Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 August 12

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 11 August	13 August >

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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 13:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa Beeman[edit]

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

no claim of notability Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 23:21, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:41, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tanzania-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:42, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:43, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:43, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:19, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:19, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I found passing mentions on Google Books which isn't enough to establish notability. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 09:03, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 13:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Allie Marie Evans[edit]

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

Completely unsourced WP:BLP of an actress, whose only stated claim of notability is one role in one film. As always, every actress who exists is not automatically handed a free pass over WP:NACTOR just because the article lists roles -- the article has to be supported by reliable source coverage about her in media to satisfy NACTOR, and if you're aiming for "notable because she's had roles", rather than "notable because she won or got nominated for a major film award", then it takes multiple significant roles and not just one. Bearcat (talk) 22:14, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:22, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:54, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's coverage of both her acting (mostly about her role in Maximum Ride) and her earlier "beauty vlogging" (which I guess is a thing?) but seemingly nothing substantial, and it's largely dubiously-reliable sources, though there were some exceptions (e.g. LA Times). Maybe just WP:TOOSOON. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 00:41, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 13:23, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

YSL (record label)[edit]

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

Completely unsourced article about a record label, whose only releases to date have been mixtape albums. As always, record labels are not given an automatic inclusion freebie on Wikipedia just because they exist -- they must be the subject of enough reliable source coverage in media to clear WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Bearcat (talk) 21:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:22, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:58, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:04, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 13:20, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Send No Flowers[edit]

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

Per source searches, this band does not meet WP:BAND or WP:GNG. Sources searches are only providing passing mentions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:38, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:38, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:38, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:30, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found one review of one of their albums on what seems to be a WP:RS site, but everything else was either passing mentions, user-generated, or both. They might hit it big someday, but that day has not yet come. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 00:50, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to retain the article. (non-admin closure) J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 04:39, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Luxury rail in India[edit]

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

Article is just a list of various luxury trains in India, most (or maybe all) of which have their own article(s) anyway, plus there is already an where they are listed. This article repeats the text already present in the respective articles and does not offer any additional value. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 August 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:03, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:07, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:07, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:08, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – As this is essentially a list article, qualifies per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Luxury trains in India. Also qualifies per WP:LISTPURP, as evidenced in part by the 2,093 page views the page has received in the last thirty days. Conversely, the Category:Luxury trains in India page has only received 30 page views in the last thirty days. As such, the article is clearly of worth for Wikipedia's readers as a valuable information source and navigational aid. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:08, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Northamerica1000: You can't really know how many have clicked a wikilink from other articles, expecting the article to be what the title suggests, but instead they just get a duplicated list of existing articles. Unless you're going to be the one to redevelop it and make it worthy of an article (history of luxury trains, luxury services and modern day usage etc), will this article remain unchanged after the AfD concludes? As it stands, it would seem the article will be kept, which is only not a bad thing if it brings to the attention that it needs rewrtiting from the ground up. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this is a valid list of luxury tourist trains. You can verify the list at the Indian railways website. These tourist trains are a very important part of Indian railways and tourism and the topic is well known to all Indians. I agree that the article is not very well written. It currently duplicates a bit of information and it can be presented in a better manner. Perhaps a table could be added with details of date of opening, route, kilometeres and other details. However there is definitely potential to improve it.--DreamLinker (talk) 04:20, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is valid and notable among a list of other Indian railways. Erin93 (talk) 17:26, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would expect readers to arrive at one Indian luxury train article, then use the list article (rather than the category) to find other luxury trains serving India... and that seems to be what the pageview stats suggest is happening. This appears to be a valid list article and one that people are using. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 02:15, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This is not a resounding consensus but Gaknowitall's argument is not policy based and Doncram's argument is effectively rebutted by NYA. As this is a close call I'm happy to reconsider on request. A Train^talk 20:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

300 South Tryon[edit]

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

Non-notable building. Only claims to significance are that, if completed according to plan, (i) it will be the eighth tallest building in Charlotte, North Carolina and (ii) it will be the first tall building in Charlotte to have been constructed since 2012. This is not the "significance" contemplated by WP:GEOFEAT. Also, sources in the article are local, except when they are primary. Web searches show the same -- now that the building is nearing completion, there is some "buzz" about it in the Charlotte news sources, but nothing beyond that. NewYorkActuary (talk) 09:58, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 09:59, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 09:59, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article says that the building is under construction, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It seems to me that it would make more sense if we waited until the construction of this building is finished before deciding whether it should have an article in Wikipedia. Vorbee (talk) 10:55, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets wp:GNG. Develop using sources available to expand the article to cover more about it. There are a couple Charlotte Observer articles about it. I don't understand the dismissal of sources as either being local so invalid (why? the Charlotte Observer is a valid source like the New York Times and both write about local matters) or being primary (it is appropriate and good to use primary sources). Also the building is under construction and sources exist and it is not a matter of speculation about whether some film might be created or not. --do ncr am 18:08, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram: Don, I tend to not badger people who offer opinions different than mine. But you did form part of your comment as a question, so I'll answer here. The concern about purely-local coverage comes from WP:AUD. And that provision of the guideline makes a lot of sense, especially in the instant context. Is there any new office building anywhere in the world that hasn't received local press coverage of its planning and construction? And their opening ceremonies? And maybe the moving-in of their first tenants? If we accept the existence of local coverage as a good reason to ignore WP:GEOFEAT's call for "historic, social, economic, or architectural importance", we are going to end up as a directory of virtually every office building in the world. NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:06, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:13, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is just another 25 story office tower. It is not noteworthy even in Charlotte other than the fact that it was the first office tower built in 7 years. It is covered by two typical groundbreaking articles and two announcing the construction. Nothing notable.--Rpclod (talk) 02:09, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are an infinite number of "non-notable" buildings with Wikipedia articles about them all over the world. This one is no different.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaknowitall (talk • contribs)

"Other stuff exists" is not a valid argument for retention. Notability IS always required. Please sign your comments.--Rpclod (talk) 13:07, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also to consider redirecting/merging to Charlotte, North Carolina or somewhere else
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 20:37, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nominator. A natural redirect target would be List of tallest buildings in Charlotte, North Carolina, where it appears in an "under construction" list. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:20, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. So Why 16:41, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Katy Garretson[edit]

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

Poorly sourced WP:BLP of a television director and producer. While there are claims here that would probably satisfy WP:CREATIVE if they were properly sourced, nothing here hands her an automatic inclusion freebie in the absence of legitimate sourcing for it -- but the only references present here are a genealogy page for her birthdate (which has been getting editwarred over, to boot), her own LinkedIn, and her own deadlinked "staff" profile on the website of an organization she's been directly involved with. And the article has been flagged as needing better references since 2010, to boot. I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with access to sources I don't have can properly reference this up to a keepable standard, but nothing here entitles her to indefinitely keep an article that's parked entirely on primary sources. Bearcat (talk) 00:50, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:57, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:57, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:59, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:34, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TheMagnificentist 15:27, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - most of the content looks okay, just needs a few sources. Won and nominated for several important awards, key person on many popular (notable) shows. I've added some RS and will add more. Keep the "baby". (And this "baby" was flagged in 2009) — Preceding unsigned comment added by StrayBolt (talk • contribs) 17:49, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Frank Capra award is a big deal. Bearian (talk) 13:52, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:31, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify or delete. Unless I'm missing something, all the sources, including what StrayBolt added, are either connected to the subject, unreliable (local coverage, blogs, etc.), or mere passing mentions. If I did miss something, please hit up my talk page and I'll reconsider, as I hate to see articles go which seem like they should be notable. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 02:37, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It should be Keep from WP:CREATIVE #3 for just her directing work for many episodes and seasons on Fraiser, a show in the top ten (almost) every season. Yes, I know the DGA is not a reliable source for the DGA awards, and also because she is a director, she is a member of DGA and another reason not to trust that source. Time to take a break and watch another Garage Sale Mystery. StrayBolt (talk) 05:41, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 villages, delete the neighbourhoods. Primefac (talk) 03:02, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

San Vicente de Paul[edit]

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

Fails WP:GEOLAND. The neighborhoods are not "legally" recognized by Chilean Law as territorial units (they are not part of administrative, electoral or census divisions). Juntas de vecinos are not a legal recognition of a place, because they are not government bodies, they are voluntary NGOs based in a territory chosen by their founders. In fact, it could be possible to find more than one junta de vecinos in the same neighborhood, or a junta that is composed by neighbors of two or more different neighborhoods. San Vicente de Paul is a little neighborhood with no non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. It's almost exactly the same situation that happened with a lot of Pichilemu-related articles that were deleted some time ago for the same reasons (coincidentally, these Santa Cruz neighbourhoods articles were created by the same author who created the deleted Pichilemu ones). Sfs90 (talk) 18:50, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the related pages (mentioned under the first article nominated [San Vicente de Paul]) because the same reasons above; the only reference of these articles is a list of representatives and local organisations on the Municipality of Santa Cruz, that is not a legal recognition of the neighbourhoods:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:00, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:00, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added the other pages that were nominated in the same timeframe. Primefac (talk) 19:18, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Sfs90, you have not marked Mi Futuro, Nueva Esperanza, Nueva Extremadura, or Pablo Neruda as being nominated for deletion. If you wish to nominated them as well, please add the AFD notice.~~ Also, I have reversed your creation-then-nomination of the various redirects. Primefac (talk) 19:23, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Primefac, Done. Thanks for the message! --Sfs90 (talk) 19:27, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are several places listed which are actually villages or little towns ("pueblos"). These include El Tambo, La Puerta, Isla del Guindo, Quinahue, Chomedahue, La Finca, Las Cortaderas, Panamá, La Patagua, San José de Apalta, Los Maitenes and Villa Alegre. They are all notable as per the notability guidelines for geographic features. The remainder should be deleted because they are only neighborhoods and do not comply with Wikipedia's aforementioned guidelines. 201.215.141.30 (talk) 02:31, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting fact in the previous message given by an IP address is that, according to their contributions history, it looks that the person behind that IP is nothing else than Diego Grez, a user who was blocked some time ago because of their continuous disruptive editing and WP:COI (mainly because he is the "owner" of a "newspaper" in their little city). In this time, he is editing and reverting without any reason some articles in which I have edited in the last days (for example Mayor of Pichilemu, insisting to add their second surname and reverting every edit I made there). --Sfs90 (talk) 03:13, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if that was true (which it isn't) there is no need to use such a derogatory language against the individual you mention. Nor there is need to be rude, you have removed my comments from your talk page because I edit as an IP. Seems to me that your own behaviour is an interesting fact. But, I advise you Sfs90, keep your head cool. I hope we can work out things in a civil, respectful way. --201.215.141.30 (talk) 05:57, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Very interesting that you're looking (maybe like a WP:HOUND) on other languages Wikis to create a discussion here that has absolutely nothing related with the discussion here (the deletion of some articles). That's exactly the attitude Diego Grez had, and makes me think again that you're under the IP address editing in such an arbitrary way. --Sfs90 (talk) 07:03, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Pure fallacious ad hominem reasoning. This is utter non sense. 201.215.141.30 (talk) 23:05, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Keep, at a minimum, El Tambo, as "El Tambo, Santa Cruz, Chile" into Google Earth pulls up a populated place, listed as a "village" in the stub article. I am tempted to say that all should be kept on procedural grounds, since there is at least this one sheep being lead to the slaughter. One line stubs listed as a "neighborhood" I have less problem with, but I don't think it is fair to have to pick through a massive laundry list to clean up bad nominations caused by the nominator not following WP:BEFORE. Carrite (talk) 03:36, 10 August 2017 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 11:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:28, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - El Tambo, La Puerta, Isla del Guindo, Quinahue, Chomedahue, La Finca, Las Cortaderas, Panamá, La Patagua, San José de Apalta, Los Maitenes and Villa Alegre — all are legitimate villages, populated places, and thus auto-keeps. I trust IP 201 above has picked through the list to figure out the sheep from the goats. TROUT to the nominator for a really terrible, potentially very destructive, mass nomination. Carrite (talk) 11:40, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep legitimate villages, delete mere neighborhoods (unless they can pass WP:GNG), be very careful not to confuse which placenames are which kind of place. And let's please remember that IP editors are people too, and owed WP:AGF just as much as registered users. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 02:50, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. soft delete per WP:NOQUORUM. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:27, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Organize-it[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:CORPDEPTH Kleuske (talk) 18:19, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:21, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:22, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 20:00, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. soft delete per WP:NOQUORUM. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:28, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Crookes Magazine[edit]

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

No substantial coverage, at least as far as Google can tell, to meet WP:GNG, fails notability. Largoplazo (talk) 18:00, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:30, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:30, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The links I looked at on Google didn't show any secondary sources. It was started in 2015, so apparently it has not attracted the attention of the world yet. Unscintillating (talk) 23:31, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 19:59, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. soft delete per WP:NOQUORUM. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:28, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shazli Tahir[edit]

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

No in-depth coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 16:32, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:34, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:34, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notable for Single event. --Saqib (talk) 16:40, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 19:58, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. soft delete per WP:NOQUORUM. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:28, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TarfayaPedia[edit]

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

I do not see how it is notable. Ymblanter (talk) 14:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:59, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 19:55, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Clearly no consensus to delete here. Any discussion about redirection can continue on the article's talk page. A Train^talk 20:39, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lamont Gallery[edit]

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

Non-notable art gallery, as clearly stated in the article text has a minor collection. Not even a notable entity within the Academy Hyungjoo98 (talk) 08:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:16, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:16, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Phillips Exeter Academy - not notable enough for a stand-alone article, but it's already mentioned in the parent. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:49, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Phillips Exeter Academy - not certain it's notable enough for a redirect. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:42, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, not notable enough for a redirect. Most mentions of a Lamont Gallery point towards a gallery in London, a completely different entity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyungjoo98 (talk • contribs) 05:07, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any such gallery. alphalfalfa^(talk) 18:00, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Google Lamont gallery London. Although it is also not notable.Hyungjoo98 (talk) 07:25, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you google Lamont Gallery by itself, it scarcely mentions the one in London.alphalfalfa^(talk) 10:19, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This gallery has been covered by local and statewide news such as seacoast online and NHPR, and also New Hampshire tour guides. Works exhibited or in its possession have been used in a multitude of other works. The gallery has hosted many significant artists, and holds the works of many significant articles in its collections. It passes WP:GNG. Also, small does not mean minor. Though not large, it contains significant paintings from known artists, like Diego Rivera. -alphalfalfa^(talk) 18:00, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

None of the paintings are significant, and even if they were it would not establish the notability of this gallery. The Lamont Gallery could be easily explained with one or two sentences in the main Phillips Exeter Academy page Hyungjoo98 (talk) 07:25, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand the point of this museum. The main focus of the gallery is to exhibit rotating shows of visiting artists, exhibitions of which have been documented by news sites. The collection is secondary. Also, yes, the paintings are significant, and have toured around to several larger museums. See the new text I added. The significance of a museum is, unlike what you stated, directly derived from the exhibitions and collections. The gallery has significance by itself, not owed to the academy, unlike the dozens of articles you splintered off from the Hill that got deleted. alphalfalfa^(talk) 22:39, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike the articles of the Hill that were deleted (which took quite a bit of discussion and debate), this article is unanimously non-notable. There is no indication in the article or anywhere else that any of the paintings are significant (if they were, articles should be made for them first!) There are three references, two are from itself, one is a insignificant local tourist guide. Also, I urge you to not use personal attacks in the future WP:PA Hyungjoo98 (talk) 07:51, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, there was little to no debate on those articles. They were unanimously deleted. Secondly, a painting needs not to have an article to be important. It is by an important artist, and has been showcased a important museums. I must reiterate also that the importance of the collection is secondary. The most important thing about the gallery is its rotating exhibitions. I will add sources from newspapers about those exhibitions. I also have to point out that I am not personally attacking you, but merely clarifying a concept to you. I mean no offense, if any was perceived. alphalfalfa^(talk) 09:46, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The gallery's opening in 1953 was covered by The New York Times, which dealt with its naming, cost, and source of financing.^[1] That could form the kernel of a history section. The New Hampshire magazine piece cited in the article touches on restoration of the facility and temporary relocation to a new site. The gallery's hosting of traveling exhibitions by notable artists might be deemed run-of-the-mill for museums, but in articles about specific exhibitions, The Boston Globe and The Union Leader and have covered what sets it apart from other institutions - its permenant collection, exhibitions of works by faculty and staff, and the art collections of alumni.^[2]^[3]^[4]

The present article is short enough that it could be merged to Phillips Exeter Academy, but the topic has garnered sufficient attention from the world at large to meet WP:ORG independently. If all sources were mined thoroughly for content, the article could be expanded 3–5 fold, at which point it would no longer fit into the school. So keep and improve is the best option. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:05, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Worldbruce I'm afraid I can't access the first article without a NYT subscription. alphalfalfa^(talk) 09:54, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alphalfalfa, contact WP:REFDESK. They can help. John from Idegon (talk) 13:37, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a NY Times subscriber, so I can get to the article. Technically, it is correct to say that it addresses its naming, cost, and source of financing, but that's making it out to sound a lot more than it really is. The entire article is three sentences, buried on page 63. And, given that it's credited to the AP wire service, it's a stretch to say the NYT covered the event. It's just filler. That hardly establishes WP:N. Here's a link to the article, but it's behind the paywall. Hopefully, somebody who has access to The Boston Globe can evaluate that article for us, but if it's not any better than the NYT article, I'd have to say we should ~~delete~~ this at not having sufficient WP:RS to meet WP:GNG. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:07, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS, Actually, thinking about this more, a redirect to Phillips Exeter Academy seems like an even better alternative then outright deletion. This is all based on the sources I can see now. If somebody can show that the Boston Globe article covers this in depth (or other good sources), I could be convinced to change my mind, but for the moment, I don't see how keeping this makes sense. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To address RoySmith's comments
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 19:22, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Phillips Exeter Academy per Rhododendrites - not notable enough for a stand-alone article, but it's already mentioned in the parent. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @RoySmith: I'm sorry the paragraph in The New York Times was disappointing, I didn't intend my description of it to be disingenuous. "Covered" does make it sound like they sent someone there, a better choice of word might have been reported or printed. I was trying to make two points with the NYT. First, the gallery has been noticed outside New Hampshire, so the organization doesn't fail WP:AUD, which wasn't obvious from the sources already cited. Second, the NYT could be the starting point for a history section, something currently missing from the article. I did not mean to imply that the NYT alone established the gallery's notability. WP:ORGDEPTH tells us to use multiple sources when depth of coverage is not substantial, and the NYT could be one of those sources.

