Steele or mention her in some way (I tried to exclude sources that just briefly mentioned her name or did not seem relevant for her Wikipedia page). Whether these sources are good enough to keep the article is to be determined, but if the consensus is to keep the article, then we can add these sources to the article. I don't have a major issue with keeping or deleting the article, since there may be some room for improvement (but possibly not enough), thus I mainly decided to nominate the article for deletion to seek the opinions of others. Andise1 (talk) 20:58, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to me to plainly pass notability guidelines based on considerable coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources. Agree that the article should be improved; starting with the last name :D. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 00:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:15, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:15, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:15, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article was likely created with the small "s" last name since the proper capitalization was WP:SALTed.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 23:28, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable blogger, lots of mentions no indepth coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:40, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Ginsengbomb is right. Notability guidelines passes. plenty of good sources. Sources trumps IDONTLIKEIT.BabbaQ (talk) 19:56, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clear GNG pass per a selection of the sources cited above by Andise1. Carrite (talk) 16:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If the article is to be keeped (which it looks like it's headed that way), the article should be redirected to "Amanda Steele". The "Amanda Steele" article is not protected but I don't want to move it while there is a deletion discussion ongoing. Andise1 (talk) 20:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. WP:SNOWBALL closure. Consensus is not going to change at this point. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

W.H. Jones Mansion

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

Unremarkable building. The person W. H. Jones is also seen to be unremarkable as well. S. Salim (talk) 20:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (was Comment) ~~Dunno how much this means, but it's~~ NRHP-listed, so notable. Blythwood (talk) 20:28, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that that means an awful lot. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 20:54, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 20:54, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - In neither of the nom's two sentences are there any proper rationale for deletion of this article. The claim "Unremarkable building" is not backed by any deletion rationale and a previous owner being in the nom's opinion "unremarkable" is completely irrelevant to notability. The The Columbus Dispatch and the American Institute of Architects sources satisfy WP:GNG. Additionally it's part of the National Register of Historic Places. [9]. And S. Salim, why did you nominate this article for AfD within one hour of its creation? [10]--Oakshade (talk) 03:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per WP:GEOFEAT we always keep any building on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:54, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. NRHP-listed. --do ncr am 00:52, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Management College of Southern Africa

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

This article contains no evidence of notability and no reliable independent sources about the subject. Guy (Help!) 12:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a degree-awarding institution as per longstanding precedent and consensus. Appears to be fully accredited. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, in line with college and uni notability, although acknowledge that article could be improved with more references. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:17, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:42, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Aimé Pierre Guerrier

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

Non-notable soldier. The Chevalier grade of the French Legion of Honour does not qualify as France's highest military honor (one would have to have been awarded the Grand Cross of the Legion of Honour to claim the highest grade of award), and Guerrier's other decorations are merely campaign decorations (i.e. he participated in, but did not distinguish himself in, several military campaigns). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The French National Order of the Legion of Honor is France's highest military award. Higher ranks within the Order, in addition to other criteria, are subject to seniority within the Order. The award being bestowed posthumously onto Lt Guerrier, a higher rank within the Order can never be achieved, thus reiterating that this the highest military award that could be bestowed. Lt Guerrier distinguished himself several times and was awarded the following:

He received the Legion of Honour.
He received the highest level of citation (mentioned at the Army level) and was awarded the Croix de guerre des théâtres d'opérations extérieurs (War Cross for foreign operational theaters) with "Palm" for his gallantry in Indochina.
He received another citation (mentioned at the Division level) and was awarded the Croix de guerre 1939–1945 (War Cross 1939–1945) with "Silver Star" for his gallantry in World War II.
He received the Medaille Coloniale. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmontabe (talk • contribs) 23:29, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Cmontabe: The article mentions that Guerrier received the Croix de Chevalier (the Knight's Cross) of the Legion of Honour. This is, in fact, the lowest grade of that honor, and has, according to the Legion of Honour article, been given out almost one million French and foreign citizens over the centuries. According to the footnote at WP:SOLDIER, only the highest grade of the Legion of Honour (the Grand Cross) would impart presumed notability. The various Croix de Guerre medals are what are known as campaign medals that are given to all service personnel who serve in a particular operational theater. They do not denote any special notability, even if mentioned in dispatches. The Medaille Coloniale is a similar campaign medal, reserved for operations that occurred in territories that were, at the time, French colonies. Again, no special notability is indicated by such a medal. Failing the requirement of having received his nation's highest honor, we would need evidence of significant coverage of Guerrier in independent sources. The mentions you have found of Guerrier in various databases of military honors is not sufficient, as such databases list ALL recipients of such honors. We'd need to see that someone (preferable several someones) took the time to write a significant piece of work (a book or book chapter, or magazine or newspaper article beyond his own home town) to be able to say that this person was notable. (See WP:BIO and WP:GNG.) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 01:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:SOLDIER Gbawden (talk) 08:21, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:39, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:39, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is a tricky one. Chevalier of the Légion d'honneur for service is far too common (with a maximum permitted number at any one time of "just" 113,425!) to qualify under WP:ANYBIO #1. However, does it qualify under WP:SOLDIER when awarded for gallantry? It does appear to be true that, while it is commonly awarded for service, it is indeed relatively rarely awarded for gallantry, but I'm not sure it is awarded rarely enough to qualify (according to the Légion's website, a maximum of twenty special awards may be made every year to those who do not qualify through length of service to the nation - this includes awards both for gallantry and for such people as Olympic gold medallists - but the implication is that more than this may have been awarded during major wars). I would also dispute that the Croix de guerre is a campaign medal - it is awarded for gallantry (and not, as alleged above, to all personnel who serve in a particular theatre), but it is certainly too low to confer any sort of automatic notability. The problem is that France, in common with some other countries, diverges from the system of first-, second- and third-level gallantry decorations that we see in the USA and the Commonwealth, for instance, and therefore is not really covered as far as decorations are concerned by WP:SOLDIER. Nobody is ever given anything other than Chevalier the first time - you can only get the highest grade by being awarded it five times; so I very much doubt that anyone has ever become a Grand Cross through gallantry alone, thus qualifying nobody under WP:SOLDIER. I would like to see figures for the numbers of Légion d'honneur awards made for gallantry, but sadly I have been unable to find any. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:17, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @Necrothesp: I refer you to footnote 1 of WP:SOLDIER where the Legion of Honour is specifically mentioned, limiting presumed notability only to those who have received the highest grade of the honor. The article on the Croix de guerre 1939–1945 (France) does not mention any particular gallantry required to be awarded the medal, although the Silver Star that Guerrier earned does denote gallantry. Also, this article published by the Pentagon's Institute of Heraldry does mention that the Croix de Guerre was only awarded to those who were mentioned in dispatches (i.e. had demonstrated some level of gallantry). However, none of this rises to the level of notability generally required for soldiers, and there is no evidence of the kind of significant coverage needed for WP:GNG. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!!
  - I was the original source (although not writer) of that footnote, although it was really a response to those who were saying that the Légion d'honneur for service met the notability requirements (which it obviously does not, given how ubiquitous it is)! And I think you need to reread the Croix de guerre article. "The Croix de guerre may either be awarded as an individual or unit award to those soldiers who distinguish themselves by acts of heroism involving combat with the enemy." The silver star simply denotes the recipient was mentioned in divisional despatches. You will note, I did not say "keep", but I don't think it's an automatic no keep either. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:16, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:45, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cascade Server

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

Procedural AFD - was PRODed, but has been deleted at PROD before. Also CSDed. PROD was "Concerns: notability: significant independent RS coverage cannot be found. A promotional article that's been edited by accounts with conflicts of interest." I concur - this is blatantly deletable and needs to be killed properly as it stands, probably with SALTing. David Gerard (talk) 10:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 10:52, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 10:54, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO and COI. This edit summary says it all: "Page was created and heavily edited by Hannon Hill employees" :-) Support salting this article. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:27, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CADbro

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

Software program that fails WP:NSOFT. noq (talk) 07:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if I were being generous this article would have to be trashed and started over. Everything in Google News is a press release or a reprint of one. I suspect this is a WP:TOOSOON - David Gerard (talk) 18:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:09, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO and WP:WEBHOST. This is a product brochure in the form of a Wiki article. Created by a SPA Special:Contributions/Zw3dmkt with no other contributions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 redirect may be created as an editorial decision. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:27, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Games

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

Absolutely no reliable sourcing found whatsoever. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:54, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NMEDIA does not confer an automatic notability pass on every television series just because its existence is nominally verifiable on IMDb — a series has to be the subject of coverage in reliable sources for an article to become earned. But no reliable source coverage has been shown here, and I'm having the same lack of success as the nominator at finding anything better. Bearcat (talk) 17:48, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of programs broadcast by Game Show Network or delete. I found a few trivial mentions ([11], [12]), but there doesn't seem to be significant coverage. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:10, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The article may need serious cleanup, but the topic seems to satisfy inclusion criteria in the opinion of the commenters. I'll apply some tags. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:28, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Animal World

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

Article about a non-notable book, written like a book report or review. Unsourced, no sources found, but Spanish search may turn up something. Possibly redirect to The Animal World, if deemed not notable. ansh 666 03:12, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, seems like my searching skills and/or Spanish are a bit worse than I thought. I still can't shake the feeling that this is a copyvio or something, but Wikipedia mirrors make those nearly impossible to find just by Googling nowadays. At this point, it's looking probably notable, but needs a complete rewrite, and possibly a move to a disambiguated title. ansh 666 18:39, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 03:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like it was the focus of this journal article in the Anales de Literatura Hispanoamerican. I'm not entirely familiar with this journal, so I don't know how exclusive they are. It makes it seem like there might be coverage out there, probably in Spanish. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More possible sources: (may add to this as I find them) [13] Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This says that it won a national prize, so maybe some more digging can find out what it is? I'll keep looking. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This also gives out some hope for coverage, but I can't get a good look at it - plus my Spanish skills are rudimentary at best. It does look like it was on Clarin's "best of" list at some point. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll ask for help at the applicable WikiProjects. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:57, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I came here in response to Tokyogirl79's post. I found two scholarly sources that appear to give this substantial coverage: [14] and [15]. Unfortunately my Spanish is perhaps good enough to find these, but not near good enough to evaluate them: so I'm just going to leave them here for others to look at. I will note, though, that I would tend to consider coverage in two scholarly pieces more than enough to keep. Vanamonde (talk) 10:13, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An English-language review here: Boria Sax. Review of di Benedetto, Antonio, Animal World. H-Nilas, H-Net Reviews. February, 1999. -maclean (talk) 02:00, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect (change from Keep) to Antonio di Benedetto. The national prize mention and the H-Net review appear to make the book notable, but the current state of the article does not make this topic worthy of inclusion in current form. I agree that the article needs to be completely re-written; the redirect would preserve the history if someone would want to undertake improvements. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:44, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clear keep plenty of Spanish Language sources establishing notability and discourse (just added two, but there are dozens in reputable academic journals). @K.e.coffman:'s argument makes no sense: deletion discussions are about notability, quality improvements are not created by burning everything to the ground -- but by leaving comments on the talk page or through tagging, and letting WP:Eventualism kick in. Sadads (talk) 13:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a valid argument, see the essay WP:TNT. That said, it's probably better to stubify than redirect in this case. ansh666 20:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Stubify may be a form of TNT, but that is something you can do without a AFD discussion -- and it was a pretty trivial action to remove the clear Peacock material. As much as these kinds of AFDs do force work on articles -- its not always best use of experienced editors time in many cases. Thanks for entertaining the conversation though! Sadads (talk) 22:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:56, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the improved sourcing. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 knows of a good target, you're free to go ahead and recreate this as a redirect. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:08, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UP Engineering Radio Guild

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

The engineering radio guild of a university created four years ago by a WP:SPA that has developed no references since its creation and which remains without independent notability. Delete per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. KDS4444 (talk) 03:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Am now voting to Redirect, as interest in the nomination has been zero. KDS4444 (talk) 08:01, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to where? I can guess based on the article content, but it's still necessary to explicitly specify the target in your nomination. Bearcat (talk) 17:38, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:55, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is minimally sourced to its own primary source content about itself rather than to reliable source coverage, contains a lot of completely unsourced insider baseball cruft, and has no strong claim of notability (which is not the same thing as mere existence). I don't see it as warranting a redirect, as it's not a particularly likely topic of reader interest or a particularly likely search term in its own right — nobody outside of its own past and present membership is likely to ever be looking for this, and it can keep its own website for that purpose rather than taking advantage of us. Bearcat (talk) 17:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:11, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge B. Vargas Museum and Filipiniana Research Center

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

Non-notable subunit of a university. Delete per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. KDS4444 (talk) 02:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 02:46, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:55, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep This is an actual museum. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES has nothing to do with an actual museum housed on the campus of a University. Move to KEEP this on the grounds that the Nom is mistaken.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:46, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added a dispositive source. This should not have been necessary. We do not delete actual, significant art museums with significant collections. We tag them for sourcing. And we run a WP:BEFORE check before taking the m to AfD. That informs us that they are real. end of Rant, but, honestly, AfD could try the patience of a saint. I am not a saint..E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GEOFEAT, note and sympathise with E.M.Gregory's frustration but remember WP:BURDEN falls on the article creator to provide sources in the first place (why can't article creators provide enough sources, i do (coola says modestly), oh, and heres another source that may be useful - Research Paper: The Jorge B. Vargas Art Collection as a Microcosm of Art during the Commonwealth Coolabahapple (talk) 03:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. I'm doing a bit of IAR and closing this per WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. Should the bold redirect be undone, we can come back to AfD again. (non-admin closure) Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:27, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

U.P. Naming Mahal

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

A university anthem without any independent notability. KDS4444 (talk) 02:59, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let me reiterate that: this is an article about a university's hymn. I could find no evidence of discussion of this subject in any reliable independent secondary sources, only lots of evidence published by the university itself— which makes those publications self-serving and unsuitable for establishing a case for real-world notability (WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES has no provisions for handling school hymns). I welcome anyone who can demonstrate otherwise, but unless that happens, I nominate the existing article for deletion. KDS4444 (talk) 12:16, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Redirect to University of the Philippines Clearly not independently notable. I would say a redirect suffices here as the term is a valid search term. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:38, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:39, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:54, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination I will convert this into a redirect myself. KDS4444 (talk) 11:52, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed my bolded redirect vote KDS4444 as there is no other !vote other than mine. I don't see a need for bureaucracy so I'm closing this as nomination withdrawn. I guess you can boldly redirect and if it is undone, we can come back to AfD. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:22, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 University of the Philippines. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:30, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

University of the Philippines ROTC

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

A campus ROTC program without independent notability. Delete per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES KDS4444 (talk) 02:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable; common for colleges and high schools to have such programs. Kierzek (talk) 18:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:53, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to University of the Philippines; not independently notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:04, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the University of the Philippines page, it has the ROTC stuff on it. --Frmorrison (talk) 19:54, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Charlotte Bruus Christensen. (non-admin closure) Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Between Us (2004 film)

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

Non notable film. Koala15 (talk) 06:21, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Sunmist (talk) 10:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:50, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:50, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It would seem that a non-controversial redirect to arguably notable filmmaker Charlotte Bruus Christensen would have served rather than the AFD process... but as it is now here and the film did receive some awards, it might be possible through modified search parameters to find critical analysis enough to meet WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:25, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Charlotte Bruus Christensen. I can't find any information on this film that would satisfy the criteria at WP:NF or WP:NFO (with the possible exception of NFO #3). It seems like it ought to be notable given the awards previously mentioned, but significant coverage of the film is sorely lacking. clpo13_(talk) 22:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kinda WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input and that this may be a case where sources exist in non-easily searched languages. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hamisi 'B12' Mandi

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

Non-notable person. Local radio personality in Tanzania. No reliable sources to be found. Claims of award nominations are not verified by the sources given, and are too vague to verify otherwise. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:18, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:48, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't checked notability yet, but I see no reason to think that the subject is a local rather than a national radio personality. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 11:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:34, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:40, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, pending evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 18:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:35, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Javotti Media

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

The page continues to lack and/or fail WP:BIO and WP:MUSICBIO; no proof of reliable sources within coverage. 206.125.47.10 (talk) 11:22, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I believe that this page had good enough proof of cited sources in referencing its history and artists. There wouldn't be anything wrong. DBrown SPS (talk) 11:18, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:48, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:34, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'delete - not a notable company. Or at least redirect. Kellymoat (talk) 16:56, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:39, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hindustan Janata Party. Redirect counterpart to WP:SOFTDELETE applies given the low input despite two relistings. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:32, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

B. U. Gosawi

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

Unable to find any reliable sources which will prove notability.

Hindustan Janata Party itself is not a big party. It's president is not notable as not covered much in the news.

He contested election, but did not win any election. Marvellous Spider-Man 12:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:20, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:20, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:28, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hindustan Janata Party. Anup [Talk] 20:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Phi Nu

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

The sources are WP:PRIMARY. I couldn't find any evidence of notability. Marvellous Spider-Man 13:47, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, added women project to article talkpage so participants are notified of this afd. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:47, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:28, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seems like there are sources, but disagreement about whether they meet the first NMUSIC criterion and no slam dunk argument or clear preponderance of numbers favouring one side. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:35, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CLARK the band

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

Delete. Full disclosure: I'm actually the original creator here, in 2005 when our notability and sourcing rules were very different than they are today. This is a band that has no strong claim to passing the 2016 version of WP:NMUSIC — the strongest thing here is that it temporarily had two members who later joined Arcade Fire, but they weren't core members of this project: this was a "rotating lineup" collective that had only one constant member, so session players can't be the notability in and of themselves. And more importantly, there's no strong reliable source coverage to get them past what NMUSIC demands now — the only RS-worthy source here is a single album review in Exclaim!, but it doesn't substantiate anything that would constitute an NMUSIC pass, and I can't locate any stronger sourcing that would fix the problem. Bearcat (talk) 15:38, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:33, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:33, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:33, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I found a few reviews at Exclaim!: [16], [17], [18]. There's also [19] from PopMatters, though it's a rather brief review of a single. There's some coverage about the band at Chart Attack, too: [20], [21], and [22]. There's also [23] from Canoe.com. I think this is possibly enough. Bearcat, what do you think? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:55, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. I'm not seeing a lot of substance there that would convincingly pass any NMUSIC criterion — the most substantive new notability claim added by any of that coverage is that they were a finalist in (but not the winner of) a regional "battle of the unsigned bands" competition, and I don't see that as being enough. The Chart references, for example, aren't articles about the band, but merely namecheck it in "local scene news" columns that blurb numerous unrelated and mostly non-notable bands doing unrelated and mostly non-notable things on the order of "played at Barrymore's last Friday". Bearcat (talk) 19:02, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree that the Chart Attack sources are a bit light, but I figured maybe they might add up to something collectively. However, if I can't even convince the article creator that the topic is notable, I guess the sources probably don't pass muster. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I take the view that a large number of sources (album reviews and similar) which constitute brief but non-trivial coverage, is sufficient to meet WP:NMUSIC criterion #1. In addition to what has already been cited above, I found multiple articles in the Ottawa Citizen that also have some coverage of this band; examples include Fateema Sayani. "Clark the band deals and heals", Ottawa Citizen 25 August 2005: F3 – also, Smiderle, Wes. "Star's brother rocks his own way: John Tielli finds a home in Ottawa", Ottawa Citizen 31 January 2002: E3. Another album review is Jagernauth, Kevin. "Clark: Terra Incognita: By Land, Sea & Air", Broken Pencil 18 (2002): 75. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:35, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas A. Jeffress

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

No longer associated with Washington, DC or Republicans. Not noteworthy Njeffress (talk) 18:09, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, have reinstated text that was removed (actually a page blank), by Njeffress so that editors may consider the article with regards to this afd. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:21, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Hi Njeffress, please see WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The position of Executive Director of a national political party is usually deleted per WP:POLOUTCOMES. The leader of the Republican Party would be the Chair, not the Executive Director. Enos733 (talk) 06:07, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Having been the executive director of a local chapter of a national political party, even if it's the local chapter in the capital city, is not in and of itself a valid claim of standalone notability — and the sourcing here is nowhere near strong enough to claim WP:GNG. I note that the nominator appears to be the subject himself — and was also the creator of the article, in defiance of our conflict of interest rules — so I will note that the deletion rationale provided was not a valid one as (a) notability is not temporary (i.e. a person who was notable because of a public role they held does not lose that notability just because they leave the role later on), and (b) our content policies, not the subject's own wishes, determine whether the article stays or goes. But I can't argue for a keep on that basis. This is not an article about a person who was formerly notable enough for an article but isn't anymore — it's an article about a person who never met our inclusion standards to begin with. All of that said, WP:BIODEL does also come into play here, as an article about a low-profile individual who has personally requested deletion, but that remains secondary to the fact that this article should never have been created in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 01:08, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Really Not a Rapper

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

Nonnotable album by nonnotable rapper whose own apparently-promotional article is also up for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Montana Montana Montana No evidence of passing WP:NALBUMS, either presented here or on a search. I couldn't find the claimed chart placings on billboard.com. David Gerard (talk) 19:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and my reasoning at the Montana Montana Montana nomination. Non-notable album by non-notable artist. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:00, 22 August 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, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment the artist article has been deleted at AFD as well - David Gerard (talk) 15:10, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:37, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:A9 -- as noted above, artist article was deleted at AfD as a non-notable subject and therefore the album article now meets WP:CSD criteria. --Finngall ^talk 17:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zindagi Dhoop Tum Ghana Saya

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

One link is broken. The second link refers to a web page that can not be considered reputable. Manoflogan (talk) 20:35, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As stated previously, the wiki page fails notability test, lacks references and has not been updated in a long time. Manoflogan (talk) 18:16, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as nationally broadcast passes WP:TV offline references would be helpful as Pakistan's internet coverage seems to be limited in entertainment subjects. Atlantic306 (talk) 20:09, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ I am afraid I disagree. One reference is a dead link. The 2nd reference is http://7thsky.biz/current/prg027_Ztgs_main.html, resembles WP:PROMO. There is no objectivity evident in the references. Since the two references are not reliable, it only makes sense that the page be deleted. Lack of reliable internet coverage can not be used as an excuse.Manoflogan (talk) 03:58, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your nomination counts as a delete !vote. You are welcome to comment on users' !votes but not starting with a delete marked bold. Regards—UY Scuti ^Talk 17:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hej Messenger

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

WP:NN IM service. Couldn't dredge up any independent sources Toddst1 (talk) 22:26, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 08:33, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent RS refs. Only ref provided does not mention Hej Messenger. A search turned up no WP:RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 02:56, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article making unreferenced claim about a product, and largely providing its feature list. No evidence found that the product is notable in terms of WP:NSOFT or WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 18:47, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Incertae sedis. ...Any interested editor may include details of Porifera incerta sedis into the target page. The history of the redirected page is intact. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 16:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Porifera incertae sedis

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

Incertae sedis is an indication for uncertain placement at one more ranks in a taxonomic hierarchy. Porifera incertae sedis is not a taxon we can write an article about. It's entirely possible that there could be multiple taxa that are incertae sedis at the same rank(s), but which are obviously not at all closely related. Incertae sedis does not represent a coherent entity. Incertae sedis should be used as a placeholder in a taxobox; an article is impossible to write. Plantdrew (talk) 05:35, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:01, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I understand and agree with the nom's reasoning. Probably an article should be written on Placodictyum instead. But it is interesting to note that the class Porifera incertae sedis does occur in databases, such as World Register of Marine Species and World Porifera database. In both of these databases, the class has the status of "accepted". Even with these entries, there does not appear to be multiple in-depth reliable sources about this class. Hence the class fails notability thresholds, and should be deleted. No prejudice to creating a redirect to Placodictyum, should it even get written. --Mark viking (talk) 09:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Incertae sedis. The article (microstub...) at this point is plain misleading. I think it would be most informative to make clear that this is a particular instantiation of a nomenclature convention by redirecting to that usage. Maybe put a mention of the use of "Porifera incertae sedis" as an accepted class into Incertae sedis? (that does strike me as unusual) -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:10, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jujutacular (talk) 02:37, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CSI Church Kaliakkavilai

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

Non-notable church. There is nothing about this church, either as an organization or as a building, to distinguish it from every other church. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 10:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:50, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:50, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DElete -- It would be nice if we could keep articles on every NN local church, but we cannot and do not. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 17:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Photos of chruch and few lines however could be added into Kaliyakkavilai article. Anup [Talk] 20:57, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 form does not appear to be sufficiently established for an article.The only "keep" arguments are from a couple of special-purpose accounts (who were also responsible for the unsigned comments), and they do not provide convincing evidence of Independent Reliable Coverage. MelanieN (talk) 23:45, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cherita

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

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

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

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

Found this article whilst working through the underlinked backlog. Created in 2014, its subject is a form of poetry purportedly derived from haiku that is so obscure it doesn't appear at all in a Google Books search. Most of the references cited in the article are bunk like self-published books and Tripod.com userpages (remember those?) but there is apparently one good source -- a brief mention in Frogpond, the journal of the Haiku Society of America. Additionally, the first three paras of the article are copy/pasted from one of its dubious references.

