Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 August 6

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 5 August	7 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 Delete. Hut 8.5 20:55, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

International Scholarships Non-profit Organization[edit]

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

No independent, reliable, secondary sources. Tagged for notability since created in March. Of the cited sources:

Byapon doesn't mention the org.
Maasranga Television is a primary source, the founder talking about himself. According to Teri maki, the WP:SPA creator, "the nature of the show is that people coming to it speak alone and they are not questioned during recording." Just because that's the customary format of the show doesn't transform the monologue into an independent secondary source.
Bangladeshism.com does not have the characteristics of a reliable source. It describes itself as "not any Newspaper or Magazine rather its a Public Digest to share experience and views and to promote Patriotism in the heart of the people." According to Teri maki, it "has more reliability than Byapon does as Bangladeshism works with Bangladesh Govt. and is a sister concern to NahidRains Production which is also working with Bangladesh Govt. while Byapon is a private company journal platform." Working with the government is not evidence of a repuation for fact-checking and accuracy.
The remaining sources (official website, Facebook, LinkedIn) are not independent.

Searches of the usual Google types, EBSCO, Factiva, HighBeam, JSTOR, LexisNexis, ProQuest, and eight national newspapers found no independent, reliable, secondary sources. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP. Worldbruce (talk) 23:07, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 23:09, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 23:09, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Worldbruce, WP:V, and WP:BEFORE. Bearian (talk) 20:17, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete!!! because if this organization's article with references like Maasranga Television gets deleted then I would ask the Wikipedia community that why pages like Dhaka Tribune & Bangla Tribune aren't deleted. These articles have no references, keeping directing to each other's websites written about themselves. Above all; International Scholarships Non-Profit Organization are currently Bangladesh's largest online scholarship portal having 50,000 monthly web visits for which you may check their portal at www.isnpo.org/blog/, which is notable enough and at least more notable than Bangla Tribune and Dhaka Tribune. And if a verified authentic organization or association's publication does not count as a reliable source then I have nothing more to say about it. Bangladeshism with more than 1 Million Facebook likes and NahidRains with a verified facebook badge is not reliable according to you. Well for your kind information facebook badges are not sold that someone could just buy and put it on their page to make themselves look authentic.

If Donald Trump's tweets can have articles on wikipedia, then so can this organization from Bangladesh. Other nonprofits in Bangladesh like Sandhani have their articles on wikipedia with no references other than their own websites. So I'd request that with keen eyes, please check every details and compare with other existing articles on wikipedia and then give the decision of whether this article should be deleted or not.

My opinion Do not delete Teri maki (talk) 8:43 PM, 13 August 2017 (UTC+6) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.88.140.85 (talk) 14:50, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Per nom, per above. It is obvious. --nafSadh did say 17:01, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:26, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

3,4-Dichlorobicyclo(3.2.1)oct-2-ene[edit]

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

Lack of notability. OrganoMetallurgy (talk) 21:29, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Chemical compounds must meet the general notability guideline to be included in Wikipedia. This one clearly does not. Merely being an intermediate in the preparation of another compound (which is itself insufficiently notable to have an article) is well below the bar of "significant coverage in reliable sources". -- Ed (Edgar181) 22:13, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:33, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - insufficient potential sources online. "I can't imagine how this could be considered notable, since it has no use except to make other chemicals," said the science teacher. Bearian (talk) 20:14, 8 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:26, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Will Monday[edit]

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

I previously nominated this page but withdrew it because he was on a team, now he has been released so I will nominate again. Fails WP:GNG as no sources are available outside of college stat pages and articles that merely mention his name as part of a transaction, also fails WP:NGRIDIRON as he was not drafted and has yet to appear in a regular season game. Fails WP:NCOLLATH as he has not gained national media attention, he's not in any Hall of Fame, and did not win a national award. Definitely a case of Wikipedia:Too soon. Rockchalk7 17 21:05, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:08, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:08, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:08, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:08, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused -- I'd lean toward delete as well based on a cursory review of the data, but I'm also stuck with "notability is not temporary" so of the nominator once believed the subject was notable and now is not, I'd like to get some more details behind that reasoning if possible.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:06, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No opinion yet on notability, but he was an All-ACC player, and here are a some examples of coverage from: (1) Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, (2) The Charlotte Observer, (3) The Atlanta Journal Constitution, and (4) The News & Observer. Cbl62 (talk) 22:22, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 23:17, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See that brings up an issue I have with notability guidelines on here. I will say I must have missed those articles otherwise I wouldn't have nominated again. But it confuses me as to the purpose of subject specfic notability guidelines because it's impossible to meet those and fail GNG.--Rockchalk7 17 03:29, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In your defense (and mine) "Will Monday" isn't exactly a great search term. "Will Monday" and "Football" isn't any better...--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:24, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG per above. He is required to pass either the subject area notability guidelines or the general notability guideline, and he does the latter. Smartyllama (talk) 16:35, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to meet WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per WikiOriginal-9's sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 21:57, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG per above. Lepricavark (talk) 23:36, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes GNG per the set of links by WikiOriginal. Carrite (talk) 14:26, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG per above. Quinton Feldberg (talk) 00:24, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:27, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Roses Are Red (compilation)[edit]

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

Low budget, run-of-the-mill compilation with no sources to evince notability. Do not confuse this with his 1962 album of the same name. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:00, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:10, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can not find coverage for this compilation; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM. gongshow talk 00:11, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- compilation albums are rarely notable and this one misses the mark. BTW: Template:Bobby Vinton. There are about two dozen compilation albums listed; talk about fancruft. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:02, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Quinton Feldberg (talk) 00:25, 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 Procedural Close, as the article was moved to Draft:Gabriele Zucchelli. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:48, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriele Zucchelli[edit]

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

Won an Annie, but this was shared among 4 people. This doesn't meet WP:CREATIVE / WP:ENT and there isn't the coverage for WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 19:42, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:24, 6 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:55, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic Entertainment Design and Research[edit]

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

Repeating AfD nomination as the only keep !vote in first one was entered by an editor now blocked for undisclosed promotional editing. The AfD text by original nominator User:TJRC was as follows.

Apparently non-notable company. Most sources are to the company’s own website or to mere news articles. The closest claim to notability having once been apparently listed (circa 2009, it seems) on Forbes’ “Most Promising Companies” list ([9]). It’s not there now, so I can’t confirm. A search on Forbes does not turn up any articles about the company; 15 where it’s mentioned, though. (TJRC)

Obviously I agree with his assessment of the sources, intent and outcome. Promotional editing for a non-notable entity. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:02, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:06, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:42, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't confirm much of this. The AfD nomination edit summary uses non-neutral language that I think should be rev-deled. I found the SPI without mention of paid editing, or more specifically without the words "paid" or "promotional". The block was for socking. A WP:BEFORE D1 on Google books confirms the argument made at the first AfD that this company is used as an expert source of info. The fact that it was so easy to find ghits on Google books suggests it likely that a closer review will confirm the first AfD comment that, " 'lots of minor coverage can be added up into something significant' clause in GNG". This is a topic to look at Google scholar, which reports 186 hits. Unscintillating (talk) 18:27, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The sole !keep voter in the first deletion debate was "de facto banned as a sockpuppet...and for violations of the Terms of Use", JzG's words not mine. The tone of the ANI discussion is clear that the community believes this guy was a bad apple and IMO it's a no-brainer that banned editors shouldn't have been part of any article deletion process. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:50, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As to, "IMO it's a no-brainer that banned editors shouldn't have been part of any article deletion process.", I only wish that were true. Unscintillating (talk) 19:31, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the banning discussion link. What I see there is that one of the participants closed the discussion, citing a "de facto" ban (which is not a ban), and using the non-policy language "banninated". So this discussion has no standing, and clearly it waa not a ban. Unscintillating (talk) 22:23, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the block-evading editor's AfDs, and there are 66 AfDs. Unscintillating (talk) 22:23, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for substantially the same reasons as in the first nomination. I'll elaborate a bit: almost all the references are from the group, either directly or indirectly. The direct ones are obvious, citing to the group's own web site. The indirect ones are a little less obvious: the company gets used a lot as a source in news reports (not the subject of news reports, as WP:GNG requires), and so gets mentioned, as a source, a lot. But this is not an indication of notability; it's that it successfully self-publicizes -- and its Wikipedia article is part of that publicity effort. TJRC (talk) 04:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All secondary sources are basically just analysis of stats they released, not the organization itself._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:35, 7 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:27, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rubique.com[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete Yes, I know this recently went through AfD but I cannot see any analysis on the references listed in the previous discussion. From my examination, not one of the references meets the criteria for establishing notability. The references all fail WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND and they are either press releases, company announcements or interviews. An AfD is not an exercise in counting !votes and there was very little discussion with reference to policy/guidelines. Hopefully this AfD will provide an opportunity to find appropriate references to establish notability and debate with reference to policy and guidelines. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:18, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:29, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:30, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:30, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete for the reasons I gave the first time. 331dot (talk) 22:21, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- just promotional 'cruft' with content such as:

"...customized rate quotes on loans, credit cards or personal finance products such as insurance policies, bank loans and credit card offers!" Etc.