If you email me, I can reply with some of the sources, including the The Boston Globe, attached. It's about celebrations throughout the school, with only a small portion about the gallery. The most directly relevant quote is "... began Friday with the opening of an exhibition of tribal art at the Lamont Gallery at the academy. The primitive art collection of the late Michael Clarke Rockefeller (class of 1956) is on loan from the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art." An editor might also be able to make something of what it says later about Principal Lewis Perry, who undertook the academy's largest building program, and under whose leadership the gallery was built. The source is useful as a concrete example of something that several sources talk about - where the gallery's exhibits come from. They rent traveling exhibits, like many galleries, but one of the things that sets them apart from other galleries is that they have billionaire alumni with art collections that can be borrowed from places like The Met. The Boston Globe is another source that could be combined with others to establish notability.

A bit of searching turned up nine more independent, reliable sources. The longest (882 words) is an AP piece. It contains a bit about the location of the gallery and its rooms, and quite a bit about the new gallery director and curating for the gallery. It says exhibitions are often chosen to tie in with classes being taught at the academy, and gives a specific example.^[5] Four more sources address the planning and construction of the gallery. I don't have access to the full text, but from what I've been able to glean, they discuss all the things one would expect in a major construction project - planning bodies, dates, architects, cost overruns, etc.^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9] Another source I haven't read because it isn't free seems, based on its abstract, to strengthen the gallery's claim to notability as a tourist attraction.^[10] The final three sources are short ones. Two discuss arrivals or departures of directors.^[11]^[12] Articles about museums often include something about the directors/curators, either in a management section or woven into the history section. At least one director, Cabot Lyford, is notable. The third short source is another article from The Boston Globe. I'm not sure I'd use it if I were writing the article, but it talks briefly about an academic committee formed to censor a gallery exhibition the academy was concerned might not be wholly appropriate under the circumstances.^[13]. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:12, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Lamont Gallery Opened at Exeter". The New York Times. 31 May 1953. p. 63.
^ "Special Events at Exeter Mark its 200th Year". The Boston Globe. 26 October 1980.
^ "Exhibit features photographs, paintings, sculpture, stained glass by Phillips Exeter Academy's faculty and staff". The Union Leader. 8 November 2012.
^ "Curators for Philips Exeter Academy's Lamont Gallery dig through collections for 'as-is' exhibition this month". The Union Leader. 3 July 2013.
^ Forrest, Rachel (8 November 2003). "Art center offers portrait of alien life in the United States". AP.
^ "Academy Plans Art Gallery". The Portsmouth Herald. 26 November 1951.
^ "$100,000 plans for a new art center: Lamont gallery". Art Digest. Vol. 26. 15 December 1951. p. 12.
^ "Construction Begins On Lamont Gallery". The Portsmouth Herald. 16 June 1952. p. 7.
^ "Classes Scheduled in Lamont Gallery After Christmas". The Portsmouth Herald. 4 December 1952. p. 15.
^ Radcliffe Rogers, Barbara (Nov–Dec 2016). "Destination New Hampshire". Art New England. Vol. 37, no. 6. p. 40-45. Abstract: The article offers travel tips for those interested in art and culture and visiting the state of New Hampshire, providing information on the Lamont Gallery at Phillips Exeter Academy, the Alva de Mars Megan Chapel Art Center at Saint Anselm College and the New Hampshire Institute of Art (NHIA).
^ Norman A. Geske; Eugenia Robbins (Spring 1972). "College Museum Notes". Art Journal. 31 (3): 306.
^ "High Museum hires new director of education". Atlanta Journal-Constitution. 28 March 1997. p. F5.
^ "Exhibit offers social commentary, and controversy, in clay". The Boston Globe. 7 December 2001 – via HighBeam Research. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help)

Keep. The article as written does not adequately indicate the notability of its subject... but the sources Worldbruce found do, and that's the standard that needs to be met. While this one is a close call, I think the sources available demonstrate sufficient notability. It would be good if someone could rewrite the article to better demonstrate that. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 19:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural close. Article was nominated twice. An active debate is open at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Yavneh attack (2nd nomination) (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:04, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Yavneh attack[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS Article about stabbing attack with 1 injury. Received minor international media attention. Suggesting it to be merged into the 2017 Temple Mount crisis article.JBergsma1 (talk) 01:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JBergsma1: how did you create this AfD? Did you follow a template or freelance it? In its current state, the page is missing some features that I am sure you are familiar with at other AfD discussions. Could you address this for other editors coming to this discussion?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:58, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @TheGracefulSlick: I've been trying to put this AfD to the discussion page, but as I tried to put this article there according to the guide to AfD I didn't succeed in posting it there like the other articles. Only the sentence above appeared. I'm kind of new to this part of wikipedia, so indeed I could ask some users for help.JBergsma1 (talk) 18:30, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Yavneh attack (2nd nomination) L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 18:29, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:00, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:00, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:00, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 18:50, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mizal Zaini[edit]

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

Non notable actor and enterntainer Arthistorian1977 (talk) 13:04, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:16, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:16, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:17, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - TheMagnificentist 12:18, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no coverage found. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 08:00, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 18:58, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as coverage found. E.g. http://www.star2.com/entertainment/music/music-news/2017/08/07/datuk-ac-mizal-4u2c-fiona/ http://epaper.mmail.com.my/2016/08/10/hey-jude-2/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ross-c (talk • contribs) 20:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as I also found plenty of coverage (albeit some in non-English sources) especially when I searched on "Datuk AC Mizal", his stage name, rather than his real name. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 16:22, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:28, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin J. Johnston[edit]

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

Article about a white supremacist[1] who has received a burst of media attention, but is otherwise non-notable. Fails WP:1E. - Mr X 19:03, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:04, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:05, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - TheMagnificentist 12:14, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- he's actually received attention on several occasions, not just for one incident. Nixon Now (talk) 10:02, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E is not limited to single "incidents" — a longer-term process can still be a single event. For an example, a person who runs as a candidate in an election doesn't escape BLP1E just because they held multiple campaign rallies during the course of the campaign — the entire campaign is a single event. Bearcat (talk) 17:04, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - he's gotten attention, but so what? Trump and the other hatemongers have driven a lot of nonsense into the open, so much so it's run of the mill. I see a complete lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. We are not a directory or webhost for random white guys screaming their hateful views on the Internet. Wikipedia is a charity subsidized by the taxpayers of my state, and we have a fiduciary duty to care for those resources. Bearian (talk) 13:43, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- - I don't like him either but he has received significant coverage in Canada for being the first person in 30 years to be charged with promoting hatred. Detesting an individual is insufficient cause for deletion. Nixon Now (talk) 12:17, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - David Popescu begs to differ with that 30 years claim. Bearcat (talk) 17:04, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Perhaps - and I see David Popescu (politician), who I would argue is less notable (though no less odious) than Johnston, has a wikipedia page. Nixon Now (talk) 19:01, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Popescu is more than a BLP1E, because he has multiple distinct events of odiousness for multiple distinct and unrelated reasons. Johnston is not — all of the coverage stems to the same base event. And even then, if somebody were actually to nominate Popescu for deletion I'd probably support them on it because it was fairly low-profile and predominantly local news that hasn't stayed as enduringly relevant ten years later as it may have seemed at the time — I didn't even think an article about him was warranted when it got created, I just didn't feel any desire to fight the creator's conviction that it was. Bearcat (talk) 18:04, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being a non-winning candidate for mayor is not a notability-conferring (or even notability-assisting) event, so the only notability claim we can assess this on is the YouTube videos. But that just makes him a WP:BLP1E, not a topic we need to maintain an article about — the fact that the YouTube videos got him into the news more than just once does not constitute distinct events for the purposes of clearing BLP1E, because BLP1E isn't just about counting isolated incidents of coverage: if all of the isolated incidents derive back to the same base activity, then that's not a series of discrete events but merely the process of 1E playing out. Bearcat (talk) 17:04, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment More non-trivial coverage. What Happens When An Anti-Muslim Internet Personality Begins To Face Consequences Nixon Now (talk) 18:45, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Still not supporting anything that would make him more than a BLP1E. Also, Canadaland is a podcast and not a GNG-aiding source. Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 18:58, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 13:15, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Xalid Rashid[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG for lack of available sources about the subject. Possibly there are Kurdish sources that could be brought forth to demonstrate notability. - Mr X 22:07, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:55, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:58, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have created this article Xalid Rashid under the guidance of Xalid Rashid himself. He told me to create this article and all of the informations are from himself personally. I have evidence for this as I have contacted himself directly. Thanks. --Diyar se (talk) 21:06, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - TheMagnificentist 12:09, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 18:57, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable and only original reserach. ArcticDragonfly (talk) 22:11, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:27, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Ou-joon[edit]

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

Only reference is not about the subject— this appears to be a desperate bid at notability. If there are additional Korean references to verify notability, please include them— I was not able to find substantive discussion in reliable independent English sources, and do not speak Korean. KDS4444 (talk) 06:59, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:09, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:10, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - TheMagnificentist 11:56, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 18:56, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 13:15, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zoro (musician)[edit]

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

Subject lacks coverage in multiple independent reliable sources to meet WP:GNG —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 09:47, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 09:50, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 09:50, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - TheMagnificentist 11:56, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 18:56, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. A Google search of him doesn't bring up reliable sources. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 21:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. So Why 15:06, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Xiaobaihe Kindergarten[edit]

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

See school notability. Pre-secondary schools must meet either general notability or organization notability, and this school does not. Pre-secondary schools are seldom notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:22, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The article does make a claim to notability - that it is a major research centre for preschool education. One of the citations is to a Xinhua article about the school providing China's team for an international event, which would be one step towards WP:GNG significant coverage. Another describes a research project involving some kindergarten children, but the abstract doesn't seem to mention of this kindergarten, so we only have the Sissi Liu's claim that there is any link to the school. And such research projects are usually anonymous, so I can't see how this could become an article. Matt's talk 12:38, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I've tried my best to change my setting and open Visual Editor page, but I failed on this page. Please don't mind my format. To make Xiaobaihe Kindergarten's notability more convincing, I've added more reliable sources such as China Sports Daily and Young Children Basic Gymnastic Promotion Council. There's also a link to Day Day Up Program (you can wiki it) of Hunan TV. As for the reference of a research project published on the journal, the report was written by Cao Hui, the former principal of the kindergarten. The other papers or reports written by her can be found on VIP database.Those pages shows that she's from Xiaobaihe Kindergarten. Sissi Liu 23:55, 27 July 2017 (UTC+8)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To address the newly added sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 10:41, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 18:56, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete elementary schools normally are not notable. Power~enwiki (talk) 10:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar 18:57, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

God of a man[edit]

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

recreated page, deleted 03/08/17 I think Roxy the dog. bark 08:39, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:21, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt if necessary. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:41, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete recreation of God of a Man. Quinton Feldberg (talk) 04:09, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: G4 does not apply to speedy deleted articles. Please provide valid deletion reasons.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 18:46, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment a self-published book on Amazon, no secondary references, no claim of notability, atrocious article quality. This should not be a controversial deletion. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 15:02, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of European Union cities proper by population density[edit]

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

Per WP:DEL7. I cannot find a source other than taking the figures from individual countries' official sources, but this would be considered WP:SYNTHESIS. We cannot be sure the data is complete without an aggregate source. There could be many small dense cities that have not been identified by editors. Also, the principal of comparing municipalities across countries is flawed as the way countries are divided administratively is incomparable (which is likely why there are not sources). Urban areas and their densities are much more comparable, though that would be a different article. Rob984 (talk) 20:54, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:12, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:13, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SYNTH. No proper sources to verify data. Ajf773 (talk) 22:00, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:51, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Here a a couple references that discuss city density in European cities: [2], [3]. There is also List of cities by population density demonstrating that such a topic is possible to cover responsibly. This article is a good start and we prefer to improve flawed or unfinished articles, not delete them. ~Kvng (talk) 15:13, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is that they don't actually compare the population densities of cities proper. The first source looks at local administrative units (LAU2), which are not often actual cities (they can be administrative districts of cities and similar, such as London Boroughs). The second just seems to talk about cities in the sense of urban areas, not city proper. We actually have a list of urban areas which allows you to sort by population density: List of urban areas in the European Union (cited to a aggregate, although possibly not reliable source)

And also List of cities by population density does not have a aggregate source and is plain synthesis too. It's even tagged "The list is incomplete", so it's probably inaccurate in terms of the ranking, and certainly not a good demonstration of how such a topic should be covered.

Not every country is like England with less then 100 cities. Just take France for example. There is no special "city" designation, and the entire country is covered by communes. There are 36,681 communes. All it takes is a few very dense communes which qualify as "cities" to put any synthesised ranking way off.

Rob984 (talk) 12:48, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rob984: Couldn't this be addressed by laying these limitations out in the article's lead? ~Kvng (talk) 15:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kvng: It's not just a "limitation", the list could be completely wrong. The only way you could have (under the current title) a list which is considered reliable, without a single aggregate source, would be to have sources for the densities every single municipality in Europe which is considered a "city".

Realistically, you could have "list of cities with over X inhabitants by population density" or "list of X most populous cities by population density", and probably cite them all (limiting the list to say, the 100 most populous cities).

But another reason not to synthesise lists is that there isn't evidence of WP:NOTABILITY. A reliable aggregate source demonstrates a list has notability.

Rob984 (talk) 16:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I beleive the two refs I provided above make a good case for WP:N. You have just suggested some ways to improve the article to address some of the concerns you have raised. Article development on WP is not often linear. If we deleted everything that ever got off track, we'd be less productive. I am sticking with keep and I have justified my position and I respect yours. Per WP:VOTE Ajf773 and Power~enwiki are going to need to give us a bit more than a thumbs down. ~Kvng (talk) 16:34, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but in my view keeping articles in this state is not helpful to productivity. This isn't a case of just needing a some improvement. It needs someone to take the time to create a well-researched list from scratch. The current article is not a basis for anything. As far as we know, it's completely wrong. Policy is clear, Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. When an article only contains OR, that's perfectly reasonable grounds for deletion. Rob984 (talk) 16:57, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, they are only demonstrating notability for what they actually compare, they don't compare city proper densities. An article comparing the densities of "local administrative units" or urban areas is a different article. Eurostat uses many different standardised measures to avoid directly comparing municipalities across countries (because they are not comparable).

Rob984 (talk) 17:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment due to widely-varying laws at the national level as to what the boundaries of an urban area are, this list will necessarily be problematic. As there are no sources for any of this data, it is even more problematic. Is Vatican City more dense than these cities? I'm not sure the question even makes sense, and the page as a whole has the exact same problem. It's also redundant as a stand-alone article to many other lists of cities and should possibly be deleted as a POVFORK of several other lists on Lists of cities in Europe. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:54, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the rationale outlined in depth by the nominator and summarised very neatly by Ajf773. Anything but a simple "thumbs down", in contrast to the characterisation provided. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:17, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a good traditional type of encyclopedia topic, very accessible to children, etc. The arguments asserting it is impossible to create such a list are simply exasperating. Right, like the worldwide List of cities by population density it is an incomplete list. And the title does not and will not fully convey the obvious idea that the list will focus upon the denser cities. To suggest the top entries in such a list will be wrong because all 36,000 or however many rural communes in France are not enumerated in the list, is nonsense. Proof that the list can be created is accomplished by the fact that the list has been created. --do ncr am 15:16, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I just added {{expand list}} templates to this list and to the world-wide list, and made other revisions. Note, this subject list is kind of the inverse of the List of largest cities by area, which was recently at AFD (which closed "Keep"). That list has effectively been vandalized to include just one entry now; it is obviously a work in progress and also obviously it is a valid topic. See User:Cunard's identification of available sources for that list; identifying numerous sources for this list is equally feasible. There are plenty of sources available about areas and populations of cities. --do ncr am 15:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.P.S. The article probably should be retitled to List of European cities by population density, leaving explanation about "cities proper" being the focus for the lede of the article. It can be renamed after this AFD closes. --do ncr am 17:08, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 18:42, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@User:doncram How are my arguments exasperating? They are based on a logical analysis of the topic. There are over 400 communes in France which have a population greater than 20,000 inhabitants. Many of these are very dense urban towns/cities which would easily rank high up in an extended listing. Both Grenoble and Villeurbanne are denser then Bilbao ("6th" on the list), and that's just two French cities which I guessed of the top of my head. How the hell is this a "nonsense" argument?

And what about the many communes in the suburbs of Paris, Lyon, etc? For example Levallois-Perret, with a density of 26,000/km², denser then the commune of Paris ("1st"). Do we include them? If so, all of the largest "cities" in Europe will be Paris' suburbs (Vincennes, Montrouge. Levallois-Perret, Boulogne, Courbevoie, Asnières-sur-Seine, etc. are all denser then Paris proper). And who are you or I to say if whether these are "cities" or not? In France, we don't really have the concept of cities, just towns. Cities in England on the other hand can be villages, just because they have a cathedral.