I will happily withdraw the nom if good sources can be found -- I had enough MFA student friends at university to know that poets have it tough all over. But as it stands there just doesn't seem to be enough meat here to pass WP:GNG. A Train^talk 16:06, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:39, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the article with a lot of recent references.

There has been a lot of activity in Atlas Poetica and Bright Stars, along with a number of books of Cherita. I'll see if I can dig out some more books and add them over the next few weeks. Thanks for being so polite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrahamJB (talk • contribs) 20:06, 6 September 2016 (UTC) — GrahamJB (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete virtually everything I see as added references refer to this form being "created in 1997 by American poet Ai Li." I daresay WP:NOTMADEUP applies. Not notable. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:16, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The form was part of a series of different genres developed out of Tanka and Haiku over several years and is now accepted by major Tanka journals with many different writers. If I follow your argument then all forms developed out of the haiku and tanka roots such as Haibun should be removed as WP:NOTMADEUP applies to Matsuo Bashō when he invented the form in a letter to his disciple Kyorai. That appears to be the logical conclusion of your analysis of a form now written by many different authors around the global.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:28, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep More generally, cherita is a subset of micropoetry, a phenomenon that has gain popularity with the emergence of microblogging sites in the 21st century. Both 'micropoetry' and 'microblogging' have pages of their own on Wikipedia.Soaphollow (talk) 22:30, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- — Soaphollow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. . Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's a linguistic issue, but I cannot find instances of this new poetic form discussed in truly unaffiliated, non-user generated reliable sources. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:02, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know Frog Pond, Atlas Poetica and Bright Starts (for example) have no affiliation to the authors who published Cherita in them — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrahamJB (talk • contribs) 06:48, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia requires reliable secondary sources to prove that the poetry form is popular. And this requires significant coverage. Poetry forms are invented daily. What sets a poetry form apart from the others is if it has been adopted by others and reliable sources are talking about it. At the moment, I don't see significant coverage. A brief mention in Frog Pond is all I can see - and the rest seems to be references linked to one particular poet which I doubt are independent and secondary. Previous AfDs on made-up poetic forms have resulted in deletions - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Udaiyaathathu and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liwuli. At the moment, I don't see enough about the poetry form to keep this article. I'm also concerned that keeping articles like these in Wikipedia is possibly an attempt to increase the usage of these forms; WP:NOTPROMO applies here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:11, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Surely independent poetry festivals count? The New Hampshire Poetry Festival made this their featured form last month. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrahamJB (talk • contribs) 21:08, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't get to !vote twice. One per customer. Striking through your second one. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:03, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - As for that festival, the Folded Word blog has a link about that panel -- and a link to "the inventor's website," here. Doesn't sway me, though. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:29, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - How about the fact that it has been featured in The Philadelphia Inquirer, you have authors promoting it in India, and supporters in Sweden and the UK ? It has been used for teaching in schools in the UK, a Cherita has even been a winner the Japanese Tanabata poetry festival. It is great to see this form having worldwide interest, as is anything that helps a wider audience find an interest in micro poetry, be it Haiku, Tanka, Haibun or any of the related forms. Whatever we can do to spark creativity and discussion in an oft overlooked genre - poetry - must be a good thing, as we often discount the importance of literacy in a modern abbreviated world where AT prevent us :| at the 411 - :-). GrahamJB (talk —Preceding undated comment added 22:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - In general, for stuff like these we require significant secondary coverage. Poetry forms, like scientific inventions are created daily. We don't include a scienctific invention on Wikipedia till multiple people talk about it and analyse it. For this poetry form, I don't see any references in scholarly literature. Simply being used in a festival is a proof that it exists, not that it is notable. Someone needs to do a detailed study on the poetry form itself, maybe a peer-reviewed journal paper or a PhD thesis. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:45, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Do you mean scholarly literature like these links from the Chertia page A History of Tanka in English Pt I : The North American Foundation and Good Company: An Exploration of Haiku-Related Linked Forms, Supplement #3 of Acorn haiku journal ? If these are not scholarly, please can clarify your definition of scholarly? In fact I believe that either of these would be applicable for a PhD thesis. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:18, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        In general, scholarly literature refers to peer-reviewed papers published in a major journal (with a track record of publishing integrity). The coverage also has to be significant coverage: for example several pages focusing solely on "Cherita" is required. The coverage at A History of Tanka in English Pt I : The North American Foundation and Good Company: An Exploration of Haiku-Related Linked Forms, Supplement #3 of Acorn haiku journal is restricted to a few lines at best which literally doesn't tell much. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:33, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        
        The foremost Tanka journals (and many Haiku journals) have written about/ featured/ accept Cherita, so I have to disagree strongly with you there. I think you also insult the editors of those accusing them with not having integrity - they would be strongly offended by that accusation. I am sorry if you are not involved in the worldwide societies and journals that promote Haiku, Tanka, Haibun and the related forms and so may not have recognised them. How many Haiku and Tanka societies are you a member of, or have you been actively involved in?. Unfortunately poetry is not like ieee (if you are a member of that, as I once was) with huge worldwide grants, membership fees, and a single worldwide organisation - poets do not in general have an overabundance of funds and are more independent - but I have shown clear evidence of worldwide peer review by independent editors and publishers, and demonstrated that significant numbers of the print and online outlets for this type work have promoted the Cherita. I do accept that it is a smaller community than say, the membership of the ieee, but percentage wise, the impact has been significant.(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:05, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When on earth did Lemongirl942 "insult the editors of those accusing them with not having integrity?" She's been far more patient than I would have been. I caution GrahamJB here that this is the sort of WP:Drama and unfounded accusations that we have little patience for, here. And if I see more of it, I won't hesitate to start issuing user warnings. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:13, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To quote - 'peer-reviewed papers published in a major journal (with a track record of publishing integrity)'. The journals already mentioned are some of the leading tanks and haiku journals across the world - as is self evident to any SME- this is therefore answered unless you are arguing they have a lack of integrity. Stop arguing something already demonstrated as false. The only basis you can therefore be arguing - in your words - for not doing this - is on their lack of 'publishing integrity'.(talk)
Comment I just found this. Wikipedia:Requests_for_feedback/Archive_12#Cherita.2Fwikilink. Seems like others agreed that it was WP:MADEUP way back in 2009 as well when our standards were much lower. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:35, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry if you feel we did not have a proper debate at that time. The Cherita came out of a collaboration of leading poets in their genre from around the world over several years. It is plainly not made up in a pub quiz or a weekend, but was part of a long collaborative exploration of forms - as I can see from reading the sources - and BTW - I am not the creator, only the poster of a form that had been internationally written since 1997.(talk)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

James Speedy Williams

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

Non notable streetball player. Only played in college and minor league basketball. A grand total of one source. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:23, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Placed in 5 more sources. Very notable streetball player as well as played 10 seasons in minor league basketball and the Harlem Globetrotters. BlackAmerican (talk) 18:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:03, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:03, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here´s the guideline for basketballplayers. He doesn´t seem to fulfill those criteria. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:55, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One source that indicates notability: [24]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:14, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, apologies, now added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Sportspeople, previously added to another list by mistake, sorry. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Multiple extensive mentions in the book Pickup Artists: Street Basketball in America. See THIS. Passes GNG. Carrite (talk) 17:02, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has enough coverage to meet GNG. Rlendog (talk) 20:02, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It seems so. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:54, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Salting may be requested at WP:RFPP, I am not familiar with the history to know whether it's warranted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Asghar adam ali(Al Attar)

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

Vanity page, been deleted several times before. I didn't like the format of the title so attempted to move/requested a move and discovered why it's blocked. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asghar_Adam_Ali fair to say it is a COI page brought in sneakily by the backdoor. It does have some references, however most are from two linked publications (linked to each other e.g. how guardian/observer are), circulation on one is pretty low, i can't tell whether it justified significant coverage in a viable publication, hence putting it up for vote. Also don't know how to access deletion discussion for previous article (or was it speedy'd?) to see prior consensus.

would also like someone to consider whether Nabeel Perfumes is a candidate. To me it seems as though it's a poorly sourced, not very notable company created for promotional purposes buy an SPA/COI, however sometimes when this has been the case, I have taken a more brutal view on GNG than others and it's been voted K. Don't want to waste time with an unnecessary AfD unless it's justified.

Rayman60 (talk) 14:55, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:47, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:47, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was speedied, three times. So there is no past discussion to access. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:51, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It was also previously deleted as Asghar adam ali (Al Attar) and of course the properly capitalized Asghar Adam Ali (Al Attar), which would make at least six different creations under different versions of the name. Delete Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:54, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt all variants per above - David Gerard (talk) 18:39, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Rayman60 I just PRODed Nabeel Perfumes, let's see how it goes - David Gerard (talk) 18:42, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:41, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable and created by an indefinitely blocked sock puppeteer (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Asghar Adam/Archive) in violation of a block. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:06, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Churches of Christ in Europe. The general consensus seems to be to move the material elsewhere, by renaming or making it a subsection in a main article. The best compromise is a direct merge, which was supported in the discussion. Please merge the data into a new subsection and convert to a redirect or request deletion via speedy delete of the empty page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:12, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Churches of Christ (non-Restoration Movement)

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

redundant with Churches of Christ in Europe. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT - This article was originally added as the result of a discussion about the base Churches of Christ page. There were one or more editors who wanted to add some material about other groups that, while they use the same name, have no historical or organizational connection with the Churches of Christ that originated in the Restoration Movement. This isn't all that surprising, because there are certain terms that occur over and over in the names of Christian churches. I have no strong opinion about the notability of these other groups, or even whether it makes sense to discuss them as a unit. But it does seem reasonable to create a place to park material on groups that use the name "Church of Christ" but don't fit in the article until there's enough to do more detailed articles on each one. EastTN (talk) 20:31, 14 August 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, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:55, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:55, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:55, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rename somehow. There seem to be a number of distinct or partly distinct church bodies that have used the same of similar names. I observe that there is an Australian article on a denomination whose routes were in US and GB. The GB denomination (merging into United Reformed in 1981) seems to derive from Alexander Campbell, but is stated to be distinct. The book by Grimm cited in this article is expressed to be about Europe. Since the book is a translation, I presume it is about Germany or some other continental country. I would suggest the appropriate solution is to have three articles of equal status Churches of Christ in America, Churches of Christ in Great Britain (I assume they did not function in Ulster), and Churches of Christ in Europe. It is unfortunate that the article tells us very little about what Grimm wrote. "Non-Restoration" is a horrid disambiguator. Despite the apparent geographic limitations of these names, I would see no reason why the various articles could not explore the relationships between these and the Australian and Canadian denominations (or lack of such). Church of Christ is an obvious name, which has been used in different ways at different times and in different places. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I take the rename comment above as a support to deleting. After all, Churches of Christ (non-Restoration Movement) and Churches of Christ in Europe are both about Churches of Christ in Europe while User:Peterkingiron suggests one article about Churches of Christ in Europe. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:44, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not know enough about this church to know whether the appropriate outcome is to have a GB article and a (Continental) Europe one, or just one. I certainly want to lose the "Non-Restoration" disambiguator. As I said, I do not know what Grimm wrote and whether this may have been about a separate (say) German denomination. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:53, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last relist Nordic Nightfury 14:03, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 14:03, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Churches of Christ in Europe. Neither of these seem to be a distinct name for a denomination, and anything useful from this article can be included there. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After 3 relistings it is clear that the article has not been improved and that WP:TNT applies. There does seem to be a feeling that an article could be created about this subject, but this is not it. MelanieN (talk) 23:52, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kumbathon

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

fail WP:GNG The Banner talk 22:31, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Hi The Banner, I agree with you that few contents on the page does not reflect policy of neutrality. But with respect to Nashik city, Kumbhathon has played a role where it should reach to other people about what it does as it's information would be helpful to many people across world. I would like to seek others help to improve this page and will work on changing the context of the content to neutral. I request you to support and remove from deletion category.

There are many strong references about the article which are relevant as well. The issue is to maintain neutral content, I will make sure to reflect it.

My concern is to not promote this organization but to let this information help people across the world.

~~ SantoshiWiki (talk) 04:44, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Wikipedia is not a place to "spread the word". The Banner talk 07:56, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:The Banner, I intend to share knowledge and information, not "Spread the word". As I mentioned before, I don't intend to promote Kumbhathon, additional to that, It is an organization which aware Nashik people about Wikipedia as well. This article does have strong references as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SantoshiWiki (talk • contribs) 10:12, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Hi The Banner, I agree with SantoshiWiki that the page has issues with Neutrality policy. The content which conflict with the policy can be improved instead of complete page getting deleted.

@SantoshiWiki, As you asked for community to help improve this article, I would work with you to do that and make this article informative instead of promotional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adesh31 (talk • contribs) 07:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:30, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~, @Adesh31, Thank you for supporting and extending help, I have tried to remove GNG related failure. Most of the references are strong and valid to keep this article alive and need to be improved in future. Thanks! SantoshiWiki (talk) 07:34, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:37, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A pure advertisement /This is G11 material. DGG ( talk ) 04:11, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:22, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Highly promotional and unencyclopedic. Citobun (talk) 16:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The contents can be improved instead of deleting it. Help to improve it! Strong references are added in to it.

SantoshiWiki (talk) 05:18, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- I still do not see the strong references nor do I see evidence that it is more than a local marketing event. The Banner talk 08:49, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:The Banner, References added to the article are mostly from good news papers. About the content, I agree there are few promotional content. Can you guide me how to improve on that?

SantoshiWiki (talk) 05:36, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last relist. Nordic Nightfury 14:02, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 14:02, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:TNT. Topic appears to be notable, but the tone in which it is written about, makes it eligible for G11. @SantoshiWiki: Let it go and start over with WP:Article wizard. If need help, ask for it at WP:Teahouse and WP:INB. Anup [Talk] 21:47, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Anupmehra, Thank you for believing that article is notable enough. Please help me to improve this article.

SantoshiWiki (talk) 07:25, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SantoshiWiki: - In its present shape, the article is a pure mess; to be precise, it is exactly What Wikipedia is NOT. It would take less efforts and be a better option to start afresh. This time, do not create an article directly in main-space, instead make use of Article Wizard to create a draft first. It would help if you read these two pages to not repeat the same mistakes, WP:NPOV & WP:WORDS. Anup [Talk] 10:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus in favour of keeping. Note that much of the unreadable text has since been copyedited. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Los Negrales

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

See WP:AN/CXT for the discussion background to this; during that discussion, the community re-confirmed its longstanding view that a raw machine translation is worse than nothing; WP:MACHINETRANSLATION dates back to about 2006. This article is a raw machine translation from Spanish about an uninteresting suburb of Madrid. I found the article as part of the cleanup project. At first I prodded it, but User:Northamerica1000 deprodded. In the meantime the community had enacted X2, a speedy deletion criterion for these raw machine translations, which Northamerica1000 also declined. So now we're stuck with a raw machine translation in the mainspace which is clearly counter-policy. I don't believe we need an article about this suburb of Madrid at all. Even if we did, this machine translation is not a useful step towards getting there. Delete.—S Marshall T/C 18:08, 13 August 2016 (UTC) —S Marshall T/C 18:08, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:44, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:45, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment why would you think that X2 applied, geographic articles of real places are rarely snowballs. The irony here is that, it seems to be a recognized place (and has a train station, which many consider a notable thing itself, leaving something notable train station within a non-notable place). WP:BEFORE says improve rather than delete. Since a machine translation can certainly be improved, are we now abandoning WP:BEFORE. I (any many others as well) could probably do a reasonable job translating the article, but why waste my time if it's a deletion magnet no matter what? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:18, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

X2 applies to raw machine translations, or fixups of raw machine translations by editors unable to read the source language. The reason for X2 is because machine translations are not reliable. They can fail to parse negative sentences correctly, thereby inadvertently reversing the original meaning. The exact accuracy rate varies according to the language pair, and in fact Spanish to English is one of the pairings that rates the highest: approximately 80%. WP:BEFORE is important but when you look at it in context, it was only ever meant to apply to text written by a human ---- after all, anyone can generate a machine translation of the es.wiki article with a couple of clicks! If you're willing to say to me that you're able to read the Spanish and confirm that the translation is accurate, then I'll withdraw the AfD myself. My main concern is with having raw machine translations in the mainspace when I can't be sure a competent human has checked them.—S Marshall T/C 22:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a WP:TNT situation. The text is almost unreadable—even such a small point as "What do they mean in this cultural context by 'chalets'", and the larger point of the legal status of the community are unclear, and although I read fluent ESL-ese, I would need to go phrase by phrase with the Spanish to understand the article. That is not useful for our readers. As always in a TNT situation, if someone wants to do the necessary complete rewrite—in this case, retranslate the article properly—the reason for deletion goes away. The topic may or may not be notable: as stated above, the train station indicates it may be. But the article is ptentially a minefield of inaccuracies and is not useful as it is. That's why we have a policy against raw machine translations, and I agree, this one is still raw. I have my hands more than full fixing some of the 3,000 articles the WMF cruelly suckered editors into creating. I can't work on this one. I'll happily change my tune if someone does do it right in time and if it does then demonstrate minimal notability as a place. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:33, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 21:01, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is a legitimate article about a populated place, and after the good work that Northamerica1000 put in, further fixing the style and translations was not that hard (even though English is a secondary language for me, and I do not know much Spanish at all). I'm sure further improvements can now be accomplished easily. --Schlosser67 (talk) 09:43, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- as of Sept, this article reads fine; I do not see any awkward language. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:04, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last relist Nordic Nightfury 14:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 14:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Satisfies WP:GEOLAND, and AFD is not cleanup. In any case, the article has been cleaned up and is fine. Smartyllama (talk) 14:54, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Operation Sulaimani. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 16:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prasanth Nair IAS

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

Local politicians are not going to come close at all for the applicable notability, there's essentially nothing else actually convincing, thus this PROD should not have been inappropriately removed as such. SwisterTwister talk 05:00, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:01, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:49, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:49, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep. The subject meets WP:BASIC. See sources below in major, national Indian and other news sources. This is why I appropriately removed the prod that was in place. What is actually inappropriate is for the nominator to state here that such valid prod removal was "inappropriate", because per the source coverage, I viewed deletion by Wikipedia:Proposed deletion as controversial. PRODs are a means to suggest an article for uncontroversial deletion, but are contestable in instances such as this. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:51, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

First Post
The Hindu
The Indian Express
The Indian Express

Keep WP:NOTABILITYISNOTCONJECTURED. An office in the civil service is not inherently notable unless it can be shown that the subject has done something to distinguish themselves. But in this case the subject even though being a local junior level civil servant has multiple independent references as new sources and also passes GNG and Basic. Uncletomwood (talk) 10:01, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mid-level civil servant with typical mid-level civil servant media coverage. No special notability. But note to nominator: a prod can be removed by anyone for any reason (or none); there is no "inappropriate" removal. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:29, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:13, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Northamerica1000's assessment. Aust331 (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I consider Indian news sources coverage of mid level public servants as unreliable to show notability. The uman interest coverage from them here pretty much proves it. DGG ( talk ) 04:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
After reading everything, I am not convinced that a mention in several national newspapers is notable. I'd say delete Pyrusca (talk) 05:50, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG. Subject is just another civil servant and no claim to notability made in the article. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 21:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Pls see below. // Original comment -- the coverage offered at the AfD is either trivial or routine. For example,

"The battle between Kozhikode district collector Prashanth Nair and Congress MP MK Raghavan over implementation of projects under the Members of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme (MPLADS) has been raging both online and offline for the last one week." (links #1 above, routine coverage related to subject's work.)
Interview with the subject (link #2 above; interviews do not help to establish notability, as they are not RS as to the subject's claims)
Etc.

The coverage confirms that the subject exists and has the role as described in the article, but is insufficient to build an encyclopedia article. This is by all accounts an unremarkable mid-level bureaucrat, and the article should be deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last relist Nordic Nightfury 14:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 14:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sources provided by NorthAmerica1000 confirm notability. Pratyush (talk) 07:19, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- the sources offered above are WP:ROUTINE and not substantial enough to build a balanced biography. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:16, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Operation Sulaimani: Needs more initiatives like Sulaimani to make a good case of notability on Wikipedia. For now redirect the subject to the thing he is known for. (I'm also somewhat convinced that subject meets the BASIC standard, but that would eventually mean using the same set of references for two articles.) Anup [Talk] 22:08, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Operation Sulaimani seems like a good solution, as this somewhat of a WP:BIO1E. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:59, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Operation Sulaimani It is very clear that the subject is notable because of the single event and it is essentially a WP:BIO1E. I am also unsure if the entire credit of the event goes to the subject. Per WP:NOTWHOSWHO I prefer a redirection to the event article here for a possibly balanced coverage. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:04, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as although there are still comments considering delete would be best considering non-notability, there's enough to in fact confirm this is still not independently acceptable for its own article and there have been no claims or otherwise showings how this can be improved; if anyone wants to merge whatever as they need, it's available at the history logs (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 00:31, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sports Lawyers Journal

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

Fails GNG: Unable to identify any independent, reliable sources in any language offering more than a trivial mention. —swpb^T 13:03, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:47, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:40, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:40, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as WP:MILL to law school publisher Tulane University Law School. Almost every single law school has a law review, and most have additional journals. Unless there's some indication a law school law review/journal/brief is particularly notable beyond being published by a law school;, Wikipedia practice it to delete. See, for example, here, here, here and here. I note a couple of these have been re-created and have so far evaded AFD; at least one was re-deleted. TJRC (talk) 22:56, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NJournals. The journal is indexed in major citation indics, and per the Washington & Lee rankings, it is the fourth-highest ranking sports law journal (by combined score). It also been cited by several state supreme courts (see, e.g., Massachusetts and California). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 23:47, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. None of the indices listed are selective (even though I agree several of them -like HeinOnline- are major in the law field). Whether being the 4th ranking sports law review is sufficient for notability depends on how many such journals there are, I guess. When I look at the rankings in the category that W&L places this journal in (Arts, Entertainment and Sports), the journal ranks 14th out of 23. --Randykitty (talk) 09:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Randykitty: the explanation for the first criterion in WP:JOURNALCRIT states that journals should be "included in the major citation indices, indexing services, and bibliographic databases in its field(s)" (emphasis added). As far as law journals go, it doesn't get any better than inclusion in Westlaw, Lexis, and HeinOnline's Law Journal Library; at the very least, it is the industry standard. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 10:12, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at WP:NJournals, I just can't agree with that essay. Practically every law school journal is carried by Westlaw and lexis-nexis. That's no sign of notability. TJRC (talk) 21:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with TJRC. I haven't looked at NJournals in a while, although I regularly invoke it for PROD or AFD of articles on non-notable academic journals. I'm pretty certain that NJournals used to specify that inclusion in databases only indicated notability if those databases were selective (and not selective in the sense of "we only index law journals" but in the sense of "we only index the best law journals"). Indeed, the examples in note 1 are highly selective databases, including only a fraction of all journals in the areas that they cover. That is how NJournals has been used in years. Somehow, the "selective" part seems to have disappeared, but I'm currently traveling and don't have time to look into this right now. --Randykitty (talk) 22:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:NJOURNALS always meant to have the selectivity of databases as a criterion, but looking at it, it does seem that it's never actually explicitly stated. It is however, implicitly stated through the examples and counterexamples which have evolved over the years. E.g. those with an impact factor are a pass, because Journal Citation Reports is selective, but PUBMED, despite being the major citation index in medicine, is not enough on its own because it's not selective. Is being the 4th journal in Sports Law good enough? If there's 120 journals, then clearly yes! If it's 6 journals, then that's not very impressive.

That being said, I've got no opinion on whether or not this should be kept, but my gut feeling is that it might be best to create Sports Lawyers Association and put the journal information as a section of that article. Their website however claims Sports Lawyers Journal is "the most widely read legal sports journal in the country." If that can be backed by an independent source, that's good enough for WP:NJOURNALS#C1 for "influential" in its field as far as I'm concerned.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Headbomb: don't you think the journal is influential by virtue of the fact that it is cited by several state supreme courts? -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no lawyer, or judge so I can't opine on whether or not this is impressive or common. I would think that law journals get cited in court all the time, so while that may make the journal a reliable source, it doesn't necessarily make it notable. If, however, there was some objective/recognized measure (i.e. not WP:SYNTH) of its 'courtcase impact', then that could be used to establish notability. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect I am going to jump in here and point out that this law journal ranks 609th out of approximately 1330 law journals according to the Washington and Lee indexing service mentioned above [25]. I don't know what the scores in the column next to it mean: the one on the left is a "4" and the one on the right appears to be "0.24".