Wikipedia is not a free means of promotion. Beyond that, raised $3M in funding + $3M loan which is tiny in high tech world. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:25, 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 redirect to Major_League_Baseball_rivalries#Kansas_City_Royals_vs._Detroit_Tigers. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:43, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Royals–Tigers rivalry[edit]

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

The article highlights (in no depth) a single aspect of game trivia but without any sourcing. Salimfadhley (talk) 12:46, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so sorry, I just put my sources in. I just put a fact I've noticed all of my life on T.V., when i watch the games, I've been a long time Royals Fan. Leof616

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:03, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:03, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:03, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no claim these teams' rivalry is more notable than any other MLB in-division rivalry. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:41, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Major League Baseball rivalries#Kansas City Royals vs. Detroit Tigers in lieu of deletion. Here are some sources I found about the subject:
1. Windsor, Shawn (2015-05-07). "Windsor: New rivalry with Royals is good for Tigers". Detroit Free Press. Archived from the original on 2017-08-06. Retrieved 2017-08-06.
2. McMann, Aaron (2015-05-08). "Rivalry forming between the Detroit Tigers and Kansas City Royals? Depends on who you ask". MLive. Archived from the original on 2017-08-06. Retrieved 2017-08-06.
3. Trister, Noah (2015-05-04). "Tigers, Royals resume respectful rivalry with split". The San Diego Union-Tribune. Associated Press. Archived from the original on 2017-08-06. Retrieved 2017-08-06.
4. Gregorian, Vahe (2015-05-03). "Royals-Tigers series makes for the start of a healthy rivalry". The Kansas City Star. Archived from the original on 2017-08-06. Retrieved 2017-08-06.
All of the sources are from May 2015. The Detroit Free Press article calls it a new rivalry and talks about its origins:
Wait, are you calling this a rivalry? After one good season by the Royals?
Hey, not all rivalries are the same. Some develop quickly. Like this one.
It sprouted toward the end of last summer and blossomed last weekend in Kansas City, when that city's fans packed Kauffman Stadium to watch its defending American League champs take on the winner of the last four Central titles.
The Royals took the first two of the four-game set, and the Tigers responded by taking the final two, a reminder they are still here.
Since this is a new rivalry and all the sources are from May 2015 (none before and none since), I don't think there is enough coverage for a standalone article. However, I support a merge to Major League Baseball rivalries#Kansas City Royals vs. Detroit Tigers in lieu of deletion per WP:PRESERVE.
Cunard (talk) 07:52, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Major League Baseball rivalries#Kansas City Royals vs. Detroit Tigers per Cunard. This really seems like a bad case of WP:RECENT, but redirects are WP:CHEAP. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:35, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I agree with Cunard's post. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 14:01, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anoptimistix Let's Talk 16:07, 6 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 And the Winner Isn't .... consensus to do anything beside delete this article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And the Winner Isn't...[edit]

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

Pretty much exactly the same as And The Winner Isn't and contains a single source. Hollywood98 and ACMM98 semms to be the same person with WP:COI ArcticDragonfly (talk) 15:35, 6 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 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:46, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to And The Winner Isn't. It seems to be an alternative name.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TetraNomic (talk • contribs) 15:52, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:31, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree because actually that "alt" name is proper per WP:NCF. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:34, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The film has not been discussed in enough significant depth by reliable sources. Binksternet (talk) 18:31, 7 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. WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 14:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of lists of lists[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:DIRECTORY. Pages in this list are only related by being list articles on the English Wikipedia. TetraNomic (talk) 15:35, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:54, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – This doesn't seem like a very good reason to delete a navigation tool. The argument stems mostly from a "rules for the sake of rules" mindset, yet even there, I'm not sure it's an entirely valid argument. Master of Time (talk) 16:16, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Serves a useful purpose in helping people to find the topic they want by narrowing it down. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 18:33, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this kind of navigation can be useful for people working with Wikipedia at some scale. The previous four AfDs confirmed keep, and I wouldn't expect this one to go any differently. Mortee (talk) 18:54, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While the title sounds odd, this is actually quite a useful page for navigation as other users have argued. Dunarc (talk) 19:03, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to WP:PEREN. Nom misunderstands WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Jclemens (talk) 19:48, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – per WP:LISTPURP as a very valuable navigational aid on Wikipedia. This is evidenced in part by the 31,153 page views that page has received in the last thirty days as of this post, which demonstrates that the article is being well-utilized. Deletion would not serve the encyclopedia well. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:03, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, initially i thought this might be some sort of Monty Python sketch (a fellow going into the list of lists of lists office looking for the person who administers a specific list and the bureaucratic chaos that ensues), anyway this a keep, in line with the above.Coolabahapple (talk) 02:18, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the above. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:58, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:DIRECTORY, which says: Wikipedia encompasses many lists of links to articles within Wikipedia that are used for internal organization ... Wikipedia functions as an index or directory of its own content. Certes (talk) 10:34, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Northamerica1000's arguments. Sario528 (talk) 12:27, 7 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. Aside from User:Enworg, there is a unanimous consensus to delete here. Enworg, you may wish to have a look at WP:WWMPD. A Train^talk 19:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question2Answer[edit]

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

Non-notable software that fails WP:N as the only sources available are connected to the subject as press releases or otherwise non-independent or non-reliable. The creation also appears to be a commissioned work: created perfectly by an inexperienced user in one edit, so it is likely promotion in violation of the terms of use that is excluded from Wikipedia per WP:NOTSPAM. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:32, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:50, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:50, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm one of the user of Question2Answer open source software which is managed on Github. I run sites which uses this software. This FREE software is competitor to sites like stackoverflow. It is open source under GPLv2, similar to Wordpress. I know I may not have captured all details in first attempt on Question2Answer article page as per Wikipedia standard but will update over next few days. Please note, I'm not here to promote this software, it is one of the best FREE Q&A software available so writing article about it. This open source project is started in 2010.

Please see page Q&A software and PhysicsOverflow, ref to Question2Answer is mentioned before I started writing article on this. Someone may not have created question2answer article page because they may not be knowing details about this software.

Let me know if you need any more clarification on this. thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enworg (talk • contribs) 18:10, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Enworg: You need to prove notability of this application by providing reliable sources (eg. reviews/articles in published/online magazines, books about article subject etc.). This should be broad coverage, not only passing mention. Websites based on user submited content without any editorial oversight or websites created by authors of the software aren´t reliable sources for Wikipedia. Pavlor (talk) 08:37, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pavlor, @TonyBallioni, Here is ref to reliable sites, hope this info is enough for you to convince. I'm here help and improve wikipedia.

Listed on Techcrunch's CrunchBase
Many questions on Stackoverflow
On Quora
info on intuz
article on leonis.at
Among top 5 open source
comparison of q2a with powerqa
About question to answer on q2apro.com
article on rightyaleft.com
Info on qa-themes.com
Integration of wordpress with q2a tips
tips for q2a themes on inforbiro.com
mentioned on digitizor
tips on codelair
Webhosting webhostface provider, similar to wordpress hosting.
a2hosting
another webhost
one more host
tmdhost
vps.ag cloud servers
Logicweb hosting

There are many hosting provider are now supporting because this platform is getting popular similar to Wordpress

Some of the sites mentioned in above list are commercial but mentioned just because you wanted to see ref.

You can also search question2answer term in google and see. If you are convinced then please close this. thanks!