I'm only talking about France here, but the problem is obviously much greater when you take into account the other 27 member states.

Changing the name of the article to something more ambiguous doesn't really address the problem at all: this article currently has no informative content.

Adding a tag on this article doesn't change the fact that the its content is unsourced, and as I have pointed out, factually wrong. I waited before replying to your comment to see if you were actually going to do anything to fix it. Instead you just added a citation which does not support the content of the article at all. If anything, it demonstrates that Eurostat does not see city proper densities as a comparable measure (since they don't compare it). You claim there are sources yet you can't even fix the list of 10 cities? If the sources existed, that would take 5 minutes to correct. If it's so "feasible" why don't you do it? It's not a valid topic if there are no sources. It's not a valid topic when Eurostat doesn't even consider comparing city proper densities. Please demonstrate the notability of comparing city proper by providing a reliable source.

If this article is kept and remains in its current state (as it likely will), it just undermines the integrity of Wikipedia. Nothing is lost by deleting it, anyone can still draft a new list which is correctly sourced. The current article should never have been allowed in the mainspace.

Rob984 (talk) 14:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rob984: we have specific criteria for what's allowed in mainspace. Your original contention was that it should be deleted because of WP:DEL7. I think that's been shown to be a not-strong argument. I'm having trouble mapping your more-recent arguments to policy. ~Kvng (talk) 15:19, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DEL6 "Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including... original theories and conclusions".

WP:DEL7: "Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed".

WP:DEL8: "Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline".

You have not demonstrated any of these not to be the case. Please find reliable sources so that the article is not in breach of WP:NOR and has demonstrable WP:NOTABILITY.

Rob984 (talk) 15:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are certainly adequate refs to be found. There is one citation in the article and I found two others with a quick search (posted above). I see no problem meeting policy requirements for inclusion and producing a verifiable article. The subject has established notability. The only problem is you are not convinced and it doesn't look like there's anything that can be done to change that. It is for situations like these that we do not require unanimous consensus and do not delete if even a rough consensus cannot be reached. ~Kvng (talk) 15:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said, the references you provided do not support the content in the article. And again, as I've said, if anything they demonstrate that such a list (comparing population density of city proper across the EU) is not a notable topic, given Eurostat, the statistical agency of the EU, does not make such comparisons (despite comparing the population densities of many other comparable statistical areas). The list section is currently tagged as "This section does not cite any sources", and correctly so. You provide no references for the list, and there is no evidence a list of cities proper by population density is a notably topic. I don't by any means advocate removing articles just because they are bad, but when an article can't be demonstrated to have the potential be brought up to standard (despite your attempts to fabricate an argument that it can be) and meets three different criteria for deletion, it should be deleted. AFAIK, a clear consensus isn't necessary for an admin to concur from this discussion that the article meets those criteria. Rob984 (talk) 16:54, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The role of the closing administrator (or non-administrator) is to assess consensus not policy. See WP:NHC. ~Kvng (talk) 17:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus takes into account the community consensus on policy. This means the closing editor can discard arguments which contradict policy, such as claiming that this article can be amended to comply with WP:NOR and WP:VERIFY and that its topic has notability, based on the fact that you found sources which refer broadly to the topic of population densities in urbanised areas, and make no reference to city proper. WP:NOR clearly states "you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented". I've demonstrated that the list is inaccurate and unsourced, and you've failed to provide any substance as to how this can be rectified. And without a reliable source for actual the topic of the article, i.e. the list, you've got no evidence it has notability. Rob984 (talk) 18:42, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Rob984's main objection seems to be that there are a number of small-area communes around Paris and perhaps elsewhere in France which have high densities, which may seem surprising to readers when they see them. These could easily be eliminated from the list by restricting it to cities having areas greater than one square mile (which leaves Paris itself in the list). And/or those odd cases can be covered in a second list within the list-article. These are concerns for editing, to be discussed at Talk page of article, not reasons to delete the article. Again, there are obviously numerous sources on the areas and populations of cities. --do ncr am 17:35, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you or I to decided the criteria? And why would a list which criteria you or I have determined have notability? Some suburbs of Paris are considered distinct towns. But you want to exclude them because they're small? Dense cities are either small, highly populous, or both. Can't you see how that's a completely flawed criteria? And regardless its WP:SYNTHESIS.

France is a country I've lived in. I don't know what the situation is in Spain, Portugal, Italy, etc. which have similar administrative arrangements. They could have the same problems, if you want I can look into them.

Rob984 (talk) 18:03, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to "Who are you or I to decide the criteria": per guidelines for standalone list-articles, the editors concerned about a list can decide for themselves what are the list-inclusion criteria. You and I are equally allowed to participate. I want to acknowledge you have made a good point, about the small French communes. I think it means we should revise the criteria for the list-article, not delete the list-article. Specifically, I suggest the arbitrary but probably reasonable cutoff, that we want the main list of the list-article to cover cities of one square mile or more in area. --do ncr am 19:02, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We can decide what criteria to use from reliable sources, we cannot just make up a arbitrary criteria. Policy certainly does not advocate making up a criteria. Like I keep stating, we have no reliable sources. And sorry, but being frank, an arbitrary criteria which removes the highest ranking entries in a list is absurd. An arbitrary cut off point on a list (e.g. 100) is fine, but that wouldn't help with the main problem with this list: we have no way to reliably identify the densest cities in the EU, whether that be the top 10, top 100, or whatever amount. If you're going to rank a city as the 5th densest in the EU, you need a reliable source which states so. We have no way to achieve an accurate data set of even just 10 cities, so I don't see how any criteria would help. Rob984 (talk) 21:21, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In fact we can make up arbitrary criteria and use them. It is technically a requirement for list-articles that there be some coverage of the topic, i.e. some discussion of the group (i.e. mentions of population densities of European cities, which has already been found in a source or two). But there is no guarantee that sources will be available that define cutoffs nicely for Wikipedia's editing purposes. It is an editorial decision. In practice, we have to make such decisions. I grant freely that having sources support some definition so it seems less like Original Research or whatever is better, but it remains a fact that in practice we have to make our editorial decisions. I have some experience suggesting an arbitrary cutoff, e.g. for 10 or more branches being required for a pizza chain to be included in some list-article of pizzerias in the United States (hmm, not Talk:List of pizza chains where 100 is suggested by someone else), which no one liked. No one likes arbitrary-seeming criteria, right, but it is not always possible to avoid them. --do ncr am 19:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's no sources comparing the population densities of city propers, which is the what this list intends to do. And like I said, you can't just exclude the top ranking entries because they are problematic to identify. Why are cities with bigger areas any more significant? It just makes the list meaningless. And even if we did take such a criteria, you still don't have a way to identify the densest cities in the EU with an area of over one square mile. Until you can demonstrate this, you can't claim this article can be brought in line with WP:NOR and WP:VERIFIABILITY. I find it very strange that someone would oppose deleting an article which is unsourced and conveying out right wrong information, while at the same time being unable to demonstrate how it can be fixed and brought in line with Wikipedia standards. The integrity of Wikipedia is my sole concern here. Rob984 (talk) 20:47, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I disagree that the problems can be fixed by editing or discussion on the talk page, as is repeatedly insinuated. I also note that nobody is attempting to do so. Power~enwiki (talk) 17:37, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We are now turning to discussion of the inclusion criteria for the list-article. I could right now go and open discussion at the Talk page of the article, but it is being discussed here for now, and splitting the discussion right now won't help. I think it should be shifted to the Talk page of the article after the AFD is closed "Keep". I am not insinuating that something can be discussed, I am discussing it. --do ncr am 19:02, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since apparently my problem is just with France, I'll point out that its even worst in Spain. As with France, the entire country is covered in municipalities (8,122) and there's no designation for a "city". An example of one is L'Hospitalet de Llobregat, located outside Barcelona, which is denser then any of the cities in the list. So I guess we need a list of all the municipalities in Spain by population density, all the communes in France, etc, etc? The problem is worst because of planning restrictions which mean towns and cities (which form individual municipalities) are very dense, even those with small populations. Just look at a population density map of Spain. Rob984 (talk) 22:47, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a problem at all. The article notes 'By population, it is the second largest in Catalonia and the sixteenth in Spain. It is noted as one of the most densely populated cities in the European Union.' And it has >4 square miles area. Perfect to include it into this list-article. I am sure we can leave out most of the rest of the municipalities of Spain, which don't compete for being among the densist(sp?) in EU. -do ncr am 00:12, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure we can leave out most of the rest of the municipalities of Spain, which don't compete for being among the densist(sp?) in EU.

Are you joking? Precisely the problem is that you can't know if one of the thousands of municipalities are amongst the densest. How can you identify only the densest? How can you know that there isn't a number of dense municipalities in Spain that you missed? You can't unless you know the density of every city in the EU, or you have an aggregate source which states it is a list of the top 100 or whatever. These municipalities and communes are just ones I can think of, off the top of my head. That should give you some perspective as to how many more there potentially are.

Rob984 (talk) 11:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:25, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lebanese association for the development of psychoanalysis[edit]

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

Article about an eight year old professional association. The cited sources are either not independent or not relevant to the subject. I am unable to find other reliable sources that discuss the organization in any depth. The article was previously PRODed, deleted, and then restored as a reviewed article because of a technicality. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG as far as I can tell. Maybe someone else can find a couple of sources so that the article can be saved. - Mr X 12:20, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:55, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete besides problems mentioned in the nomination this article suffers from coatracking of topics not relevant to the association itself.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:07, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 07:49, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:58, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 18:40, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. So Why 15:05, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip J. Bartell[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a film editor and writer, which just states that he exists and résumés his credits without actually demonstrating that he passes a notability criterion at all. As always, neither screenwriters nor film editors get an automatic inclusion freebie just for existing, but rather have to be reliably sourced as having achieved something that counts as a notability claim -- but the only reference present here at all is a blurb in his college alumni magazine which nominally verifies the fact that he worked on one film. This is not enough to get him an encyclopedia article in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 20:31, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:34, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:34, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've begun adding secondary sources reviewing his work, but there are more here: http://www.metacritic.com/movie/eating-out-2-sloppy-seconds/critic-reviews Meets GNG, NARTIST. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:03, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:52, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - An interview and several peripheral references are not sufficient to demonstrate notability.--Rpclod (talk) 02:18, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

However, the editorial commentary preceding an interview does count as secondary source material toward notability; additionally, there are numerous independent reviews of films he wrote and/or directed. In addition to those cited in the entry and above, here are more: http://www.metacritic.com/movie/eating-out-all-you-can-eat Innisfree987 (talk) 05:11, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:30, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:G7. All edits after the creator's were merely cosmetic in nature. So Why 13:13, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Afghan Knights[edit]

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

An unremarkable, small-budget movie; significant RS coverage not found. Article cited to online directories & blogs. Director does not have a wiki page, so there's no suitable redirect target. After the initial PROD, the article's creator left a message on my Talk page, supporting the deletion: "Although cheap films sometimes become "cult", this one didn't. I agree to a deletion" (diff). K.e.coffman (talk) 18:12, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:13, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment unfortunately I could only find one review at Dread Central here which is a reliable source for horror films but on its own is not enough unless someone finds more. Many small budget films are notable but so far this one doesn't seem to be Atlantic306 (talk) 18:27, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 August 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:28, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:02, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sonatype Nexus[edit]

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

Non-notable software. Google search shows that it exists. No independent references, no independent coverage. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:10, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:59, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Searches are turning up routine coverage (announcements, etc.). There are a few how-to postings at Medium but I am not seeing the substantial coverage needed for WP:NSOFT or WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 06:59, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 06:55, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 18:28, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I'm only seeing WP:SPIP coverage; nn product. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:23, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Even after three (!) relists there is nothing approaching a consensus here -- if anything the discussion drifted further from consensus after the final relist. A Train^talk 20:46, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elecom[edit]

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

Delete Unremarkable company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:58, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:06, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:06, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I will repeat a bit of what I said about the same user's other nomination of a major Japanese IT corporation article for deletion. First, Elecom is, like I-O Data, listed in the First Section of the Tokyo Stock Exchange (which is reserved for large corportations)[4]. As WP:LISTED states, the consensus is that public listing by itself is not sufficient to establish notability, "However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion....Editors coming across an article on such a company without such references are encouraged to search (or request that others search) prior to nominating for deletion, given the very high (but not certain) likelihood that a publicly traded company is actually notable according to the primary criterion." A search of Japanese business and IT news sites finds plenty of coverage of both the company and its products: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], etc. Michitaro (talk) 13:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In light of information provided below.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:32, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- out of the three sources listed, one is the company's web site, another one is a 404, and the third one is ja.wiki. The number of employees listed (500) is more of a mid-size company, so we cannot presume automatic notability here. We should expect better sourcing from our articles; thus, delete. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:04, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you check any of the dozen sources I found? I also note WP:NRVE: "The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article." You should comment based on the evidence presented and the evidence available through concerted searches, not based on what is currently in the article. Michitaro (talk) 01:14, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:24, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the updated sources are still inadequate as they merely link to stock listings. DrStrauss talk please use {{ping|DrStrauss}} when replying 11:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow further discussion on sources presented by Michitaro. Even without speaking Japanese, they don't appear to all be stock listings as the last comment claims.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 12:21, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As SoWhy noted, the sources I provided are not all stock listings. In fact, the vast majority are not. Users voting on this AfD should properly check the sources provided and provide reasons for why they are not adequate if the user is voting delete. Michitaro (talk) 13:44, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If you could pick three or less references that you believe meet the criteria for establishing notability, you'll find editors are more inclined to look at them. Nevertheless, here's my take on them. The first four are all from the same source (www.nikkei.com) and are all company announcements therefore fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. There are also 4 references from impress.co.jp that are likewise all company announcements or material sourced almost exclusively from company sources and therefore fail WP:ORGIND. The next from nikkeibp.co.jp is likewise a story that almost exclusively sources its content from company material and the CEO and fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND.

The first impress.co.jp source is a good example of why other editors are turned off a large number of reference listings. This one is an as bad as it gets as a reference to establish notability. It is an advertorial reporting on an "event" held by Elecom for a new device complete with models holding the product, photographs of the product, instructions for use, price (excluding tax), obligatory photo and quotations from the CEO. Obviously, this reference fails WP:ORGIND. But by listing it, other editors will just think to themselves that the person who put it forward hasn't a clue about the requirements for establishing notability and not waste their time with whatever is remaining.

Moving on ... the digimonostation reference fails WP:ORGIND as it is a regurgitated press release (the link for the "official" press release is even provided at the bottom of the article) and uses much of the same description and the same photographs. The kabutan article is a business-as-usual commentary on the stock price and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The zaikei article is debatable - be aware I'm using Google translate - because there's a switch from using the third person "Elecom won..." to the first person " "we have already gained". If it is written by a neutral third party with no direct input (quotations) from company sources then in my opinion it qualifies as a source that establishes notability. We need a minimum of two sources to establish notability. If another source can be found, I'd be happy to change my !vote but as it stands, it is still a Delete. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:27, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -Sorry for the delay in responding. I have been quite busy and this response required time I really didn’t have. Also sorry for repeating some of wording of my response to the I-O Data AfD, but the two have been kind of proceeding in parallel and I don’t have time to write something completely new.

First, I have been rather frustrated with this AfD. From the nominator to some of those voting, I have seen a distinct failure to either perform what should be done WP:BEFORE nominating, or afterwards, to look beyond the existing article per WP:NRVE and perform one’s duty to consider the evidence presented in the AfD or to search for evidence on one’s own. Having participated in hundreds of AfD’s, this is nothing new to me, but I still feel the need to remind participants of what is necessary to participate in an AfD.

That is one reason I am not offended by HighKing’s comments in this AfD, even though I strongly disagree with them. At least HighKing has largely been doing what is necessary.

But HighKing is wrong on most of the points and reveals ignorance of both Japanese media and the corporate world.

First, HighKing’s dismissal of all the Nikkei articles is quite shocking, and is done with absolutely no evidence. Perhaps HighKing is unaware of it, but The Nikkei, as explained below, is the equivalent of the Wall Street Journal and, according to Wikipedia, “the world’s largest financial newspaper.” To argue that its news articles on corporate happenings lacks neutrality and is essential promotion is like arguing that the Wall Street Journal is an unreliable source. If HighKing can present concrete evidence that the consensus about the main source of financial and business news in Japan is wrong and that the Nikkei is an unreliable source, I encourage him/her to bring that evidence to WikiProject Japan. I doubt anyone would accept it. The Nikkei is an essential and independent source of news of the business world for investors and those in business. HighKing needs to prove otherwise to reject the sources I provided. Second, HighKing is completely mistaken about [17]: it an authored piece from Nikkei’s prime magazine and is written from an independent perspective. Can HighKing cite evidence that says otherwise? Third, as for Kabutan [18], it first might look like just providing stock market data for the company, but if you scroll down you can see that these are really just a top page that links to dozens of articles on the company’s stock and profits. In toto, they provide a wealth of detailed, independent reporting on the company—quite a lot for a free site. If there is a problem with [19], it is just that Elecom is merely featured in the article, and is not the sole subject of the article (I assume the question of the “we” in the article id a problem with Google Translate since there is no Japanese word “we” in the article). That is sufficient for considering WP:GNG. I see no problem with [20] or [21], especially since they are reporting on a major M&A that was reported elsewhere in the Sankei [22] and the Nikkei [23]. I will concede that some of the other citations may not live up to the standard of the Nikkei (again, I picked these up in a short time), there are aspects that are usable.