These results were accomplished by checking the small boxes entitled Combined Score and Impact Factor respectively, inside the larger ~~top right box~~ entitled 2. Choose Ranking Criteria at the top right of the page. After Clicking on the link I provided you will probably have to scroll down - and scroll down - and keep going - and scroll down some more - and so on. Or you can use the "Find" search box function available in the browsers. I plugged in "Sports".

Additionally, in the Notes and examples section of NJournals it seems clear to me that selectivity is the leading factor when considering rank in an index. 609th out of approximately 1330 Law School journals is not what I consider to be notable for Wikipedia standards. As an aside, Stanford Law Review and Harvard Law Review are ranked #! and #2 respectively. Or redirect per User:TJRC. -----Steve Quinn (talk) 01:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tulane University Law School, where it is already mentioned. --MelanieN (talk) 23:56, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tulane University Law School; not independently notable per available sources. There's still insufficient RS to meet individual notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:46, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Notecardforfree, or at least Merge with Tulane University Law School. There are not a lot of Sports Law Journals, so it is a unique niche, and being cited ~~by SCOTUS~~ in legal decisions helps confer notability ~~is notable~~. Montanabw^(talk) 21:14, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where was it said that it was cited by SCOTUS? --Randykitty (talk) 21:28, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Montanabw and Randykitty, to clarify, this journal has not been cited by SCOTUS, but has been cited by a number of state supreme courts. I think that editors are discounting the fact that this journal is quite "influential in its subject area" (per WP:JOURNALCRIT). There really aren't that many sports law journals in the world, and sports law cases are also rather uncommon, so the fact that state supreme courts cite this journal signifies that it is considered an influential authority by jurists. I should also note that major legal treatises rely upon articles published in this journal, such as American Law Reports (see, e.g., 61 A.L.R.6th 603) and the Restatement of Torts (Third) (see, e.g., Chpt. 7, § 41 "Duty to Another Based on Special Relationship with the Other"). It is extremely uncommon for all kinds of academic journals, including law journals, to receive coverage in secondary sources, so it is important to consider other metrics of notability; one such metric is the influence in the journal's field, and I don't think there is any doubt that this journal has been influential. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:16, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected and have refactored my comments accordingly. Stlll notable. Montanabw^(talk) 22:41, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Merge to Tulane University Law School. Law journals, especially ones published by American law schools, are a very different form of publication from the scientific or otherwise peer reviewed journals we're used to dealing with, particularly insofar as they're edited entirely by students. Though that would normally lean us towards delete within NJOURNAL, it's worth noting that not even Harvard Law Review or Yale Law Journal are peer reviewed or refereed like our guidelines seem to prefer, and all are edited entirely by the students of those journals. This is more one of those situations where the guidelines should adapt to the odd practices of a large and influential scholarly community. Anyway, for what to do with the present article: I'm looking on HeinOnline at their back catalog, and it's a one-issue-per-volume journal, with each issue running between 280 and 360 pages. The 2015-2016 academic year saw them publish Volume 23, which consisted of: 7 articles, 4 student notes, and the winning brief of a moot court competition. However, three of the articles were written by current JDs at other law schools, three of the others were by people who had graduated from law school in the last four years. The one remaining was written by an adjunct law professor. So they don't seem to carry high profile stuff. Their editorial board had 16 members, which is really small. Though what's strange is they seem to be published as a journal of a student group. I think the journal I was on at law school started that way. I just seriously doubt there's enough here to keep, no matter how forgiving a stance we adopt under NJOURNAL. But there's every reason to merge and redirect. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:55, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, contrary to what's said above about Hein, they are not very selective. Inclusion on Hein is not hard to swing; to my understanding it's just paperwork. Inclusion on West is also not too difficult; I think it's a matter of journal age and paperwork. My understanding is they were willing to take our then four-volume-old journal provided we actually got the paperwork done. Lexis seemed to be more selective, though I imagine they were less so 15 years ago. I would respectfully suggest that inclusion in Hein, Westlaw, or LexisNexis should count for very little other than the existence of the journal and its actual association with the law school. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:53, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Mendaliv, I agree that West, Lexis and Hein are not particularly selective; I cited them as examples of "major" citation indices in the field, per WP:JOURNALCRIT. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I still don't see sources that discuss the subject substantially and in detail. In this case, redirect / merge is the appropriate solution. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ) 05:11, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PayU India

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

Company without any claim or evidence of notability. Twice nominated for Speedy Deletion, (not sure if it was). Few anon and inactive contributors whose only edits are with this article and others related to it. Dmol (talk) 10:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I were able to find a lot of coverage on fairly big publications, so if anyone could take a look and see if they're viable I'd appreciate it, thanks: [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39] and so on because I had to stop. There was also plenty of coverage for "PayUbiz." Mr. Magoo (talk) 10:43, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per the sources above, enough RS to pass GNG. KGirlTrucker81^{talk what I'm been doing} 11:41, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:44, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:44, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:44, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH per a review of available sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Quick Google search displays articles with PayU India as the subject with several as recent as last week. Tangledupinbleu chs (talk) 09:41, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and here's the analysis of the listed sources and claims: PR, all of it, because it honestly contains only information clients and investors want to know, which is the company's services, funding and financing, and everything a company wants the public to know about itself. None of that amounts to actual substance, especially if if's handed PR by the company. SwisterTwister talk 23:17, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- the coverage offered above is all PR or PR-like, for example:

PayU India has made seven top-level hires from companies including Airtel, Human Factors International and FabFurnish even as it looks to launch products in nonpayment verticals including lending and investments for small and midsize businesses and consumers in the next three months. (link #1 from above)
""Striking partnerships is critical to our growth," said Nitin Gupta, CEO, PayU India, adding that ... (Link #2 EconomicTimes)
"PayU India aims at doubling its payment gateway business in the coming year" (Link #3 Business Insider)
"PayU India on a hiring spree, ropes in seven top level executives with plans enter new segments" (Link#4 TheTechPortal.com), etc.

The coverage is rather WP:ROUTINE (hiring news and expansion plans) and does not rise to the level of COPRDEPTH. Using such sources would result in an article that would not contain any information that could not be found on the company's website.

The article was created by a single purpose account Special:Contributions/Paritosh31 with a likely COI. The COI situation is likely to persist as often with articles on up and coming companies looking for customers and investors.

Rather than wasting volunteer editors' time trying to maintain neutrality of the article, I advocate deletion until such time that the company would be considered notable based on truly independent sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:34, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with K.e.coffman's analysis of the sources. The coverage is routine and PR (or PR-like, lacking independence), so the available sourcing doesn't satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. — JJMC89 (T·C) 18:58, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since this has gone on without anyone pointing out the PayUBiz articles: [40], [41], [42], [43], [44] and [45]. Mr. Magoo (talk) 21:08, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here are some for PayUMoney: [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57] and [58]. Mr. Magoo (talk) 21:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- this is still PR or PR-driven, such as

A passing mention: "Meanwhile payment gateway service, PayUBiz said they are holding on the money and will only release the money, once the products are dispatched. “As a leading payment solution company, we are cognizant of both our merchants and buyers. (...).” PayUBiz said in a statement.
Discussion of the company's advertising campaign: "A voice over comes into play explaining the many options for using PayUmoney. The film ends with a super and voice over: PayUmoney. The habit of benefit. Nitin Gupta, CEO and co-founder, PayUmoney, said, “One among a series of campaigns that we wish to unleash, with #FaydeKiAadat we uphold the use of our online payment solution, as a safe, easy and rewarding habit..." Read more at: Campaign India
A reposted press release: "MUMBAI: Payments company PayUmoney on Wednesday launched a new POS terminal which can allow even the small merchants..." @EconomicTimes http://ecoti.in/c7u7Gb

This is unconvincing. The article was created by a single purpose account Special:Contributions/Paritosh31, so there's a potential of on-going COI, so WP:PROMO applies.

Rather than wasting volunteer editors' time trying to maintain neutrality of the article, I advocate deletion. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That "passing mention" was a part of a bigger article that mentioned PayU many times, along with the other articles about the controversy in that case... I also just noticed we don't have an article for the global PayU, so this should be moved to just "PayU" in any case. More coverage: [59], [60], [61], [62], [63] and some foreign ones: [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74] and [75]. Number 48 is a report of some sort a glitch with the PayU system. Mr. Magoo (talk) 00:30, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources are bad, coverage is either in passing or at best reads like a rewritten press release. [[User:K.e.coffman analysis is correct, and other editors seem to confuse Google hits with notability. And User:Mr. Magoo and McBarker, please, think of reliablility. Those articles are simply not reliable journalism, let me repeat: they read like rewritten press releasses. If those outlets were not paid to publish them, their publishing strategy is likely to rewrite such releases. Those are the type of sources that are used primarily by spammers. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:21, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 3 keep !votes and 4 deletes - relisting for clearer consensus Nordic Nightfury 12:02, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 12:02, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Didn't trouble myself with Googling the subject. Editors who want to save the article have flooded in much PR pieces here that make a good case of subject's ineligibility to reach the WP:CORPDEPTH standard. Whatsoever I saw, I found 8 out of 10 sources, PR, rest, WP:ROUTINE. Subject at best meets WP:BASIC and make a borderline claim for WP:GNG. To end, if there has to be an article, it should be about PayU and there within PayU India can be covered. Anup [Talk] 21:13, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Excellent analysis by K.e.coffman. This is far form satisfying WP:CORPDEPTH. The massive number of sources are essentially a smokescreen but closer examination shows many of them are unreliable or essentially primary quotes. This seems to be a non-notable company which receives a bit of coverage through PR. The COI editing is also troubling and I would additionally advocate a delete per WP:NOTPROMO. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:35, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, to me it seems some voters haven't even bothered to read anything if they think "editors who want to save the article have flooded in much PR pieces". Who else has pointed out articles here other than me? Have you taken a look at what I've voted? And I also pointed out the numerous pieces criticizing the company for their mistakes but I guess no one bothers to read any of that or this... Mr. Magoo (talk) 22:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem I have with our subject is that "PayU India" should be part of the "PayU" article which we don't have. Mr. Magoo (talk) 00:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Meanwhile, PayU brand is owned by Naspers. --Djadjko (talk) 22:31, 15 September 2016 (UTC)c[reply]
Delete as the facts alone this was started despite it being deleted as advertising, it gets restarted as yet again advertisement; this suggests no one actually cares to state and understand why their article was actually deleted. There's simply nothing here that is not PR, let alone actual substance; there's actually even basis for A7 if not for the thin "flagship company" claims. The article contains no actual information whatsoever aside from to state the basic information of the company. I suggest the users use their time to stick with advertisements elsewhere. SwisterTwister talk 00:42, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Erin Abrahamson

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

Abrahamson is a bit trickier than some beauty contestants. She is currently Mrs. New Jersey AMerica, so this adds a second title to her Miss New Jersey USA back in 2007. I do not think this second title is enough to put her past the notability guidelines. However I think it is not as slam dunk a case, and so will bring it to AfD. John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:49, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article was previously discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julianna White which resulted in keep for all articles. That was back in 2010, and basically said that if other state winners of Miss USA were notable, so were the ones from New Jersey. The more recent consensus seems to be that no Miss USA state winners are notable for winning Miss USA in their state.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:54, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You've deleted/redirected plenty of double titleholders (Miss Teen USA & Miss USA) in the past week or so so I'm wondering why you view this one differently? PageantUpdater (talk) 12:43, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, she is the first I've come across who was Mrs. something for any state. Plus, she was also Miss Teen something New Jersey as well, so technically she is a triple title holder. I am not really convinced, but I try to avoid acting too unilaterally. Personally I also think that the people who won a title and also were contestants in some season of survivor are not notable, but I have been waiting for definite clear consensus on beauty pageant contestants to develop before acting more broadly in nominating.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:20, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- what the heck is Mrs. New Jersey America 2015? Are there separate pageants for married women?? K.e.coffman (talk) 04:49, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, there is a Mrs. America. You can't be married in the other ones (though I wonder what would happen if someone sued...) My question is if someone can be notable only for winning lots of pageants? Montanabw^(talk) 07:44, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- As I understand, no award or a SNG would trump GNG -- significant coverage in reliable sources. So if the recipient wins several pageants, if the coverage does not exist, the article can and should be deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:07, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:32, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:32, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:32, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If found to not be independently notable, redirect to Miss New Jersey USA as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:34, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:36, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are people who have resigned from Miss America USA titles to get married. Since the Us military academies do not let students get married, I am not sure how the less governmental and less a lot of other things pageants would be another issue. There are also upper age limits for Miss America and Miss USA (I think Miss USA it is 25, but I could be wrong, and I think it changes from time to time). There are 14 national US pageants in the US listed on the list List of beauty pageants and Mrs. America is not one of them. There is also a Mrs. Universe pageant, which is meant to be international in scope. Among the qualifying guidelines, the contestants must be between the ages of 25 and 45 (I am not sure if that is inclusive or exclusive), and they must "have a family and career". It appears they do not actually have to be married. At first Miss America was much more focused on the bathing suit aspect, and it was not until after 1933 that clear age guidelines were put in place. The guidelines are ages 18-26. Amanda Longacre was stripped of her title as Miss Delaware in 2014, and she sued. The article on her explains the criteria, such as being a US citizen and being under age 25 and over age 16. There is no indication of the outcome of Longacre's suit.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:25, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Discussion about notability guidelines has already started on the Talk page for the Beauty Pageant project. No harm will be done by closing this nomination as "keep" and letting the project-level discussion take its course. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 21:24, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and then Redirect as we are taling this too seriously, there's nothing for sny independent notability therefore there's nothing convincing as a whole. SwisterTwister talk 02:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then redirect to Miss New Jersey USA. The discussion that has started has largely confirmed me experience with the articles on pageant winners, finding them to be WP:PSEUDO biographies on individuals only notable for WP:BIO1E. Thus delete & redirect is an appropriate action in this case. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty Pageants-related deletion discussions. PageantUpdater (talk) 00:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the discussion on pageant winners' notability is taking place: here, with participants variously advocating that (1) state level winners are not presumed notable, (2) state-level winners are not presumed non-notable; and (2) a special guideline is unnecessary, and that GNG should be used. There is no indication that state-level winners would be presumed notable for the win alone. Thus "keep for now" comment is not a valid argument in this discussion. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No clear consensus. Final relist Nordic Nightfury 12:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 12:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per K.e.coffman's comments. This individual is not notable on her own. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:05, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Munge

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

No evidence of any notability. PROD was removed by article author. Fails WP:GNG. Only ref confirms that a very minor beauty pageant title was won. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 11:11, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:34, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:34, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:34, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She won a county level pageant in Kenya, and it is not even the main Miss Kenya pageant feeding Miss Universe. Her work with NGOs is laudable, but there is no evidence in the article it has risen to the level of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:01, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing here really confers notability.TheLongTone (talk) 12:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The discussion here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Beauty_Pageants#RFC_on_creation_of_consensus_standard might be of interest to those considering this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:52, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2018 FIFA World Cup friendlies for Russia

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

Not notable list of friendly matches. This belong to the page of Russia national football team and does not need its own article. They are just regular friendly matches. Qed237 (talk) 09:53, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Qed237 (talk) 09:55, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - in absolutely no way needs its own article -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:08, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, any notable content can be covered by the Russia national football team article, or a sub-article. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:15, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unnecessary fork, should be included in Russia national football team article for the 12 months prior and post each game. Fenix down (talk) 11:02, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 12:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 15:25, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 15:25, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and add the matches to Russia national football team in the same way any other friendly would be added. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 15:28, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and add to Russia national football team. No need for this separate listing that isn't big enough to split from main article. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:31, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above not notable for it's own article, and not big enough anyways either. Furthermore, the info is mostly unreferenced and some is wrong (for example Australia do not have a friendly scheduled against Russia, especially not 5 days before their WC qualifier against Thailand). --SuperJew (talk) 19:27, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:41, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Squared Circle Magazine

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

Magazin fails WP:NMAG Dewritech (talk) 09:51, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Del, there is just not enough sourcing that I can find to build an article. Hiding T 16:35, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - started in June 2016 is all I needed to see, not notable after just two issues. MPJ-DK 21:14, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:28, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:28, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete – the only possible hope of WP:V provided was in the external links section, which was a dead link. This is just more of the sort of garbage which makes Wikipedia appear to be a current events site, a social media site or whatever else have you, but certainly nothing even remotely resembling an encyclopedic information resource. Contrast this with the numerous notable wrestling magazines which lack articles, mainly because they suffered the misfortune of being notable outside of the limited notice of Wikipedian editors and their favored sources. That isn't being snarky; WP:PW has participants who believe that notability hinges solely on the existence or non-existence of an article. Trying to use that to claim that The Ring Wrestling or any of Norm Kietzer's magazines (or for that matter, Japanese wrestling magazines) aren't notable doesn't pass any sort of smell test. Neither does attempting to claim that this is somehow "notable". RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 19:13, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above. JTP ^(talk) 03:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. More heat than light on the keep side of the discussion, while the delete side makes clear, policy based arguments even while requesting sources. Even while giving the SPAs full credit for the merits of their arguments, the policy based consensus is clearly to delete. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:03, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Grey (Composer)

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

Non-notable musician. Grey is prolific, but not apparently notable. He creates the kind of music that all television shows and commercials need, but for which he has not received any significant attention in independent sources. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 00:27, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Eddie is notable. He is the sole composer for the Emmy nominated show, "Born This Way." There are many independent sources that need to be cited. But just to give a couple about his significance. http://www.clintproductions.com/#!Music-on-Born-This-Way-Season-2/c1q8z/578d55030cf2779eabefdcf8 http://top40-charts.com/news.php?nid=80828 — Preceding unsigned comment added by I am jewsus (talk • contribs) 01:35, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:18, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Grey is notable. He has written many theme songs for different TV shows (DirectTV’s “Celebrity Beach Bowl” to mention one) http://www.hftracks.com/#!music/cjg9, music for top production music labels such as Megatrax, and is head music composer for Season 2 of Emmy nominated TV show "Born This Way". His work is notable and his page of great interest to the composers/musicians community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:610B:6700:1CA:3186:B6A5:6125 (talk) 02:11, 16 August 2016 (UTC) — 2606:6000:610B:6700:1CA:3186:B6A5:6125 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 2606:6000:610B:6700:1CA:3186:B6A5:6125 (UTC).[reply]

Let me also cite section 10 of the notable (musician) wikipedia guidelines. Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article. Read WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E for further clarifications) Since he is the composer of an Emmy nominated show, that is enough to satisfy the notable claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.79.84.123 (talk) 19:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is not a reliable source to indicate that Grey is the composer for Born This Way. He is a composer, but not necessarily the only composer. His involvement in the show might merit a redirect to the page about the series, but there is not sufficient coverage about Grey in reliable sources for either this achievement or for his career at High Frequency Tracks on which to build an article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 02:34, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

/* Eddie Grey (Composer) */ Eddie Grey is cited as being the main Composer on the Wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born_This_Way_(TV_series) and also on the end credits of every episode. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:6198:C00:200C:616A:BB81:EC27 (talk) 03:43, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The addition of Grey as the composer was made (without citation) by the same editor (I am jewsus) who created Grey's article, so this is not significant. The IMDb listing for Born This Way does not list Grey. Nor does AETV's site for the show. This may be an oversight, or it may be an indication that, while Grey composed the music for the show, the music is not an integral feature of the show, and therefore his role as the composer of the show's music is largely irrelevant. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 03:51, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a Music Enthusiast, I know his work to be very much respected. I first heard his song "Pygmalion's Statue" through the IML Contest.

http://imlcontest.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.74.49 (talk) 05:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC) — 66.215.74.49 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Grey is an up and comer and he is here to stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.74.49 (talk) 04:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie is a top notch composer and his work should be recognized. He wrote the theme music for the DirecTv "Fantasy Football Channel" and also for the film trailer "Life On The Line" among other things. His work is out there and being heard by thousands of peoplePcoggins (talk) 05:18, 16 August 2016 (UTC)— Pcoggins (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I love this album by Grey released by one of the biggest publishers in the country https://soundcloud.com/minimalistsynth/sets/minimalist-synth/s-Pnwvh I know that my contemporaries have been influenced by its Cinematic/Electronic/Orchestral approach.168.8.200.2 (talk) 16:40, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The IMDB page does have Grey. ^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by I am jewsus (talk • contribs) 09:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5219042/fullcredits?ref_=tt_ql_1

Comment @I am jewsus: Yes it does; it lists him as the composer for a single episode. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:07, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Listed as Composer for 1 Episode because IMDB has not yet listed the other 10 episodes as it is currently still airing. He will be listed as the Head Composer for the show once those pages are available. https://pro-labs.imdb.com/title/tt5929726/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:6198:C00:68D2:212C:F2B3:45D4 (talk) 19:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Grey IMDB http://www.imdb.com/name/nm8365793/?ref_=fn_al_nm_2 I have watched every episode from 1 to 4 thus far of Season 2 and end credits do show MUSIC BY EDDIE GREY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:6198:C00:68D2:212C:F2B3:45D4 (talk) 18:51, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Even if it turns out to be true that Grey is the composer for Season 2 of Born This Way, at best that merits a redirect to the article about the show, not an entire article on Grey himself. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:44, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Regardless of the various claims made by IPs and new editors, it doesn't appear that the subject meets the WP:GNG - that is, there aren't multiple (usually shoot for 4-5) reliable sources that cover the subject in significant detail. FYI, the sources should not be database entries, but rather, articles written by journalists or professional writers. Common sources to be used or not used can be found at WP:MUSIC/SOURCES, as a starting point for examples. Sergecross73 msg me 17:19, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jujutacular (talk) 02:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised there is much debate. I listened to the podcast about music business and it sounds like he is unique in that people normally do not score reality shows. Usually the reality shows just have music libraries submit music. Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.79.129.82 (talk) 01:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that no one (except myself and the nominator) are debating in regards to the Notability Guidelines. These discussions aren't supposed to be about whether or not someone subjectively finds them "good", "unique" or "respects their work". We're not interviewing him for a job or doing reference checks or something. Its supposed to boil down to objectively whether or not third party writers (professional writers/journalists, not stuff that can be written by any random person, like IMDB) are writing about him in significant detail. That's the main determinant on whether or not something has its own Wikipedia article, and so far, not a single person has provided a single viable source written by an actual journalist, so this article will still likely be deleted. A bunch of anonymous editors who swing by only to say "Oh yeah, that guy! He's awesome! He writes a good jingle!" doesn't save articles from deletion on Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 14:35, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently this Composer has quite a lot of music internationally https://itunes.apple.com/uz/artist/eddie-grey/id430618250 It is worth noting that he has a history in the music business of over 15 years. He originally played in bands and toured extensively https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMGzhWD2AAk. I also came find that he sold out the House of Blues, Room 5, Hotel Cafe, and Witz End (all clubs/locations in or around L.A). http://www.hotelcafe.com/index.html Also, he wrote the main theme for the Direct TV Celebrity Football Channel https://vimeo.com/157089279 and apparently the Pigman Series https://vimeo.com/153640383has written for "The Young and The Restless" on CBS https://vimeo.com/156220872 and done commercials and film trailers https://vimeo.com/155335654 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.49.12 (talk) 20:10, 1 September 2016 (UTC) — 76.169.19.12 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Also..check out http://www.musiclicensingclass.com/blog Grey has studied with a protege of Quincy Jones and is a Voting Member of the Grammy Recording Academy, A Member Of N.A.R.I.P. National Association of Record Industry Professionals, Endorsed by Yamaha, Inc., Steinberg, and Cubase and winner of the Uk Songwriting Contest http://www.songwritingcontest.co.uk Lastly, Grey is endorsed by a software and plug-in company https://www.audiothing.net/plugins/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:6198:C00:C870:6407:3F82:5775 (talk) 20:26, 1 September 2016 (UTC) — 2605:E000:6198:C00:C870:6407:3F82:5775 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment None of these are reliable sources. Yes, Grey is prolific. Yes, he is a member of some organizations. Yes, he has won a minor contest or two. But find us the significant coverage. Not just the snippets; the full articles written about Grey. Until then, we don't have evidence of notability. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:54, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Not a single one of those are an article written by a professional writer/journalist/scholarly journal. That's just a list of a bunch of jingles he's done. Doing jingles for commercials doesn't inherently make someone notable in the Wikipedia sense. (Probably the opposite really, as musicians rare gain popularity for things like jingles for reality TV shows, versus a musician who has a song on the radio and is directly credited as such whenever its played.) I think its telling that we're half a month into this discussion, and not a single source that shows notability has been presented yet... Sergecross73 msg me 12:12, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last relist Nordic Nightfury 08:20, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 08:20, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:41, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Outer Glow (band)

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

Contested PROD (with incomprehensible reason). Reason given for PROD was: Unsupported claim to fame. Does not meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. Must agree. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:40, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 00:39, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist Nordic Nightfury 08:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 08:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

clear delete only formed this year and only a YouTube reference. LibStar (talk) 09:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON and the absence of RS. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:25, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:41, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kemble Walters

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

Non notable musician, No evidence of notability, Fails NMUSIC & GNG (Also the wikilinked "albums" in the article are actually linked to actresses) –Davey2010^Talk 02:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 00:46, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable musician. KGirlTrucker81^{talk what I'm been doing} 00:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist Nordic Nightfury 08:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 08:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO and no RS (plus somewhat deceptive links). K.e.coffman (talk) 05:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:21, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brittany Wiser

AfDs for this article:

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

The previous keep was largely happened because A-some people assumed state beauty pageant winners were default notable, and B-some people focused too much on the argument that beauty pageant contestants should be judged on the notability guidelines for models. However beauty pageant winners at the state level are not default notable. Winning both Miss Montana and Miss Montana USA does not change the fact that neither of them are notable, and that the coverage is just not of a level to establish Wiser as notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:43, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:19, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:19, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:19, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Montana USA as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. A second choice would be to redirect to Miss Montana, where the subject is also mentioned. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge usable content to Miss Montana USA, where there is already a nice empty spot in the list waiting for her. There's obviously good local coverage of her, but nothing to show she has garnered any national recognition. I am torn on if it should merge to Miss Montana, which she won first, even though her bio content should be moved into the lists of both pages. Yvarta (talk) 03:18, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Discussion about notability guidelines has already started on the Talk page for the Beauty Pageant project. No harm will be done by closing this nomination as "keep" and letting the project-level discussion take its course. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:26, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Incorporate her name in the winners list of the articles for the titles themselves. Engleham (talk) 22:35, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both because of ongoing discussion on notability guidelines, but also because having won two pageants that qualify for separate major national pageants meets "multiple independent" coverage -- even if mostly in-state, this is notable. Also tough to redirect into two different spots. Most pageant winners aren't a pass if all they do is win pageants, but this one is due to the prestige of the higher level pageants; it's unusual. Montanabw^(talk) 03:44, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:07, 22 August 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) 01:59, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Montanabw PageantUpdater (talk) 23:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty Pageants-related deletion discussions. PageantUpdater (talk) 00:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the coverage I see is all local (Billings Gazette, Montana State Uni paper). It's unlikely that even two separate state level wins would allow this subject to meet GNG. Existing mentions in Miss Montana and Miss Montana USA are sufficient. (In case the closer chooses the redirect option, Miss Montana USA is preferred as the most recent).