Enworg (talk) 22:38, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Enworg: Brief look reveals sites above are either blogs, community websites (user submited content) or company websites. Such sources can´t prove notability of the article subject, I fear. My own search in usual online tech sources found nothing. Forget about quantity of sources, even two comprehensive reviews would be enough to keep this article - at least for me. Pavlor (talk) 05:21, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you know about open source then, I feel you should trust github. There is entire history of this software. Enworg (talk) 05:39, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Enworg: User submited content? Then certainly not RS. Pavlor (talk) 07:19, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pavlor, here is list of top sites which are powered by question2answer platform. Here are some English sites, taken from above page

mathhomeworkanswers.org
wikitree.com 2.05 Million visitors/month
gateoverflow.in
redbus2us.com
pokemondb.net 7.66 Million visitors/month css file
intheyard.org

see site footer or .css file for confirmation.

Enworg (talk) 13:05, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam and for lack of sufficient sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. The links above are primary sources. Wikipedia is not a product brochure for non notable brands. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:19, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should delete wordpress page also, what is diff between this page and wordpress. question2answer is powering 21,115 websites similar to wordpress, and it is open source platform under GPLv2 license. I feel your knowledge is limited on this topic. Enworg (talk) 01:40, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Enworg: Again, notability of the article subject can be proven only by independent reliable sources. Independent = not closely associated with the article subject, reliable = source with editorial oversight. That is summary of my understanding of what constitutes a reliable source. You may read WP:RS and WP:N for more info. As of wordpress article, I´m not impressed by used references, but there are probably much better on the net not used in said article. If you think article about wordpress should be deleted, you can start AfD about it. Pavlor (talk) 07:59, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pavlor, I follow rules as mentioned in WP:RS and WP:N. Let me tell you more details why this page should be there.

About question2answer - This platform is 100% FREE, open source and developed by community. This is exactly same as popular platforms like wordpress (which is used to host millions of sites) and Mediawiki (which is used to host this wikipedia site and other millions of sites)
Popularity - There are 21,121 websites hosted using this platform. Please note, all these site owners pay good amount of money to host their website to web hosting service provider.
Notability - 21,121 sites proves that this is famous platform.
Independent - Above listed 21,121 are not associated with question2answer platform, they are independent.
Reliable - People trust this platform so much, they spend thousands of dollars to host their site, because they know this platform is reliable and can handle millions of visitors every day. That is the reason they are using to host their website, otherwise they can go for some paid Q&A platforms.
Age of question2answer - Development of this platform started in 2010, it is 7 year old.
Development team - It is developed by community and project managed on github. It is developed exactly same as Mediawiki or wordpress
100% FREE and no money is earned by community - Community develop this platform as their passion, they dont earn any money from this and it is not associated with any corporate. This platform will be always 100% FREE because source code is released under GPLv2 license.

I hope this is enough info to keep this page active. Enworg (talk) 17:10, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As well as being unable to find much in the way of sources, the article looks like a borderline WP:CSD#G11. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:24, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My own searching failed to find any WP:RS sufficient to demonstrate WP:N. Not that it really matters, but it's silly to say that, question2answer is powering 21,115 websites similar to wordpress. Wordpress drives 75 million sites; something like 3000 times as many. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith, all question2answer platform competitor listed on Q&A software page are 10 time less popular than question2answer then why those pages are here? also there are some commercial platforms listed on Q&A software page. are those Ok? Enworg (talk) 05:08, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those who mentioned they did research and not able to find reliable source, for them here is list. check Wikipedia page first.

Livestrong Livestrong.org and their Question2Answer site
Twine (software) twinery.org and their Question2Answer site
OCS Inventory ocsinventory-ng.org and their Question2answer site
Siena College siena.edu and their Question2answer site
Linköping University liu.se and their Question2Answer site
WikiTree and their Question2Answer site
American Institute of Biological Sciences aibs.org and their Question2Answer site
FEniCS Project fenicsproject.org and their Question2Answer site
Georgia Institute of Technology gatech.edu and their Question2Answer site
physicsoverflow physicsoverflow.org and their Question2Answer site
Bielefeld University and their Question2Answer site
SSL.com and their Question2Answer site
Sacramento City College and their Question2Answer site

Enworg (talk) 18:40, 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 17:04, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Matthews (baseball)[edit]

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

Non-notable individual. PROD declined with no reason given. Sources not presented to establish WP:GNG. Doesn't pass WP:BASE/N or any other project guideline either. Alex, I don't know why you insist on copying these articles from BR Bullpen here, but you need to stop. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:33, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It might not be online, but there's no way a guy who played ~15 years of professional baseball didn't generate enough media coverage to pass GNG. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 08:11, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The WP:BURDEN for demonstrating that is on the article creator, not us. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:08, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am neutral at this point. If Matthews had reached the top minor leagues during this period (i.e., 16 team major leagues, no major league teams west or south of St. Louis), I would fully expect that someone with his credentials would have received enough coverage to meet WP:N, even if it was not available online. As it is, I still suspect that in 15 years and 300 homers, including some time in the AA/A1 leagues, he likely did get enough coverage, but I am not as confident. So if I get a chance I will see if newspapers.com has anything to sway my opinion (with the caveat that RL issues leave me less time for wikipedia than usual lately, and his name being relatively common may make it difficult to sort through false positives). That said, if this is actually copied from BR bullpen without proper attribution, then it may well run afoul our copyright policy. Rlendog (talk) 15:05, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - I think this is a copyright violation. This does appear to have been copied from BR Bullpen. And while Alex was the primary author of that BR Bullpen article (1) I am not sure that is relevant to the copyright issues involved and (2) there was at least one other contributor to the BR Bullpen article whose work was copied. Although the BR Bullpen article is available freely under a GNU license, I don't think that is compatible with our CC-BY-SA license after 2009. Since this is arcane and complicated, I may have the rules wrong and so I will not speedy delete it myself, and if my interpretation is incorrect then I go back to my original neutral position. Rlendog (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember the details, but somebody once told me that BR Bullpen is no longer the same public domain as Wikipedia, and therefore you can't copy from there to here. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds familiar. The official Wikipedia policy is here, especially in the section WP:COPY#Additional availability of text under the GNU Free Documentation License. Rlendog (talk) 12:50, 7 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( 15:21, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm sympathetic to Bbny-wiki-editor's argument, having a sharp and longstanding disagreement with the bulk of the baseball editors on the premise that someone can play an inning for MLB and be presumptively notable, where someone who plays a thousand games in a major metropolitan area isn't as long as it's a minor-league city. But that being said, the GNG isn't satisfied by asserting that sources might exist. It's only satisfied by demonstrating that they do exist. That hasn't happened here. Ravenswing 17:38, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Quinton Feldberg (talk) 00:38, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As with Tex Sanner, Matthews peaked at Double-A ball. His claim to fame of hitting 50 home runs in a season was at Class-C ball, which is damn near semi-pro level. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 09:46, 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. Sandstein 07:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sex Trafficking and State Sanctioned Violence[edit]

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

WP:OR, effectively unsourced/WP:SYNTH, POV title. Kleuske (talk) 14:56, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Sex trafficking as a section on racial disparity. I don't see that this adds enough to the main article to be worth standing alone unless a lot more work is done on it. As it stands, the article is more focused on race issues in sex trafficking than it is state violence, is entirely US-centric, is overly-reliant on one paper, and seems to describe the issues it raises as terrorism sponsored by the government, which should be deleted unless and until it can be heavily sourced. Mortee (talk) 19:02, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A10 It's basically a clone of Prostitution and State Sanctioned Violence, also at Afd, with a slightly modified lead. The previous article was created just a couple of hours prior. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:32, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:08, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:08, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - An AfD should not have been opened while there was a speedy delete notice on the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:40, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Beyond My Ken: I'm not at all opposed to a CSD, but I do feel obliged to point out that I first prodded the article (prod removed), then AfD'd it, then a CSD-tag was applied. Not the other way around. Kleuske (talk) 11:38, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, thanks for that correction. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:15, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, I occasionally speedy articles at Afd if I feel the Afd rationale has missed a valid CSD rationale and there's a chance to expedite things, trim the backlog a little. I'd say it works about 70% of the time. We'll see here -- the CSD tag is still on the article as of this morning. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:06, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - The CSD may not be valid any more - Prostitution and State Sanctioned Violence was redirected to this page. If it's going to be speedy deleted it'll need a different rationale. Mortee (talk) 19:31, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Unfortunately, this redirect was done by the article creator simply by blanking an open Afd -- which he or she has no right to do. So I've had to roll that back and issued a 1st level warning to this editor not to remove Afd templates, and to recommend redirecting (if they wish) at the other Afd. But I will remove my speedy template as there seems to be no interest on the part of the admins in taking that course. It's been on the article long enough, even taking backlogs into account. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:51, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (speedy or not) Some kind of essay, not an encyclopedia article. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 21:17, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:ESSAY Quinton Feldberg (talk) 00:40, 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 13:46, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wang Shuxuan[edit]