So of the articles I found after only a brief search of the net, I believe I have already provided HighKing with more than the three articles s/he asks for. But there are more.

I can also cite the existence of a number of articles from major business print magazines as indicated by the CiNii database [24]. To give people a sense of the articles, here are a few (with my translations of the titles):

“Research on Companies no. 60: Elecom,” Nikkei Business no. 1810 (2015/10/5), 62-67.

”Distribution Point: Elecom: Introducing Distribution Robots,” Logi Biz v. 15, no. 6 (Sept. 2015), 64-67.

”Reports on Companies with Integrity: Elecom: Celebrating Ideals, Growth for both Individuals and the Company,” PHP Business Review no. 68 (June 2011), p. 38-45

”Series: Winning Companies: Elecom—Making PC Accessories Attractive and Pleasurable through Data and Art Management,” President, v. 37 no. 2 (Feb. 1999), 168-171.

Note that all are multiple page reports on the company that go back nearly 20 years.

I will ignore HighKing’s statement that I don’t have “clue about the requirements for establishing notability,” since that itself was based on lack of knowledge both of me and of the sources I provided. Perhaps HighKing should re-read WP:CIVIL.

I should next note that it is not easy to find articles on any Japanese subject because of the way the major Japanese media use the internet. Most of the articles older than a week or two in the major national newspapers plus most of the major magazines are behind pay walls. This has been a major problem for all of us working on Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. To me, the amount I found in just a few minutes produced the reaction: “Wow, there’s this much on open sites.” By experience, we know that is a very good indication there is as much or more behind the paywalls.

This time, to get just a sense of it, I spent a couple of hours (I didn’t really have) checking the library databases of a few of the major newspapers.

To start with, I checked The Nikkei, Japan’s equivalent of the Wall Street Journal. A search of the database produced 800 articles in the Nikkei and its related publications that mention Elecom. Clearly many are incidental mentions, and quite a number are short reports of 200-300 words on the company’s quarterly reports and personnel changes (though the Nikkei of course only reports those if the company is a major company). I didn’t have time to check 800 articles, so I tried a few other keywords to get some samples. I am sure I missed many. Here are just a few of the substantial articles solely on the company I found:

”Elecom Releases 32 Devices to Mass Retailers: Smart Phones Now Closer to VR,” Nikkei Sangyo Shinbun, 2016/9/27, p. 7

”PC Device Company Elecom Invests 20 Million, Aim to Double Sales,” Nikkei Sangyo Shinbun, 2016/4/28, p. 13

”Elecom Increases Production 300% ,” Nikkei Sangyo Shinbun, 2016/1/25, p. 17

”Elecom Steers towards Corporate Sales,” Nikkei Sangyo Shinbun, 2014/6/4, p. 7

”Elecom, Major Company in PC Peripherals: HDD as New Cash Cow,” Nikkei Sangyo Shinbun, 2011/10/15, p. 4

”Elecom: Centering on Smart Phone Related Business, Entering App Market, Strengthening Business Abroad,” Nikkei Sangyo Shinbun, 2011/10/15, p. 4

”Elecom: Expanding Abroad, 300 Outlets in Russia and 150 in India by End of Year,” Nikkei Sangyo Shinbun, 2007/10/29, p. 17

“Rookie Analysis: Elecom: Listed on JASDAC from Nov. 22, Focused on AV Devices” Nikkei Kinyu Shinbun 2006/11/10, p. 4

”Companies with Expertise: Elecom: Top Share in Mouses etc.,” Nihon Keizai Shinbun, 2001/12/18 p. 29

”Elecom: PC Peripherals, Directing Space as a Set,” Nikkei Sangyo Shinbun, 2001/8/1, p. 20

”Software Japan’s Trump Card is Tie-Up with Elecom,” Nikkei Sangyo Shinbun, 1995/2/2, p. 7

”Rising New Ventures 14: Elecom,” Nikkei Sangyo Shinbun, 1994/9/22, p. 30

”Elecom Secures Supply of LAN Devices from Taiwan Company,” Nikkei Sangyo Shinbun, 1994/6/10, p. 23

”Elecom Focuses on Boards in Preparation for Stock IPO,” Nikkei Sangyo Shinbun, 1994/5/12, p. 22

etc. etc.

I also tried some of the regular newspaper databases. Such business articles are rarer in these, and the truth is that many of the mentions are actually for the American Football team it sponsors (Elecom Kobe Finies [25]), which is in the top division in Japan, but there were still a few substantial articles on the company:

”Elecom Groomy: Green Hit,” Asahi Shinbun, 2003/5/24, p. 56

”The New Venture Age: Elecom,” Yomiuri Shinbun, 1996/1/6. p. 11

”Elecom: Source of Power is Sense of Speed,” Mainichi Shinbun, 2001/7/2, p. 9

If I may say so, it was easier to find articles on Elecom than I-O Data. That by no means indicates that I-O fails notability requirements, but it may indicate that Elecom is considered more notable by the Japanese media than I-O is.

Again, this is what I came up with in the limited time I have, using databases that, frankly, are rather clunky. But just the above makes it very clear that the company passes the requirements for notability (WP:GNG) on Wikipedia. Again, with experience participating in hundreds of AfDs, I cannot see any justification for deleting this article. Michitaro (talk) 12:05, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michitaro, this is way too long for an AfD and frankly most won't read it. You're still insisting that company announcements printed in reliable sources (doesn't matter if its the Wall Street Journal or the Nikkei) meet the criteria for establishing notability. It has been already pointed out to you that references such as those fail the criteria. Producing more of the same doesn't help your argument. Listing references (such as "Elecom Groomy: Green Hit") with no links or ISBN references doesn't help your argument. I tried to assist you previously by asking that you simply produce three references that meet the criteria. That is probably, still, your best response. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:13, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HighKing Your response is very disappointing and frankly difficult to comprehend. I provide loads of sources and evidence and you essentially ignore them. You say these are "company announcements" as if it is a fact but you have offered not one shred of evidence that these are company announcements and not--which is what they are--independent reliable reporting of the news. The burden is on you to prove it and you have failed, and you deny that failure by refusing to engage in constructive argument. I have shown that your argument is full of holes and misunderstandings. I have provided your three sources online and many many off-line sources. No where on Wikipedia is there a requirement that sources must be online. You can always go to the library to check these sources (I provided issue and page numbers). Now if you read WP:COLLAB and WP:AGF, you would try to work with me on this if you can't access these, but your attitude is not helpful here. I think that attitude undermines your argument here. Michitaro (talk) 14:41, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I was asked to provide ISBN numbers, but ISBN numbers are for books and none of the references I provided are from books. So here are the direct links to the CiNii entries for the magazine articles: [26], [27], [28], [29]. Michitaro (talk) 00:47, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 18:26, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: 1. I don't think it is an acceptable argument against notability to argue that someone has provided too many sources. 2. WP:CORPDEPTH says "Acceptable sources under this criterion include all types of reliable sources except works carrying merely trivial coverage," and goes on to provide a number of examples of trivial coverage. HighKing seems to go well beyond this when they reject the Nikkei Shimbun. HighKing has themselves said that the BCN award mentioned in Kabutan would establish notability. The full listings of those awards are here ([30], [31]) and they appear to be based on the point of sale data for the market share of various products. Many of these are trivial, but some of them are not - for instance (second link), Elecom has the highest market share of sales of computer mice - higher than Logitech. Furius (talk) 23:58, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why on earth would someone be expected to supply an ISBN for the Asahi Shinbun. Furius (talk) 00:03, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, talk about being misquoted. I did not reject the "Nikkei Shimbun". I did not say the BCN awards were notable and that the award would establish notability. And LoL, what I actually asked for was a link *or* an ISBN number for the many many references listed by Michitaro since the reference are offline and nearly all editors here won't have access to those databases and of the online references posted by Michitaro, none pass the criteria for establishing notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 19:05, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I do apologize to others for the burden caused by providing so many sources. I just felt that some on this AfD were not looking properly at the sources I provided, so I erred on the side of volume (though not on quality). I am still confused by HighKing's comments. On the one hand, s/he says that none of the online references I provided pass the criteria for establishing notability. I concede that a few are not that good, but HighKing has not responded to my defense of the others. What's odd is that HighKing says s/he is not rejecting the Nikkei when the fact that is exactly what s/he is doing, since five of the online articles I cited are from the Nikkei and its related publications. The argument that these are company press releases remains unfounded and basically calls into question all the corporate news gathering of the major financial paper in Japan (and one of the biggest in the world). I have the feeling HighKing should re-read WP:INDEPENDENT because there is a major difference between a website reprinting a corporate press release and an independent and third-party major news organization, with no conflict of interest, providing news coverage of what a corporation is doing. All the newspaper coverage I provided, including the online Nikkei coverage, are independent and significant RS that satisfy WP:GNG. HighKing has not shown they do not, but instead makes unfounded claims that essentially argue that the Nikkei only prints corporate press releases.

One problem, as I stated above, is that the Japanese media is protective of its content, and thus the major companies put their older material behind paywalls. So the majority--and in many cases the best (because you have to pay for the best)--coverage is either in print or in for-pay databases. So what to do? In previous AfDs where I have cited off-line sources, most participants have taken it in good faith that I am not making them all up and have used them as indication that RS exist (I don't recall an AfD where the article was subsequently deleted in such a case). We are, after all, not determining whether the article should be promoted to feature article status, but rather seeing if the weight of coverage tends towards WP:GNG. I sense that some here are not willing to assume good faith, so those participants may want to see the articles. I did provide the relevant bibliographic information for those who can use the databases or go to a library (which is what I did). The databases of all the newspapers I cited can be searched at any library in Japan and at many major research and even public institutions abroad. If there is a problem with not knowing Japanese, I suggest one solution: that someone neutral to this AfD or who has not yet participated make a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan for some members to check on the Japanese sources I have given to determine if they help satisfy WP:GNG, and/or to make additional searches to determine if those also help satisfy WP:GNG. I cannot guarantee a quick response (WPJ members are few in number and overburdened as it is), but this seems a reasonable option. Michitaro (talk) 03:06, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Again the points I've made are being misrepresented and misquoted. I would prefer if you stop misquoting and misrepresenting what I have said and creating strawman arguments by falsely attributing statements and flawed reasoning to me. INDEPENDENT covers the criteria for establishing if a source is a reliable source but it does not mean that every article printed is an acceptable reference for the purposes of establishing notability. I've made the point several times and I have yet to see any indication that you understand the difference between a reliable source and a reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability. You concede that "a few are not that good" yet all the ones I have been able to examine fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. For example impress.co.jp may very well meet the criteria of INDEPENDENT but the individual article (and not the publishing entity) still fails ORG and CORPDEPTH. Similarly, this nikkei article fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH as it relies entirely on quotation from company sources - but I emphasise that my comment is about the article, not that the source fails to meet INDEPENDENT. I can only provide an opinion on the references I can access and since I have yet to see two sources that meets the criteria, I have no reason to change my !vote. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am still mystified by your definition of WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Most of the sources I provide do not fall into the long list of sources that don't count that those provide. Even the Nikkei BP article you cite satisfies WP:ORGIND. I do see that WP:CORPDEPTH mentions "quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources," but are you interpreting that to mean that any long article that contains even one quote from a company official fails WP:CORPDEPTH? Keep in mind that that criterion is under the rubric of examples of "trivial coverage," which the Nikkei BP article clearly is not. I would think the more reasonable interpretation of that criterion is that we are are not supposed to be considering very short articles made up mostly of quotes. So I really don't understand your application of this standard. But I should remind you that I have from the start been arguing on the basis of WP:GNG. Since Wikipedia:Notability states we only have to show the article "meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline," the article passes notability if it passes WP:GNG regardless of whether it passes WP:COMPANY. Since you accept that these sources pass WP:INDEPENDENT, you are admitting that they clear the basic requirements for considering WP:GNG. I have yet to see an argument that this fails to pass WP:GNG. Michitaro (talk) 01:14, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While a source may be INDEPENDENT, it does not guarantee that each and every article published by that source can be considered "independent of the subject itself". In essence, by relying extensively on company produced materials and/or quotations from company officers, those articles are not considered "independent of the subject". WP:COMPANY expands on this and provides further clarification. For example, WP:ORGIND specifically excludes "other works in which the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself—whether published by the company, corporation, organization, or group itself, or re-printed by other people". -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:02, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ this AfD is several times larger and better-sourced than the article. Based on their website, the company is unlikely to meet any size-based presumption of notability, and there are no sources presented that prove notability. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:10, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NRVE. The current state of the article is not to be the basis of judging notability. And can you give your reasons for stating that "there are no sources presented that prove notability," especially after you say that the sources in the AfD are better. You seem to be contradicting yourself, since the sources in the AfD are sources to be considered when determining notability. Finally, can you cite Wikipedia policy that makes size an important factor in judging notability and that gives a guideline about judging size? Michitaro (talk) 00:54, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Electronics industry in Japan. If the subject were notable, after several weeks of discussion the article would describe how the topic is notable. In this case, simply being a brand name in one country isn't sufficient for being notable. However, it is a perfectly valid search term, so I support a redirect. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm not sure a redirect to that article is correct - which criteria under WP:POFR do you see as appropriate. If List of Electronic Companies in Japan existed, I would agree that the company should be included in such a list. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:02, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Electronics industry in Japan, after adding it to that article with citation.. Not notable under the guidelines, but redirects are cheap. --Bejnar (talk) 19:03, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. A Train^talk 20:49, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I-O Data[edit]

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

Delete Unremarkable company, fails notability requirements. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC) -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:07, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:07, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The company is listed in the First Section of the Tokyo Stock Exchange (which is reserved for large corportations)[32]. As WP:LISTED states, the consensus is that public listing by itself is not sufficient to establish notability, "However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion....Editors coming across an article on such a company without such references are encouraged to search (or request that others search) prior to nominating for deletion, given the very high (but not certain) likelihood that a publicly traded company is actually notable according to the primary criterion." A search of Japanese business and IT news sites finds plenty of coverage of both the company and its products: [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], etc. Michitaro (talk) 13:38, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The criteria for establishing notability for corporations such as WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND provide in-depth explanations on which references can be used to establish notability. Specifically, articles that rely on publishing interviews or repeating facts relayed by the company are not acceptable as they are not considered "intellectually independent". In my opinion, of the sources you have listed above, this one from itmedia meets the criteria. The others appear to be interviews or company announcements. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:47, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - First, of the articles I provided, which I only accumulated in a few minutes of searching, [48], [49], [50], [51], [52] all can easily be considered independent, significant and reliable sources per WP:GNG. None of these fit the examples of trivial coverage in WP:CORPDEPTH. They are from major news sources such as the Nikkei, the Mainichi, ASCII, and Nikkan Gendai. We can argue about interviews (which I included because they are easy to find), but WP:INTERVIEW summarizes the plusses and minusses with interviews, including how they can indicate notability in themselves. It is not hard to find more reliable sources if you take the time. A search of the CiNii article index finds a number of long feature articles on the company in the print business press over the years [53], including one in Nikkei Venture, one in Jitsugyokai, one in Modern Entrepreneur, one in Business Law Journal, etc. Sites like this and this give a number of regular stock and financial reports and analyses on the company (as one would expect given that it is a major corporation traded on the highest level of the fourth largest stock exchange in the world). These are all examples of what are considered sufficient in WP:LISTED. Any reasonable person would see this company very easily passes notability requirements. Michitaro (talk) 12:15, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:33, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as a listed company there should be information available that supports notability, but it doesn't look like there is. I looked for 15 minutes including many of the links included above and found absolutely nothing. It's been tagged for 5 years for a lack of sources, and nothing has shown up. There's only 1 ref , and 2 external links - all to the company's website. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:39, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why you think the many reliable sources from major news media that I provided above are "nothing"? Michitaro (talk) 22:56, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would like to see people do a more careful analysis of the sources presented by Michitaro
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:58, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I noted on the other AfD for Elecom, if you could pick three or less references that you believe meet the criteria for establishing notability (as opposed to 10 or more), you'll find editors are more inclined to look at them. Also, from my analysis of the sources you provided at Elecom and here, it is very clear that you have not grasped what is required (and therefore what editors here are looking to see) for the purposes of establishing notability which are slightly different criteria that determining whether a source is a reliable source or whether facts provided by a company source or through an interview can be used in the article on a topic. That said, I would have expected a company as large as this one, listed on the Tokyo stock market to boot, to easily meet the criteria but this has been difficult and even with all the sources you have listed, not one source that meets the criteria for establishing notability has been found.

You've listed 3 unique references from nikkeibp.co.jp which all fail WP:ORGIND as they are company announcements and/or the article almost exclusively uses material created by the company. You've listed 1 unique reference from mainichi.jp which is also company material (and unattributed) and fails WP:ORGIND. This excite.co.jp reference is likewise unattributed to an author ("author YK" is all we have) and is a forecast for the future stock price but it fails as a reliable source since we don't know who wrote it or their credentials. Other editors might argue that it also fails WP:CORPDEPTH. You've listed two unique references for impress.co.jp - the first is a company announcement complete with powerpoint slides, product photos, photos of company execs doing a weird handshake thing and extensive quotations and material from company sources and therefore fails WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH. The second reference along with this ascii.jp reference, this nikkan-gendai reference, this stereosound reference, this itmedia.co.jp reference, this advertimes reference, this weekly-economist.com reference and this itmedia.co.jp reference all fail WP:ORGIND as they are mostly transcripts of interviews with company officers and rely exclusively on company sources for the facts and material presented (and also not independent or third party because of that).