Separately: the discussion on pageant winners' notability is taking place: here, with participants variously advocating that (1) state level winners are not presumed notable, (2) state-level winners are not presumed non-notable; and (2) a special guideline is unnecessary, and that GNG should be used. There is no indication that state-level winners would be presumed notable for the win alone. Thus "keep for now" is not a valid argument in this discussion. The subject shoud be evaluated on meeting GNG or not; I'm not seeing sufficient coverage to vote "keep". K.e.coffman (talk) 04:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Not much source-wise, won pageants, yes, smart lady, yes. Article might work if there was another angle. My numerous sweeps didn't find much other than the Billings Gazette etc.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now We are clearly doing quite a lot of pageant AfDs right now, and for most of the subjects I have seen, I have agreed with K.e.coffman that nothing in the RfC discussion suggested a change that would make the subjects (subnational pageant winners) more wiki-notable, only possibly less so. But in this case I'm not so sure. The discussion really hasn't yet addressed the question of winning multiple separate subnational pageants. I think it's worth leaving for now, I don't doubt it will be revisited if the RFC outcome does not deem her notable. Innisfree987 (talk) 04:23, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Any pageant SNG (if created) would not trump GNG. I still don't see how the subject has met GNG by "receiving significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." The article says very little about the subject, and the sources in the article are not close enough to develop a reliable, balanced biography of a living person. So whether or not the hypothetical SNG would take into account multiple sub-national competitions, the articles would still be measured against GNG as the ultimate arbiter. So my suggestions is that we should continue with this AfD on the GNG basis, which we have been doing. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:32, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that it's a settled matter of consensus either that this SNG will not trump GNG, or that an SNG can never trump GNG--and for what it's worth, I mainly draw that impression from the number of people I've seen object when an SNG is held to overrule GNG. It's not that I don't understand the objection, but I don't think it's settled. That additional question is another reason, in my mind, to wait and see what the consensus is at the SNG RfC. Innisfree987 (talk) 05:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

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

Here's WP:SOLDIER that I'm most familiar with, since my foray into AfD started there:

In general, an individual is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources. It is presumed that individuals will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify if they:

Were awarded their nation's highest award for valour, or
Held a rank considered to be a flag, general or air officer, or their historical equivalents; etc.

As can be seen, the criteria part of it is a "helper" to understand under what circumstances sufficient coverage is likely to be available. I.e. if any or several criteria are met, it does not mean that the subject is guaranteed an article. I assume the pageant SNG would be framed along the same lines... (However, WP:SOLDIER is an essay; so perhaps the pageant SNG should be an essay as well?) K.e.coffman (talk) 05:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok I see where you're coming from. Yeah, so some of them have a very different relationships to GNG (for instance the language at WP:ACADEMIC--a guideline--says: This guideline is independent from the other subject-specific notability guidelines, such as WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:AUTH etc. and is explicitly listed as an alternative to the General Notability Guideline.[1] It is possible for an academic not to be notable under the provisions of this guideline but to be notable in some other way under one of the other subject-specific notability guidelines. Conversely, if an academic is notable under this guideline, his or her failure to meet either the General Notability Guideline or other subject-specific notability guidelines is irrelevant.) And others are sort of muddy about how they relate to GNG (like WP:ARTIST, another guideline), which is the source of much contention--here's one discussion where I learned quite a lot about a variety of perspectives on this, should you wish to go down this rabbit hole! To be frank I've become rather muddied myself about which I think ought to be how the SNGs related to GNG, but, at minimum I don't think it's certain a SOLDIER-like formulation will be the result (even if it's possible I might wind up arguing it should be!) Innisfree987 (talk) 05:57, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Above discussion moved to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Beauty_Pageants#Essay_vs_SNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:15, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist Nordic Nightfury 08:04, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 08:04, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on "keep for now" due to the volume of AfDs or on-going discussion. The SNG discussion appears to have stalled, and should not have an impact on this AfD. At this time, there are 17 Pageant-related AfDs open which is manageable per category. I also believe that each current AfD should be evaluated on its own merits. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:52, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There are only two "delete" comments but their arguments are persuasive. MelanieN (talk) 00:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ammukutty

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

There are no reliable sources to support the supposed movie/short-film's notability. It was tagged as A1 by another editor; I rejected the tag and have brought it to Afd. Seems like a FUTURE case. Lourdes 07:14, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 08:21, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is not a case of a short film failing WP:NFF, it's a {{subst:prod-tip}} case. This Mahendran is one Mahendran RS, and should not be confused with the notable Tamil director J. Mahendran. A little searching reveals that the FRIENDS GROUP PRODUCTION is exactly that, a group of young adults having a good time with a cam, as can be seen in the teaser trailer uploaded to Youtube two days prior to article creation. By one Ajay, who might be the "producer" mentioned. This is an amateur production, and WP:BEFORE is not black magic. — Sam Sailor 04:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- That's actually a good point Sam. Would you recommend closing this discussion and taking it up on a prod? Lourdes 09:01, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, we're less than 24 hours away from the 168 hours this discussion should be kept open (per that discussion), just let it run its course. — Sam Sailor 13:03, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ...with Tomwsulcer's Keep assertion not getting any opposes, and K.e.coffman striking the previous !vote and changing to Keep (non-admin closure) Lourdes 16:32, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kathryn Graf

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

Doesn't meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 01:05, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:49, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:49, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Her one role that might be close to notable, in Police Academy 5, is "Stewardess #1". While that might be a major role in some movies, considering she is not listed among the 15 or so listed cast in our article on that film, this seems to have been just as minor a role as the character name suggests. While many named characters have very small parts, it is a rare film indeed where an unnamed character is a major role. It does happen, but not here. Even at that, the one role would not be enough to show her as notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:06, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What's the take on people with spots on Star Trek? Maybe post to that wikiproject and see if she qualifies under their guidelines? I'm actually leaning delete, but I'm not going to face the Wrath of Trekkers... ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 16:26, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:47, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:22, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As much I love Star Trek, a role as "Bajoran Woman" on DS9 does not meet the notability threshold. Delete.--Rpclod (talk) 02:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An unnameed character described as "Stewardess 1" is never a notable role. It's the most trivial role someone can possibly have in a movie, besides being one of the extras in a crowd. DGG ( talk ) 04:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- There are exceptions, "Baker's wife" is one of the lead roles in the film "Into the Woods", so it would be possible to make a film with "Stewardess 1" as the lead role, but that is not the case here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:24, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only way that unnamed roles would confer notability would be if independent, reliable sources devote significant coverage to the actor playing the role. That is entirely lacking in this case. This actor is simply not notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Note 50 pageviews a day (unofficial) suggests a following. She wrote a screenplay which was reviewed in Variety magazine and also in Backstage magazine. Already we're at two in-depth sources, plus her acting work on Police Academy and ER puts her into the keep column, and here she's written another play which gets a write-up here. Meets the GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:43, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ -- does not meet WP:NACTOR; page views do not count towards notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:45, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Tomwsulcer's sources need to be assessed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:32, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:32, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- two reviews of Surviving David by Graf offered by editor Tomwsulcer add somewhat to the subject's notability. The play is autobiographical, so reviews include some bio data. She may be notable for that, as WP:NAUTHOR. Suggest keeping and improving the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Delete all Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:33, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peppermint Creeps

(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)

(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)

Delete. Poorly sourced article, with some advertorial overtones, of a band with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC, and entirely unsourced articles about three of their albums with no claim whatosever to passing WP:NALBUMS. The writing here is very much more like a fansite than an encyclopedia article, and basically documents their existence without ever actually stating anything that would make their existence notable -- the closest it gets is the number of albums they're said to have released, but NMUSIC #5 requires the albums to be on a major or prominent indie label, and as near as I can tell all or almost all of this band's albums were self-released. And the only references cited here at all are primary sources, with not even the first shred of reliable source coverage in real media shown. The closest thing to a reliable source anywhere in the entire batch is an AllMusic profile for one of the albums, which fails to review it and just provides the track listing — and it is not evidence of notability if AllMusic, of all places, fails to deem it worthy of a written review. As always, a band is not entitled to a Wikipedia article just because they existed; RS coverage, verifying one or more accomplishments that objectively pass NMUSIC, must be present for an article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 04:04, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:31, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:31, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LEAVE.No need to remove, I have added links to. (I'm from Ukraine, I'm interested to know about the group. Сергій Козачок (talk) 12:41, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What you added consists entirely of blogs and user-generated content sites, not a single one of which counts as a reliable source. Proper referencing for a Wikipedia article is published coverage in real media, not blogs or last.fm or a band's own self-published website about itself or an album's sales page on amazon.com. Your personal interest in knowing more about a group does not hand them a special exemption from Wikipedia's content and sourcing rules — a band gets an article if reliable sources are covering them in a context that satisfies NMUSIC, and does not get to blog or press release or iTunes themselves into self-published "notability because we exist". Bearcat (talk) 14:55, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: Note that a total of four articles are nominated for deletion herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:14, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:56, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep (the band). There are bits and pieces of coverage around, some news items about the drummer's death (would the death of a drummer from a non-notable band get that much coverage?), but not all: [76], [77], [78] (seems a legit print magazine but the page appears to be missing a stylesheet), [79], [80], [81], [82], [83], [84]. The albums can be merged/redirected to the band. --Michig (talk) 18:29, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:09, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the absence of reliable independent sourcing shows that it is too soon for this article. The band and album are not yet notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:51, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep – Michig has noted multiple instances of brief but non-trivial coverage in a variety of reliable sources, enough to squeak by WP:BAND criterion #1, in my view. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as even the Keep comments themselves state how they are either not entirely confident or the listed sources are not yet substantial enough, and this is exactly what I'm going to state also: None of the listed sources, regardless if compiled and combined, come to an actual convincing amount of substance. SwisterTwister talk 00:12, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think Michig did a fairly thorough search for sources, but those are not quite enough for me: most of those mentions are far too brief. Vanamonde (talk) 11:14, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 only keep comments are asserting notability rather than actually proving it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Callum James Greens

AfDs for this article:

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

Self-described "musician, composer and record producer". This article was deleted a year ago per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Callum James Greens. The subject comprehensively failed to pass any of the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (people). It has now been recreated with slightly different text and sources. However, it still comprehensively fails to pass any of the biographical notability criteria including the alternate criteria at Wikipedia:MUSICBIO and Wikipedia:CREATIVE. All sources in the current version are either by the subject himself or referenced to interviews/shout-outs in self-published non-notable blogs. After an extensive search, I can find nothing better—either on this name or his stage name "Calzo Houdini", which he claims to be "better known by". I strongly suggest salting in addition to deletion.

Virtually all of the claims are unverified and unverifiable, and some may be patently false. Per WP:BLP I have removed claim that the subject "suffers from mild Obsessive Compulsive Disorder". It was sourced to the subject's Twitter page: "Wikipedia says I suffer from mild Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. Welcome to the internet." The WP article is further highlighted in another of his twitter posts [85] and on his wife's instagram page (complete with a screenshot of the article) [86]. All three were posted shortly after this article was created. [The first 2 posts above have now been deleted from the subject's Twitter page.] Further, I can find no evidence whatsoever, beyond the subject's own assertions that his record label "was signed to Warner Music Group", that he produced records "for" any of the notable artists or groups claimed in the article (his own self-published remixes of their work is not producing for them), or that he composed a track (later allegedly dropped) for the film score of Playing for Keeps. Despite the assertion of membership in the "UK Music Producers Guild since 2009", he does not appear on the organization's members' directory list [87]. Note that even if true, membership is not evidence of notability.

Analysis of sources to follow. Voceditenore (talk) 05:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC) Updated by Voceditenore (talk) 11:32, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of sources (Note the numbering applies to the version of the article as of this writing.)

The subject's own website
An "interview" full of self-serving claims on the blog Twist Online (not be confused with Twist magazine), published the same day as the article was created. Note here: "if you want you feature in any of our website section contact us at [email protected]" [sic]
Another "interview" full of self-serving claims on the blog ElectroWow published in July of this year. Note here: "I Will Promote Your Music In 24 Hours for $5."
The subject's own website
A mention of one of his self-published albums on the blog Like The Sound published in 2011. See the notice at the bottom of the post: "If you would like to appear on Like The Sound, send your video's, photo's and press releases to [email protected]" [sic]
Listing of his self-published EPs on iTunes.

Voceditenore (talk) 08:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 06:16, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 06:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 06:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 06:28, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Nothing has changed. No new sources have come to light, and we really don't have anything to go on. If we can get good sources, sure, but... Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 08:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Music Producers Guild do not require their members to be listed in the directory. It is my understanding that the article still represents someone of note in the music industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicman wiki (talk • contribs) 09:35, 6 September 2016 (UTC) — Musicman wiki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note I have struck the above "Keep". It was not in the original comment by Musicman wiki but was added by the IP 81.168.54.198 who also !voted "Keep" below. See this edit. Voceditenore (talk) 12:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete as it stands, probably salt - David Gerard (talk) 10:09, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Salt. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 11:05, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some sources may be heavily weighted to interviews with the subject but he appears to be notable enough. I would suggest editing the article to remove unverifiable information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.168.54.198 (talk • contribs) 12:09, 6 September 2016 (UTC) — 81.168.54.198 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Unfortunately, 81.168.54.198, if all information which cannot be verified by a published reliable source which is entirely independent of the subject were to be removed, the article would basically be blank. That is why it has been nominated for deletion. And in future, please refrain from refactoring other editors' comments in this discussion as you did here. Voceditenore (talk) 12:47, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep DimeRock Records is listed under the Warner Music Group wiki article as DimeRock Registros as it was renamed by WMG. The article warrants insclusion but some information should be omitted as it is not verifiable online. Only in public records. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.219.226 (talk) 12:38, 6 September 2016 (UTC) — 82.132.219.226 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Both DimeRock Records and DimeRock Registros appear in List of Warner Music Group labels, which verifies nothing. Not only can Wikipedia not source itself, but they are listed under the Alternative Distribution Alliance section which, as you undoubtedly know, is a Warner-owned marketing service to which independent labels can subscribe and pay for. That does not make them "Warner labels". Even then, neither of those labels nor Registros Dimerock appear in the list of partners on the ADA official website [88]. Although DimeRock may have availed itself of ADA services is the past, according to a press release from Greens's "company" Bangkok Media Group, the group took over DimeRock Records in 2012 [89]. Voceditenore (talk) 13:09, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - to my shame I patrolled this without realising that the sources were vanity interview sites. No evidence of notability. Blythwood (talk) 17:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like User: Voceditenore is having to do all the heavy lifting here to point out the obvious. A complete lack of independent/non-promotional references. I'm also a bit troubled by SP editors who attempt to hide their tracks by logging in with different IP addresses. ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:06, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is worrisome; the IPs are obviously the same person; they didn't even bother with presenting different arguments! FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 12:31, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto, the article's creator Musicman wiki. I've marked them all as SPAs. Closing administrators are never fooled by such shenanigans, but the shenanigans and the repeated recreation of the article are why it needs to be salted. This editor has already wasted an enormous amount of editors' time in their efforts to use WP for their personal promotion. Voceditenore (talk) 14:07, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:44, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Possible delete -- I am reluctant to comment on styles of music that do not interest me, but this seems mainly to be sourced to the subject's personal website. Its content may be true, but that does not match WP:RS standards. With the absence of other coverage (apparently even coverage of concerts in the local press), I have to assume he is NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:18, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable musician. Hlevy2 (talk) 23:05, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Harling

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

Non notable child actor, I can't identify any major roles which might suggest she received individual media attention. The article relies on IMDb and an awful lot of name-dropping. Sionk (talk) 05:40, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The actress seems to have only had small bit roles from what's been indicated within the article. Arguably the article may had sustained during her peak in the late 90s. Shallownotthou (talk) 05:58, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Harling has already had a long and successful career on stage and television and many of her roles cited in the article were leading ones. The article has largely been rewritten by Ssilvers to emphasise this. Jack1956 (talk) 08:09, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A search of a news database shows other work (particularly stage work), including up to 2015, and from reliable mainstream press. Now added. - Gavin (talk) 09:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: In addition to an important career as a child actress, Harling has a very substantial stage and opera career as an adult, and a parallel career as a theatre and radio producer. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:38, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:07, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in view of the work that's been done on the article. Clearly a notable subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.224.27.228 (talk) 12:01, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Even discounting invalid arguments (a !vote labeled as "delete" that actually calls for merging, or calls for cross-namespace redirects favoring the category over the list contra WP:CLN), consensus is still to delete. postdlf (talk) 14:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of ghost video games

AfDs for this article:

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

"Ghost video game" is not a proper video game genre. Video game genres are based on the gameplay of the game (i.e. roleplaying, shooter, etc), not the narrative. There is no given definition of what makes a video game a "ghost video game" and this may also fall under WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:38, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Crafting a list of video games that strongly feature some element, being it ghosts or something else, based purely on news articles that mention one game has such an element, is synthesis and original research in the sense that you make a meaningful connection where there isn't any. As far as I know, ghosts in video games isn't some academic theme people are interested in, nor is it a well known genre. I fail to see the purpose of this article. ~Mable (chat) 06:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 06:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – What the above said. Going to add that the category is not specific as ghosts will show up in countless video games and it's not specific to how this benefits someone more than a category could. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:18, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – for the reasons already stated above. Aoba47 (talk) 17:39, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT; not a recognised genre. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:09, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – That it isn't a video game genre is not relevant since this list is mainly about ghosts not about video games. There is a list of ghost films so it is only logical to also have a list of ghost video games. Weikrx (talk) 07:56, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Weikrx: Take a look at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:47, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Weikrx: We don't seem to have an article on Ghosts in fiction or "Ghost literature" or what-have-you. It's hard to see "ghosts" as a major theme in fiction. I'm somewhat impressed by the history section in the List of ghost films, but the fact that such a history may exist in one medium does not necessarily mean that it also exists in other media. ~Mable (chat) 12:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost story, maybe? Josh Milburn (talk) 23:13, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And "It's hard to see 'ghosts' as a major theme in fiction." Seriously? At least one of us is pretty confused, here. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:15, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:INDISCRIMINATE; the article is little more than a laundry list of video games in which ghost characters feature. Additionally, Category:Ghost video games exists, and is already far more comprehensive and complete (note that INDISCRIMINATE does not apply to categories). See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vampire video games. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 10:46, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a major genre. ZettaComposer (talk) 12:35, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Category:Ghost video games which has much more games than this list. People using this term expect to find some list of games with ghosts, and we have the category for that. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 13:54, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Category:Ghost video games. I have to agree with Patar knight as the category seems more appropriate for this rather than a list. Aoba47 (talk) 00:38, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above, and explicitly reject redirecting to the category space per WP:XNR. --Izno (talk) 18:34, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources shown to discuss ghosts in video games as a serious theme. I am unfamiliar with the precedent of redirecting mainspace articles to categories... please ping me if you have a policy page on that—otherwise I'd avoid it. czar 15:47, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete as there's clearly enough to state what I myself am going to state; there's nothing to suggest there's anything, including substance, to form this as a separate article; this can therefore easily simply be mentioned elsewhere as a list. SwisterTwister talk 00:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As stated above, this is a grab bag of various games that happen to involve ghosts without any broader rhyme or reason. I agree that we're seeing a kind of synthesis that isn't appropriate. There's no good reason to keep this. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:29, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No, don't ask me how such a topic is notable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:55, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Red dress of Reba McEntire at the 1993 Country Music Association Awards

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

Not notable, one time event that only got a tiny bit of buzz, any content here is best to be merged to Reba McEntire. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:57, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and delete unnecessary content fork of Reba McEntire, best merged into main article. Neiltonks (talk) 11:51, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I found the following sources while doing a simple Google search: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23.
It seems like there is some coverage on the dress, but I am still uncertain enough to vote so I will leave that up to the other voters on here. Aoba47 (talk) 17:50, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I completely understand Clarityfiend's hesitancy regarding articles about dresses, but I agree that the subject has enough reliable, third-party coverage to warrant it having its own page. The article needs to be completely rewritten from scratch, and if anyone chooses to take this on, take either of the following GAs on dresses as an example: 1 or 2. Aoba47 (talk) 22:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant keep. I'm not McEntirely happy about articles about dresses, but if Rolling Stone and Billboard are still writing about it in 2014 and 2013, respectively, I guess it's notable enough. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This !vote should be struck just because of that horrible pun! - Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:01, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) Lourdes 16:28, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

J-Diggs

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

No evidence of notability, no good RSes for notability, lots of bad sources, appears to be part of the same promotional cluster as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Montana Montana Montana and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/925five_Records David Gerard (talk) 18:58, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Several news stories about him being arrested (e.g. [90], [91]), and some coverage of his music-related career, e.g. [92], [93], [94]. --Michig (talk) 19:12, 22 August 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, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:51, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:43, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Skipton Devonshire Bowling Club

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

Procedural AFD. Was PRODed, but it's been PRODed and deleted twice already. Previous version was (in its entirety) "Established in 1875 Skipton Devonshire Bowling Club (known as Devonshire or simply "Devon") is one of the oldest crown greens in Yorkshire." Web hits are that it exists and that's all; no GNews hits. David Gerard (talk) 17:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:15, 23 August 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, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – No effort has been made to indicate notability, so I'm assuming it's nonexistent. (Personally, I don't believe being the oldest of something is a credible claim of significance either, but oh well.) nyuszika7h (talk) 17:03, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:49, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – can't find anything which suggests notability. Just a run-of-the-mill club. Being the oldest in the English county of Yorkshire isn't notable (and I can't find any RS which says it actually is the oldest anyway). Neiltonks (talk) 11:59, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:43, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sumeeti Mittal

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

non notable head of a training institute whose " major innovative initiative" is flexi timing. The awards are trivial or unreliable.The Bharat Gaurav award is "a people's choice award" by the " All India Human Welfare Council. " DGG ( talk ) 16:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, added to woman project so participants are notified of afd.Coolabahapple (talk) 08:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the article creator has asked for my assistance to improve this article - [95], i will not be contributing any more to this afd. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:43, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:39, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't qualify for inclusion on Wikipedia. Anup [Talk] 20:31, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:20, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is literally not even one RS which covers the subject. For Indian subjects, I usually tend to look for at least mentions in The Times of India, The Hindustan Times or The Hindu. I'm not finding any mentions in these newspapers or in any other reliable sources. Accordingly, delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:22, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:32, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

HDBuzz

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

There are insufficient independent sources with substantial discussion of the site - just a bunch of promotional refs. This WP article exists to advertise the website. Jytdog (talk) 16:42, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to either of the two founders who appear to be genuinely notable under WP:PROF. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:43, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 03:47, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Sunmist (talk) 10:26, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As it stands, I agree the article is too promotional and poorly sourced. But it is widely used - among others, it supplies a news feed to the websites of the UK Huntington's Disease Association, the Huntington's Disease Society of America and the Huntington Society of Canada. These don't meet the requirement for independent coverage but I think amount to endorsements of its significant role in the global HD community as a provider of research news. The problem here for web notability is that it is more used than written about. Similarly, the awards from the HDSA and HDA are important recognition within the HD community but perhaps cannot be considered independent because these organizations fund HDBuzz. However, in terms of more conventional evidence of notability, I found the following:

Award

2014 Communication Awards from the Association of Medical Research Charities. The award was to the Huntington's Disease Association but the citation says it was for "their" HDBuzz website "which explains the latest Huntington's disease research in plain, understandable language. In addition to research articles, the website also publishes information to put sensationalised 'miracle cures' into a realistic context." (In fact, HDA is one of several supporters of HDBuzz so calling it "their" website isn't quite accurate but the intent of the award is clear.) This award and is clearly significant recognition of the project by a respected, independent authority.