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

A budding flautist. Definitely has potential to warrant a Wikipedia article in future. Currently, not qualifying per WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Hitro talk 14:39, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:34, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:34, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:35, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:06, 6 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 13:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David DiMuzio[edit]

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

Article about a YouTube singer. Most of the available sources range from weak to unreliable. None of the sources go into much biographical detail. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. - Mr X 18:36, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:MUSICBIO. No meaningful WP:SIGCOV. DrStrauss talk 18:42, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:48, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:49, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. Cabayi (talk) 20:02, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete individual is non-notable.--SamHolt6 (talk) 17:59, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi , Mr X, DrStrauss, CAPTAIN RAJU, Cabayi, SamHolt6, as the original author. I've edited the intro paragraph to highlight the subject's notability and am researching media to locate more substantial links. I felt the subject's use of the English-Phillipino mixed language Taglish in pop music was novel and worthy of inclusion. I much appreciate your comments and suggestions. Bluegrain (talk) 16:05, 4 August 2017 (UTC)Bluegrain[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Author has changed article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 14:11, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Not enough subscribers. Not enough views Quinton Feldberg (talk) 01:01, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The lead now has this sentence, He is seen as a pioneer in the use of Taglish, a hybrid of English and Phillipino languages, in modern pop music. I see no references or even a mention in the rest of the article that supports this claim. With no supporting references or citations this claim does not help to support any notability for the subject. He fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Lacypaperclip (talk) 19:15, 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. Essentially, no convincing rationales for keeping the article have appeared in the last two weeks of the debate. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:48, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In Consequence[edit]

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

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

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

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

Article doesn't comply to both General Notability and Notability:Music guidances.--SubRE (talk) 07:32, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:12, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this here alone cuts it I would say A Void on vevo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asouko (talk • contribs) 10:40, 14 July 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Striking comment by sockpuppet: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Asouko ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Youtube/Vevo videos aren't factored into the requirements for having a stand alone article, unless music journalists take note of its popularity or playcount or something. Sergecross73 msg me 20:49, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Looks like it meets GNG to me and can't be merged to the Phase article, it has too much info. Titanium Wolf (talk) 16:33, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources help it meet the GNG in particular? Sergecross73 msg me 20:49, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The sources are either interviews, blog posts, or not in-depth. Nothing here to establish why this album is notable. --Darth Mike^(talk) 17:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep where all these albums in wikipedia have dragged their importance? if you go on nextbigsound.com you will see the band's status as established that's good enough for me and if you google bands name, band album you will find so many things, you can't delete something that can be fixed and that's a good enough argument... read the guidelines before you start doing your thing! MusicPatrol (talk) 02:16, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Be advised that MusicPatrol and Asuoko are technically indistinguishable (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Asouko); I have struck Asuoko's comments as they are blocked as a sock, and have left MusicPatrol's as they being treated as the master. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:50, 14 August 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Please read WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. Sergecross73 msg me 20:49, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are plenty of links that aren't blogs featuring the album in talks, and the article has been edited in the past by experienced editors, plus a master editor, if there was something wrong he at least, would have brought it to light. Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. We can't be afd-ing whatever we see if we don't have good faith in making articles better, or at least asking someone's help and address our concerns on an article's talk page 2.97.229.76 (talk) 13:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct in your assessment that notability is not temporary, but the assertion here is that its never been notable, and sentiments like "but it was never deleted before now" are not valid keep rationales. Sergecross73 msg me 20:49, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment the article can be fixed, deletion should only be the last resort! Asouko (talk) 04:29, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Striking comment by sockpuppet: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Asouko ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:43, 14 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} 12:57, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Phase (band) as not notable per WP:NALBUM. There is no evidence of notability, and the album does not seem to have been reviewed in any reliable sources. Keep arguments above are not in accordance with policy. There is no way an article can be significantly improved if it does not have any reliable sources: everything on Wikipedia must be capable of being properly referenced per WP:V. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

:rockpages If you check Alexa it has readability, and it's certainly not a blog. or here bare in mind the album is 10 years old and you can't get the links easily in results. these are reliable sources as well us here and here Asouko (talk) 13:10, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Striking comment by sockpuppet: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Asouko ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC) [reply]

I don't think saying the above keep arguements are very fair, is it? But what do I know? MusicPatrol (talk) 03:20, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~: passes WP:NMUSIC. DrStrauss talk 14:03, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be more specific, which criteria(s), you think, it passes?--SubRE (talk) 10:38, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KeepJust to sum up... We know how hard it is to prove a negative, please reread all the comments above, the article should stay and I will improve it in time, there is material for it in the internet and magazines. You can't just erase an article just because someone woke up on the wrong side and decided to tagbomb for whatever reason, especially when experienced editors have tweaked the article in the past and never left a tag, notability once established is not going away... there are enough sources to prove notability Asouko (talk) 18:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Striking comment by sockpuppet: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Asouko ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While it is always good to see new faces here at AfD, it would be very helpful if the discussion post-relist could focus on whether or not this article meets the standard of WP:NALBUM. Many of the previous keep arguments are not policy-based and may well be discounted by the closing administrator.

Although you make valuable points, you can only !vote once. DrStrauss talk 20:14, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 16:21, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - in deference to the re-lister I'll talk about WP:NALBUM first, however I'll start with the second criteria: "country's national music chart" - No. #3 is "certified gold" - No. #4 has been "nominated for a major music award" - Nope. #5 "recording was performed in a medium that is notable" - uh uh. Similar negative results for #6 and #7. Regarding #1, which would also go to whether it meets WP:GNG, there does not appear to be any significant, in-depth coverage about the album from independent, reliable, secondary sources to show it meets either the #1 of NALBUM, or for GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:25, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it does meet the notability criteria, some admin should correct me on that, but you can't make a case disproving something nobody ever claimed, listing gold certification etc. It's pointless listing links again the ones mentioned above, and the ones on the references should do. I've been browsing album pages all this time MusicPatrol (talk) 22:13, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I will correct you then. You are mistaken. People can build a valid case based off of things that a subject did not accomplish. The lack of sources from professional music writers and journalists is the most damning part of this article though. Sergecross73 msg me 15:38, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: echoing previous re-list.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 14:10, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing in the article constitutes third party significant coverage from reliable sources, nor is anything that has been presented here. As such, it seems to fail the WP:GNG. I'm open to reconsidering should new sources arise, but so far, nothing is close to the sort of source we look for on Wikipedia, which is more like things listed at WP:ALBUM/SOURCES. Sergecross73 msg me 20:49, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG Quinton Feldberg (talk) 00:30, 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. Despite the number of SPA !votes in support, none of them were able to produce sources to support the claims made. So Why 14:02, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arta Musaraj[edit]

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

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

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

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

Probably fails WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG. Article creator was permanently blocked in 2010, and there has been at least one SPA since then. Some discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Arta_Musaraj. Edwardx (talk) 16:04, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:06, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:07, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:08, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by SPAs

Stay The issue of notability cannot be discussed in this case. She is a well known academic and professor in different foreign international universities "University of Vienna" or "University of Rome La Sapienza, the Largest University in Europe", this last one according to "Wikipedia", which accorded to her the highest prize, the "Silver Medal of Sapienza University", politician and minister in her country. Appearance in News does not make the difference or has a special meaning since it depend on the news, type of media, will and opinion of who selects the publication of certain news. Stay For the following reasons:

First, it is not an issue of being Albanian and not and being credible or not for this reason. It is clear, that people show interest or involve in discussions in case if they have connections (knowledge about) with the personage, nature of article or the country. For sure, a reviewer or writer of an article must have a kind of connection to China or to the particular personage in order to get involved with an article for a Chinese billionaire. And this is not my case.