There is nothing in any of the sources that meets the criteria for establishing notability. My !vote to Delete remains the same. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:58, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Sorry for the delay in responding. I have been quite busy and this response required time I really didn’t have. First, I have been rather frustrated with this AfD. From the nominator to some of those voting, I have seen a distinct failure to either perform what should be done WP:BEFORE nominating, or afterwards, to look beyond the existing article per WP:NRVE and perform one’s duty to consider the evidence presented in the AfD or to search for evidence on one’s own. Having participated in hundreds of AfD’s, this is nothing new to me, but I still feel the need to remind participants of what is necessary to participate in an AfD.

That is one reason I am not offended by HighKing’s comments in this AfD, even though I strongly disagree with them. At least HighKing has largely been doing what is necessary.

But HighKing is wrong on most of the points and reveals lack of knowledge of both Japanese media and the corporate world.

First, for [54] High King offers no evidence for saying this is corporate material. Yes, it is an introduction of a new product, but are all introductions to new products corporate material? I might remind you that the Mainichi Shimbun is one of the major national newspapers in Japan, in line with the NY Times or the Washington Post. Second, as for this [55], HighKing clearly doesn’t know that the majority of articles in Japanese major news sources do not provide a byline. That is standard in Japan: it is the news agency that is the author and that is responsible for it. To reject all Japanese news sources because of this is to commit cultural WP:BIAS. Third, this [56] certainly is a report on a company announcement, but HighKing here failed to notice that it actually does name the reporter and anyone who reads it can see it is basic reporting, complete with multiple quotes, on a major collaboration between Japanese and American companies. (How much can HighKing read Japanese?) Fourth, again HighKing has not read closely the sources I provided, calling them all interviews. This [57], for instance, is not an interview, but reporting that quotes multiple people. By HighKing’s standards, is any news article that quotes people from, say the Trump administration, not independent reporting because of those quotes? That is absurd. This [58] is reporting on working conditions at the company and again includes independent reporting. As I said above, we can argue about the others that are in fact interviews (and interviews are common in business reporting in Japan), but WP:INTERVIEW summarizes the plusses and minuses with interviews, including how they can indicate notability in themselves.

So of the articles I found after only a brief search of the net, I believe I have already provided you with the three articles you ask for. But there are more.

I might add you did not address [59] and [60], which at first might look like just providing stock market data for the company, but if you scroll down you can see that these are really just a top page that links to dozens of articles on the company’s stock and profits. In toto, they provide a wealth of detailed, independent reporting on the company—quite a lot for a free site. You also did not address any of the articles from major business magazines I cited from the CiNii database [61]. To give people a sense of the articles, here are a few (with my translations):

“A Steadily Advancing Company No. 4: I-O Data,” Nikkei Venture no. 142 (July 1996), 46-49.

”Suffering from Triple Problems: The Plight of I-O Data,” Jitsugyokai no. 813 (Nov. 1996), 52-55.

”The Elaborate Legal Strategies of Local Companies: I-O Data,” Business Law Journal v. 2 no. 7 (July 2009), 84-86.

”Let’s Learn from this Company: I-O Data,” Kindai Chusho Kigyo vo. 35 no. 7 (May 2005), p. 43-51.

Note that all are multiple page reports on the company that go back over 20 years.

Next, HighKing’s statement that s/he expected more reporting on a company listed on the Tokyo market also reveals s/he doesn’t know much about Japanese media. Most of the articles older than a week or two in the major national newspapers plus most of the major magazines are behind pay walls. This has been a major problem for all of us working on Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. To me, the amount I found in just a few minutes produced the opposite reaction: “Wow, there’s this much on open sites.” By experience, we know that is a very good indication there is as much or more behind the paywalls.

This time, to get just a sense of it, I spent a couple of hours (I didn’t really have) checking the library databases of a few of the major newspapers.

To start with, I checked The Nikkei, Japan’s equivalent of the Wall Street Journal. A search of the database produced 2153 articles in the Nikkei and its related publications that mention the company. Clearly many are incidental mentions, and quite a number are short reports of 200-300 words on the company’s quarterly reports and personnel changes (though the Nikkei of course only reports those if the company is a major company). I didn’t have time to check 2100+ articles, so I tried a few other keywords to get some samples. I am sure I missed many. Here are just a few of the substantial articles solely on the company I found:

”I-O Data: Strengthening Sales to Small and Medium Sized Companies, Expanding Security Functions,” Nihon Keizai Shinbun, 2016/4/14, p. 8

”Profiles of Rising Companies: I-O Data,” Nihon Keizai Shinbun, 2015/5/21, p. 9

”Turning Point for 3 Major Ishikawa IT Companies: I-O Data,” Nihon Keizai Shinbun, 2007/12/22, p. 8

”I-O Data: Ratio of Corporate Sales to 60%,” Nikkei Sangyo Shinbun, 2007/12/3, p. 10

“I-O Data: Profits Rise as Deliveries of Personal Computers Recover,” Nikkei Kinyu Shinbun 1999/2/19, p. 16.

“I-O Data: Projected 4.5% Rise in Profits, First in 3 Terms,” Nikkei Kinyu Shinbun 1998/2/20, p. 17.

”I-O Data: Releases Self-Assembly Computer,” Nihon Keizai Shinbun, 1997/5/27

”Profiles of Newly Introduced Stock: I-O Data,” Nihon Keizai Shinbun, 1991/3/19, p. 17

etc. etc.

I also tried some of the regular newspaper databases. Such business articles are rarer in these (each averaged about 40-60 articles mentioning I-O), but there were still a few substantial articles on the company:

”Cyber Attack, Aiming for IoT? Major Company Routers Infected,” Asahi Shinbun, 2016/11/3, p. 38

”The Genealogy of IT 1: The Pioneers,” Yomiuri Shinbun, 2010/8/12. p. 27

”Healthy Companies, Expanding Companies: I-O Data,” Mainichi Shinbun, 1994/5/11, p. 9

Again, this is what I came up with in the limited time I have using databases that, frankly, are rather clunky. But just this makes it very clear that the company passes the requirements for notability on Wikipedia. Again, with experience participating in hundreds of AfDs, I cannot see any justification for deleting this article. Michitaro (talk) 03:01, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michitaro, just like in the other AfD, this is way too long for an AfD and frankly most won't read it. My points remain the same. You're still insisting that company announcements printed in reliable sources (doesn't matter if its the Wall Street Journal or the Nikkei) meet the criteria for establishing notability. It has been already pointed out to you that references such as those fail the criteria. Producing more of the same doesn't help your argument. Listing references (such as "A Steadily Advancing Company No. 4: I-O Data,” Nikkei Venture no. 142 (July 1996), 46-49") with no links or ISBN references doesn't help your argument. I tried to assist you previously by asking that you simply produce three references that meet the criteria. That is probably, still, your best response. Until then my !vote remains the same as "Delete". -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:18, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HighKing Your response is very disappointing and frankly difficult to comprehend. I provide loads of sources and evidence and you essentially ignore them. You say these are "company announcements" as if it is a fact but you have offered not one shred of evidence that these are company announcements and not--which is what they are--independent reliable reporting of the news. The burden is on you to prove it and you have failed, and you deny that failure by refusing to engage in constructive argument. I have shown that your argument is full of holes and misunderstandings. I have provided your three sources online and many many off-line sources. No where on Wikipedia is there a requirement that sources must be online. You can always go to the library to check these sources (I provided issue and page numbers). Now if you read WP:COLLAB and WP:AGF, you would try to work with me on this if you can't access these, but your attitude is not helpful here. I think that attitude undermines your argument here. Michitaro (talk) 14:40, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I can be any clearer than I have been but I'll give it one last go. If a reference uses phrases like "The company announced" or uses extensive quotations from company sources, it probably fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. I would normally be happy to accept references that aren't available online but have been vouched as good, but given that the references you've provided fall foul of WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND and you insist that they are good references, it isn't enough for me to change my !vote. Finally, just because I disagree with your references (and have pointed out why) and tried to give you pointers in order to help you make a good case (write less and to the point) doesn't mean I'm not trying to help. Also, pointing out COLLAB and AGF to any long-standing editor is usually taken as an insult. My final advice for you is to read very carefully what I have written and you'll find you've misinterpreted quite a bit, both my tone and my willingness to assist. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:28, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I was asked to provide ISBN numbers, but ISBN numbers are for books and none of my sources are from books, so here are the links to the CiNii entries: [62], [63], [64], [65]. Michitaro (talk) 00:43, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Number 3.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 18:25, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I admit to being a bit more on the fence about this one, mostly because I don't understand exactly what they do, but articles like ”Suffering from Triple Problems: The Plight of I-O Data,” clearly aren't press releases; they are independent critical commentary on a company, which is a pretty good indication of notability. The Ja.wiki article for this company [66] is pretty long and is badly cited, but footnote 2 is independent and critical reporting of a controversy over a large scale redundancy, published by the Chunichi Shimbun. Both of these imply a notable company. Furius (talk) 00:23, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Furius Any links? Because this link gives me a 404 - Page Not Found. Also, is it possible you can provide the opening two sentences from "Suffering from Triple Problems" reference? -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:37, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't have access to either of them, as it seems that they aren't online and they are not in my university library. The latter appears to be in the National Diet Library, if anyone is in Tokyo. Furius (talk) 22:26, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm therefore curious why you !vote Keep when you haven't been able to access either of the references you mention. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:03, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The same reason that I'd vote keep for a topic which had had a book written on it that I was unable to access. My access to sources (relevently in this case, Japanese news media and business magazines) is not perfect. Furius (talk) 00:42, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I do apologize to others for the burden caused by providing so many sources. I just felt that some on this AfD were not looking properly at the sources I provided, so I erred on the side of volume (though not on quality). The problem, as I stated above, is that the Japanese media is protective of its content, and thus the major companies put their older material behind paywalls. That is what happened to the Chunichi article (they even prevent the Wayback Machine from archiving them--I just checked for that one). So the majority--and in many cases the best (because you have to pay for the best)--coverage is either in print or in for-pay databases. So what to do? In previous AfDs where I have cited off-line sources, most participants have taken it in good faith that I am not making them all up and have used them as indication that RS exist (I don't recall an AfD where the article was subsequently deleted in such a case). We are, after all, not determining whether the article should be promoted to feature article status, but rather seeing if the weight of coverage tends towards WP:GNG. I sense that some here are not willing to assume good faith, so those participants may want to see the articles. I did provide the relevant bibliographic information for those who can use the databases or go to a library (which is what I did). The databases of all the newspapers I cited can be searched at any library in Japan and at many major research and even public institutions abroad. If there is a problem with not knowing Japanese, I suggest one solution: that someone neutral to this AfD or who has not yet participated make a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan for some members to check on the Japanese sources I have given to determine if they help satisfy WP:GNG, and/or to make additional searches to determine if those also help satisfy WP:GNG. I cannot guarantee a quick response (WPJ members are few in number and overburdened as it is), but this seems a reasonable option. Michitaro (talk) 02:44, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ this AfD is several times larger and better-sourced than the article. Based on their website, the company is unlikely to meet any size-based presumption of notability, and there are no sources presented that prove notability. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:07, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NRVE. The current state of the article is not to be the basis of judging notability. And can you give your reasons for stating that "there are no sources presented that prove notability," especially after you say that the sources in the AfD are better? You seem to be contradicting yourself, since the sources in the AfD are sources to be considered when determining notability. Finally, can you cite Wikipedia policy that makes size an important factor in judging notability and that gives a guideline about judging size? Michitaro (talk) 01:17, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Electronics industry in Japan. If the subject were notable, after several weeks of discussion the article would describe how the topic is notable. In this case, simply being a brand name in one country isn't sufficient for being notable. However, it is a perfectly valid search term, so I support a redirect. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. So Why 15:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kerala Evergreen F.C.[edit]

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

PROD removed for no reason. Club has not played in a national level at all and also fails WP:GNG. ArsenalFan700 (talk) 05:37, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:07, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:07, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:07, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:08, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - will play in the I League this season? WP:CRYSTAL kicks in and keeps it. Giant Snowman 09:00, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find me a source that says they will play in the I-League, I would like to see it. The AIFF recently released terms for expansion but no specific teams were announced. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 13:37, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:30, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:12, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now All the sources listed state that the club are applying to get into the I league, this does not appear to be a guaranteed thing yet, therefore WP:CRYSTAL applies here Seasider91 (talk) 18:56, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Seasider; it can always be recreated if the club is confirmed to play in this league Spiderone 17:02, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now (or Userfy) - per WP:TOOSOON. The nominator and other delete !votes have illustrated the argument well enough. Inter&anthro (talk) 00:07, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. So Why 13:10, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HaraHara Mahadeva[edit]

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

This article is clearly lacking information. It was unsourced, no references and written poorly. Mark Jhomel (talk) 07:01, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:43, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:45, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 16:05, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - TheMagnificentist 12:17, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. "Lacking information," "unsourced," and "poorly written" aren't deletion rationales. Madg2011 (talk) 15:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:01, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While I agree that "lacking information," "unsourced," and "poorly written" are not reasons for deletion, the fact I can find no indication that this series actually exists is. I found not a single reference to this show. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:20, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the GNG. Even though WP:ATA is a lame essay, I think it should be amended to include rationales to avoid. Nothing against this particular nom, though. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 14:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources call it a "popular" TV serial. Has gone over 100 episodes. I added a few sources but didn't change the text. Article should be renamed to "Hara Hara Mahadeva". Maybe it could be tied to other language Wikipedia articles. There were some awards but it looked like they were from that channel. They renamed the channel just before this program started showing. Maybe someone can use the sources to improve rather than delete the article. StrayBolt (talk) 21:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added more text and sources to the article: crew, budget, review. A correction, it has over 300 episodes. I've seen sources saying it is the most watched show on Star Suvarna. StrayBolt (talk) 19:10, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 13:09, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thousand Oaks Philharmonic[edit]

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

fails WP:MUSIC, flagged for four years Dlabtot (talk) 18:39, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:42, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:43, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:46, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable local orchestra.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:52, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:54, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to retain article. (non-admin closure) J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 04:26, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Battala Woodcut Prints[edit]

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

Unsourced, unremarkable regional art style. Salimfadhley (talk) 20:02, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Battala woodcut prints have a very significant and pioneering role in the evolution of Indian art prints, every book on Indian art prints mentions Battala woodcut prints, if these were not significant reputed museums like Victoria & Albert Museum, British Museum, Victoria Museum would not have stored them, a wikipedia page on Battala prints is essential as not many people are aware of it because of rarity of these prints Dpradeepc (talk) 06:45, 5 August 2017 (UTC)dpradeepc[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:05, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:32, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep It was not difficult to find Google book sources from each of the Oxford, Indiana and Columbia University presses. Plenty more sources are out there.104.163.142.4 (talk) 07:30, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Good sources exists, these prints are in collections of major museums and have played a role that, if only briefly, is historically significant. Mduvekot (talk) 15:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 13:09, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Flynn Morrison[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a child actor, not citing adequate reliable source coverage about him to support an WP:NACTOR pass. This is staking notability entirely on one regular role, but if you're going for "notable because he's been in stuff" NACTOR requires multiple stuffs and not just one -- and the only references are a primary source profile and a single piece of media coverage which mentions his initial casting in the show but fails to be about him to any significant or substantive degree. As always, every actor who exists does not get an automatic free pass over NACTOR just because the article lists roles -- he passes NACTOR when a significant volume of media coverage about him can be shown to support the article. And furthermore, due to the potential of a Wikipedia article to cause harm to its subject if we're not careful, we have a standing practice of being especially vigilant about the notability of minors. No prejudice against recreation in the future if and when proper sources are available to support it -- but if you have to rely on a single routine casting announcement for just one role as the sum total of the sourcing, then it's WP:TOOSOON. Bearcat (talk) 17:41, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. So Why 13:07, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nguyễn Thu Hoài[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSPORT, and it was not shown that she passes WP:GNG, thus this is likely not the case. Ymblanter (talk) 07:39, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:09, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. So Why 09:09, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. So Why 09:09, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. So Why 09:09, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. So Why 09:09, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Not being able to understand Vietnamese, I did see her get some coverage in some sources, though I have no idea if these are reliable or not. However, it appears she has indeed played for the Vietnamese national volleyball team. Wouldn't that be enough to automatically gain notability? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:36, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:NSPORT, playing for a national team does not automatically give notability (ulinke e.g. foorball players). I do not speak Vietnamese either and unfortunately can not comment on the sources.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:47, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:26, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 16:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep plentiful Vietnamese newspaper article coverage in GNews. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:31, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 18:50, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Cherrico[edit]

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

Fails WP:ARTIST. He is a local artist with minimal coverage. The exception to that is his Guinness Book of World Records award, which I don't believe passes WP:ARTIST either. Kbabej (talk) 20:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 20:14, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 20:14, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to the Guiness reference, he has been featured multiple times in publications of the American Craft Council,[67] three of which are cited in the article. Kablammo (talk) 21:32, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not widely cited in reliable sources. No widely recognized contribution to field. Not in permanent collections. Not a part of major exhibitions. An artist of local notability with a not important Guiness World Book record. Fails WP:ARTIST.104.163.153.14 (talk) 15:06, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GSS (talk|c|em) 15:07, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:23, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show he passes WP:GNG, and he clearly doesn't pass WP:ARTIST. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:08, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 16:39, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. A Train^talk 20:58, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Sextones[edit]

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

Can't see how this passes WP:BAND ? Theroadislong (talk) 10:46, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:33, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:14, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete not notable, self release albums. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:57, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 16:39, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BAND 1. Appears to be a lot of articles on the band and their work. Not all the listed sources qualify, but enough do to keep, imo. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 00:07, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 13:07, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Lane[edit]