Books

'Huntington's Disease' (OUP) is the foremost scientific/clinical text on HD, with 1122 citations according to Google Scholar. Dr Wild authored the chapter on Premanifest and Early HD so that can't chapter be considered independent with respect to HDBuzz. But the website is mentioned in other chapters by independent authors. The chapter on Genetic Testing and Counselling (Macleod and Tibben - no link to HDBuzz as far as I can tell) says: "HDBuzz provides clear, up-to-date information on the latest scientific research. For the many family members who are unable to attend HD conferences or access scientific journals, this provides a new opportunity to watch video links to conference activity and keep abreasy of research developments.". The chapter on Comprehensive Care (authored by Nance - no connection as far as I can tell) says: "Patients and families can be referred to their national HD organization, to HDBuzz for information..." Citation: Google Books
HDBuzz is mentioned in the 2nd edition of Neurobiology of Disease (OUP) edited by Johnston, Adams and Fatemi. It's not a lengthy mention but it's a large and authoritative tome (1434 pages). HDBuzz is cited as an additional resource in the HD Chapter, by Albin and Paulson (no link to HDBuzz as far as I can tell). Citation: Google books
Another book, The Best Australian Science Writing (NewSouth, 2015) has a whole chapter, authored by Christine Kenneally (no connection to HDBuzz as far as I can tell) on Jeff Carroll which says of HDBuzz: "Carroll also started a website called HDBuzz with a colleague, Huntington's clinician Ed Wild. Both men were concerned about the amount of misinformation and hype about Huntington's in the press, and they were struck too by the fact that while affected families desperately needed up-to-date information about research on the disease, Huntington's also desperately needed affected families to help them with their studies. The site helps the two connect." Citation: Google Books
Chorea: causes and management (Springer) edited by Micheli and LeWitt (no connection to HDBuzz as far as I can tell) says: "Fortunately, in recent years, information from reliable sources has become available on the internet about HD and HD research using language and a format that is suitable for lay persons and young people (www.hdbuzz.net...)". Citation: Google books

News

La Stampa, an Italian newspaper, in an article about Charles Sabine, says "It is also one of the creators of the site http://it.hdbuzz.net/006 (version in Italian), which aims to spread scientific information about Huntington's disease and is spokesman of various associations of patients." (Google Translate)

Overall I think the award and these mentions amount to notability per WP:GNG. Clearly the article needs updating to make this apparent and I would be happy to do this if it's kept, as well as making it more encyclopedic. Braydonowen (talk) 14:01, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Braydonowen, NOTABILITY calls for substantial discussion in independent sources. A mention here and there doesn't cut it. Jytdog (talk) 15:50, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the requirement is for coverage to be "significant", not "substantial" (I think there's an important difference between these two, the emphasis not being on size) and in WP:GNG this is further explained as "more than a trivial mention". The Neurobiology of Disease mention perhaps could be considered 'trivial' but I think the mentions in the Huntington's Disease book, Australian Science Writing book and chorea book are not, especially when you consider that these are scientific textbooks discussing a website. I suggest they be considered together under WP:GNG alongside the AMRC award considered under WP:WEB. Braydonowen (talk) 16:40, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are splitting hairs. Passing mentions do not cut it. Jytdog (talk) 16:44, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel I"m splitting hairs when my intent is to stick to the guidelines. The guideline says "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." You've made your view clear, and the coverage and award, not listed the article at the time of your nomination, are now listed here for others to judge per the guidelines. Braydonowen (talk) 16:49, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional: I also found this on Google Scholar - an editorial from the RSM journal Clinical Ethics by Farsides: Courage, compassion and commnunication: young people and Huntington's disease (2011): "The Huntington's Disease Association has joined with other organizations worldwide to help fund HD Buzz (http://hdbuzz.net/), a website devoted to explaining and sharing current research in the field, making it accessible to much wider audiences than scientific journals can ever hope to reach." I think this counts as a suitable independent source. Others are entitled to take their own view... Source Braydonowen (talk) 18:22, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Huntington's Disease Association, based upon the 2014 Communications Award cited above. I think that the problem with respect to WP:GNG and WP:WEBCRIT is that almost all of the sourcing is not really independent of the page subject. I do recognize that the Association is just one of several supporting organizations, not the only one, but I think that the award establishes it as a principal supporter in the assessment of secondary sources, and some truly merged content can make it clear that there are multiple organizations. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:28, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The comment after my own made me realize that I said something in an unclear way, so I want to clarify that. When I wrote that the sourcing is not really independent, I should have made clear that I meant the available sourcing, not just the sourcing currently cited on the page. I also looked at the sourcing named in this discussion and did some looking on my own. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:05, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you explain how the sourcing I cited above isn't independent? Thanks. Braydonowen (talk) 12:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're asking me to explain the obvious. Aside from some very minor passing mentions, the sourcing is from people affiliated in various ways with the page subject. The WP:BURDEN is on you, to make the case that there is sufficient sourcing. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:26, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I searched for but didn't find any evidence that the sources I listed are linked to the page subject, except in the very broad sense that several of them are authored by scientists involved in Huntington's disease research. Surely you can't be suggesting that this disqualifies them from being independent about an HD-related communication project? In any event, The 'Best Australian Science Writing' book is by someone not even linked to Huntington's disease as far as I can tell. WP:BURDEN may place the burden on me to provide suitable sources, but it doesn't require the impossible task of proving a negative. I think it's in the spirit of assuming good faith and civilly working towards agreement to provide evidence, when asked, for a claim that sources are not independent. I'm sorry if I'm missing something obvious. Braydonowen (talk) 09:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article in its current form makes no real effort to establish notability using suitable sources and is poorly written. But the topic itself has independent notability per Braydonowen's searches and it would be easy to rewrite. Dubbin^{u | t | c} 08:49, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dubbin the sources Brady found are all passing mentions. You created this article, right? Jytdog (talk) 20:14, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did, and several years later I recognise it's not a good article in its current form. I too disagree that they are passing mentions - I think you have too rigid a definition not supported by the notability guidelines. Dubbin^{u | t | c} 07:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well thanks for replying! We don't agree on what substantial discussion is, for sure. Jytdog (talk) 08:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am seeing a lack of independent news coverage.[96] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

News coverage isn't required per se - any independent source is acceptable towards establishing notability. I found several independent book sources, an award and a news source, listed above. I will happily rewrite the article around these if it is kept. If my job isn't up to scratch, others can chip in or it can be renominated for deletion. Braydonowen (talk) 12:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jujutacular (talk) 22:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 04:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as even the Keep or Merge votes themselves are stating there are still in fact concerns with the article, but they are then not actually stating how, where and why this can then be substantially improved, let alone actually convincingly kept; examining this is simply finding PR and unconvincing information and sources; nothing at all actually close to substance. SwisterTwister talk 00:23, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources are mentions. The awards are trivial or second hand. Two of the founders received a notable award for their research, but not for founding their work on this society. DGG ( talk ) 05:19, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since the discussion remains open, I edited the page to give an indication of how it might look if improved to focus on suitable sources and establishment of notability. I hope contributors will be so kind as to review it. Braydonowen (talk) 13:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look at it, and it seems to me that you essentially stubified it, but I don't think that this really established a rationale for keeping the page. It may perhaps make it easier to merge the small amount of remaining content. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:40, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the site's editors are pitching for coverage on social media (re below, yes, in response to this discussion). I am leaning keep (and at the least merge to founders) but will think a bit more before/if voting. Blythwood (talk) 00:08, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

gah i wonder if that is a direct reaction to this deletion discussion. if so, gross. Jytdog (talk) 00:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:16, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

James Isaacs

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

Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 18:19, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

del no independent evidence of notability. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not merely a strictly local music writer, but something of an obscure one. Hell, I was an avid reader of those two alternative papers, back in the day, and I don't remember his name. No evidence of notability proffered, could dig up none. Ravenswing 17:51, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep' my Proquest search turns up massive amount of coverage of him and his career in the Boston Globe, Search is dominate by Globe (the Boston alt. weeklies don't appear) but other papers do. Here's a Nat Hentoff review (long) is the Wall Street Journal praising Isaac's "illuminating liner notes" for an album, and discussing them in depth (New on disk: Sinatra in Paris with small combo, 1962, Hentoff, Nat. Wall Street Journal, 19 Jan 1995 [97]). Here the New York Times phones him for a comment when one of the greats died, [98], here the Washington Post quotes him on (Powerful Reminders Of Miles Davis: Playing New Jazz Records For Fall, Hollie I. West. The Washington Post, 02 Dec 1979). Lots more - that Proquest search on "James Isaacs" + jazz goes on for pages. Looks like a notable music writer to me.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You do realize that sources consisting solely of quotes from a subject cannot be used to sustain the notability of a subject, right? Ravenswing 02:01, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I should have made clear that the coverage in the Boston Globe is of his career. The story I cited in the Wall street Journal engages with his liner notes, in a substantive manner, but when I see major national media such as the Washington Post, New York Times and other papers seek his opinions it does establish that an individual is a recognized authority. I do think finding this sort of thing in a search run to determine if notability exists is very persuasive. But the article should of course be sourced to substantive discussions of his life and work.E.M.Gregory (talk) 03:22, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 21:23, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Details of career need to source an article are available in archived stories about his career in the Boston Globe; and probably in other media as wall.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:43, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He had written eloquently, and he was a disk jockey at a major Boston radio station for several years. By contrast, there are people on Wikipedia that are far less significant personalities with pages, often appearing very self-promoting.Dogru144 (talk) 13:33, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jujutacular (talk) 22:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sorry, but this is far from notable. Also coverage in the sources is so minuscule that I actually had to go line by line to find it..

"New on disk: Sinatra in Paris with small combo, 1962, Hentoff, Nat. Wall Street Journal, 19 Jan 1995" - I managed to retrieve this article and this is at most a trivial mention. Here is the actual coverage One of the sidemen on this date, guitarist Al Viola, told James Isaacs, who wrote the illuminating liner notes, that there are times when Sinatra sounded "almost like an instrument. The guys in the band thought of Frank as our tenor man." along with a quote by Isaacs He even makes "Ol' Man River" an extension of his own life and times. As James Isaacs notes: "That a multi-millionaire white entertainer would dare attempt to portray a black stevedore . . . during the present era of heightened racial awareness and sensitivity may seem foolhardy at best. But Sinatra's `River' is as much the Hudson (in New Jersey) as the Mississippi.". That's it. The first sentence mentions Isaacs in passing and the second a quote. None of it is significant coverage.
The NYTimes article is a trivial mention.
A search on Proquest for "James Isaacs" + jazz shows a total of 15 results when I searched across all databases. The articles I find are the WSJ and the NYTimes one and a bunch of other mentions by name only (some of which I am not sure if the same James Isaacs).
A web search shows not a single sources which I would count as significant coverage.

This is someone pretty obscure and there are many reporters who report for radio stations. That doesn't mean they are notable. This is far from GNG and I don't see anything to pass WP:ENT or WP:CREATIVE either. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Re-listing (probably one final time) to allow more eyes on the final significant Delete assertion... Lourdes 04:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 04:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He had a long career, as a respected jazz writer, journalist and critic whose work is widely cited by other writers. He was widely quoted, cited, in national sources (I am colonizing Canada for the length of this AFD), like this Montreal Gazette obit of Elvin Jones, " "My experience with Coltrane," he told the writer James Isaacs in 1973, "was that John was a catalyst in my finding the way that drums could be played most musically..." (Ground-breaking jazz drummer, Montreal Gazette 20 May 2004 [99]), or this one on National Public Radio, Fresh Air profile of Ramsey Lewis, "Ramsey Lewis told James Isaacs..." yada yada ('The In Crowd': An Audience-Fueled Jazz-Pop Crossover Hit; Fresh Air Philadelphia: NPR. (May 13, 2015)) Lots more like these, including lots more period.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:23, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is a lot of people are journalists, and there will usually be trivial mentions of the person in multiple sources. Now if there are something like > 200 trivial mentions, I might consider that the subject has some claim of significance. But the mentions here are very few (15 in proquest). This is pretty less. I don't see any evidence that their work is "highly cited". --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:05, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

revisitng this jazz critic, journalist, DJ with mostly regional notability, but whose work is fairly widely cited. However, there is at least one profile of his work, in the Boston Globe, WBUR's Isaacs Is Anything but Predictable,Kahn, Joseph P. Boston Globe [Boston Globe] 11 April 1989. So I will stand by my keep iVote (above).E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:45, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:26, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the Keep votes are still simply citing thin or trivial sources, certainly nothing actually confirming his own substance as an independent article; the current article simply states information about connections, not how there's enough for his own information. SwisterTwister talk 00:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The model of improper sourcing, for all of these are mere obligatory mentions that a particular journalist has written about something. That does not make the journalist notable. DGG ( talk ) 05:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Materialscientist (talk) 05:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crepitus (film)

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

This film fails WP:NFF as it is supposedly in pre-production, with filming not planned to start until 2017. The funding was started with a $5000 Indigogo campaign https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/crepitus-starring-bill-moseley-horror#/, so completion of this project is a valid concern. Note that there also appears to be COI with much of the work on this article having been done by an SPA with the same name as one of the film's writers. Meters (talk) 04:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC) Meters (talk) 04:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator as put up for speedy at same time by another editor. Meters (talk) 04:23, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Will renominate if speedy fails Meters (talk) 04:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:34, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PetalMD

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

This article was recreated today after being speedy deleted per promo. I re-speedied, and the tag was removed with the edit note that included: "The two sources are sufficient to meet WP:GNG " and warning the creator to tone down the PROMO in the future. The two acceptable sources are this Le Soleil piece and this Montreal Gazette piece. Yep, we have two independent sources with significant discussion. There are two lightly-dressed press releases also cited now here and here about acquisitions. This company is marginally notable at this time; not at all a slam dunk for meeting GNG. In light of the promotional pressure, delete and also salt. Jytdog (talk) 20:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 20:19, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 20:19, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources are sufficient to meet WP:GNG and the ad-like content has been removed. I left out another reference which dated back to the company's early days and wasn't bringing anything new [100]. I also left out this source because I'm not sure who the author is but it explains how PetalMD has been deployed throughout Montfort Hospital which is not insignificant. "Promotional pressure" (whatever that means) is not a reason for deletion. Pichpich (talk) 21:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are the same four sources that I described above; you have not added anything since the nomination. Correct? For articles that are marginally notable and it could go either way, when there is promotional pressure, there is a growing trend to delete them. It is not worth the community's time to keep marginally notable articles neutral when there are people who keep trying to add promotional content to them. Jytdog (talk) 21:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've given you two more sources that provide non-trivial coverage of the company. Correct? As for the promotional pressure, that's what watchlists are for (mine anyways): I've reduced the article to a neutral stub and I'll be happy to do it again if need be. Pichpich (talk) 00:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For pete's sake would you actually read the nomination? I mention four sources there. Jytdog (talk) 02:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have read your nomination. You mention the four sources that are currently form part of the article. In my keep !vote just above, I mention two more sources that are not currently used in the article but are nevertheless indications of notability. Just so we're clear, I'm talking about this one and this other one. Pichpich (talk) 02:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OH so the "two sources" you keep talking about are sources that you yourself decided were worthless or not reliable. OK then. I didn't realize you are actually asking the community to consider sources you already rejected. Very strange. So we still have two good independent sources with significant discussion. Jytdog (talk) 02:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:03, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:03, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- per WP:PROMO and failing to meet CORPDEPTH. The sources being offered above are trivial or PR like. The first one is a blog (non RS), and the second has a promotional tone such as:

The mission of the company is to allow doctors to spend as much time as possible with their patients by supporting them in the administrative aspects of their practice. Obligations that are eating 25% of the time doctors.

Its web platform, called Petal MD, includes support heavy schedules of doctors. It also serves as central library by which doctors can exchange texts and scientific articles on innovative treatments or new treatment protocols.

The current sources provide no claim of notability; thus making it an unnecessary article on a unremarkable company. The only other purpose for the article to exist would be for promotional purposes.

PS -- the creator of this article Special:Contributions/Cbonamy has already been blocked as spam / advertising only account, so this confirms it. Rather than wasting volunteer editors' time dealing with COI editors who are likely to return and trying to maintain neutrality of this article (notwithstanding editor Pichpich's admirable efforts to salvage this article), I advocate deletion. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - If I read both reliable sources (Montreal Gazette and Le Soleil) correctly, 25,000 of the country’s 75,000-plus physicians use this platform. At least for me, this is sign of notability. I share concerns about promotional use of this article, if proven right, my vote will be delete in the next AfD (assuming the article survives this one and no other reliable sources appear...). Pavlor (talk) 13:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another source Ici Radio-Canada. Only short news. Pavlor (talk) 14:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would not rely on the coverage of any general newspaper for what physicians use or do not use. I would rely only on audited figures which are unambiguous between the possibilities that they a/signed up and perhaps had a trial for but actually purchased /leased it; b/bought/leased it, but have since discontinued it. c/use only one small part of it. Nice round numbers like 75,000 are very unlikely to be correct. Claiming the most inflated of all possible nuumbers is PR-talk, just as when Wikipedia reports the number of "editors" or uses a very low definition of "active editors" DGG ( talk ) 16:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

K.e.coffman wrote "The current sources provide no claim of notability". I pointed to the opposite. The few reliable sources we have base notability of PetalMD on numbers you dispute. Fair enough, I also think these numbers say nothing about actual use. However reliable sources have greater weight than my opinion (even though they are misleading). As I see it, there are only three independent reliable sources: two local newspapers (with several articles about the company in one of them and only single article in the another) and brief news article on the page of public broadcaster. Is this enough to estabilish notability? For me yes, others may have other opinion. Pavlor (talk) 16:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO. All the sources presented are purely promotional. This can be seen because each article is like a closed universe where the only views presented for each article are those connected with the company. For example, the first reference recounts testimonies derived from company promotional videos, and the article even states these are company promotional videos. I am amazed at that one. Given these are company promotional videos invalidates their testimony for purposes of notability. Then the presented view for the rest of the first reference is the company CEO. This is not an independent reliable source.

It is the same with the other articles presented. None of these are reliable sources, per COREDEPTH. All views, other than the promotional testimonials, are derived from company people, as if there were no one else to interview. These are the same as routine announcements. This is not journalism, and this is not what is intended as a measure of WP:N, GNG, and COREDEPTH; hence it fails those. I also echo DGG - an unbiased auditing of numbers and comments obtained from a signifigant sample of subscribers and former subscribers would be much more acceptable. That is more likely to represent journalistic integrity. Simply saying 75,000 current subscribers really tells consumers nothing and is also a nice rounded suspect number. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:38, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

75,000 current subscribers? My French may be bad, but this number is estimate of physicians in the entire country (Quebec or Canada?), not number of subscribers (which is mentioned in 20000-30000 range in the sources, 30,347 on the petalmd webpage). I wonder, did you really read these sources? Pavlor (talk) 09:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see, you read the only English source available (which mentions 10,000 subscribers in August 2014...) and discarded the French ones. These mention 16,000 subscribers in January 2015 and 25,000 in Jaunuary 2016. Pavlor (talk) 09:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 04:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:NSOFTWARE. This is an emerging software with a limited geographical scope which makes it WP:TOOSOON as well. I'm particularly concerned that the sources seem to be examples of WP:SPIP; redressing press releases and printing them. For example Betakit.com seems to exclusively focus on publishing startup news and seems to publish literally all news related to startups. This makes it useless as a source to measure notability. LaPresse news about acquisition is a routine news. This leaves only 2 sources Montreal Gazette and LaPresse, both of which are unfortunately are more of interviews with the employees of the company rather than an analysis of the company. This makes it borderline primary and of questionable independence. I'm particularly concerned with the lack of independent reviews. With no other coverage, I will go with a delete. Software are some of the easiest things to find sources for and we actually have an over-coverage of software on Wikipedia. This one falls short of it. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I want to note that the author account has now been closed as an advertising account, which is exactly what this article was and still is all along, from this to the current article, none of it came close at all for actual notability, let alone any meaningful improvements; simply tossing some trivial links along with clearly advertising the company, business and services is exactly deletion material. SwisterTwister talk 06:03, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zenan Yu

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

CSD tags removed. Article created by single-purpose account for promotional purposes. Apparent undeclared conflict of interest as article creator claims to have self-authored the professional-quality photo of this person. Article originally highly promotional with copyright violations, but trimmed down by COI account after CSD tags added.