Second, before considering this issue a nationality of those who comment, by running the risk to go into nationalism or even racism, as far as I see, we have here comments for Stay from the Republic of Macedonia, From Italy, Hungary and from people with nationalities different from the Albanian one, who collaborate with Albania or have knowledge about the personage such as me (and I'm not Albanian by nationality) by collaborating with her in her journal.

Third, considering that the notability issue cannot be discussed in this case cause it is widely proved, I suggest to the Albanian editors to fix the article in Albanian and following up this example the English editors can fix the English article, as I myself can do, even if I do not consider myself a big expert in wiki writing. I'd like to repeat once again something I read above from other discussants: The times of London does not give Notability for free, for more when evaluating an university and ranking it among the first 500 of the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.236.39.177 (talk) 08:43, 9 August 2017 (UTC) — 109.236.39.177 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - Weak sourcing and as such notability - perhaps on an Albania wikipedia but that is another story (please note, I do not add afd comments to my watchlist, if you want further comment you'll need to ask on my talkpage, thanks Govindaharihari (talk) 18:26, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by SPAs

Stay the request for cancellation seems exceeding. The article is informative from many years to now in Wikipedia, with a considerable number of verifiable sources as well as a valid number of external links which complete this article. I don't want to go into polemics with someone which calls it "known in Albania" cause it smells like racism, and as a Wikipedia reader I consider this as an assault of the parity principle. Talking about the notability argument, the editor in chief of an international scientific journal, female univeristy chancellor with verifiable font considered to be the first female rector in the history of her country, even if Albania, also minister in her country, cannot be considered as lack of info and proofs of notability. At the end, an article which has informed wikipedians for almost a decade cannot be cancelled starting from point of views or personal considerations. Thank you A.J.Succi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.21.145.227 (talk) 23:00, 29 July 2017 (UTC) — 217.21.145.227 has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Stay: Understandably, the current quality of the article is poor, and I do not know how in time has evolved into this condition, but I believe the subject is notable enough to have an article.--Liridon (talk) 08:16, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Many of the sources appear to be in Italian. The two people I know who are fluent in Italian are Ipigott and Camelia.boban. If they have time, I hope they can look at this and assess notability. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:48, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by SPAs

Do not delete and Comment: The article talks about an Albanian academician. Pretty wellknown in the Albanian higher education environment in which I work at. The notability is indisscused with about 50.000 websources. I'm an Italian professor and the external Italian links are of the Italian ministries of Culture and that of Education and Science, as well as from the Italian National News agency, ANSA, fourth in the world ranking. The wikipedian colleagues can assist in the improvement of this article, which must stay in any case. In one of the external links I read that she published and introduced in collaborations with these ministries, in Rome, Italy, works of Franco Ferrarotti, the most wellknown Italian sociologist worldwide. This are testimonies of an International notability. Greetings, Villafranca — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.106.209.146 (talk) 12:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC) — 79.106.209.146 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Stay. The resources in italian don't say much because refers to articles written by Arta Musaraj. But searching on web I found a lot of sources which confirm that is a notable person, non only as professor, founder of Academicus and general coordinator of the Entrepreneurship Training Center, but also as Deputy Minister of Defence of Albania: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 etc. So, for me the notability is not a real issue to be discussed, I think the article can/must be improved, also balancing the sections (I find the section of external links disproportionate to the rest of the content) --Camelia (talk) 09:06, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by SPAs

Stay. Here is another link for the 'Notablity issue', The Times Higher Education makes this annotation on this case:“One notable former student is the founder and editor-in-chief of academic journal Academicus, Arta Musaraj, who studied for her PhD in Bergamo”. --Shimjung (talk) 21:47, 1 August 2017 (UTC) — Shimjung (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment. Greetings from Albania. It is the first time I’m taking part in a Wikipedia discussion and I’m now more convinced not to open an account. In cases when I made any comment or review in wiki, I did it just trying to facilitate and for the benefit of readers. From the history I learned that someone else did the same, by changing the word External links to Social media. This made upset the editors, making them open the cancellation discussion for this article. Perhaps someone limited in knowledge and experience in Wikipedia, just like me. In this case, the improvement of this article could have been an option, instead of cancellation. All above just for comment.

Now, let’s go back to the discussion topic:

Stay for the following reasons:

Few years ago, in the ocassion of the 100th anniversary of the Independence of Albania, "the most important television in Albania", through a popular voting, selected this person as part of the 100 Albanian of the century who made known Albania in the world.

In any case, it is less significative referring to the importance of a comment I read above in this discussion, referring Times of London, where the editors of Thomson Reuters who made the University Ranking for Times Higher Education claimed that this person was the most notable accademic personality of an university, ranked among the first 500 in the world. In this case, the notability can not be placed in discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.21.145.225 (talk) 14:18, 2 August 2017 (UTC) — 217.21.145.225 has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete I am wholly unconvinced by all the Albanians saying 'Stay.' There is no policy basis provided to stay anything here. A WP:BEFORE search indicates precisely zero references in reliable, third-party independent sources of the degree of depth and persistence of coverage required to pass the minimum of WP:ANYBIO. — fortunavelut luna 13:58, 6 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( 14:08, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Negligible impact on scholarship. WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:17, 10 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Agree that scholarly contributions are not sufficient (h-index 4, no books listed in WorldCat, etc). This seems to have been created as a vanity page, judging from the creating acct's block log. Agricola44 (talk) 19:17, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, highly promotional, and insufficient sources for improvement. – Joe (talk) 11:00, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete highly promotional, fails WP:GNG Quinton Feldberg (talk) 00:33, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by SPAs

Stay. An answer to those above who asked the Delete, based on facts and personal point of views: In case someone considers not a academic contribution the fact of being twice Rector and Dean at Universities, this is an her/his problem, but this is not enough to shadow the facts, and to confirm that all the links above are valid. As it is false the news that this is not available in WorldCat. I'm attaching the link of ["WorldCat"] for the Scientific Journal where the personage is Editor in Chief, where referring to ["DOAJ"] this journal is free of charge in full open access. In case that someone else of those asking for delete thinks that the ["Ministries of Italy"], invite an Albanian to introduce the works of an Italian sociologist, one of the most well known in Europe, it can never be a vanity. When EdwardX wrote an article about some vanity prizes, I agreed with him. But i have my considerable doubts that this can be the such a case, considering the fact that in Albania, the average annual salary is some times smaller than the pretended payment for vanity. He placed a note to all personages who cited this prize, and in this case from the history I learned that he deleted even the links. And when the Albanian editors replace the links as valid, he proposed it for delete. The bad taste of gender and small countries discrimination is prevailing in Wikipedia and this is not fair. As it is not a sign of fairness that in this case is not being listened the opinion of readers or Albanian editors of wiki such as Liridon, but is being very aggressively introduced only one line of opinion of some editors. And this harms the Wikipedia balancing and all them who get informed by Wikipedia. I propose to EdwardX, the one who opened the discussion for Delete to improve the article and make it stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.22.50.248 (talk) 16:43, 13 August 2017 (UTC) — 31.22.50.248 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Stay Promotional?! Vanity article?! Not at all. It only describes the personage, a highly internationalized one, with all notability data in Wikipedia, with no any fake citation, multi - prized in her country and region with Honorary Citizenship awarded by a popular vote, but according to someone here received also a vanity prize, and for this reason, according to the Biblical theory must be crucified and deleted. Guys, please be serious. A minister and parliamentary is not a notable person according to you. I gave a look to the Albanian notable person pages in wiki, for sure she is more notable among them. Someone mentions citations in ["Google Scholar"] and says that she is a h4. It is too much for her 43 citations, considering also a small country as Albania with a lot of problems referring multi cultural and globalism issues. A call to the partisans of Delete: fix it, say delete is the easiest thing in the world. it is pretty well known but please don't ask her to be the most well known, and the sense of measure makes the difference in this case. I don't think that the fact that the one who opened this page 10 years ago does not have experience and has not created other articles. Instead, he/she may have been discouraged but what we see here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.21.145.226 (talk) 17:06, 13 August 2017 (UTC) — 217.21.145.226 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The only two arguments to keep come from the article's creator and primary author, and from a new account whose only two edits are to this AfD. Other than that, there's unanimous agreement to delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan O'Reilly (singer-songwriter)[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 05:04, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject lacks notability following searches turn in nothing. KGirlTrucker81 ^{(Wanna chat?)} 05:57, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: References in Article are not realiable nor notable. --VViking_TalkEdits 15:07, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Here is the result of my research on the Internet: Ryan O’Reilly has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician himself. He has received non-trivial coverage in independent sources dealing with his music and his international concert tours in Spain, Germany, Italy, Sweden, Canada, etc. He has released his debut album on an important indie label and will release his second album by autumn this year. He is accompanied on his concert tours by two or more musicians. Professional music videos have been made for him. His songs can be downloaded on Apple Music, iTunes, Napster, etc. Furthermore, he has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio network. For more details, see Talk:Ryan O'Reilly (singer-songwriter). ADogCalledElvis (talk) 02:56, 22 July 2017 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: ADogCalledElvis (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