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

Little demonstration of notability. Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage. Fails WP:BIO. Run-of-the-mill businesswoman. Edwardx (talk) 15:13, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:20, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:21, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:41, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found a report on a wedding in the NYT. But then I can't even see if the "business woman" and the "actress" is the same person. Agathoclea (talk) 19:41, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think the article is referring to two different people with the same name. The businesswoman is here, and the actress is here. I think neither meets our notability guidelines as I am unable to find substantial coverage of either in reliable sources. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:41, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. So Why 13:06, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Mathis[edit]

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

This paleontologist doesn't seem especially notable. NAH 14:16, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~: nominator; undemonstrated notoriety. NAH 14:18, 12 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]
- Yes, we know. Your deletion nomination statement is your !vote. Please see WP:AFDFORMAT. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:00, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok, apologies. Thank you for the link. NAH 15:09, 12 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:58, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:58, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:58, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:03, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess my question for others is whether having played a key role in discovering or "describing" several extinct species would meet criterion #1 of WP:NACADEMIC. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:04, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I can't find any sources on the subject or citations to his work. The paper cited in the article describes him as a private collector rather than a professional palaeontologist. – Joe (talk) 15:48, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Two papers with single-digit citation counts do not amount to academic notability, even in the low-citation world of taxonomy. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:38, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Agree with David Eppstein. Nothing really passes even the lower bars of WP:PROF, even considering that taxonomy can be an overlooked field. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. So Why 13:04, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wario (disambiguation)[edit]

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

This is an unnecessary disambiguation page, the article Wario mentions the franchise in the hatnote, and the Wario (given name) article is unnecessary because nobody else is named Wario. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 14:09, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Completely unnecessary. The Wario name page needs to be deleted, as it is a name page listing only the single name. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:24, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:42, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional delete. It's a bit premature to list the disambiguation for deletion as it's currently a valid disambiguation page linking between Wario, Wario (franchise) and Wario (given name). If the given name page is deleted, then the disambiguation page should then be deleted per WP:TWODABS. If the given name page is kept for whatever reason, the dab also needs to also be kept (although I don't see that happening). -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:11, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The given name page is a guaranteed goner, which leaves two entries already handled by a hatnote in Wario. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:34, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. So Why 15:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rasoi village[edit]

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

Deprodded without rationale or improvement. While all villages are inherently notable, I can find no indication that this particular village actually exists. this link doesn't list it. There are other villages in India with this name, but none in this state. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:50, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:55, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:55, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: doesn't seem to exist according to this [[68]] either. ArcticDragonfly (talk) 22:46, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to find any in the list of villages in the tehsil. This looks like a test attempt by a new user to create an article.--DreamLinker (talk) 16:45, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy Deleted under WP:G3. (non-admin closure) MassiveYR ♠ 10:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2022 ACC Under-19 Asia Cup[edit]

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

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:

Hoax and contradicts itself. Fails WP:V. The 2018 tournament has only just been announced. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:54, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:47, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:47, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no info about the 2020 and 2022 events. Seems like hoax, WP:G3. Only links to page of 2016 event. Says that India will win even though the event won't happen for several years. ArcticDragonfly (talk) 22:33, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've speedy deleted this under G3. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:45, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 13:03, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Lewis (actor)[edit]

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

Researching was difficult, due to the common name, but the current article is referenced by 2 primary sources and a brief blurb. I could find no in-depth coverage of an actor by this name. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:48, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:58, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 North Korea crisis[edit]

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

Short version: no reliable sources have used the exact term "2017 North Korea crisis".

Long version: top three hits in my Google search for "2017 North Korea crisis":

BBC News: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-39750240 - North Korea crisis: North in another 'failed' missile launch
The First Post: http://www.firstpost.com/world/north-korea-crisis-us-warns-of-military-action-at-united-nations-security-council-emergency-meeting-3780791.html - North Korea crisis: US warns of military action at United Nations Security Council emergency meeting
The Diplomat: http://thediplomat.com/2017/04/north-korea-crisis-hits-asias-biggest-economies/ - North Korea Crisis Hits Asia’s Biggest Economies

No mention of the exact term "2017 North Korea crisis" in those unquestionably reliable sources. I don't think this is WP:COATRACK-ery or Wikipedia:SYNT-istry.
It appears to be a term that hasn't reached currency yet in reliable sources. While it may in future, no reliable sources have used the exact term "2017 North Korea crisis" Shirt58 (talk) 12:45, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:54, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The title could have some issues or disagreements, but I think the article itself should be preserved. As quoted in the article, a number of notable former U.S. officials consider the situation as one of the most serious nuclear crises since the Cuban Missile Crisis. This is also one of the major concerns of U.S. President Donald Trump. The media coverage about the crisis is enormous now. I might agree with some alternative title for this article but oppose its deletion. --Cyberdoomslayer (talk) 13:15, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cyberdoomslayer could not have stated it any better. Add a ongoing event tag Hyungjoo98 (talk) 14:27, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and possibly rename. CJK09 (talk) 16:27, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We need to have information somewhere if it's so serious people in Guam are being advised about what to do.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:35, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If your impetus for deleting a subject of lasting importance to US-DPRK relations pertains to the title, something that we can fix by simply moving the page, I really don't see why this should happen. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 16:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:51, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:09, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:09, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:09, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep - Obviously notable. Naming should be discussed outside of AFD - and might change as this develops.Icewhiz (talk) 18:48, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A truly puzzling Afd from an administrator, repeatedly pinning his Afd logic on the basis of poor search results for "the exact term '2017 North Korea crisis'" as if that's how we make decisions on notability, on the structure of the article name and exact syntactic matches thereof. Keep -- and per WP:COMMONSENSE, I might add. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:46, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - worldwide media attention, ongoing situation likely to have further developments and indeed with long-term implications. The title is a separate consideration but the event(s) that are discussed in the article, and likely to be included as time progresses, are incredibly strong reasons to retain. This is debate for article deletion though, not article renaming, and there is no reason to delete this article. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:35, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Will have events happen in later time more than likely. 47.208.20.130 (talk) 22:21, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Magnolia677 (talk) 20:01, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Broderick[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:03, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 11:15, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 11:15, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A solo artist who has released over 20 albums, some in collaboration with other artists, three on the Bella Union label and several on Erased Tapes Records. Even a quick Google finds sources such as Pitchfork: [69], [70], [71], The Quietus: [72], Allmusic: [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], Daily Telegraph: [79], CLASH: [80], [81], The Irish Times: [82], PopMatters: [83], [84], tinymixtapes.com: [85], Willamette Week: [86], [87], Uncut, NME: [88], Diario de Noticias: [89]. Obviously notable given even minimal effort. A very poor nomination. --Michig (talk) 09:16, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Michig: Thank you for finding sources I was unable to locate. Your crude opinion of the nomination was unnecessary. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:01, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: and in addition to all the sources listed by Michig above, there are others on MusicOMH too, such as [90] – he passes criteria (1) and (5) of WP:MUSICBIO. He may not be a standard pop star with hit records, but I don't think Broderick's notability in the world of avant-garde compositions is debatable. Richard3120 (talk) 19:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:NOQUORUM applies. Soft delete with a possible refund available. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:39, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My Entertainment World[edit]

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

Non-notable website. Current sources are almost entirely self-published or closely associated. No independent sources with in-depth coverage about the site found via Google search (aside from a few passing mentions and listings). GermanJoe (talk) 10:48, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 10:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 10:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:05, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:14, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nonna Bannister[edit]

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

Delete: Really hate to do this hut every reflink is based on her memoir/autobiography. Google search shows nothing, except findagrave, that independently confirms anything. I am not doubting she is a Holocaust survivor with a story to tell but there is nothing I have been able to find aside from the autobiography and sales/reviews at amazon.com. Color me confused. Quis separabit? 03:12, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update: After a long perusal I found this not particularly reliable source which states Nonna Bannister was "a strong Christian", although the narrative (the only one sourced in the article) clearly implies she was Jewish. More confusion. Quis separabit? 15:31, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@[email protected]: The Commercial Appeal, a TN news source also has her listed as "non-Jewish." Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:29, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:44, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:43, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:43, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as a combo article about the person and the autobiography. This "New York Journal of Books" review and other reviews of the book exist and I think meet notability criteria for a book. The article could/should be edited to replace many separate footnotes by one footnote plus page notes. This is not PR promotional for any purpose, seems like a good reference article. --do ncr am 18:33, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with NYJB books review (I've added it to article) though perhaps move to The Secret Holocaust Diaries to be an article about the book, and trim the overlong summary of the book. PamD 22:48, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I rewrote the article using news sources I turned up in databases. She passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:22, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY - Megalibrarygirl has done it again. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:40, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:12, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:37, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Cohn[edit]

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

No evidence of notability.Fails WP:NMUSIC wholesomely. Winged Blades^Godric 07:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 08:43, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 08:43, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: There's one source in a news search, but it appears insufficient. KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 14:17, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 20:08, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 20:08, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: unless more references can be added to meet WP:GNG. Here's one more from South Dakota Public Broadcasting ref. Hmlarson (talk) 20:20, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 20:27, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks significant coverage. The only references I could find--including those cited above--are trivial mentions of appearances and confirm only existence, not notability. ShelbyMarion (talk) 12:51, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 13:02, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Patrice Roy[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a single-market local television news anchor, not referenced to any substantive reliable source coverage about him to pass WP:GNG: the only two references here are a primary source on the television station's own web page, and a glancing acknowledgement of his existence in an article about the network's national anchors. This is not what it takes to make a local anchor notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 06:11, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:45, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:45, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:50, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:02, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. So Why 12:58, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Home Ice Cream[edit]

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

A directory-like listing for a mid-size retail chain. Article contains no encyclopedically relevant content; significant RS coverage not found. No evidence of a cult following or other impact on the industry. Article lists one source; searches turn up passing mentions and PR-driven coverage. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:51, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:05, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:CORP. run of the mill coverage. LibStar (talk) 14:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:54, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (Never heard of them.) Mostly seems very routine commercial/marketing references available and nothing jumps out as "notable" that I could find. Aoziwe (talk) 01:05, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and references fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:59, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 12:58, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shahzadeh Qasem Intersection[edit]

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

It is about an intersection, without any claim of notability. Most of it is red links. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 04:17, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:40, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly lacks any notability whatsoever. CJK09 (talk) 05:46, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:00, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 18:49, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BR James[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Some minor musician who has garnered a non-notable award. Well, that's what it looks like to me. It certainly would need a re-write for tone but that means finding sources. Sitush (talk) 04:02, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:46, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:46, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:46, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Response WP:GNG. I was initially offended by the request to delete this article as I have followed this act for a while but reading the reason, I understood, I have re-written the article. I strongly feel the musician in question has achieved much as should be on this beautiful platform. User:justpetra 10:40, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:00, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't see a single criterion in WP:MUSICBIO that is met by this biography. It may simply be WP:TOOSOON Mduvekot (talk) 15:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:17, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. So Why 12:55, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ozioma Egwuonwu[edit]

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

There are two problems with this article. First, it is blatantly promotional, using phrases such as "transformational leader". Second, she doesn't seem to have biographical notability which depends on independent sources. The first can be cured by blowing it up and starting over if she is notable. The second cannot. A Google search turns up a lot of hits, but they are all her own publicity. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:41, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She's TOOSOON. I only found two mentions in the databases I have access to. Not enough in depth coverage yet. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:16, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Written like an advertorial rather than an encyclopedia article, and not reliably sourced to significant and substantive media coverage about her. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. Bearcat (talk) 22:14, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Complete blank when searching for sources. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. So Why 12:54, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Ashley[edit]

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Awards are scene related or in niche categories, such as "Unsung swordsman", not meeting WP:PORNBIO. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:07, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:07, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:54, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:54, 12 August 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 20:43, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Unsung" performer awards indicate the general lack of reliable source coverage of the subject and their work, which translates to a lack of notability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:04, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:40, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bernetz[edit]

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

Disambiguation page where none of the items in the list have articles. CJK09 (talk) 01:48, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:55, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The creation of dab pages like this one should probably not be encouraged as none of the four linked articles contain at present any mention of the dab term. However, they could be expanded with such mentions, and it wouldn't be sensible to have to recreate the dab page from scratch when this happens. But even as it stands now, this page is useful: a reader will learn that Bernetz is the name of such and such place located within such and such area and this will help them find further information beyond wikipedia. Also noting that I've added two "see also" entries that could be seen as eligible for inclusion as main entries. – Uanfala 09:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per User:Uanfala. I just edited the disambiguation page to make sections for Places vs. Persons vs. other. --do ncr am 17:26, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn The page no longer is in a state such that deletion would make sense. I have no idea how to archive a deletion discussion otherwise I would do so myself. CJK09 (talk) 17:51, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 15:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TRS-80 character set[edit]

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

No source for the Character set has been forthcoming, and like many similar articles by the same ed, should be removed from the project. We have a reasonably good article about the device itself. Roxy the dog. bark 15:35, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:13, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The nominator should have but did not mention that he already attempted to PROD ([91]) the article but was challenged ([92]) for citing a reason "not in source" when the provided reference did support the statement. A discussion on the article's talk page, where he then declared the article (with two-plus references) as being "unreferenced", resulted in an ad-hominem attack and personal insult towards me [93]. Also, he's been referring to some unknown "pink sky" article he said he wrote, but his logs did not reveal a single (surviving) page in article or Wikipedia space created by this account. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 16:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment MP above is stretching the truth a little with regard to the ref supporting the article (the character set is not supported), and is obviously hard of thinking when it comes to reading the most simple of joined up writing, and can **** right off. Our german friend obviously doesn't speak engrish as well as he thinks. -Roxy the dog. bark 14:36, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The good thing is that everyone can check the talk and the given references himself in order to see who is stretching the truth, and who might have "language" and other conduct problems - that is, for as long as you stop disruptions like this: [94]. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 08:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The reason provided by the nominator is invalid, as the article does have some references already, and one of them also supports the important section of the character set. The TRS-80 was a mass-produced series of user-programmable computers, it is therefore obvious that much more proper documentation exists at least in paper form (not necessarily online for historical devices pre-dating the internet), because otherwise the utility value of those machines would have been seriously limited and they could not have met the success they had. TRS-80 character set and related issues are also discussed on quite many web pages today, and I found them mentioned in various journals, magazines and even in a book (try Google). There might be, however, some incompatibilities and quirks between different revisions of the character set which still need to be sorted out. This is rather common for new articles like this one and it is something dealt with in normal article improvement over the years. I added some refs and even offered to search for more references in a library myself when I'll visit one - however, this may take some time as I'm busy with other stuff. In either case, an (almost always valid) desire to have more references is not a valid reason to delete an article - it would be counter-productive, and we have other procedures for this. Per WP:NPOSSIBLE it is not a requirement to provide detailed references for everything for as long as it can be reasonably assumed that such references exist (which is obviously the case for a mass-produced "open" computer system like this one).

In general, character sets of mass-produced computers and devices as well as those of significant solitaire machines (like those of the mainframe era) are important encyclopedic information, expected by readers to be provided by Wikipedia. They are highly sought after by computer historians, computer forensics, retro-computer users, and developers seeking for info on how to exchange and convert data and programs to/from modern systems (for example using Unicode). We therefore have a long-time project documenting character sets here at Wikipedia to achieve our goal of becoming a reliable reference for the knowledge of the world, past and present.

As we already have articles about the various TRS-80 systems, the TRS-80 character set info could be merged into, for example, the TRS-80 article. However, for various good reasons, we have an established standard format for character sets as stand-alone articles, so that the large tables don't add clutter to the main articles and the system information does not distract readers only interested in the characters, also so that additional use cases, usage histories and lists can be added to the character set articles which would be off-topic in the main articles. Therefore it is advisable that the TRS-80 character set article remains in this format as well.

It would be pointless to delete this article just because there could be more references (there will be eventually), because it would have to be recreated with the same or very similar content later on again.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 16:43, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ with TRS-80. I thought the ZX81 article would have a good character set table (it's completely incompatible with ASCII, full stop) but there isn't anything. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:28, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The ZX81 character set is in fact a good example, and that's why we have stand-alone articles about this as well as the other Sinclair character sets all following the established format how we present character sets in Wikipedia as stand-alone articles. The situation for the TRS-80 character set is not different, except for that it is still a very new article and therefore obviously needs refinements and more stuff to be added. But that isn't a reason for deletion. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 08:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd support a merge, except that the only info worth merging isn't referenced. To suggest that is OK gives any other editor Carte Blanche to write anything they want on the project, cos Matthiaspaul says that it is OK to do so, as somebody will come along at some unspecified time and fix it. This is of course bollocks. -Roxy the dog. bark 14:42, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am certain the information here can be sourced to the original TRS-80 technical manual, if anyone can dig one out from their attic. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:56, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ritchie, that's exactly my point. The TRS-80 character set(s) is obviously documented more thoroughly in one of the technical manuals, and probably also in old home computer magazines. If that would not have been the case when these machines were sold in the late 1970s / early 1980s, it would have been impossible to program more than trivial stuff on them. So, we just need someone searching libraries and looking up suitable paper copies of the relevant documents. This, however, may take a while as it is time-consuming.

Until then our notability guideline explicitly states (WP:NPOSSIBLE) (emphasize by me):

Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article.

Therefore, following our notability guideline, the article should be kept and improved, not deleted.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 08:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, Roxy, this isn't about giving a "carte blanche" to other editors, and it also isn't about your or my personal opinion, but about our established policies and guidelines and collaborative editing procedures, some of which you do not seem to be aware of, perhaps because you never created articles yourself or because you focussed too much on vandalism fighting, I don't know. But your aggressive approach towards fellow editors and your use of foul language indicates that you are seeing enemies everywhere, an attitude which is not compatible with the fundamental requirement to assume good faith (WP:AGF) in article development.