Subject lacks significant coverage in a breadth of reliable secondary sources, as required by Wikipedia policy. Does not meet the criteria at WP:ANYBIO nor WP:ARTIST. The award he won is not well-known. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a means of promotion. Citobun (talk) 04:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 04:18, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 04:18, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 04:18, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or userfy for now. Article about a young musician who has made a good start academically and won a notable young musician's award, but it's much WP:TOOSOON to meet WP:MUSICBIO. One of three current references is autobiographical, and there's not enough independent, secondary coverage of him yet in English or (from my limited ability with Google Translate) Chinese. Little Will (talk) 07:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. not yet notable, and in classical music it will normally take quite a while to build a career, so there;s no point in userifying. When there is something worth saying, the article can be started over. DGG ( talk ) 12:44, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:35, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Belle Nuru

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

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

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

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

~~Fails WP:ENTERTAINER John Jaffar Janardan (talk) 09:27, 21 August 2016 (UTC)~~ striking confirmed sockpuppet Atlantic306 (talk) 04:22, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:47, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:47, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:47, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:47, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article passes the musician guidelines just by having two albums released by a major label. I'm not entirely sure why you referenced the Entertainer guidelines, which is not really what she's known for.

https://itun.es/us/TMibeb https://itun.es/us/3bFeeb Iknowallsecrets (talk) 01:28, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please note that Itunes is not considered an independent, reliable source that helps to establish notability. GAB^gab 01:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I only added the above links to show that the albums were released by a major label. Iknowallsecrets (talk) 02:06, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as major label passes WP:NMUSIC better sources are needed though Atlantic306 (talk) 04:24, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Original nomination stems from a sock with an inaccurate reasoning. Work with artists and Nuru's label releases appears to meet #5 on the Musicians and ensembles Criteria. Arguably Criteria #1 as well. Tangledupinbleu chs (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:19, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mind explaining? Also, please disclose if you been paid to put a vote here? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:29, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete has holding something at a notable label is not alone means for actual substance for establishing independent notability, my own searches have not found better; the article contains no other convincing claims there's an acceptable article yet. SwisterTwister talk 19:06, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My sweeps and this sweep didn't turn up much.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:42, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the recent Delete assertions, re-listing for more eyes... Lourdes 04:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 04:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see a single mention in any reliable independent sources. This is far from satisfying GNG. None of the singles released by the subject are notable. I don't see any evidence that the subject is notable and I would like the keep voters to clarify. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:27, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While having multiple releases from a major record label would allow her to pass musician guidelines, the subject seems to fall more under the lyricists/producer role. Her work in the careers of highly notable musicians, holding an executive position at a Sony owned label, and her professional association with Clive Davis seems more than notable. Shallownotthou (talk) 15:20, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You created your account just to vote on this AFD? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:32, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? I have voted in multiple AFD discussions. You seem to be rather hostile regarding the subject and going as far as to question other voters. I'm pretty sure that being bias is not within our guidelines. Other delete voters cast their opinions and went on without going after others. Shallownotthou (talk) 15:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A newly created account which votes on AFDs is quite suspicious. Additionally, you keep rationale doesn't make sense. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:38, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a WP:PROMO BLP lacking in reliable sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unless I misread, this, I do not see albums released by a major label. I see some EPs and singles in itunes. Anyway, being listed on itunes is not proof of anything, any more than being listed in Amazon. DGG ( talk ) 05:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Ardaji

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

~~Fails WP:GNG due to lack of RS sources. Few RS sources mention him briefly. John Jaffar Janardan (talk) 10:29, 21 August 2016 (UTC)~~ striking sockpuppet Atlantic306 (talk) 04:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:46, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:46, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:46, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:46, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pernom. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 10:37, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete by all means, because as "informative" and "sourced" this may be, nothing actually amounts to substance. SwisterTwister talk 06:08, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Ali meets the WP:CREATIVE exception. As mentioned above, many of the page sources don't do much more than reference him briefly, however the rights acquisition and film production credit are substantial. Will defer to other editors on removal of these. Burroughs'10 (talk) 19:37, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- strictly a vanity page. Being a producer (money man) for a famous movie does not make the producer notable, as notability is not inherited. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:39, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject has been profiled by The New York Times for ad agency work in the 1980s. Also found in Google News search — "Dedicated to the Greatest" - Greenwich Times feature on life and career leading up to production role in Ali, references to role in Muhammad Ali's contract for life story as well as articles about restaurants since the mid-2000s. News Team Assemble!^[talk?] 15:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Original nomination stems from a sock with an inaccurate reasoning. Ardaji easily passes both WP:GNG (3 different NYT articles, LAT, TIME on page). Via Factiva: "Local Looks For Knockout With 'Ali'. Sourcing usage as is is iffy at best, but there's plenty to pull from articles on databases about his background pre-2001. Tangledupinbleu chs (talk) 09:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — Below are some non-digital newspaper articles I did not include in the initial references. I'm confused because the reason was crossed out — here are those reliable sources. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 TAmmons1974 (talk) 02:27, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the dual Keep assertions that have no opposition, re-listing for more eyes. Lourdes 03:58, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 03:58, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The NYTimes reference quotes him - it is more about the company. The other references I see mention him in brief. The sources from Greenwich or business journals are unfortunately not reliable enough for GNG purposes due to the fact that they easily publish promotional material. If the subject is well known for the movie, it essentially makes this a WP:BIO1E. I don't see any other compelling reason to see that the subject is notable and neither do I see enough coverage. Accordingly delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:43, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1984 New York Times both quotes subject and refers to throughout as it details a background on him and the company. A 1979 New York Times article is a feature story solely about the subject. With the ad agency information, this is not WP:BIO1E. I also don't see any evidence that Greenwich Time is not reliable / easily published promotional material. It's a legitimate newspaper with an author byline. Proposals calling for the mentions to be scaled down, I concur that it's excessive — references 12-25 need a further look. News Team Assemble!^[talk?] 12:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1979 New York Times is not a profile article entirely on the subject. It is just a small mention among a collection of 6 other news. The 1984 NYTimes article as I told you is mostly quotes - hardly any coverage about the subject. None of this is useful for notability per WP:WHYN. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If we started excluding newspapers "prone to publishing promotional material," then we might as well cut out basically all of them, and every music review site on the planet as well :) What matters is that the source isn't a blog or a tabloid, and has an editor/journalist who can arguably be considered neutral. So most trade publications pass fine in that regard, if they have at least some non-local repute. So I agree with the sourcing found by News Team in this case. Yvarta (talk) 14:31, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, only normal business activities. There is not even an article on his business and only has a brief mention in the Masaharu Morimoto article. A WP:BIO1E, at best. Kierzek (talk) 14:05, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm amazed at the NYTimes coverage , which includes the paragraph "The American Aisociation of Advertising Agencies has on a number of occasions recommended MEAMCO to member agencies and reports complete satisfaction. "his is writing suitable for an advertorial, not objective reporting. It does not matter where published, surch sourcing is not reliable for notability of for anything else. It bears out the general principle, that there is no source at all that is always reliable for everything. DGG ( talk ) 05:05, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 07:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WhereverTV

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

Looks like a service that had legitimate hopes for becoming a good Internet television service when it launched years ago, but since then hasn't done very much and now has gone into an insidious strategy where they pick up any free/low-cost livestreaming network source on the Internet and package it in for a monthly fee, as many shady IPTV services do. Most of the 'channels' available through this service are available for free through their network's websites, and the sources about this are mainly all PR promoting the service or spam of some kind. The only reason this has been prominent on Wikipedia is that a user with a COI spammed our network articles for three years quietly by replacing the official streaming links for a network with an ad for their service in external links sections and turned List of Internet television providers into an insane advertising playground for all of Wherever's services with every network cut off from their own articles here (See the COIN section about this; the user has now been blocked). This is not a prominent provider of IPTV, and the lack of sources pans out that finding. Nate • (chatter) 20:38, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:36, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:36, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning delete - there's lots of coverage of the announcement, but little evidence of follow-through, or that people would plausibly want to know about them and look them up, and the page views seem to reflect this - David Gerard (talk) 00:24, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete as it's clear that WhereverTV is not continuing to remain relevant after launching. A look at the news tab in search results indicates on primary press releases since 2014. Apart from this, the article reads too much like an advertisement. Burroughs'10 (talk) 19:17, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. McCullagh, Declan (2008-07-22). "At FCC broadband hearing, speeches but no consensus". CNET. Archived from the original on 2016-08-28. Retrieved 2016-08-28.
  The article notes:
  
  Some speakers made more serious points. Mark Cavicchia, the founder and CEO of WhereverTV, pointed to Time Warner Cable's relatively small download/upload limit of 5GB per month for certain Internet customers who pay $29.95 monthly. Those who pay $54.90 each month receive a 40GB cap.
  This "unreasonable limitation is not just unfair to consumers. It's ludicrous," Cavicchia said. "Broadband providers and their competing content services benefit."
  Cavicchia's WhereverTV offers an intriguing product: a sleek $199 black box that lets you watch TV shows beamed over the Internet, with no computer or monthly subscription required. Web users can also tune in. The selection is mixed, offering excellent channels like Britain's Sky News and less useful ones like Vietnam's state propaganda channel Hanoi TV.
  Even in its limited form, WhereverTV competes squarely with Time Warner Cable's channel offerings. Cavicchia said that after just 16 minutes of a "full-throttle" connection watching TV, a cable broadband customer can exceed the monthly gigabyte cap, making it an "exorbitant toll."
2. "Cool Tools". Arab News. 2009-01-20. Archived from the original on 2016-08-28. Retrieved 2016-08-28.
  The article notes:
  
  With the WhereverTV Receiver (www.wherever.tv), anyone can watch hundreds of live international television channels in more than 40 languages from almost 100 countries around the world. Much of this content is otherwise unavailable for viewing on a TV at any price, and it now can be viewed from the comfort of the living room.
  WhereverTV’s program guide application, the Global IPG, manages an unlimited number of Internet video sources in a traditional television viewing experience. At only 5” x 5” x 1” and weighing a mere 6 ounces, the WhereverTV Receiver readily fits into a consumer’s existing audio-visual system and can be carried in a briefcase for use anywhere. All that is required a router with broadband internet access and a standard television set.
3. 李德娜 (2008-07-09). "SINOCES第一款新品亮相：Wherever TV". 慧聪网 (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2016-08-28. Retrieved 2016-08-28.
  The article notes:
  
  [慧聪网讯]7月9日青岛国际电子产品展览会的新闻发布会上，来自美国的WhereverTV创始人与CEOMarkCavicchia宣布WhereverTV接收机的正式投放。
  这款来自消费电子先锋企业的WhereverTV接收机可将全球电视节目通过互联网直接与电视连接，售价为199.99美元，包含了基本的服务需求，而无需激活费用和常年的费用，首批货将在下周二（2008年7月15日）到达国内。
4. דידי חנוך (2008-07-22). "גאדג'ט היום: Wherever TV" (in Hebrew). Walla!. Archived from the original on 2016-08-28. Retrieved 2016-08-28.
5. Leonard, Kim (2010-02-14). "Companies, networks meet demand for Web-based viewing". Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. Archived from the original on 2016-08-28. Retrieved 2016-08-28.
  The article notes:
  
  Ashish Ranjan, a scientist with the National Institute of Health who lives in Gaithersburg, Md., found WhereverTV through a Web search a couple months ago and signed up for a Watch India subscription.
  He moved from India to the United States in 2005, and at one point tried using his computer to stream his favorite Indian channels to his TV. "But then I couldn't work on my laptop, or change channels easily," he said. "They give you a remote with the WhereverTV."
  Cavicchia's company is working with Retro Films HD Inc. of Las Vegas to put its The Cowboys Network on the Yahoo! widget that is inside new Samsung, Sony, Vizio and other Internet enabled TVs.
  Classic western movies from the 1930s through the '50s will be available on demand, likely by later this month, through the TV widget, Cavicchia said. The network also shows movies through its Web site.
6. Houser, Mark (2008-05-02). "High-tech sector gets big lift". Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. Archived from the original on 2016-08-28. Retrieved 2016-08-28.
  The article notes:
  
  WhereverTV got $150,000 from Innovation Works this year for software development. The South Side company plans to start selling a $199 device in June that allows people to view any video signal from the Internet on television.
  "Without the funding from Innovation Works, we wouldn't be launching next month," WhereverTV CEO Mark Cavicchia said.
  The Coraopolis native said he got the idea in China, after his computer kept crashing while he tried to watch streaming video of a Steelers-Browns game.
7. Wenzel, John (2010-03-14). "High-tech gadgets ease travel stress". The Denver Post. Archived from the original on 2016-08-28. Retrieved 2016-08-28.
  The article notes:
  
  WhereverTV
  Catch the flavor of your next destination with this Web-TV aggregator, which collects and organizes more than 1,200 international streaming stations. The optional WhereverTV Receiver ($200) also relays them directly to your home or hotel TV without monthly subscription fees. (Free, wherever.tv)
8. Shropshire, Corilyn (2007-05-16). "Consumers refusing to pay for downloads of shows, study says". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Archived from the original on 2016-08-28. Retrieved 2016-08-28.
  The article notes:
  
  Robinson-based startup WhereverTV is gunning for the other 91 percent by making it easy and cheap for consumers to watch anything they want on the Web, anywhere, anytime.
  "Consumers don't want to know where [TV] is coming from, they want to hit a play button and see the video, said Mark Cavicchia, who founded WhereverTV two years ago.
  WhereverTV's software, which is still in development, would allow consumers to connect a Wi-Fi ready mobile device to a TV and use it like a remote control to access a personalized menu of TV channels and programs, movie downloads, video clips, etc.
  Even more important to WhereverTV's success is that consumers can take their tailor-made, a la carte TV wherever they go -- home, work, hotels -- a feature that Mr. Cavicchia said sets it apart from its rivals.
9. Cassavoy, Liane (2008-10-30). "The World Is Enough with WhereverTV". Gigaom. Archived from the original on 2016-08-28. Retrieved 2016-08-28.
  The article notes:
  
  Can’t afford that round-the-world trip you’ve always dreamed of taking? Now you can bring the world to your living room instead: WhereverTV, which offers an online collection of international TV channels, is bringing its service to U.S. TVs with a new set-top box. The company’s $199 WhereverTV Receiver connects to your TV, allowing you to watch more than 800 foreign TV stations from the comfort of your couch. But if your computer and your TV aren’t in the same room, you might need a very long Ethernet cord.
  The WhereverTV Receiver is actually very easy to set up. You first connect it to your router or modem via Ethernet, then connect it to your TV via composite A/V, plug it in, and you’re ready to go. All of the cables are included, but the Ethernet cable is only two meters long — if only my TV were that close to my router. My router is upstairs and my TV is downstairs, so I ended up dragging my router down the stairs and dragging an extra-long Ethernet cord across the living room. Hardly an ideal situation — and not one that would work if I were planning on keeping the WhereverTV receiver installed past my testing period.
10. Spencer, Malia (2013-09-05). "WhereverTV launches live-streaming of more than 300 global TV channels". Pittsburgh Business Times. Retrieved 2016-08-28.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow WhereverTV to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 01:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Most of the sources are promotional 'what could be' stories from 2008-2010 that thought the service would get a toehold in the market under its original business strategy, or Pittsburgh area 'local company hopes to hit it big' fluff that didn't pan out. There's nothing after that and looking at the service now, the company's receiver pretty much was done once the Roku and Apple TV basically became the main set-top boxes in the market, and since then they've declined (especially with Sling TV and Playstation Vue and other OTT services now on the market); what logical company would use a strategy of spamming every network article here for three years with subtle 'buy our service' links? If I'm to be convinced this has retained the notability it did in the past, current-day sources are needed. Nate • (chatter) 05:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm to be convinced this has retained the notability it did in the past, current-day sources are needed. – from Wikipedia:Notability#Notability is not temporary:

Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage.

That the company had notability in the past means it is notable.

The sources I've listed here include nonlocal sources like CNET, Arab News, 慧聪网, Walla!, and The Denver Post.

Cunard (talk) 05:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- WP:PROMO / WP:WEBHOST. The coverage listed above is either PR-like or trivial, such as "Even in its limited form, WhereverTV competes squarely with Time Warner Cable's channel offerings. Cavicchia said that after just 16 minutes of a "full-throttle" connection watching TV, a cable broadband customer can exceed the monthly gigabyte cap, making it an "exorbitant toll."" The promo-like coverage does not contribute to GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The CNET article is a review of WhereverTV's product. It compares WhereverTV with Time Warner Cable. That the reviewer said WhereverTV, though "in its limited form", is a competitor of Time Warner Cable does not make the source "PR-like or trivial". Including quotes from the company's CEO is standard journalistic practice and does not mean the source is unusable in establishing notability. Cunard (talk) 21:45, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- this is still insufficient to meet GNG. I do not see coverage that raises to this level. These are trivial product reviews. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by all means as this is only here as an advertisement, the users involved with starting this and the history itself suggest this; thus nothing at all suggesting actually keeping hence making worse. The above sources are also then simply PR which is especially expected with this subject. SwisterTwister talk 07:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sources provided above are not PR. They were written by journalists with no affiliation with WhereverTV. From Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Depth of coverage: "Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization."
The sources I listed here provide "deep coverage" of the subject by discussing the company's history and products.
Cunard (talk) 21:45, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- the resulting article is WP:PROMO which is part of WP:NOT and is thus a valid reason for deletion. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:45, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 02:17, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard: multiple coverage is demonstrated over a period of years, and notability is not temporary. Some of the prose has a vaguely promotional but it's nothing so fundamental that it can't be addressed by editing.--Arxiloxos (talk) 05:03, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't know why MelanieN re-listed this Afd the previous time as it could have been closed as Delete, given the consensus obvious at that time. Absent any explanation from her, I am led to presume that there might be some reasoning that she may have had in re-listing, and given the recent Keep comment, I am re-listing this Afd (although the obvious consensus including the Keep assertion till now still seems to be to Delete the article... I have pinged Melanie to keep her in the loop.... Lourdes 03:49, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 03:49, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commment -- given COI and PROMO issues, I still advocate deletion. I don't see how this article adds value to the encyclopedia in the current form, and it could be a potential time sink trying to maintain its neutrality. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:58, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can address the COI and WP:PROMO issues if the article is kept. As Arxiloxos (talk · contribs) noted above, some of the content is "vaguely promotional but it's nothing so fundamental that it can't be addressed by editing". But I am reluctant to work on improving the article because it would not be a good use of my time if editors still supported deletion as is the case at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Invest.com and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clickability. Cunard (talk) 17:32, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) SST flyer 07:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tamiko Nash

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

Nash is just not notable. The article attempts to present her being the 3rd African-American to be Miss California USA as somehow notable. However since the title has existed just over 50 years when she was crowned, and about 8% of California's population is African-American, a study of predicted rates shows that it is just not a rare enough occurance to be worth noting. If Trump and the other people over the Miss USA organization had actually ousted the then Miss USA, than Nash might well be notable, but just as the potential person waiting in the wings, we end up with a lot of coat-racking. Nash's being a model on The Price is Right and having a notable husband in neither case make her notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:10, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It might be worth expanding the mention of Tamiko in the article on her husband. It should be kept in mind that wives of American football players just do not get as much attention for being such as wives of football players in Britain get.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:12, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:09, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:10, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:10, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly Merge to Terrell Davis, or redirect to Miss USA 2006, in which the subject placed as first runner-up. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Discussion about notability guidelines has already started on the Talk page for the Beauty Pageant project. No harm will be done by closing this nomination as "keep" and letting the project-level discussion take its course. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:07, 22 August 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) 01:59, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty Pageants-related deletion discussions. PageantUpdater (talk) 00:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources include in-depth here, a paragraph here, in-depth here, and in-depth here. Wondering if it's possible that Trump didn't give crown to Tamiko because of racial favoritism (given what the public knows now about Trump). Tamiko's been on TV such as Deal of No Deal. More in-depth coverage here and more in-depth coverage here. Meets the general notability guideline.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:10, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per divorce news (Original comment Redirect / Merge with Terrell Davis per WP:OUTCOMES: spouses of celebrities are covered in the latter articles. She's more notable as a wife of a celebrity than a Miss [State] USA winner.

The coverage presented as "in depth" above is actually Ms Nash's commentary on the situation where the actual Miss could have been stripped of her title, but wasn't :

Tamiko Nash, Miss California USA 2006, told The Early Show co-anchor Hannah Storm Wednesday, "If I were in the same situation, I would want a second chance. I would want the benefit of the doubt and to give everyone a chance to know the person I really am. The decision's been made. I support Mr. Trump and the Miss Universe organization, and right now it's about moving forward for myself and for Tara."

The rest of the mentions are routine, as pertaining to the same controversy. This is not sufficient to overcome WP:BIO1E and to build an encyclopedia article. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One (probably final) re-list to give editors an opportunity to respond to K.e.coffman's comments and the related comments of North America earlier. Lourdes 03:42, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 03:42, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Query Reportedly Nash and Davis are divorcing. Are there guidelines on how to handle merge/redirects in those cases? (Meanwhile more generally, it strikes me that she has a lot more coverage than most subnational winners, I suppose I'm only wondering if she gets over BIO1E, and what to do if not.) Innisfree987 (talk) 04:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- If her divorce of Davis only gets mentioned because he is notable, than this is not really coverage of her. The exact meaning of "notability is not inherited" is complex, because in some cases, such a royalty, it clearly is, and some people do get coverage basically because of who they are married to.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:30, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry I was unclear-- I wasn't meaning to ask about notability from the divorce, but rather whether a "merge" to a notable spouse is an appropriate solution if the two are divorcing. I mean in some cases it will be necessary to describe, if people are famously divorced from one another, but in most cases I'm not sure it's fair to make someone a Wikipedia redirect to their ex-husband. Which might make a borderline case more worth keeping, for lack of a better way of handling the material. Innisfree987 (talk) 07:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per tomwsulcer. Pwolit iets (talk) 10:06, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep * the sources checks out. Plus several other sources above. she covers WP:GNG. Definitely some improvements to the article are needed, but that is not a reason for deletion. she has obviously stayed in the public eye more or less since 2006. BabbaQ (talk) 17:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources listed by tomwsulcer are sufficient under WP:GNG. The logic for the nomination is her claim to notability is that she was the third African-American to be Miss California USA, but that's not true. The claim to notability is her continued substantial coverage in reliable sources, not some specific notability rule for pageant winners. Avram (talk) 20:35, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Game Creators. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 16:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The 3D Gamemaker

AfDs for this article:

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

Ill-referenced since creation, little evidence of notability in the article or web searches. Previous AFD was 2006, survived then on the basis it plausibly provided information on a possibly useful topic; we have tighter standards in 2016. I'm willing to be convinced, but the article as it stands doesn't do so at all. David Gerard (talk) 10:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've fleshed out the GameSpot and ITReviews citations, and added citations from the GameSpy review that the first AfD mentioned. Is the article in a better state now? It's unfortunately harder to find sources at this point, given that the program is nearly 15 years old, and so any have probably disappeared off the Internet. However, these three are at least on archive.org. —ajf (talk) 11:15, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Good work! I'm immediately less sure than I was ... let's see what can be found - David Gerard (talk) 11:36, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:45, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:45, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Should be merged into article The Game Creators, see Draft:The Game Creators. Jonpatterns (talk) 11:00, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonpatterns: Not to distract too much from the topic at hand, but I'm not sure I agree. It's difficult to find any reliable sources about TGC that lend the company any real notability. Their products are much more notable than they are. That draft article includes only one reliable secondary source, and it's a trade magazine. I don't expect an effort to recreate that page to yield much success. —ajf (talk) 03:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:53, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to state I am currently against deletion. This is somewhat weakly, as I'm not super-convinced T3DGM is super-notable. On the other hand, there seems to be some reliable source coverage of it (as opposed to none for The Game Creators), and I think the article is in a decent state. Of course, I'm biased, since I've put quite a bit of work into the article (and I actually own the product, thus my interest in the article in the first place), but I also think that work has made the article better than it was. —ajf (talk) 01:10, 22 August 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) 01:45, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to The Game Creators. The company looks like it's probably notable when you put together the various products, but I'm just not seeing stand-alone notability here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a good idea - that article seriously needs some shoring up, and their other products are redirects there - David Gerard (talk) 23:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't endorse this: the TGC article is completely lacking in any reliable, non-primary sources, and there's nothing anywhere proving its notability. That article was deleted once already, and if we brought it back and merged T3DGM into it, T3DGM would be the only notable part of the article. Generally, their products are much more notable than they are. You can only find passing mentions of TGC's existence. —ajf (talk) 07:10, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Re-listing (perhaps one final time) due to Ajfweb's comments Lourdes 03:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 03:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Take the reliable source and build out from the parent in summary style. The parent's notability will be stronger with more sources about its products. czar 05:09, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge to The Game Creators to help improve the parent article. Not independently notable per available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:05, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Janine Circincione

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

Not notable, at least not yet. The NYT article does not even mention her. The New Yorker article is about a show ather gallery. The other 2 refs are notices and not independent DGG ( talk ) 16:03, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:46, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, added to woman artists project so that participants are notified of afd.Coolabahapple (talk) 14:47, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No wonder the NYT doesn't mention her. Her name was spelled wrong. It is Janine Cirincione, not Circincione. Try this perhaps? I'll move the page. Mduvekot (talk) 01:36, 24 August 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, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - added an infobox and some additional references. There are plenty more to be incorporated. The article needs expansion, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 04:51, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep -- seems to have been noted as an art curator, per available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:14, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've found her in journals, too, which I'll add to the article. Kudos to Mduvekot for finding the correct spelling of her name. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus with WP:NPASR. After being relisted twice, the only comments seem to be weak keeps. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bismuth (Steven Universe)

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

Not all individual episodes of TV shows are independently notable. This one was reviewed on the AV Club (which reviews just about everything, meaning that it doesn't mean that much to be reviewed by them) and mentioned on a blog. That's not enough RS for GNG. Drmies (talk) 15:19, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:06, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair points. I'll point out that the episode is the first to my knowledge to be a full half an hour instead of a 15 minute short, and it is also the first time that a Crystal Gem from the past has made an appearance. That being said, there is truth that this is of questionable notability, and along the same lines of questionable sourcing as well. I vote keep, but then I am fan, so I am inherently biased here. (PS: I would be alright with merging and/or redirecting the article to an episode list for the series.) TomStar81 (Talk) 03:44, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If the threshold is number of RS, I would vote keep as there are additional reviews by ComicsAlliance, The Mary Sue, Paste (magazine) and iDigitalTimes. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 17:34, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:58, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mahesh Dutt Sharma