The article has now been substantially improved. The singer's name has even been included in the ‘Poplexikon’ of SWR3, Germany's most popular radio music channel. To my mind, the tags can be removed. ADogCalledElvis (talk) 04:35, 23 July 2017 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: ADogCalledElvis (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

Delete. Despite the admirable effort by ADogCalledElvis, most of the additional sources are self-published or unreliable, and can't really be used to cement notability. This is confirmed by my own news search for him. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:29, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are positive articles in the print media in Great Britain, Germany, Spain, etc., for instance, in the London Evening Standard, Der Tagesspiegel, Stern (magazine), Kieler Nachrichten and La Vanguardia, certainly not self-published and reliable. His songs even reached the German airplay charts, so that a biography of the singer was included in the 'Poplexikon' of SWR3, Germany's most popular radio music channel, which has nearly 4 million listeners daily. This means that the subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources, so that this singer-songwriter is notable enough for a short article. ADogCalledElvis (talk) 16:26, 29 July 2017 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: ADogCalledElvis (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The article is in a substantially different place than it was when it was nominated. Can the post-relist discussion add to Ritchie333's efforts in evaluating the sources added by ADogCalledElvis?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 15:57, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:56, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. [Ryan O'Reilly is one of many upcoming singer/songwriters and well deserves to be listed on Wikipedia] Aberystwyth94 (talk) 07:40, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Important Note to the closing admin - The discussion involved it's page creator but didnt had page creators template to notify other users, which I have added. Have also opened a sockpuppet investigation about the case here. As it appears that the author had created another account to cast keep vote, which is against policies. You may like to wait for the result of SPI investigation before taking action. Anoptimistix Let's Talk 09:36, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand what is going on here. I am not identical with another user named Aberystwyth94. I heard Ryan O'Reilly on the German radio, where he has achieved some popularity. That's why I have created an article on this singer-songwriter, using multiple sources I found on the internet. Incidentally, a third user using an IP has also contributed to the article, correcting an obvious mistake in my edit. I would recommend that user Anoptimistix should apologize for his false accusations. ADogCalledElvis (talk) 13:00, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Waiting for SPI results.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 14:06, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The author above has not created another account (if by that you mean "Aberystwyth94"). The latter is a valid account as you can see in my introduction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aberystwyth94 (talk • contribs) 09:31, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Quinton Feldberg (talk) 01:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but evidence is against your claim. The subject clearly meets the general notability guideline: O’Reilly has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject in at least three languages. He also meets the criteria for musicians and ensembles: the singer has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself, as this criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and radio documentaries. O’Reilly has had an album on the German airplay charts. He has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of his international concert tours. He has released his debut album on an important indie label, and, according to his record company, his second album will be out by autumn this year. He has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across the German radio network, etc. etc. This means that O’Reilly clearly meets WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. ADogCalledElvis (talk) 14:14, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Page is overstuffed with paltry sources, but my searches fail to locate WP:RS coverage. Fails WP:ANYBIO. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:24, 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 no consensus. Clearly no agreement about whether or not the subject meets WP:MUSICBIO after two relists. A Train^talk 19:52, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sho Madjozi[edit]

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

subject fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:NACTOR. With no notable solo song released, sources I found are just interviews about her minor role in a film or lifestyle-related matters. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 19:59, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 20:01, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:04, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:04, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 20:05, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:06, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep

^{For disclosure, I have a (small) COI with this subject and am editing under a second account for the purpose of maintaining my privacy. This is in accordance with policy and has been cleared with a CU. The points made below are not personally biased and are in accordance with policy.}

This tagging of the article is over-zealous, and no substantial case has been put forward as to why it is not notable, Oluwa2Chainz says they can only find minor interview sources, but this is clearly not the case and they clearly haven't even read the sources referenced in the article, let alone the many others that are available with a cursory search. Despite the assertion above, Sho Madjozi meets multiple elements of WP:MUSICBIO as demonstrated:

"1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician"

[10] An article in The Citizen, one of the leading papers in Johannesburg, which is a substantial piece dedicated to Sho Madjozi. A digital copy is available on pressreader.

[11] An article in Marie Claire (South Africa) dedicated to Sho Madjozi with a full page spread. Again, digital copy available on pressreader.

[12] Another extensive article in a magazine dedicated to Afripop.

[13] Article about her in Ayiba Magazine.

There are a lot more examples, just look at the references in the article or do a quick google, these should be more than enough reliable sources to establish that she meets the first requirement of WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG despite Oluwa2Chainz's false assertion that the only sources available are lifestyle interviews. All the sources linked above are reliable sources that have a large readership within South Africa and all of the articles are written about Sho Madjozi, not interviews with her.

"7. Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city."

As is mentioned in the sources, Sho Madjozi is significant for rapping in Xitsonga, which is a language spoken in only the North East of South Africa. This is a unique style that has been picked up on by multiple sources as being represented only by Sho Madjozi. See: deeply rooted to Shangaan culture, choosing to rap in Xitsonga It is in precisely this kind of climate that Sho Madjozi has made a name for herself. Vatsonga millennials have been hungry for a modern representation of themselves for a long time. In the same niche hip hop genre that she is making headway in, there are the gains made by the likes of rapper Mchangani, and more recently pH, of course; but Wegerif’s talent with words, coupled with her image, made her accessible to the millennial in a way that the others were not able to do. Sho Madjozi is not the first Mutsonga to rap in Xitsonga; nevertheless, she is the most impactful Tsonga rapper to ever do it (to date).

"Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Others"

This artist also appears to be a good example of a case were the "Others" criteria can be applied. She exists outside of mainstream music as we know it in the western world (despite this, she manages to assert notability on the normal standard applied) but is an example of a niche artist performing raps in a local language who is "frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable music sub-culture" as shown by the article in Afripop Magazine [14] and the two articles in Ayiba Magazine [15] [16]

This shows that she meets not only the WP:GNG but also two elements of WP:MUSICBIO and an element of Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Others. This is more than enough notability for an article in wikipedia. The article is well written, extensively cited, and there is no justifiable argument for deletion.

Parkdream (talk) 20:41, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the COI issues which in itself is something Wikipedia frowns at, kindly point to me something notable the subject has achieved in her career to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. The sources you listed are relatively non-reliable and primary sources with no editor oversight. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 21:05, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I literally just pointed you to three separate elements of WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG, with justifications of how she meets all the requirements. You assert that all the sources are lifestyle interviews, which is blatantly false. Someone who thinks that this is a "lifestyle interview" probably isn't suited to decide what is "relatively non-reliable". Afripop Magazine, The Citizen, Marie Claire and Ayiba Magazine are all reliable sources with editorial boards who review articles and publish them based on fact checking. They are widely read and respected in South Africa as a source of entertainment news and reviews. You also (bizarrely) assert that the sources are primary sources, however they are clearly articles written by music reviewers about Sho Madjozi's music, so that makes them secondary sources. Parkdream (talk) 21:21, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"12. Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network."

Further evidence of meeting WP:MUSICBIO, on 14th July 2017 MetroFM, a national radio station in South Africa broadcasting on FM Stereo held a 24 minute interview with Sho Madjozi. This would qualify as a substatial national broadcast featuring the subject of the article. Evidence: [17]

"11. Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network."