Almost all articles start as more or less crude stubs - good articles don't pop up out of a sudden, but are the result of the hard work and collaboration of many editors over a span of months and years following our normal continual improvement process. If a topic is notable enough and possibly existing issues have a chance to be fixed eventually, article deletion is in multiple ways counter-productive in regard to the goals of our project.

Even if your ever changing arguments ("not in source", "unreferenced") were factually true (they are not, because the article has some references and they do support at least the most important parts of the content already), per WP:NPOSSIBLE they weren't valid arguments for deletion, because what counts is the existence of source (somewhere on this planet), not that they are already cited in the article (see the quote above). Don't get me wrong, I want to see more and better sources myself (and I'm confident that the article will have them eventually - provided either by the article creator, by a fellow editor or by me), and if there are accuracy problems I want them to be fixed, but article deletion is obviously not the correct procedure for this, normal article improvement is. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 08:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because Wikipedia isn't a repository of historical reference manual information. I think the sourcing is okay at least preliminarily and could probably be improved with a little digging. However, I still say delete because the information is beyond the scope of Wikipedia. The basic idea about the semigraphical characters is already given at the TRS-80 article, but could possibly be expanded a little. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 17:09, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid, I can't agree with that. Sure, Wikipedia is not a textbook or manual, but it is one of our well documented goals to become a reliable and neutral encyclopedic reference containing broad and deep information on all branches of knowledge, past and present. Character sets are part of the "interface" to the outside world and in the case of historical devices, they are even part of the "essence" of what is left from them and still important to know for us today (I gave various examples further above). Character sets are clearly encyclopedic information and very much within the scope of this project - they can also be found documented in other printed encyclopedias (I can name a few if you want), and in an ongoing effort since the very start of Wikipedia we have documented quite a large number of character sets here already. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 08:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Don't we usually keep character sets? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NEC APC character set came to mind. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 19:40, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we usually do, at least if it is from some mass-produced system or significant solitaire machine, and therefore worth being documented. We don't, if it is about some obscure and unimportant machine or only used internally in a closed system and therefore has no significance for the "outer" world. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 08:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CPC character set as an example of one that got deleted. But, Matthiaspaul's comment about significance vs. obscurity makes sense. That being said, I'm not a fan of we usually do X arguments. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:41, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only concern with the CPC character set was that it was unreferenced (and it was actually unreferenced by the very meaning of "being unreferenced", not some stretch of it). If I would have been aware of the AfD when it happened, it would most probably not have been deleted, because it was on the list of character set articles still to be created and I could have provided plenty of references documenting that character set. However, it was created by a new editor who was apparently completely overwhelmed by the hostility he faced here and who didn't understood our procedures good enough to "defend" the article. In either case, it was the first in a whole bunch of similar nominations and all others were decided as "Keep".

Regarding "we usually do X", we certainly have the freedom to decide on a case-by-case basis, but a consistent appearance is important as well, and if we have hundred-plus stand-alone articles on character sets all following the same basic format already, why should we make an exception for the TRS-80 character set? I mean, "we also have" standards for fonts, text attributes, section titles and orders, table formats, info and nav boxes, and much more. And there are good reasons why "we usually" follow these standards unless there are even more important reasons to do not. In this particular case, I have difficulties trying to identify reasons why we should not follow the basic format used for other character sets here as well.

There are several reasons why the stand-alone article format for character sets got established over the years: Some character sets are platform independent and therefore could not be described in a related article about the platform in the first place. Sometimes, several revisions or groups of related character sets can be combined into a single article about the group of character sets, so that they can be compared and discussed in context while at the same time there are several articles about the different target machines supporting them (to give you some examples for this arrangement: Amstrad CP/M Plus character set, KOI-7, HP Roman - in the long run I see this arrangement also for the TRS-80 character set article, because sources seem to indicate that there are several variants and it makes sense to discuss them all in context. Some people are only interested in the character sets, while others are only interested in information about the computers in general, so it is good to keep that information separated (but cross-linked) to not distract readers from what they're interested in. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 22:03, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or selective merge to TRS-80.. I'll admit this is bordering on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but I don't see why we need a separate article on the TRS-80 character set. Some character sets are clearly important (ASCII, EBCDIC, latin-1, unicode, etc) but what's so special about this one? Yes, the TRS-80 was a significant milestone in the evolution of the PC. But, every PC manufacturer of the day just took ASCII, added a bunch of graphics characters (mostly to support games), and burned it into a ROM. There's nothing fundamentally significant about this character set that sets it apart from those used by any other PC of era. If we do a merge, it should be a selective merge. Don't bring over the whole character set chart. Maybe just the intro paragraph, and a small image with a couple of example graphics characters, and the link to Semigraphics. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:41, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question, Roy: The very fact that it is special and contains a large number of non-standard characters in a rather unique arrangement makes it particularly notable (even beyond the general notability of character sets) as this is important info for people doing data/program conversions and for computer forensics. It is also vital information for computer historians researching questions like, for example, "Why did they choose this arrangement?", "Were there technical, linguistical or aesthetical reasons to arrange the characters this way?", "Did they derive the glyphs or the arrangement from some prior character set?", "Are there other character sets based on it?", "Which other character sets are conversion compatible?" In the long run, the article should be fleshed out to provide more info about this, but at the present stage where it still lacks such a detailed discussion, the character set table is actually the most important information to be kept. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 22:03, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:08, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sufficiently notable per Matthiaspaul. If you think the article isn't sufficiently sourced, add them, don't demand that it be deleted. CJK09 (talk) 01:40, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Switching to Keep per persuasive arguments by Matthiaspaul, specifically the existence of ZX81 character set. I realise WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but in this case these are two genuinely encyclopedic topics I would personally want to look up from time to time, even if for nostalgic reasons, or pulling a quick example out to show that ASCII is not the only character encoding to have ever existed. As stated above, the information can be reliably sourced from technical manuals and magazine reports, it's just that they're all paper-based and hard to uncover. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:07, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Amazing. The justification presented to hopefully keep this unreffed article, (To be clear, because there isn't a ref, we have absolutely no idea of the accuracy of this article), is that we have an article on the ZX81 ncharacter set. That's all the justification to keep the article that I can find. Great. -Roxy the dog. bark 10:26, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Having had a look at the official Level II Basic manual (which is preserved on archive.org), the character set is all verified there, except for the graphics characters, which you can verify yourself by grabbing a TRS-80 and running this:10 FOR x = 128 TO 191 20 PRINT x;: PRINT CHR$(x) 30 NEXT x Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What a pity. I supported this ref at the article, but of course I haven't read the manual (for at least 27 years). What does "except" mean? Anybody? I'd have dropped it if not for that. -Roxy the dog. bark 11:23, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Another relist? L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 00:06, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 12:53, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Ocampo[edit]

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

Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show she meets WP:GNG, and her credits don't meet WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:07, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:57, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:57, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:58, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 12:52, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Talks[edit]

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

No demonstration of notability. Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 00:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:58, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:59, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:56, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 12:51, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Konversations[edit]

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

No demonstration of notability. Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 00:48, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:59, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:00, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. So Why 14:59, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Raab[edit]

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

No clear demonstration of notability. Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage. Fails WP:BIO. Edwardx (talk) 00:45, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:51, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Probably WP:TOOSOON. However he probably will be notable if current coverage level continues for a couple of years. This one is relatively in depth - [95]. Aside from that he's got lots and lots of mentions in relations to sales/discoveries of historical documents. If I had found another in-depth article on Raab himself (by a higher caliber source than jewishexponent) I probably would've flipped this to weakish keep.Icewhiz (talk) 05:53, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - looking at google news (and newspapers.com), most mentions are of Nathan as an employee/spokesman of the Raab Collection. To me, that organization seems more suitable for an article at this time. Nathan Raab could redirect to an article on that organization. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Raab Collection (apparently his family company) is a red link. I would prefer us to have an article on that, if anything. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:17, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 in some form or another. A merge can be discussed separately if required. So Why 14:54, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Autocrat, LLC[edit]

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

Considering the only available information and sources here are published or republished announcements or notices, none of it could ever actually establish our meaning of independent reliable and significant coverage' if the current sources here: 1 is company website, 2 is an indiscriminate guide-like announcement, 3 is a cookbook (specifically applied is WP:Not a cookbook and WP:Not guide; in fact, all there is, a sentence resembling their own "About"), 4 is a travel guide, 5 is a company "About" page, 6 is a local news article about a local business and 7 and 8 are a business announcement (first: "announced this week....says [company] president....$8.49 and $8.99" and then "Narragansett announced...."), and 9 is an indiscriminate trade publisher. That's also considering when there's still clear connections to the company itself in the others:

"chatted with Mark Hellendrung, Narragansett’s CEO....inspiration was all about partnership....[he] began to think....[He] called....Customers can expect....Eager patrons....can find it for a limited time....[CEO] work for delicious, boozy currency".

Now, to actually consider what else could be available is this and this which shows similar cases: 1-3, 10, are local business articles saying locally-targeted information of interest, 4 and 8 are a press release, 5-6 are trade publishers, 7 is a job listing and 9 is a currently cited source; nothing found here is of course the independent reliable and significant coverage needed and mainspace is certainly not the place for salvaging it. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 20:50, 1 August 2017 (UTC) Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 20:50, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 20:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 20:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 20:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to Coffee milk § Coffee syrup, which will improve the merge target article per WP:ATD-M. Autocrat is a major producer of coffee syrup. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:30, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Upon revisiting the discussion, changed my !vote above to "keep or merge". North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:09, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as promotional advertising is never kept even if in history logs, because this is still against our fundamental policies since WP:Deletion policy (ATD is a subsection), begins with do not meet the relevant criteria for content of the encyclopedia are identified and removed and that is exactly what applies here and so, a moot matter, any exceptions barred since they're not relevant. Also, it's unlikely that someone would actually search a local company first in an encyclopedia instead of actually searching a fitting term instead such as coffee creamer, coffeemaker, etc. since those are likelier to actually be used; since the article iself says, it's a local company so we're not an WP:Indiscriminate collection of that. SwisterTwister talk 21:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The article does not have a promotional tone at all, and provides a neutrally-worded overview about the company. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:36, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to coffee milk at minimum. There are enough sources available to justify as much, and as the far and away largest producer of coffee milk it makes sense to cover it there. That said, I'd be surprised if there weren't enough sources available on this 120+ year old company that popularized and continues to be the dominant producer of a particular drink that happens to be the state drink of RI (granted, this factoid doesn't mean anything on its own given it doesn't mean there's anything more than local coverage/interest). I hope to have time to do a proper dig for sources in the coming days. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:31, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Coelho, Jamie (2015-11-23). "How Autocrat Has Changed With the Times. The legendary local company is now owned by the British company Finlays". Rhode Island Monthly. Retrieved 2017-08-02.
  The article notes:
  
  A glass display case hangs near the receptionist’s desk inside the former Autocrat in Lincoln, now renamed Finlay Extracts and Ingredients USA. Rows of Autocrat artifacts are lined up on three shelves, the oldest ones from when the business was first founded as Brownell and Field Company in 1895. There are tin boxes that once held tea and coffee and old-fashioned glass bottles of coffee syrup, including Eclipse, which Autocrat acquired in 1991. Above the exhibit, a large flat-screen TV rotates images and infographics featuring tea leaves and green coffee beans along with background information about Finlays. It’s a mix of historic relics mingling with new technology that tell the story of how the traditional company evolved from the early twentieth century and into the future.
  Autocrat had been family owned and operated for four generations from 1895 up until 2014, when co-owners Richard M. Field Jr. and his sister, Cynthia Field Wall, sold it to the British company, James Finlay Limited. In July of this year, Autocrat changed its name to Finlays, though retail products, including Autocrat coffee and coffee syrup, still maintain the same Autocrat branding. The stone-carved Autocrat sign that once greeted drivers from the road on Blackstone Valley Place has been replaced by a clean and modern Finlays logo with dangling tea leaves.
  ...
  Like many successful companies, Autocrat has been reengineered many times. It was established in 1895 under the name Brownell and Field Company as a wholesale food business that sold a wide variety of canned food items and cigars. When it got into the canned coffee business, Field’s great-grandfather, Frank O. Field, named the coffee line Autocrat after a series of essays that appeared in Atlantic Monthly, “The Autocrat of the Breakfast Table,” written by Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr. He wanted his coffee to rule the breakfast table with “undisputed influence.” The company continued under Richard M. Field Jr.’s grandfather, and when he died, it was up to his father, Richard M. Field, and his uncles, Russell W. Field and Frank O. Field, to take over after coming back from war. “My father and my uncle both had engineering degrees,” says Richard M. Field Jr. “I don’t think they had any vision of working in the family business, but since the company was there and they needed some help, they got in and worked for the family business.”
  It was at this point in the 1950s that the brothers decided to sell off the wholesale food sector and concentrate only on retail tea and coffee. Brownell and Field was later renamed Autocrat after the coffee line. But as coffee prices began to soar in the ’70s, Maxwell House and Folgers got into a price war, and Autocrat failed to keep up in the grocery store aisles. The family refused to market a lesser quality product to increase profits. “Generally, they were adding substantial quantities of low-grade robust coffee, which is a very strong flavor. Their marketing idea suggested to the consumer, ‘I can use less coffee to make the same good cup,’ ” says Field. “We refused to come up with low-grade coffee and sell it at a cheaper price. You can dispute whether that was smart or not. It sounds great and ethical, but at the end of the day, it was very hurtful to the company.”
2. Miller-Medzon, Karyn (1995-07-19). "Colder is better Coffee's big guns and small take an icy turn". Boston Herald. Archived from the original on 2017-08-02. Retrieved 2017-08-02.
  The article notes:
  
  Another coffee drink long consumed by Rhode Islanders, but making headway in Massachusetts is coffee milk, made with coffee syrups produced by the Autocrat company in Lincoln, R.I.
  Named by Rhode Island Monthly Magazine as the best product made in the state, the sweet syrup (which comes under the names Autocrat and Eclipse) is the key ingredient in the popular Rhode Island coffee cabinet - a drink which combines vanilla ice cream, milk and coffee syrup.
  The company also sells its products to Garelick Farms and Nature's Best dairies, which market Eclipse and Autocrat coffee milks. In Massachusetts, the coffee-infused drinks and syrups are available at Shaw's, Purity Supreme and Stop 'N Shop.
3. Zuckoff, Mitchell (1985-10-06). "Coffee Syrup Is Unique R.I. Treat". Miami Herald. Associated Press. Retrieved 2017-08-02.
  The article notes:
  
  Coffee syrup is a taste sensation virtually unsampled and unheralded outside Rhode Island and the neighboring southeastern Massachusetts cities of New Bedford and Fall River.
  "I wish I knew why it's just here. ... and it's not ethnic, money or anything else," said Frank Field, president of Autocrat Syrup Co. of North Providence. Autocrat and Eclipse Food Products Corp. of Warwick are coffee syrup's leading purveyors.
  ...
  Eclipse and Autocrat estimate the amount of all brands of coffee syrup sold each year would make more than 6 million glasses of coffee milk. That includes the grade school-size, half-pint cartons sold at stores all around Rhode Island. Just under a million people live in Rhode Island.
  ...
  The local syrup business has been good to Eclipse, which was founded in 1914, and for Autocrat, which has been selling syrup for 35 years since buying Arabian Syrup Co., founded in 1908.
4. Roberts, Nancy (1993-08-11). "Coffee Milk, Anyone?". Philadelphia Daily News. Associated Press. Archived from the original on 2017-08-02. Retrieved 2017-08-02.
  The article notes:
  
  "It's just been a product that seems to have taken hold here in the Rhode Island area," said Cynthia Wall, part-owner of Autocrat Inc., the largest maker of coffee milk. "We have tried to promote it outside . . . but it's difficult to get it off the ground. It's such an unusual product."
5. Morrow, Sabine (2013-05-16). "Where can I find it?". The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Archived from the original on 2017-08-02. Retrieved 2017-08-01.
  The article notes:
  
  Autocrat is the gold standard for coffee syrups and has been a Rhode Island favorite since 1930. Autocrat wasn’t without competition from Eclipse, which made a similar product, but pretty much took care of that pesky problem by buying out the company. Today, Autocrat offers both coffee syrups.
6. Lefebvre, Rochelle (2014-04-29). "Autocrat in Lincoln sold to UK company". WPRI-TV. Archived from the original on 2017-08-02. Retrieved 2017-08-02.
  The article notes:
  
  A Rhode Island coffee company, known for its famous coffee syrup, has been sold to a business in the United Kingdom.
  James Finlay Limited has purchased Autocrat, LLC for an undisclosed amount of money.
  Autocrat, which is headquartered in Lincoln, is a leader in coffee extracts. Finlays is known for its tea supply chain.
  Both businesses have been operating independently for more than 100 years.
7. Hackett, David; Rab, Lisa; Saewitz, Mike; Traylor, Nancy; Whittle, Patrick (2004-12-15). "Sweet syrup migrates here". Sarasota Herald-Tribune. Archived from the original on 2017-08-02. Retrieved 2017-08-02.
  The article notes:
  
  Since 1895, Autocrat has sold its wares to residents of Rhode Island and eastern Massachusetts, but it has remained a local phenomenon.
  The Rhode Island Legislature even named coffee milk, a coffee-flavored cousin to chocolate milk, the Ocean State's official drink in 1993.
  ...
  Bottles of Autocrat coffee syrup are emblazoned with a picture of a small bird and the signature phrase, "A swallow will tell you."
8. Nunes, Tony (2012-06-03). "Sweet & simple - Dave's roasts up an organic coffee syrup". The Westerly Sun. Archived from the original on 2017-08-02. Retrieved 2017-08-02.
  The article notes:
  