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

Lack of reliable sources in the article and online makes this article a candidate for deletion. Marvellous Spider-Man 15:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:42, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:42, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:42, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:50, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unsourced BLP. Subject lacks coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 03:57, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails to meet WP:GNG. Claims made in article appear to me for some reason nothing but hoax. Anup [Talk] 20:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. All arguments in favour of deletion, seems like, the mayhaps too quick tagging nonwithstanding. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Johann Christian Süss

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

Potentially fails WP:GNG Ueutyi (talk) 00:56, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:49, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:49, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:49, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. I don't think that potentially interesting articles should be AfDed so soon after creation, only 7 hours. Give the creator a chance! Give advise, help, whatever. Zero^talk 09:50, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Possible keep -- though I would prefer this to be merged into something more general, as I am dubious of its merits. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:29, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not seeing notability for stand alone stub. A sad trivial footnote. Kierzek (talk) 17:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:49, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It is a very sad event, but it is really trivial and does not receive the appropriate coverage for a standalone article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:37, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I'm seeing a mention of the incident in Der Spiegel (link), but this is WP:BIO1E at best. The article also presents an odd assertion that "This is clearly against the rules of war which state that no soldier in custody may be killed.[3]" The soldier was executed by the Wehrmacht, as I understand, so "no soldier in custody may be killed" does not apply. I thus recommend deleting the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:02, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, criterion G12, copyright violation. Material copied wholesale from the MACR website. —C.Fred (talk) 02:40, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Massachusetts Alliance of College Republicans

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

JLOPO (talk) 02:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Palmer (ice hockey)

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 02:18, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on ECHL and CHL, both of those are (well, one is now defunct but it wasn't at the time) mid-level minor league hockey teams. Wouldn't that qualify for the "second tier national league" bit given at WP:NHOCKEY? Add in the fact that he played goalie, with the cutoff being 90 games and between the ECHL and the CHL he played 92....well there's my logic. Willing to listen to comments though. Ah, there's the list. Delete, fails WP:NHOCKEY. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 03:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neither of those leagues qualify under "second tier national league" given the list that is supplied. And just in case, the "award" that is listed in the bio is factual stats, but there is no award (or even recognition) from the IIHF for that.18abruce (talk) 16:16, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NHOCKEY.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another non-notable ice hockey player. A lot of the ones we have articles on were born in 1988, which may be why this year is the one we have the articles on the most people born in it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:51, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE-ish given the low input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hany Rambod

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Notability is not inherited from his clients duffbeerforme (talk) 13:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:09, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject is known for creating FST7, a contemporary fitness/muscle building technique. The sources (questionable RS) quoted in the article talk about FST7 and refer to the subject's involvement in its development. The subject Hany Rambod's background is an insignificant mention in any of the sources. In fact, two sources don't even have his name in the complete source. The subject is undoubtedly a multiple time award winner. But on GNG, there is hardly any source to qualify the subject. The closest the subject comes to notability is on ANYBIO, which notes that a person may be notable if "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field". There are two issues here. One, is FST7 a "widely recognized contribution"? Second, is there any evidence that this has become part of the "enduring historical record in the subject's field"? Unfortunately, the answer to both seems in the negative right now. This might of course change in the future. WP:BIODEL mentions: "If a deletion discussion of any biographical article (of whether a well known or less known individual) has received few or no comments from any editor besides the nominator, the discussion may be closed at the closer's discretion and best judgment." The best judgement here seems to delete the article. Lourdes 03:29, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 21:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The One Hundred (band)

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

fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 12:40, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Quite a bit of coverage from Kerrang! (some cited), a session for BBC Radio 1 ([101]), plus various other bits of coverage: [102], [103], [104], [105], [106]. --Michig (talk) 14:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:59, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:09, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:58, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leader of the Opposition (Bulgaria)

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

This seems like WP:OR original research, and that there is no such thing as "Leader of the Opposition" in Bulgarian proportionally-elected parliament. The same reasoning from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List_of_Serbian_parliamentary_opposition_leaders and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leader of the Opposition (Sweden) holds: this title is only applicable to Westminster System and similar. The article is unsourced as to the application and legitimacy of such position, apart from the obvious election results. No such user (talk) 11:34, 22 August 2016 (UTC) No such user (talk) 11:34, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. No such user (talk) 11:38, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. No such user (talk) 11:38, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:59, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SYN. A Parliamentary system does not automatically establish the official existence of an Official Opposition. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 06:57, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:09, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is simply a localized position and then also only containing a list of those exact politicians; all in all, there's not even enough to suggest we could accept as its own article, therefore this is honestly best mentioned elsewhere. SwisterTwister talk 00:16, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 21:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One2like.de

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:WEB. The meedia.de reference doesn't actually mention One2like. (apologies for the archive.is, Wayback Machine did not have the link) Sunmist (talk) 10:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Sunmist (talk) 10:19, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Sunmist (talk) 10:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:59, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:05, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 07:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Praize

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 13:58, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the subjects basically passes WP:MUSICBIO per these sources News Echo, The Punch and National Mirror. He has also released over 5 albums and has also performed in the UK and Liberian Observer Liberia. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 15:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of the reliable source coverage listed above which needs to be added to the article so passes WP:BASIC, the article is less promo than it wasAtlantic306 (talk) 17:05, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:06, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:04, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:35, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blow & Drive Interlock

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

Every reference is a press release or a minor notice., DGG ( talk ) 02:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the very poor sources indicate that the company has not yet attained notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:53, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Disappointed that the article isn't quite as saucy as the title suggested. But seriously, this is a terribly sourced article that does not appear to pass WP:CORP. Every single reference is to a press release save one, and that one is a gossip column post about who the company's director of marketing is dating. A Train^talk 10:50, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete, independent sources and citations have been added. 12:57, 8 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2CF0:9F0:DD7B:19D2:20A7:7DB0 (talk)

So the "independent sources" that were added appear to be a press release posted on Equities.com, a mention of the company on a Bravo blog post because a reality star is dating the marketing director, and a Bloomberg listing showing that the company is a publicly-traded penny stock (being publicly traded is in and of itself not enough to establish encyclopedic notability). I think I'm still pretty sure we should delete this one. A Train^talk 21:56, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Comparison of rugby league and rugby union. History of rugby league was also mentioned as a possible merge target. I'll leave it up to whoever does the merge to figure out which makes more sense (or, maybe even, some things work better in one place and some things in the other).

I'm not convinced leaving a redirect behind would be truly useful as a navigation tool (it seems like an unlikely search term), but it's harmless, and serves the additional purpose of providing a good audit/attribution trail, so go for it. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship between rugby league and rugby union

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

This page seems to be POV and frankly written like a school essay (not suggesting cleanup though). The topic seems to also seems to be covered very well at History_of_rugby_league. I would redirect but the term seems improbable. Savonneux (talk) 06:56, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 07:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 07:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete agree with nom. As rugby league was a game derived from rugby union it's better covered in history of rugby league article. LibStar (talk) 16:36, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:10, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:58, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge somewhere. Possibly Comparison of rugby league and rugby union or History of rugby league. Despite the claim that "The topic ... seems to be covered very well at History_of_rugby_league" I did not see any of the Relationship between rugby league and rugby union#21st century information in that article. It would be WP:SYNTH to suggest the four instances are part of a pattern of union trying to stamp on league, but that's not a cause for deleting all the information. jnestorius^(talk) 22:09, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Comparison of rugby league and rugby union or History of rugby league. Some of this information would be useful in either of the two aforementioned articles. Only the adequately referenced text of course. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 01:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 21:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Croatian Youth Party

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

No significant coverage, does not claim notability. A very minor, defunct party. GregorB (talk) 18:41, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Search results indicate no notability. KGirlTrucker81^{talk what I'm been doing} 20:26, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:23, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:53, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:31, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Debasis Panigrahi

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

The sources cited here do not appear to support the notability of the subject (indeed, most do not mention the subject). A Google search reveals a book published by a vanity press, and not much more. It may be worth looking for non-English sources to support notability. agtx 18:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This source, which is cited in the article, says that the subject has received a Sahitya Akademi Award. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:09, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:09, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, although this and his website states Panigrahi winning a Odisha(or Orissa) Sahitya Akademi Award, i have been unable to confirm this at the award's own website. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That does seem to cast serious doubt on the reliability of the Indian Express source. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:24, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Sources: Indian Express, The Hindu, [107], [108]. @Coolabahapple: Odisha Sahitya Academy Award is not (Orissa) Sahitya Akademi Award. Both are different. You were looking into a wrong website; the correct one is odishasahityaakademi.org. Anup [Talk] 20:19, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anup, is this something you (or anyone else reading) would want to work on? I got started cutting out some of the promotional language and unsourced claims, and moving what refs there were to the appropriate claim, but I don't really feel competent to take it any further; I just don't have enough contextual knowledge to feel confident in my interpretation of the sources. But if someone else did want to, userfy seems like it could be a good solution here. (Otherwise I'm still chewing on DGG's delete as promo arg.) Innisfree987 (talk) 19:18, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. as promotional, and , if actually notable, in need of total rewriting from sources. This is written in exactly the style of many prootional bios of writers where peoplethink that stating superlatives in the article makes for proof of notability If there are sources, someone interested in using them should write the article. Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion Clear promotionalism is an equally good reason. Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encyclopedia DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO with a touch of WP:TNT. This is a poorly referenced promotional essay and is best deleted, without prejudice to recreation with RS and neutral tone. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:23, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Atychiphobia

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

No WP:MEDRS references. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:56, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:50, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Neutrality^talk 04:05, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete - The article was massively padded with a) general content about phobias; 2) OR/SYN; 3) content based on sources that were about anxiety not phobia, some of which were 30-40 years old. A pubmed search for reviews yields nothing see? Just fun with greek. Jytdog (talk) 06:08, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDICT and absence of reliable medical sources, indeed absence of multiple sources of any sort. Nowhere near notable. It's about on the level of a special word for eaters of walnuts that found its way into a dictionary's introduction as an example of what the dictionary didn't need to include. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:56, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Why was this completely removed instead of trimmed to a stub that at least keeps the definition? Nergaal (talk) 08:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agraphobia

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

No WP:MEDRS references. despite being tagged for unref since 2014 Staszek Lem (talk) 16:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:41, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:41, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:50, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Neutrality^talk 04:05, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete - indeed a pubmed search yields nothing see? Just fun with greek. Jytdog (talk) 04:32, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not reliable source? http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Agoraphobia/Pages/Symptoms.aspx Fruitmince (talk) 17:31, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- wrong phobia: AgOraphobia. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:44, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is society for this phobia, but not NPOV. Also, Google test not passed, considering latter results relating to reliable sources are "did you mean..." Fruitmince (talk) 22:16, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scriptophobia

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

No WP:MEDRS references. despite being tagged for notability since 2014 Staszek Lem (talk) 16:34, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did find a couple of articles published in the scientific literature describing attempts to offer therapy to people who had showed some phobic avoidance of writing in public: a 1985 case study of one person [109] and a 1981 study with three persons [110]. The 1981 study by Biran, Augusto and Wilson has been cited by at least 40 other articles, with many of these being other authors writing on phobia topics. But so far, there is not enough here to demonstrate notability. Drchriswilliams (talk) 07:32, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:50, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Neutrality^talk 04:05, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete - A pubmed search for reviews yields nothing see? and the content mistakes anxiety for a phobia. Different animals. This article is just OR + fun with greek. Jytdog (talk) 06:49, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Amount of people studied is too small to draw any concrete conclusions.Fruitmince (talk) 17:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:35, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chinonophobia

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

First of all, it would apparently be "Chionophobia" (the first "n" is spurious), but in any case again there is the usual lack of medical literature. The only significant hit was an AMS article on severe weather phobias in general. Mangoe (talk) 16:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:16, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Specific phobia. This phobia has a name in the DSM and ICD and it's not "chionophobia". It's listed specific phobia, subtype "Natural environment (e.g., heights, storms, water)" DSM:300.29/ICD:F40.228. As a term, "chronophobia" fails WP:GNG and should be deleted per WP:DICTDEF and WP:NEO. —PermStrump(talk) 04:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:50, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect' per above. Neutrality^talk 04:06, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete no significant coverage per WP:MEDRS. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:38, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chorophobia

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

When I was a kid, I avoided having to dance because I was a social pariah up into high school and a klutz until well into college. It was hardly an unreasonable fear, under the circumstances. Meanwhile we have this made-up thing with no trace in the literature and a lot of claims about what such a phobia would be like which I have to think were the supposition of whoever wrote this, because they don't come from any reliable source. Mangoe (talk) 16:46, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:15, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are sufficient times when the term is used in the media. Whether it is a "real" phobia or not (ie whether real people actually suffer from a fear of dancing) is irrelevant, and yes there are indications that it may not be a valid medical term but so what -- since our job here as Wikipedians is not to make such a determination. Rather, when it is used in places like here and here and other places, it's a term. I can imagine a movie script with such a premise as a chorophobic shivering in his boots on a dance floor. Plus The Guardian says it exists.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:12, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:49, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete no significant coverage per WP:MEDRS. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:52, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kulhari

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

Fails WP:GNG. There was previously a misguided removal of a PROD. The subject appears to lack meaningful coverage in reliable sources. Sitush (talk) 16:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

del no evidence. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:59, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:49, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 21:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Search results come back with items not related to the subject of this page, thus lacking coverage and notability. Meatsgains (talk) 22:18, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a comment to the editors who actually work for the company: please read WP:COI. You should not be the people writing this article. If it is worth writing about, other uninvolved editors will do so. MelanieN (talk) 00:40, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alert Logic

AfDs for this article:

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

This is an article on a small privately-held company. Having removed the dozen or more self-references, what's left is a small number of press releases printed in the trade press. There are no substantive sources about the company. The article has a long history of promotional editing. It's been here nearly ten years and it still lacks any sources to establish WP:GNG. I think by now it's unlikely that it ever will have such sources. Guy (Help!) 20:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback. I apologize about the self-references as it is legitimate information being added to the page, I was under the impression we could cite our own website but since this is my first time doing a Wikipedia edit i was unaware. We have tried to remain neutral on our approach to updating our Wikipedia page just citing where we received our information from. I can adjust citing accordingly if need be. Let me know what steps we can take to avoid having this article deleted. Thank you. --Jharrelson (talk) 20:56, 30 August 2016 (UTC) — Jharrelson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep (moderate) Getting information about private companies is one of the great conundrums in business research. While I was getting my Library & Information Studies MS degree, I interned at Lippincott Library for the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania. I can tell you that getting information about private companies was not easy then & is not easy now. Private companies simply do not have to disclose much about themselves.

That said, I do think that Alert Logic is notable in computer security. I think that there are enough non-primary & non-press release articles to reference an article. It is never going to be a good article while the company is private, but then we don't delete articles because they are stub or start class.

Here is a list of news articles about Alert Logic. Yeah, there's probably about 5% that are usable as references once you winnow through them. That's not much, but I think there is enough to establish notability.

"alert logic" -site:alertlogic.com - Google News Search

Peaceray (talk) 22:16, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO; advertorial content on an unremarkable small company. The article has a history of SPA (possibly COI) editing, followed by reverts of promotional material. Rather than continue to waste volunteer editors' time trying to maintain neutrality of the article, I recommend deletion. Sourcing is weak to meet GNG anyway. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:56, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:56, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:57, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:37, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Outside press releases, the only coverage is of it acquiring another company and being acquired. Business as usual. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it stands and probably salt until a convincing article can be written - David Gerard (talk) 10:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We are currently working on getting this page rectified so that it is in accordance with Wikipedia Notability Guidelines and make sure that it does not meet WP:PROMO issues. Please do not delete. Any suggestions would greatly be appreciated so we may not lose our article. Thank you. Jharrelson (talk) 21:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC) — Jharrelson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
We have updated this page in accordance with Wikipedia Notability Guidelines, and have tried avoid running into any WP:PROMO issues. further suggestions would greatly be appreciated if you think any additional compliance measures should be taken. Thank you for your patience. Jake.orlando (talk) 21:46, 7 September 2016 (UTC) — Jake.orlando (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment -- still reads as WP:PROMO and does not add value to the encyclopedia. I'm not changing my "delete" vote. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:50, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Please review revision 738257925 as the user JzG has reverted back to his version that is not accurate. Version 738257925 has notable references and looks to be neutral but I will leave that to the admins to decide. Please provide the us requesting to make the changes suggestions on what we can do to improve the quality of the page. We have added the request for change in the page's talk tab per WP:COI but have not received any feedback and we're request number 152 in a queue that dates back to mid 2015. We're trying to follow Wikipedia guidelines but we have not received any help form any community members outside of Peaceray. We've been researching as people post issues but we're kind of learning Wikipedia backwards and trying to stay within guidelines. So again any help or recommendations on how to improve the quality of the article so we can keep our company page would be great. Thank You. Jharrelson (talk) 15:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an admin, I know what constitutes reliable sources, and I also know what constitutes promotional editing (which your edits were). Guy (Help!) 15:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback, it is appreciated. Right now Network world, BBC News, Bloomberg, Info World and the Houston Business Journal are listed as reliable or neutral sources. Should those be removed? Also, can you point to which section or piece of information comes across as "promotional editing" so we can remove that as well in an effort to make the page where it provides value to Wikipedia readers and follows Wikipedia standards. Thanks again for your time and feedback. Jharrelson (talk) 16:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 being relisted, there is consensus against this being deleted. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:01, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vilambit

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

Article fails to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N). Umair Aj (talk) 21:16, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a fundamental concept in Hindustani music, so we should have an article on it. --Deskford (talk) 08:09, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. It is not the question of some fundamental concept rather it should be according to (WP:N) and I can't find evidence that this topic has been discussed by reliable sources. Umair Aj (talk) 19:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Umair Aj, do not add bolded delete !votes on your on own Afd. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Struck duplicate !vote from nominator; the nomination is considered as your !vote. However, feel free to comment all you'd like. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:32, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the article mentions that the topic forms part of a raga – I don't know enough about the topic to say for certain, but would it make sense to include it as part of that article? Richard3120 (talk) 04:41, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- See my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jor (music). --Deskford (talk) 09:21, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:32, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets WP:GNG. One just needs to dig deep into sources. Majority are supposed to exist in print media. See this one. Anup [Talk] 19:29, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 being relisted, there is consensus against this being deleted. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:01, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drut

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

This article fails to meet the relevant notability guideline. Umair Aj (talk) 21:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a fundamental concept in Hindustani music, so we should have an article on it. --Deskford (talk) 08:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. It is not the question of some fundamental concept. I can't find evidence that this topic has been discussed by reliable sources and is violation of notability guideline. Umair Aj (talk) 19:49, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Umair Aj, do not add bolded delete !votes on your on own Afd. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Struck duplicate !vote from nominator; the nomination is considered as your !vote. However, feel free to comment all you'd like. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:30, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the article mentions that the topic in question forms part of a raga – I don't know enough about the topic to say for certain, but would it make sense to include it as part of that article? Richard3120 (talk) 04:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- See my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jor (music). --Deskford (talk) 09:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:30, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Seems to be a notable aspect of Hindustani Classical Music. There are thousands of hit on Google books. Anup [Talk] 19:33, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) — Music1201 ^talk 21:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hillary Clinton Supreme Court candidates

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

An article on potential nominations to the US Supreme Court by Hillary Clinton is speculative. This article should be created if Mrs. Clinton is actually elected.

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." Since the President-elect is not yet known, we do not know whether that person would ever be able to nominate a Supreme Court justice.

Those who disagree with me will likely point out that the same policy states: "As an exception, even highly speculative articles about events that may or may not occur far in the future might be appropriate, where coverage in reliable sources is sufficient." I recognize and appreciate the author's (mainly BD2412) efforts to include references, but Mrs. Clinton has not released an official list of candidates she would nominate. From the same policy: "Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content."

In contrast, Donald Trump has released a list of people that he would nominate to the Supreme Court, if he were to be elected. Since Mr. Trump has released a list, while Mrs. Clinton has not, I am not combining this AfD with Donald Trump Supreme Court candidates. I do not nominate Donald Trump Supreme Court candidates for deletion at this time, as I'd like to focus on this discussion first. (WP:MULTIAFD: "for group nominations it is often a good idea to only list one article at afd and see how it goes, before listing an entire group.") Others may nominate that article for deletion, if they are interested.

Regards -- Edge3 (talk) 01:06, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is exactly the kind of sourcing used for the articles that have previously been created for George W. Bush Supreme Court candidates and Barack Obama Supreme Court candidates, both created before either subject actually nominated anyone to the Supreme Court. As in these cases, reliable sources have indicated who is likely to be considered by the candidates. The only difference is that the election has not been held yet, but there is already a vacancy on the Supreme Court, so there is no question of whether there will be at least one nominee, whether they succeed or not. bd2412 T 01:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input. The Obama article was created on November 7, 2008, three days after the election. (Coincidentally, the article was created by you! Thanks for your contribution to that article also.) I wouldn't say "there is no question" of whether the next President will fill the Scalia vacancy. Theoretically, that vacancy could be filled anytime before the next President takes office, for whatever reason that may motivate the Republican Senators to act. Edge3 (talk) 01:17, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As a practical matter there is no question. If Trump is elected, they won't go forward; if Clinton is elected, they won't go forward without her saying so. Either way, there are reliable sources stating who a Clinton nominee would be based on the knowledge of experts in the field. Note that the fact that Trump released a list of potential nominees during the primaries is hardly a guarantee that he would nominate a judge from that list, either. bd2412 T 01:54, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, we have an article on Jimmy Carter Supreme Court candidates. Of course, Carter never got to appoint anyone, but there were still candidates discussed. bd2412 T 02:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to pose a hypothetical situation (which actually has been mentioned in the news as a possibility). Suppose that Clinton wins the election. The Republicans may decide to approve the Garland nomination before Obama's term expires, rather than risk Clinton nominating a more liberal justice. In this situation, Garland would be considered an Obama appointee, not a Clinton appointee. At that point, this article (in its current form) would cover a Scalia vacancy that never occurred during a Clinton administration. Edge3 (talk) 02:09, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It would still be a historical fact that several high-level reliable sources chose to write about who Clinton would appoint to the Scalia vacancy. To a degree, these discussions are generic. If the Scalia seat is filled, the same group of judges (minus Garland) would be considered Clinton's likely picks for the next vacancy to open. This remains true even if Clinton, like Carter, were never to have an appointment to fill. bd2412 T 02:38, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:13, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:13, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ^Falling_Gravity 02:30, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball, as the nominator rightly points out. What it is is an encyclopedia, and this article is very much an encyclopedic one. Hillary Clinton is a leading candidate for President, and one of the most crucial responsibilities of that role is to nominate justices to the Supreme Court -- so speculation about who she would nominate is unquestionably notable. The nominator points out that Clinton has not officially released a list of nominees -- this is fine, because that list would constitute a primary source. Wikipedia's concern is with secondary sources, and this article is chock full of reliable secondary sources. This article is exactly the sort of thing that a general reader will value immensely in 20 years (whether or not Clinton wins the election in November), especially because the Trump campaign has sought to make Supreme Court appointments a key issue. A Train^talk 10:42, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable, well-sourced, and will continue to be notable whether or not Clinton wins the election. Smartyllama (talk) 15:02, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If Trump's list is ok, so is this one. Nevermore27 (talk) 02:05, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually about to nominate the Trump article also, but decided not to bundle the AfDs since there were enough differences between both lists. I'm not arguing that the Trump list is okay, but rather that I'm not submitting an AfD at this time. Edge3 (talk) 02:28, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll quickly add that due to the growing "Keep" consensus here, I'm not likely to nominate the Trump article for deletion, unless the outcome of this discussion drastically changes. But I advise you to consider Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, and that the lack of AfD for the Trump article shouldn't affect the outcome of an AfD for the Clinton article. Edge3 (talk) 02:36, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Speculation over potential nominations" (subject of this page as defined in the 1st phrase) is not an Encyclopedia subject. Yes, other crap exists. My very best wishes (talk) 04:04, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- We have an entire article on Speculation. The distinction is that it is not our speculation, but that of reliable sources. If we didn't include that in an encyclopedia, we wouldn't have any articles in the area of theoretical physics. bd2412 T 04:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - We even have a special policy about this. It tells: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." It's not certain. My very best wishes (talk) 04:17, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTALBALL has come up a couple of times now, so let me specifically rebut that argument. That policy states unequivocally that "[p]redictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included[.]" The sources for the article in question include the two most prominent newspapers in the United States (The New York Times and The Washington Post) and the journal of the American Bar Association. Clearly these represent "expert sources". The WP:GNG demands depth of coverage, and these sources aren't articles that mention the subject in passing, they are entirely devoted to the subject. Therefore the article complies entirely with the demands of WP:CRYSTALBALL and the general notability guideline.