She has also had her music placed into the rotation of MetroFM, if you listen to the DJ on the link [18] he clearly states that he has played her music many times on his show. So that shows she also fulfils the requirement of WP:MUSICBIO that "The recording was in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network."

So now I've demonstrated that the subject fulfils 4 seperate requirements of WP:MUSICBIO, the requirement of WP:GNG and there's a strong argument that she also fulfils Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Others.

I respectfully ask that Oluwa2Chainz considers his position in light of this evidence. Regards, Parkdream (talk) 22:05, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:36, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep~~ Delete per nom --MassiveYR ♠ 21:52, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MassiveYR can you kindly provide reliable sources to back your vote? —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:08, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Oluwa2Chainz:After an extensive research I have noticed that most sources are just interviews, blog posts and not in-depth. Nothing here to establish notability. MassiveYR ♠ 18:29, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[19] [20] [21] [22] These are the same articles I linked above. Clearly they're not interviews, or blog posts. They are reliable sources with in-depth discussion of the subject of the article. I understand that you're not going to change your vote again because that's not how wikipedians work, but it's honestly frustrating to me that you and Oluwa2Chainz keep asserting that these sources are interviews (or blog posts now) when that's patently false - I encourage the closing admin to look closely at the validity of the arguments made here.

Additionally, even if the subject did fail the GNG (which it doesn't), you haven't refuted the fact that she meets multiple elements of WP:MUSICBIO, including having had her music placed in rotation by a national radio station and having been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment on a national radio station. Rather frustrated! Parkdream (talk) 06:23, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should understand that we now live in a world where almost every upcoming musician pay radio/t.v stations to get rotational airplay just to promote their career. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 08:17, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So you're agreeing that she fulfills the notability policy, but because in your opinion that notability policy is wrong (because too many people would meet it - I mean does this really even matter?) we should just ignore the fact that she fulfills two elements WP:MUSICBIO? (plus multiple other elements which I have discussed above and you've failed to refute). Bizarre. Parkdream (talk) 12:31, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. fails WP:MUSICBIO--XFhumu^Talk 14:57, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— XFhumu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Parkdream (talk) 21:05, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A strong keep and 2 dels, re-listing to get some more editors to analyze Parkdream's sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 14:05, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Quinton Feldberg (talk) 01:09, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep COI or not, Parkdream has a point. Just claiming "Fails X" is not helpful when a lot of sources are mentioned. And claims that those sources are all unable to establish notability does not appear to be correct either. This appears to be a reliable source (editorial board and all) covering the subject in detail (remember, blogs by reliable sources are usually RS as well). Same goes for the coverage in Marie Claire or The Citizen (South Africa), both clearly RS. That those contain interview parts does not disqualify them as RS. While Ayiba Magazine accepts submissions, it performs editorial control, which should suffice to make it a RS as well. A short GNews search finds another article from the Sunday World. Meets WP:MUSICBIO #1, #7, #11, #12, WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. Regards So Why 14:54, 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 no consensus with WP:NPASR. Side note: The nominator was not topic banned at the time of the nomination. So Why 13:45, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Kumagaya[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Sk8erPrince (talk) 07:14, 21 July 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 July 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:26, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:39, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:39, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:39, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:13, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I'm not sure with this one, I see major roles bolded on ANN which leads me to believe the article is incomplete. I also found a source on ja:wiki which is tied to this book: [23]. The source appears under her biographical info, with research this could yield more results. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:20, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those "bolded" roles are from really, really non-notable titles. Even JAwiki is a stub for this one. That's why I nommed the article for deletion. Sk8erPrince (talk) 12:33, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete stub-level article even in JA wikipedia, which has very little biographical information and is a credits dump. The book reference might confirm a little bit of her profile, but I don't see much referencing there either, only to her agency 81 produce. None of her roles are in notable productions. No news to discuss her in ANN. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:46, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The condition of the Japanese page should not seal this article's fate. Knowledgekid presented a scenario where further research can offer more reliable coverage. Simply because the nom does not have access to such sources is no excuse for an outright delete at this point.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Japanese page shows its potential for development. Unless the actress is new, an empty credits only listing means there isn't much hope for finding more research about the actor. The JA Wikipedia article body says that she went to some high school and voice training school and signed with 81 produce. The two references provided, one is from a voice actor directory, and the other in Animage 1994 is potentially an interesting up and coming article about her, but doesn't say stuff that shows she meets WP:ENT. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:59, 26 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) 15:09, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The nominator has been topic banned from any deletion discussions on the English Wikipedia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:51, 31 July 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( 14:03, 6 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 Draftify. All arguing for deletion expressed that the subject might be notable if sourced properly and that the creator should be given the possibility to work on it. So Why 13:42, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moses Ukpong[edit]

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

Could not find any reliable source about the subject to meet WP:GNG —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 13:01, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 13:01, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 13:01, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I will note that state legislators are granted a presumption of notability under WP:NPOL #1, even if the sourcing in the article is currently inadequate, if they can be properly verified to have actually held the office claimed — so I'll withdraw my delete if somebody can find proper confirmation of the fact. But we have had instances of people who hoaxed themselves into Wikipedia by claiming to hold offices they hadn't actually held, so it's not enough to just assert that a person held office in a state legislature — we need to be able to verify that the claim is true before NPOL kicks in. But I can't seem to find proper confirmation of the claim on a Google search, aside from "sources" that are simply mirroring this article. So, again, I'll switch to a keep if someone with better knowledge of how to access Nigerian media archives can find proper confirmation that he held the office claimed — but it's not the claim to passing NPOL that actually passes NPOL, but the ability to properly confirm that the claim is true. Bearcat (talk) 17:25, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know if this will be enough but here's a link that says "Moses Ukpong of the Akwa Ibom State House of Assembly for supplying us with useful materials." You can also check for more at 1 2 Zazzysa (talk) 19:40, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ukpong1: Those are mirror passing mentions which cannot be verified and why do I think you might WP:COI issues to the subject? —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 21:08, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that in the first link, the words "Moses Ukpong of the Akwa Ibom State House of Assembly" don't actually clarify what his role was with the House of Assembly — it could mean he was a legislator, sure, but it could just as easily mean he was a non-notable staffer, such as a legislative assistant or a librarian. What we need is a source which explicitly states that he held a seat as a legislator in the assembly, not just one which links him to it in an unspecified way. And the second link apparently contains his name somewhere, but it's impossible for us to see the context in which his name appears because it's located somewhere other than the very small portion of one page that's visible as a "preview". Bearcat (talk) 21:49, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I understand better now, i am no longer contesting deletion. Zazzysa (talk) 23:13, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Delete, till a source arises. Even though my spirit tells me the information on him being in the state assembly isn't false, I share the concern of Bearcat that we need at least a statement that show that he was elected as a member of the state parliament. I'm voting delete, not because article fails GNG but due to failure in meeting WP:verifiability policy and WP:npoliticians guideline.

This article gives more perspective to my eternal argument that making a case for inequality in the internet penetration of certain articles in third world countries is never a circular argument. Before voting, I spent about 15 minutes trying to retrieve the result of the 1999 and 2003 elections in Akwa Ibom State parliament, but as usual I practically found nothing. This is similar to what I experienced while working on Patrick Obahiagbon's article. I couldn't get a list of members of the Nigeria Federal House of representatives before, during and immediately after his tenure, I had to combine patches in references to meet WP:verifiability. These were federal legislators elected in 2003, 2007 and 2011, not 1980s or 1990s, yet no online document containing a list of election winners. That is the world we live in!

This is why I consider it unfair when I see some regular editors (some even Nigerian editors) join the bandwagon and try to apply exactly the same metrics of GNG used to assess western articles on some encyclopedic Nigerian topics. In my opinion, clinging on gng alone in establishing notability of core subjects tends to promote this bias unknowingly. I think gng will eventually get scrapped (or given lesser weight) in a perfect world of digital equality. Imho, basing notability on GNG alone is dogmatic, insensitive and promotes inconsistencies at various levels.