  Coffee syrup was invented in the 1930s by the Autocrat company, a family-owned business in Lincoln, and the world's leading producer to this day. Its syrup has five ingredients: high fructose corn syrup, corn syrup, coffee, water and caramel color, plus potassium sorbate, a preservative.
9. Beaulieu, Linda (2012) [2006]. Providence & Rhode Island Cookbook: Big Recipes from the Smallest State. Guilford, Connecticut: Globe Pequot Press. p. 265. ISBN 0762792809. Retrieved 2017-08-02.
  The book notes:
  
  When it comes to coffee syrup, this is perhaps the only coffee-flavored item that has Rhode Islanders divided. You see, some of us were brought up on the darker, thicker, more coffee taste of Eclipse coffee syrup, while others grew up sipping on Autocrat, often described as thin and sweet. Eclipse—the first coffee syrup available for retail sale—was made by a company famous for its marshmellows back in 1914. The Autocrat Coffee Company, a fourth-generation family business now based in Lincoln, acquired the Eclipse label in 1991 and continues to produce both kinds of syrup, which are sold in all Rhode Island supermarkets. Autocrat sells enough coffee syrup in Rhode Island, with a population of about 1 million to make 20 million servings of coffee milk each year.
10. Harris, Patricia; Lyon, David (2013). Food Lovers' Guide to Rhode Island: The Best Restaurants, Markets & Local Culinary Offerings. Guilford, Connecticut: Globe Pequot Press. p. 102. ISBN 076279366X. Retrieved 2017-08-02.
  The book notes:
  
  Every Rhode Islander is familiar with Autocrat coffee syrup— the de rigueur ingredient for transforming plain cow's milk into the magic elixir of the smallest state.
11. Ried, Adam (2009). Thoroughly Modern Milkshakes. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. p. 89. ISBN 0393068773. Retrieved 2017-08-02.
  The book notes:
  
  Supremacy in the world of Rhode Island coffee syrups is a matter of considerable debate. Three top brands, Autocrat, Eclipse, and Coffee Time, all made locally in Rhode Island, of course, have passionate devotees. Generally, Autocrat is considered to be the sweetest of the three; Eclipse and Coffee Time are thought to have a stronger coffee flavor. Now all three syrups are produced in Lincoln, Rhode Island, by Autocrat, Inc., a company that dates back to 1895.
12. Petro, Pamela (1998). The Newport & Narragansett Bay Book: A Complete Guide With Block Island. Lee, Massachusetts: Berkshire House Publishers. p. 169. ISBN 0936399937. Retrieved 2017-08-02.
  The book notes:
  
  Invented by the Autocrat Company in 1895 and again by Eclipse Foods in 1914, coffee syrup is like sweet liquid gold. Both brands are still available, but are now manufactured by the same people (Autocrat).
13. Lukas, Paul (2002-11-13). "The Big Flavors Of Little Rhode Island". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2017-08-02. Retrieved 2017-08-02.
  The article notes:
  
  The classic beverage at hot wiener shops -- and at most other Rhode Island restaurants -- is coffee milk, which is like chocolate milk but is made with coffee syrup. Cynthia Wall, vice president of Autocrat, a coffee producer in the Providence area, traced coffee milk's origins back to the 1930's, when enterprising diner and drugstore operators sweetened leftover coffee grounds with milk and sugar, creating a slurry extract that became as popular with children as hot coffee was with adults.
  Ms. Wall said the first coffee syrup available for retail sale was a Warwick-based brand called Eclipse, which made its debut in 1938 and became known for the slogan You'll smack your lips when it's Eclipse. Autocrat soon followed with its own version and later acquired Eclipse. The syrups were instant hits, presaging a statewide love affair with the coffee-sugar-dairy combination. (Rhode Island is among the national leaders in coffee ice cream consumption, and supermarkets offer a locally produced coffee gelatin dessert mix.)
  With coffee milk a ubiquitous presence on menus and Autocrat -- now a fourth-generation family business -- still making coffee syrup for grocery sale, it's tempting to think of coffee milk as the unofficial state drink. Except that it's actually the official state drink, having been so designated by the Legislature in 1993.
14. Strutner, Suzy; Orchant, Rebecca (2017-05-12). "Coffee Milk Is Rhode Island's Secret Local Drink You've Got To Try". The Huffington Post. Archived from the original on 2017-08-02. Retrieved 2017-08-02.
  The article notes:
  
  Coffee milk is kind of Rhode Island’s answer to New York’s egg cream. The combination of sweet coffee syrup and milk is enjoyed at all hours of the day, and no brand is as ubiquitous as Autocrat Syrup. Autocrat showed up on the scene in the 1930s, shortly after the launch of their main competitor, Eclipse. The decades-long rivalry came to an end in 1991, when Autocrat purchased Eclipse, and the company still produces both labels to this day. It also produces a third brand, Coffee Time Syrup, whose label design we love and which it sells mainly to markets outside Rhode Island. They’re all the same formula ― corn syrup, coffee extract and colors ― and we suspect they taste generally the same, though Coffee Time is advertised as having a stronger coffee taste than the others. Rhodies? Care to weigh in?
15. Tucker, Aimee (2017-02-06). "Rhode Island Coffee Milk". New England. Yankee Publishing, Inc. Archived from the original on 2017-08-02. Retrieved 2017-08-02.
  The article notes:
  
  Rhode Islanders have been slurping up coffee milk from local brands with gusto since the late 1930’s, when first Eclipse (based in Warwick) and then Autocrat (based in Lincoln) began selling bottles of the sugary, slightly-caffeinated syrup. In 1991, the “coffee syrup wars” finally ended when Autocrat purchased their long-time competitor, but rather than absorbing one brand into the other, they just keep making both. Actually, they make three. A third label, Coffee Time Syrup, is mostly sold to markets outside of Rhode Island. And in case you were wondering if they all taste the same, die-hard coffee milk fans will tell you (or they told me) that Autocrat is just a little bit sweeter.
  ...
  And if, by chance, you want your coffee milk and Narragansett beer together, the latter debuted a limited-edition Autocrat Coffee Milk Stout in 2013, blending the brand’s bittersweet milk stout with dark Autocrat coffee.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Autocrat to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:59, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Key part of that statement is "that are independent". References that almost exclusively rely information from the company or its officers is not independent and those references fail WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. As has been pointed out to you on several occasions in the past which you ignore by filling up AfD's with extensive unacceptable quotes. This is starting to become a problem. Please stop. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:43, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How can any of this actually be independent for WP:NPOV and WP:N if it says:

"In its office....Autocrat had been family owned and operated....[says company executive]....", "....whose label design we love and which it sells....", "mostly sold to markets outside of...."...."And if, by chance, you want....debuted a limited-edition Autocrat Coffee Milk Stout" (this one especially violates WP:Not guide since it says articles should not tell the reader how to or not do something, "Autocrat showed....Autocrat purchased....Three top brands....have passionate devotees....", "...Autocrat is considered to be the sweetest ^[who?]...."' (or else it's simply suggestive speculated preference), "de rigueur ingredient for....Autocrat...", '"has been sold to a business....both businesses have been operating...." (this is essentially a public relations quote, therefore WP:Not webhost), '"Autocrat estimate the amount of all brands....", "The local business has been good to Autocrat....", 'The company also sells its products....which markets the Autocrat milks....". All of this essentially includes WP:Not cookbook since it cares to actually state what is used and how, and WP:Five pillars is exclusively clear on this not being what belongs in encyclopedia. Adding to this, is WP:Deletion policy: pages that do not meet the relevant criteria for content of the encyclopedia are identified and removed and any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia. How would, we as an encyclopedia, interpret it as anything else if it mentions it repeatedly and WP:What Wikipedia is not is a founded policy? Also, to actually quote the WP:GNG, it says A topic is presumed to be notable if It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policyand This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Articles must be in an acceptable condition, and since we have numerous violations here, how can we interpret it as any different? Or else we would be biased in allowing certain subjects for the sake of general interest, which isn't what a WP:NPOV encyclopedia is. SwisterTwister talk 21:25, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the company is recognized as the leading brand in a drink category that not only has its own Wikipedia article, but is the state drink of Rhode Island. I just added two sources to the lede verifying the company's status, and along with the national coverage posted by Cunard above, this meets my notability standards. Can't wait to try a Narragansett coffee beer! TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:36, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Timtempleton Which policy is this? Because the current policy concerns are WP:What Wikipedia is not and WP:Deletion policy. And note that WP:GNG or WP:N are not policies, and reading the WP:GNG and WP:N, no one it ever says "recognized as the leading brand in a drink category" is a factor, instead what we actually need is independent reliable significant news independent of the subject, and the sources offered are still only local advertorials, announcements or notices. Also, I vigilantly analyzed the sources above, showing they're unacceptable. Can you offer any input into that? We've quite rarely actually accepted an article on the sole basis of a state drink, and WP:GNG and WP:N never mentioned this at all. SwisterTwister talk 06:18, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At this point it's common sense. The closing editor will hopefully recognize that. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 06:24, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

timtempleton, what independent third party evidence do we have from outside the region that "leading brand in a drink category" is in fact the case, and what evidence that coffe emilk is a major drink category in the first place? The only one I see is Huffington Post, which is almost never a reliable source for Notability, as its associated writers print whatever they care to--which is very often hyperbola. And if one subdivides the industry categories far enough, it's easy to reach levels of leading that don't imply notability. Furthermore, judging by List of U.S. state beverages, stae beverage is is not a significant award or feature of government. DGG ( talk ) 01:56, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the former, it's in the sources Cunard linked. The company produces far and away most of the coffee syrups used in coffee milk. That's not to say it's a "major drink category" (not that I'm aware of any clear definition of such a designation) because it's consumed almost entirely in the northeastern US (where Autocrat is based). I'm not sold it should be a stand-alone article, either, but meh. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:25, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts about keep standalone vs. merge to coffee milk? There is no consensus to delete at this time but the discussion seems divided with regards to keep or merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:05, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The references in the article are sufficient to show notability, but it would be nice if someone added content based on Cunard's comment.--Rpclod (talk) 01:41, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and replace by an article on the history of the firm. The present article is advertising, but the firm is notable. Since advertising is never permitted on Wikipdia, the entire contents must be deleted, and if I were seeing this as a first impression, by Speedy G11. Cunard's references show the long history of the firm notable, so he or someone else could write a NPOV article. In terms of keeping the present article, all of his work is irrelevant. Improving somewhat promotional articles on notable firms can be justified in some cases where the notability is very high and the promotionalism minor or easily removable, but keeping an article that is nothing but promotional never is. If kept, I shall do what I can with the contents, but there really is no excuse for keeping advertising in the article history. So all the arguments about notability are totally besides the point. WP:NOT is basic policy. People who want to keep advertising in WP have a solution ready at hand, they can take the present content, fork it, and add whatever they want. Even simpler, they could just use the googles, prepared at enormous expense by paid staff from material produced at enormous cost by paid advertising firms. And then they couldstop interfering with the unpaid amateurs who want to build a NPOV encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 05:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The article was recently copy edited by another user after the above !vote was posted (diff). The article does not have a promotional tone at this time, and provides a neutral overview of the company based upon what reliable sources state about it. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:49, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - there's really not enough right now for a separate article, unless somebody wants to rescue it. Bearian (talk) 17:43, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:04, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Jussim[edit]

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

Lee Jussim doesn't appear to meet any of the notability guidelines for academics - I'm not familiar with psychology but I don't think he's made an impact "clearly much more than the average researcher in the field," and if he has the article certainly doesn't assert it. Cited sources consist of his university website; his blog; Heterodox Academy, of which he's a member; and Quillette, which he writes for and I'm not sure passes the reliable source test. From a quick google search it doesn't look like he's covered at all in standard independent reliable sources.

After bringing it up to normal Wikipedia standards (cleaning up the overlong biography and filtering out unencyclopedic content) I don't see how this article could be more than a brief paragraph. 128.223.223.205 (talk) 23:51, 11 August 2017 (UTC) (copied: GermanJoe (talk) 00:04, 12 August 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Note: Starting nomination on behalf of IP editor. Rationale copied from article's talkpage. GermanJoe (talk) 00:06, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 00:08, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 00:08, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:04, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage exists in reliable sources: [96]. CJK09 (talk) 05:55, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The page seems a bit overblown but the subject has attracted notice, e.g. Sydney Morning Herald. The social psychology field is rife with bad science, so causing the replication crisis. The subject seems to be making some impact in opposing this. Andrew D. (talk) 09:15, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has reliable sources coverage such as New Scientist and Sydney Morning Herald as identified in previous posts Atlantic306 (talk) 14:31, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is this level of coverage (New Scientist article, and I guess the SMH editorial mentioning his existence) considered enough for a wikipedia article? In my area there are a whole hell of a lot of scientists with no wikipedia article and too little reliably sourced information to write much, but with an article in New Scientist or another popular-science magazine on the same level. 128.223.223.205 (talk) 20:02, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One of the main considerations is the cite count of his works which [Google scholar] shows to have high cite counts. Atlantic306 (talk) 15:14, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with social psychology so I can't venture a guess as to what's an average number of citations for a social psychologist, but he's not the most highly cited social psychologist at Rutgers (there are more highly cited social psychologists at Rutgers without articles, and much more highly cited social psychologists elsewhere without articles).

Granted it doesn't make much sense to delete an article only because there are more notable subjects without articles, but even with the New Scientist article I don't think there's enough relevant and verifiable information for more than a paragraph worth of article. Is "google scholar reports a lot of citations and there's one article about his research in a popular science magazine" considered enough for notability? (I ask because again, my own field has a whole lot of scientists who aren't on wikipedia but are in a similar situation as Lee Jussim in that respect) 128.223.223.205 (talk) 20:25, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep - Yes as argued above an article should not come down based on what's not up. Second how can you make a serious argument for deletion with username which is an ip number? Who can tell what field you are in maybe you are an agent for an as yet to be invented nation but i see the number is attributed as to located at the University of Oregon.Masterknighted (talk) 20:30, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I used to actively edit wikipedia (username and all) but quit years ago. This post is actually a great summary of why. 128.223.223.205 (talk) 23:42, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep - Added a section on the original Nomination for Deletion page, to the effect of having Chaired Rutgers Psychology Department (2010 to 2013), and being a Full Professor, including a very long list of publications — all of this information is in the (externally) linked CV, published on Rutgers website (extensive academic history). In particular, Dr. Lee Jussim meets the 5th criteria for Notable academic. (Clean-up efforts a few days ago should have caught this obvious discrepancy, especially while citing Notable academics policy, and included an external link to the professor's Rutgers website.) 2601:204:0:F783:C981:7BA1:CBF:EF29 (talk) 00:06, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as lay-people including me will want to know who he is after reading his Psychology Today blog or his articles on Quillette or Heterodox Academy. Allowing people to learn more about him will help them assess his claims. Cleisthenes2 (talk) 04:14, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Evolution (Sabrina Carpenter album). (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:02, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution Tour[edit]

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

Concert tour not independently notable from Sabrina Carpenter. Original creator had an obvious COI. Attempts to redirect to the artist page have been reverted. I didn't find significant references over and above those provided in the article, which consisted of a link to the artist's website and a press release. If the consensus is to restore the redirect, then I suggest protecting it as such. --Finngall ^talk 00:02, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 00:09, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sabrina Carpenter. No sources have been provided other than the singer's own web site and a concert ticket sales web site. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:20, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:49, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Evolution (Sabrina Carpenter album). I'm not finding sufficient in-depth coverage to meet WP:NTOUR. gongshow talk 03:15, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Redirect to Evolution (Sabrina Carpenter album) or Sabrina Carpenter#Tours. There is now but one reference to axs, and one to Carpenter's internet site. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:17, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:00, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:00, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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] "Lamont Gallery Opened at Exeter". The New York Times. 31 May 1953. p. 63.

[2] "Special Events at Exeter Mark its 200th Year". The Boston Globe. 26 October 1980.

[3] "Exhibit features photographs, paintings, sculpture, stained glass by Phillips Exeter Academy's faculty and staff". The Union Leader. 8 November 2012.

[4] "Curators for Philips Exeter Academy's Lamont Gallery dig through collections for 'as-is' exhibition this month". The Union Leader. 3 July 2013.

[5] Forrest, Rachel (8 November 2003). "Art center offers portrait of alien life in the United States". AP.

[6] "Academy Plans Art Gallery". The Portsmouth Herald. 26 November 1951.

[7] "$100,000 plans for a new art center: Lamont gallery". Art Digest. Vol. 26. 15 December 1951. p. 12.

[8] "Construction Begins On Lamont Gallery". The Portsmouth Herald. 16 June 1952. p. 7.

[9] "Classes Scheduled in Lamont Gallery After Christmas". The Portsmouth Herald. 4 December 1952. p. 15.

[10] Radcliffe Rogers, Barbara (Nov–Dec 2016). "Destination New Hampshire". Art New England. Vol. 37, no. 6. p. 40-45. Abstract: The article offers travel tips for those interested in art and culture and visiting the state of New Hampshire, providing information on the Lamont Gallery at Phillips Exeter Academy, the Alva de Mars Megan Chapel Art Center at Saint Anselm College and the New Hampshire Institute of Art (NHIA).

[11] Norman A. Geske; Eugenia Robbins (Spring 1972). "College Museum Notes". Art Journal. 31 (3): 306.

[12] "High Museum hires new director of education". Atlanta Journal-Constitution. 28 March 1997. p. F5.

[13] "Exhibit offers social commentary, and controversy, in clay". The Boston Globe. 7 December 2001 – via HighBeam Research. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]