But moreover, the spirit of CRYSTALBALL is to keep original research and personal essays out of the encyclopedia. The article passes that test, too: there isn't one iota of original speculation in the article, it's just reporting speculation from experts as a tertiary source, which is the essence of what Wikipedia is. None of this is crap, as User:My very best wishes terms it. It's content of great historical interest, especially because Trump's campaign has made Supreme Court appointments a particular point of contention in this election.

Let me make an analogy here -- and not for the purpose of pointing out that other stuff exists, but simply to help frame this issue. We have an article for 2024 Summer Olympics. The 2024 Games may never come to pass, and we don't even know what city will host them yet because the campaigns are still in progress. But if you look at the reference section for that article, it's enormous. That's because a huge amount has been written about the cities who are campaigning to host the games. Only one of the four cities will win the right to host the games, but all four of the campaigns are encyclopedic content, win or lose. A Train^talk 10:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clinton said that if elected she will nominate new unnamed judge(s). But this this something almost every new president does. I fail to see how this trivial matter is significant. By comparison, planning new Olympic games (which occur well in advance) is indeed something significant. Note that panning new Olympic games takes place right now and therefore represent current, not a future event. My very best wishes (talk) 13:36, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With all respect, if you can say that appointing Supreme Court justices is a "trivial matter", then I think you're revealing how unfamiliar you are with the subject being discussed. A Train^talk 13:50, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not really about appointment of new judges, but about a presidential candidate saying that she will appoint some unnamed judges if elected. Yes, I think this is a trivial matter. My very best wishes (talk) 14:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you keep referring to them as "judges" rather than "Justices" (virtually all Justices are already judges) is a bit disconcerting. Such an appointment is more than merely speculative: there is an existing vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court, which is now split 4-4. The nomination of the next Justice will be of enormous consequence, even if that appointment is blocked perpetually. That is precisely why high level sources are reporting on this issue. bd2412 T 15:36, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 wolf attacks . -- RoySmith (talk) 23:17, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cigar Lake Mine wolf attack

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

NOT NEWS -- minor event, which would be better just mentioned in a general articles DGG ( talk ) 00:30, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:40, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:40, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Barely a local news event, and Wikipedia is not a you-know-what. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:39, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article is historically significant and encyclopedic. There are plenty of citations. This article is the same as many related articles on Wikipedia: Death of Kenton Joel Carnegie and Taylor Mitchell. There are many other similar articles in the following +cats Category:Deaths due to wolf attacks, Category:Deaths due to bear attacks, Category:Deaths due to coyote attacks, Category:Deaths due to dog attacks there are many others! IQ125 (talk) 12:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

see WP:OTHERSTUFF, but I have not dismissed this argument without considering it. Taylor Mitchell was a singer of some modest notability. Death of Kenton Joel Carnegie appears to have attracted media attention because the cause of his death was unclear.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:15, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Taylor Mitchell may not have been famous exactly, but she attained her notability by passing WP:NMUSIC as a recording and touring musician before she was attacked by coyotes, not by the fact of dying in a coyote attack — even if she hadn't been attacked at all and were still alive, that article would still exist as the coyote attack actually had nothing to do with making her notable (all it actually accomplished was getting the article started perhaps a few weeks earlier than it would have otherwise, but her basic includability was because album and concert tour and music award nomination, not because coyotes.) Carnegie is sourced and substanced as having had significant impacts beyond simply documenting the fact that he was attacked. Every wolf or coyote attack that has ever happened at all is not automatically a suitable article topic just because it happened; we need something more than "thing that happened", such as enduring impacts or a victim who was already notable for other reasons anyway, before a standalone article is warranted. Bearcat (talk) 19:40, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to List of fatal coyote and wolf attacks in Canada because few sources plus a the perfect target exists.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:15, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, the guy survived. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:30, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As mentioned, its a local event, that has no evidence of any ongoing notability outside of the current news cycle. Wikipedia is not a newspaper.64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:10, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of wolf attacks per WP:NOTNEWS. With just one source and no substance beyond "this happened", the depth of coverage and the significance needed to make this a suitable standalone article topic has not been shown — and the other proposed merge target, List of fatal coyote and wolf attacks in Canada, isn't suitable because the guy didn't die. Also it was created by the same user at the same time, isn't needed as a separate topic from the overview article that already exists, and is also up for AFD on that basis. But the more general list doesn't have a fatality restriction on it, which makes it a more viable target. Bearcat (talk) 19:40, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of wolf attacks per WP:NOTNEWS; not notable on its own. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:32, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 wolf attacks . Also, after the merge, move this to Patricia Wyman and make that a redirect to List of wolf attacks. That's a better search term, and doing it this way will preserve the history. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:17, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Wyman wolf attack

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

NOT NEWS -- minor event, which would be better just mentioned in a general articles DGG ( talk ) 00:29, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:42, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (and redirect Patricia Wyman) to List of fatal coyote and wolf attacks in Canada. Doesn't merit a standalone article. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect very few sources plus a the perfect target exists.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:05, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of wolf attacks per WP:NOTNEWS. With just one source and no substance beyond "this happened", the depth of coverage and the significance needed to make this a suitable standalone article topic has not been shown — and the other proposed merge target, List of fatal coyote and wolf attacks in Canada, was created by the same user at the same time, isn't needed as a separate topic from the overview article that already exists, and is also up for AFD on that basis. Bearcat (talk) 20:59, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 fatal coyote and wolf attacks in Canada. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 21:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Cochrane wolf attack

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

NOT NEWS -- minor event, which would be better just mentioned in a general article DGG ( talk ) 00:28, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:42, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of fatal coyote and wolf attacks in Canada. Doesn't merit a standalone article. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article is historically significant and encyclopedic. This article is the same as many related articles on Wikipedia: Death of Kenton Joel Carnegie and Taylor Mitchell. There are many other similar articles in the following +cats Category:Deaths due to wolf attacks, Category:Deaths due to bear attacks, Category:Deaths due to coyote attacks, Category:Deaths due to dog attacks there are many others! IQ125 (talk) 12:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Mitchell doesn't have an article because coyote attack; she has an article because she was a recording and touring musician who had already attained notability via WP:NMUSIC before she was attacked. Kenton Carnegie might be more comparable to this, but that article cites 34 distinct reliable sources and shows substantial evidence of ongoing impacts, while this one cites just one reference and says nothing more than "this happened" — so it hasn't been shown that they're equivalent at all. Bearcat (talk) 19:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect, Dear heaven, the horror of it, However, there are very few sources plus a the perfect target exists List of fatal coyote and wolf attacks in Canada.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:08, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of fatal coyote and wolf attacks in Canada per WP:NOTNEWS. Do not see evidence of WP:PERSISTENCE in coverage. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:05, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:21, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of wolf attacks per WP:NOTNEWS. With just one source and no substance beyond "this happened", the depth of coverage and the significance needed to make this a suitable standalone article topic has not been shown — and the other proposed merge target, List of fatal coyote and wolf attacks in Canada, was created by the same user at the same time, isn't needed as a separate topic from the overview article that already exists, and is also up for AFD on that basis. Bearcat (talk) 19:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per above. While deaths by animal attack can be notable even if the victim was not previously notable, this requires sustained coverage in multiple reliable sources. This doesn't come close. Smartyllama (talk) 17:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of wolf attacks. Like the other ongoing wolf attack related AFDs, this one was a local incident that never generated any long lasting or widespread effects that would grant it notability. The only source is a small blurb in a local paper, which is not enough to sustain an article.64.183.45.226 (talk) 19:32, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 07:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Magic: The Gathering deck types

AfDs for this article:

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

This is as much WP:GAMEGUIDE as it gets, innit? —Wasell^(T) 14:55, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I actually don't like this article, but (as I mentioned in the last nomination), WP:GAMEGUIDE is about video games. This in not a how-to guide, and it does meet WP:GNG. But the way it is written coming across as a laundry list of decks that might have been competitive at one point quickly gets dated. If you strip it down to its essence, you end up with something that might better fit into a larger MTG strategy article. I would support some sort of merge. - Sangrolu (talk) 15:35, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, WP:GAMEGUIDE is merely one of many redirects to Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_manual.2C_guidebook.2C_textbook.2C_or_scientific_journal, which covers all manner of how-tos -- video games being just one example. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I understand that; it's in the same general category, but the wording is a bit more of a low bar, making it a bit easier to misapply. I don't think this article (or many that get falsely flagged under WP:GAMEGUIDE) qualifies as a manual, guidebook, or textbook. - Sangrolu (talk) 01:30, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It might take some effort to fine sources but there might be a possible article for "Deck types in tabletop/digital CCGs", as several of the deck types here also come into line with Hearthstone, for example. So an article that describes the general approaches these decks across all CCGs have (eg aggro decks generally being of easily-played, low value cards to constantly be on the offensive). But whether such sources would exist for that, I don't know. --MASEM (t) 17:01, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I haven't looked at every single source in the article, but the majority seem to be how-to guides. Just because a site that is reliable covers the topic of deck composition does not mean that they are establishing notability for the topic as a whole. Using the topic of video games, GameSpot and other such sites will have various gameplay guides. That's a reliable site, but that would not mean an article on a game's gameplay would have notability established due to that. That is explicit game guide material and nothing shows the potential to develop the article as a whole in such a way that such restructuring is possible. The idea that it somehow only applies to video games is silly. Games are games, guides are guides, and this is a game guide. It's basically an issue of WP:WEIGHT, and everything shows that Magic: The Gathering#Deck construction has a decent overview of the topic. TTN (talk) 20:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of sources out there. [111] in an entire independent book dedicated to this type of thing. [112] more broadly discusses gaming and includes these notions (from what I can tell) and certainly isn't a game guide. And while we aren't a game guide, it's fine to use game guides as a source. [113] is a fine example. And this article isn't a game guide. It doesn't tell you how to play a game, it discusses the terminology of the basic strategy of game. We have a whole category for baseball strategy [114]. Hobit (talk) 12:31, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- If it is terminology that is confined to the bounds of a specific game and not outside of it, it is a gameguide material, unless it can be demonstrated that the strategy aspects are important well outside the field (eg chess for example but its got centuries on Magic). This is why my above suggestion if this could be made more generalized across all CCGs and not just Magic, then there's a viable article here that's not gameguide material. --MASEM (t) 16:41, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Eh. #1 to quote: "...But avoid lists of gameplay weapons, items, or concepts, unless these are notable as discussed in secondary sources in their own right in gaming context (such as the BFG9000 from the Doom series)" certainly we've got plenty of secondary sources discussing this in it's own right, it's a lot more notable than the example given. #2 as you've noted, this terminology has carried over to other games. Plenty of documentation on that too. Not currently a focus of the article, but it could be added. #3 We have plenty of articles on other things, such as sports, like this. Baseball is a prime example and we have lots of articles that discuss baseball terminology and strategy. You get consensus that those should be deleted, I'd start to buy your argument. Hobit (talk) 19:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hobit and per the multiple independent RS identified in the last AfD in 2013. If anything, MtG deck building just has even more RS coverage since then. Jclemens (talk) 01:56, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:27, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the topic of MTG deck types is really notable, there have got to be better sources than Wizards (primary source), and StarCity Games (questionable reliability).--Prisencolin (talk) 04:48, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think this debate would be very different if the "plenty of sources" mentioned above by Hobit were present in the article. As it stands, the entirety of the article is sourced to Wizards of the Coast (a primary source) and Star City Games, which is a retail outlet for Magic supplies and not a reliable source. Given that Magic has been around for 25 years I wouldn't be surprised if there were lots of secondary sources to support an article like this, but where are they? Hobit brings up this (possibly vanity press?) book and a book by David Sirlin that isn't actually about Magic or building Magic decks -- his specialty is arcade fighting games like Street Fighter. This doesn't suggest that the topic meets the bar of WP:GNG. Happy to revist my argument if more sources arise. A Train^talk 10:20, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- First of all, as always, the state of the article has nothing to do with the topic meeting WP:N. Secondly, people keep asking for "wider impact" so I cited a book largely not about MtG that discusses the tactics of MtG. Isn't that exactly what "wider impact" means? Finally, I'm really not seeing the problem with Star City. Yes, their business is reselling cards, mainly MtG cards. But if a used car dealer for race cars wrote articles about optimizing a car for racing, I don't see how that couldn't be used as a source for the cars in question. Starcity isn't a part of the owner of MtG and, I suspect, isn't something the MtG people particularly care for. Hobit (talk) 20:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hobit:, to see the problem with Star City, have a look at the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Vendor_and_e-commerce_sources guideline. Stores and vendors are acceptable for use as sources only "in order to verify such things as titles and running times". It is expected that Wikipedia sources (same guideline) "should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". I don't think that the content writers for Star City Games have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, though I'd love to see any evidence to the contrary.

Finally, I'm not talking about the current state of the article when I ask for more reliable sources -- what I'm getting at is that reliable sources for this topic don't seem to exist and I sincerely doubt that they do. One self-published memoir from a Magic player and a passing mention in David Sirlin's book won't cut it. You talk disparagingly above about baseball strategy but the fact is that you could build an Egyptian pyramid out of all the books that have been written about baseball strategy; we can't even begin to find one book about building Magic decks. A Train^talk 11:10, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you actually reading what i've posted? I cited a book that is solely about building Magic decks. [115] is another one. [116] looks to have both an overview of how to play and how to build decks (but I can't see much of it). Have you actually searched yourself? I'm guessing based on your statement "we can't even begin to find one book about building Magic decks." that perhaps you have not. Hobit (talk) 02:53, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hobit:, I am absolutely, 100% reading what you're posting. Please return the courtesy and read what I'm posting. I addressed the Michael Flores memoir you posted earlier -- it's a vanity press book published by an apparently defunct Magic card vendor. You haven't actually responded to the meat of my argument: do any of these sources meet the bar of WP:RS?I've said below (and you haven't directly addressed this, btw) I think that Wizards of the Coast and Star City Games are not reliable sources, and at the moment the entire article is exclusively sourced to them. If you're finding Magic books in Google Books searches, that's great, but I think you need to prove that they meet the bar of WP:RS. Likewise, you're telling us that the David Sirlin book is a good source. Great. I would happily change my !vote if you can work the David Sirlin material and other reliable sources into the article. A Train^talk 21:39, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You keep saying things that are either wrong ("we can't even begin to find one book about building Magic decks, and that WotC isn't reliable) or show a lack of understanding of AfD (we should delete because the sources aren't in the article). (WotC isn't independent of the subject, but it is reliable, see WP:BIASED and just generally read WP:RS). I acknowledge that there are reasonable arguments that the topic may not met WP:GNG (though I think those arguments are mistaken, they are still reasonable). But it's hard to hold a discussion when you keep saying things that just aren't so or are irrelevant to the discussion. So I'm going to bow out of this discussion with you at this point as I don't think there is a productive way forward. Hobit (talk) 03:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you feel that way. For what it's worth, I feel that my understanding of AfD is sound and I don't feel as if you've addressed the meat of my argument, it just seems that you're picking at the edges and making unsupported claims as though they were self-evident -- for example, why is Wizards of the Coast a reliable source? Telling people to go read WP:RS isn't much of an argument. Anyway, if you're not interested in continuing the discussion I'll leave it there. A Train^talk 10:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm back I guess. Are you really claiming WotC is likely to publish things that are mistaken about Magic? It's certainly a primary source, and it's certainly not independent of the topic, but it is clearly reliable in this context. If you'd like, feel free to take it to WP:RSN and ask if you have doubts. And it's not "picking around the edges" when you claim there is no such book after we've just discussed one and a trivial search turns up others. And arguing that well sure, sources exist, but they aren't in the article and until they are I think it should be deleted shows a lack of understanding of WP:DEL and WP:DEL#7. Again, it's about the topic not the article (WP:TNT being a rare exception). So as I said, three issues with your arguments: a statement that no book likely exists even though we were just discussing one and a trivial search turns up others, a misunderstanding of what a reliable source is, and a misunderstanding of WP:DEL#7. Put together, it's hard to have a discussion when we can't agree on words, concepts, or even what we'd just discussed. Hobit (talk) 14:31, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- - Sirlin is a well-known author in the area of game design, so if he did indeed wrote about this subject I guess I'll support a weak keep.--Prisencolin (talk) 21:23, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Prisencolin:, Sirlin is indeed a well-known game designer, but his book mentions Magic:The Gathering ten times in passing and does not discuss the construction or employment of deck types in detail. A Train^talk 11:03, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page 52 has three paragraphs that are exactly about the topic of this article. And keep in mind, I just grabbed a few of the first 10 hits off a book search... Hobit (talk) 02:47, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have searched the Sirlin book myself. There are fewer than 15 instances of the word "magic" in the entire book and many of them do not refer to Magic The Gathering. A Train^talk 21:42, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:06, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to be descriptive rather than a guide. 17:22, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Keep - These deck archetypes are not exclusive to Magic, and have propagated through many deck building card games. There are reliable sources which discuss these deck variants, such as Daily Dot and PC Gamer discussing the merits of Aggro Decks in Hearthstone: Heroes of Warcraft. I'd consider this article to be similar to articles on chess openings or sports rules/techniques. - hahnch e n 21:43, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 fatal coyote and wolf attacks in Canada. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 21:45, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sturgeon River wolf attacks

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

No evidence for significance. DGG ( talk ) 00:26, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:42, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:42, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:42, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of fatal coyote and wolf attacks in Canada. Doesn't merit a standalone article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarityfiend (talk • contribs)
Merge per Clarityfiend above. Entire article is sourced to one news report. With so little interest from secondary sources this is a sentence in another article, not an article on its own. A Train^talk 10:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article is historically significant and encyclopedic. This article is the same as many related articles on Wikipedia: Death of Kenton Joel Carnegie and Taylor Mitchell. There are many other similar articles in the following +cats Category:Deaths due to wolf attacks, Category:Deaths due to bear attacks, Category:Deaths due to coyote attacks, Category:Deaths due to dog attacks there are many others! IQ125 (talk) 12:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As noted in response to the other times you've floated this argument: Taylor Mitchell does not have a Wikipedia article because coyotes; she has a Wikipedia article because she was a musician who had already passed WP:NMUSIC while she was still alive. And Kenton Carnegie cites 36 reliable sources which demonstrate enduring impacts — while this article cites just one reference, and provides no context by which the incident could be notable for more than just the fact that it happened. Every wolf or coyote attack that happens at all is not automatically a valid topic for a standalone article; it takes something more, such as enduring significance or a victim who was already notable anyway, to make it appropriate for inclusion. Bearcat (talk) 20:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't lie to people, I never "floated" this argument before, as this is a new article started this week. I have never spoken to you before and I do not know you. IQ125 (talk) 21:53, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Er, you floated this argument on three other AFD discussions in the past two days alone. Bearcat (talk) 13:48, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of fatal coyote and wolf attacks in Canada not as a denial of the sheer horror of this incident, but as a more useful location for this information. Adn also because keeping would require evidence that the incident continued to be discussed after the initial news reports, and/or, that this particular attack had an impact (which might include this attack inspiring new safety precautions; inspiring a writer) (User:IQ125 Perhaps such sources can be found by searching under different keywords?)E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of wolf attacks per WP:NOTNEWS. With just one source and no substance beyond "this happened", the depth of coverage and the significance needed to make this a suitable standalone article topic has not been shown — and the other proposed merge target, List of fatal coyote and wolf attacks in Canada, was created by the same user at the same time, isn't needed as a separate topic from the overview article that already exists, and is also up for AFD on that basis. Bearcat (talk) 20:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge To List of wolf attacks per above. While animal attacks can be notable even if the victim wasn't notable before the death (see Death of Azaria Chamberlain), those situations are few and far between, and this case doesn't come close. Smartyllama (talk) 17:31, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of wolf attacks It seems like it was a local event with no widespread notability. There is only one source on the subject, and the article is nothing but a summary of what that one source says. The info can be included in the general wolf attack list, but it is not enough to sustain a separate article. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 19:29, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of fatal coyote and wolf attacks in Canada; not independently notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:11, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of wolf attacks in North America where it already has a section. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 02:43, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus against deletion. Discussion on title and content changes may take place on the talk page. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 07:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Churches in Port Harcourt

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

~~Doesn't appear to meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Sunny Side Up (talk) 20:39, 29 August 2016 (UTC)~~ Blocked sock. Worldbruce (talk) 04:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. I saw the AfD nomination coming though. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:09, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There don't seem to be enough articles on notable churches in Nigeria to merit splitting below the national level; see List of churches in Nigeria. Page could be redirected there. postdlf (talk) 23:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Postdlf has a good point, but merging partly to List of churches in Nigeria, would be better than "Redirect", because there is content (a number of Port Harcourt churches) that is not included in that list-article. Also the content might be used to create or expand "Nigeria" sections in existing lists of churches by denomination (i.e. the lists listed in Template:Lists of religious worship places), so some material could be merged to those. For some reason there are not a lot of lists of churches by geographic areas in Wikipedia, or at least I notice there is no List of churches in the United States (currently a redlink), though there are U.S. sections in the lists by denomination. If some of the Port Harcourt churches or other Nigeria churches belong to a denomination whose notable churches are not yet listed, then create a list (or move this one) for that denomination (and ping me to come help develop it). By the way, this seems to be a list of Christian churches. Does the word "church" refer only to Christian churches? --do ncr am 01:34, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and Repurpose to List of Churches in Rivers State. Nigeria is the most populous country in Africa. The south is largely Christian; the north largely Muslim, but with conflict between ethnic groups respectively belonging to each religion. A single list of (notable) churches for the whole country will be unwieldy, but the first split should be by state, not city. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:09, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Dassault Systèmes. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 07:42, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Computer Simulation Technology

AfDs for this article:

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

Wasn't notable in 2011, isn't notable now. Joe Roe (talk) 00:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Joe Roe (talk) 00:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Joe Roe (talk) 00:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete as it stands obvious promo with PRODUCT NAMES in capitals - David Gerard (talk) 10:02, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Guiding criteria here is WP:CORP which asks for significant coverage in secondary sources. There don't appear to be any at the moment -- even that Yahoo Finance piece at the bottom of the reflist is just a press release. If kept the article needs to be edited mercilessly to excise promotional material. A Train^talk 10:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I notified WikiProject Germany; hopefully, they can comment. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with option to discuss Redirect and merge on the talk page of the article I'm not the best choice of an editor to explain how to interpret the thousands of citations found at WP:BEFORE, but I know how to read the article and click on the Wikilink that tells me that the parent company is WP:LISTED. As for the WP:DEL12 argument, I researched one of the the product names and that is the name of the product. If there is some WP:MOS rule that allows product names to be down-cased, it could be cited, but it is not reasonable that an obscure MOS rule is evidence of promotionalism. Unscintillating (talk) 02:22, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Unscintillating: How convenient for you to imply that there's something improper about my nomination while simultaneously disqualifying yourself from specifying what. WP:LISTED states that being publicly traded does not make a company intrinsically notable. They should still meet the general criteria of significant coverage in multiple independent sources, which CST does not. In any case, that would be an argument for keeping Dassault Systèmes, not this recently acquired subsidiary. Joe Roe (talk) 02:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The company seems to focus on a very niche product. It seems to be pretty important in this particularly niche. There are plenty of forum discussions about its products as well as instructionary tutorials for some of their tools on some university webpages. Their products seem to have been also used for research papers (like in this Nature paper). However there is not a really a big independent reliable source talking about the company itself. All I could find is the following:

http://www.microwavejournal.com/articles/25734-accuracy-in-simulation-with-cst-studio-suite-2016 (press release?)
http://www.tenlinks.com/news/PR/cst/081611_cosimulation.htm (seems to be some CAD portal)
http://www.designworldonline.com/cst-unveils-characteristic-mode-analysis-tool/ (press release)
http://www.elektroniknet.de/automotive/tools/artikel/93786/0/ (only significant non press release I could find)
http://www.highest.tu-darmstadt.de/foerdern/sponsoren_news/sponsoren_news_details_81664.de.jsp (University of Darmstadt cooperates with the company, they are appearently a spin off from the university some decades ago)
There are plenty of articles about the acquisition of the company by Dassault Systèmes

According to the WP guidelines the company fails notability for inclusion as a stand alone article. Since they have been now acquired by a different company anyway I would say Redirect to Dassault Systèmes and add/merge information there. Dead Mary (talk) 14:23, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttp://www.imdb.com/title/tt5219042/fullcredits?ref_=tt_ql_1

[1]