@Zazzysa Soft question: Did you read the link Bearcat provided? I'm curious to know why you think if it is proven that he's a state assembly legislator, it might not be sufficient for a keep (note: this question was before the follow up comments to your post). Darreg (talk) 11:43, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, GNG does not require that our sources be online ones — as long as the citations are reliable ones, we can cite stuff to print-only content. But the problem is that entirely waiving GNG just because a country's media might happen to have a weaker internet presence opens us up to the exact issues that waiving GNG anywhere else would: advertorialized content about people who make self-aggrandizing claims to passing an inclusion guideline but actually don't, inaccurate or biased content that violates WP:BLP, or outright hoaxes that don't actually exist at all. So we do have to depend on reliable sources, because that's how we keep from getting gamed by every aspiring musician who wants to gain publicity by falsely claiming to have had a hit single. Bearcat (talk) 15:37, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've been observing your comments on AFDs and everytime I see your vote, its always comprehensive yet balanced; considerate yet policy-oriented and filled with so much knowledge in whatever subject area. If more Wikipedians can adopt your technique and do as much digging (both on the internet and policy-wise) as you do, the issue of systematic bias will rarely surface.

I understand you and what GNG is trying to avoid, but my theory is that we can attain verifiability without basing notability on gng. Nonetheless, the existence of gng increases the quality of articles especially the POV. But the summary of my submission is that there should be universal ways of assessing notability for all professions, organization, topics aside gng. These guidelines should be specific to these areas but applicable across board. We currently have some on Wikipedia, but many editors choose to ignore them most times and think everything is all about GNG.

Consider this hypothetical situation (I encounter such frequently), three reliable sources exists that interviews a subject, then I could find five sources that documents certain news about the same subject. Based on GNG, editors will say that interviews are not independent and routine coverage are not significant, but if the subject meets some other notability guidelines (like nsports, npoliticians, nentertainer, etc), I could write a decent article from the references I have gathered. Darreg (talk) 09:53, 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( 14:02, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think this should be returned to draft space rather than outright deletion, to preserve the history of the article and to allow the creator to find (and source) official or reliable source material that address the central claim, that the subject served in the Akwa Ibom State parliament. I also think this claim of notability is ultimately true, but sourcing is required. --Enos733 (talk) 20:36, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I could accept that as well. Bearcat (talk) 17:51, 10 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:27, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Q. Jackson[edit]

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

Deprodded without rationale or improvement. Journeyman musician. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show he passes WP:GNG, and he does not meet either WP:MUSICBIO or WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:59, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:04, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:04, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:04, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I could not find coverage to show that this person meets WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO, or WP:ENT at this time. gongshow talk 00:25, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:53, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT. Quinton Feldberg (talk) 01:10, 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. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:45, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two Roads Hospitality[edit]

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

fails WP:CORP. sources in gnews tend to be PR releases LibStar (talk) 16:57, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:15, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:16, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: article doesn't assert its significance and its sources do not convey corporate notability. DrStrauss talk 18:46, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 12:29, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sources mostly PRs failing CORPDEPTH. KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 13:50, 6 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:28, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sudbury Summerfest[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a defunct event, which was created in good faith at a time when our notability standards for events were a lot looser than they are today — at the time, as long as the event existed and that fact could be verified, a presumption of notability was granted regardless of whether the article was actually reliably sourced or not. However, today we require the event to show some evidence that it's garnered media coverage that goes beyond the purely local — but this doesn't have that, as even on a deep database search I can't find any evidence that it ever got one whit of coverage beyond the city's local media. And even most of what I can find in the city's local media, apart from one article in each of the city's two newspapers about it going defunct in 2014, is routine "entertainment calendar" listings. There simply isn't the depth or breadth of coverage needed to deem this notable under contemporary standards — and because it's defunct, there's no real prospect of better sourceability emerging in the future either. Bearcat (talk) 18:13, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:17, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:33, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - TheMagnificentist 20:02, 29 July 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 July 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:15, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no authoritative references are provided, much less any indication of notability.--Rpclod (talk) 23:34, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 12:26, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and lacks authoritative references. Quinton Feldberg (talk) 01:12, 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 13:39, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adesewa Josh[edit]

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

Promotional material on a subject who fails to meet WP:GNG. The claim that "She was also selected to be the Africa Host of UNTV’s multiple-award winning documentary program, 21st century" can't be verified. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 11:45, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 11:45, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:57, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:57, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:57, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable broadcast journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:10, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability isn't established TarHealer (talk) 04:02, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notability is established, the subject is a notable Nigerian broadcast journalist with reputable sources verifying her notability. Some of the grammar may be reworded to not sound promotional.Pastorflex (talk) 08:11, 9 August 2017 (UTC) Pastorflex[reply]

Kindly point out the reputable sources verifying her notability. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 21:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails to establish notablity. Quinton Feldberg (talk) 01:13, 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. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Helmuth[edit]

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

Minor non-notable actor lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 02:46, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:48, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets general WP:GNG. Minor non-notable actor doesn't isn't an accurate description, he had a main role in a high grossing film. Rusted AutoParts 02:59, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - still fails WP:ENT. reddogsix (talk) 03:28, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If that was to be enforced, many of the lesser notable actors and actresses with articles on this site should be up for deletion. I don't think WP:ENT supersedes WP:GNG. Rusted AutoParts 03:47, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I can't comment on other articles; however, if they do not meet Wikipedia standards I presume they should be deleted. I hardly see evidence of WP:GNG. Where has it "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." reddogsix (talk) 15:20, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If WP:GNG is met, not need for other criterias. They are required in case there is no substantial evidence of WP:GNG. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:11, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG. Artw (talk) 04:13, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't see evidence of WP:GNG. Where has it "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." reddogsix (talk) 15:20, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am the page creator. I can do some research and add additional sources. They definitely exist: 307,000 hits on a Google search. Skudrafan1 (talk) 15:24, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It would be nice if indeed there were 307K hit for him; however, there are only 137 for "Evan Helmuth." Hint: look at the bottom of the last page of hits for the true number - don't forget to use quotations. reddogsix (talk) 15:28, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*My mistake. Skudrafan1 (talk) 17:28, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:49, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:16, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:GNG, which supersedes WP:ENT. There are following references I've found [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], etc... Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:10, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Lead actor for The Devil Inside (which had the third-highest January opening weekend in U.S. box office history btw), as well as supporting roles. Normal filmography for most working, professional film and television actors. Passes WP:GNG Scanlan (talk) 12:34, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG. Quinton Feldberg (talk) 01:15, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Arthistorian1977 has identified multiple reliable sources that have significant coverage to enable WP:BASIC to be passed Atlantic306 (talk) 19:56, 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 keep. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:52, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kash Jackson[edit]

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

Kash Jackson does not meet the notability requirements as stated by Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Politicians_and_judges Signed, User:Mpen320, talk (12:51 CT, 23 July 2017)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:55, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:55, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:55, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:55, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article contains several reliable sources, some of them actually covering the subject in detail (and some passing mentions), enough to pass WP:BASIC, which is sufficient even if WP:POLITICIAN is not met. At the very least, it could be merged to the election's article, so deletion is not a viable alternative either way. Regards So Why 12:10, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:15, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject has received sufficient coverage from reliable sources, passes WP:GNG WP:BIO Cllgbksr (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2017 (UTC)otability[reply]
Keep Noteable enough and citations are diverse and secondary. Maugster (talk) 12:13, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The coverage in reliable sources is not evincing anywhere near as solid a GNG pass as claimed above. Of the eight references present here, two are YouTube videos which contribute zilch toward building a GNG pass; one (Free Thought Project) is an unreliable source; and one (Chicago Tribune) is campaign-related coverage that fails to support the preexisting notability necessary to get an unelected candiate for office into Wikipedia. That's fully half the sourcing decapitated right there. And of the four remaining reliable sources, he's substantively the subject of just one of them (CBS Denver) — all of the other three merely namecheck his existence as a bit player or soundbite-giver in coverage that's about someone or something other than him. This is not what it takes to pass GNG, not even close — I strongly suspect that some or all of the keep voters above merely eyeballed the number of sources without actually taking note of their quality at all, because there's only one source here that's both reliable and substantively about Kash Jackson. Bearcat (talk) 14:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. The Observer source is more than just a namecheck and so is the USA Today one. Here's another from Slate. WP:BASIC, unlike WP:GNG, says that [i]f the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability and I believe that this is the case here, even though I admit it's barely meeting that threshold. But barely meeting is sufficient and meeting WP:BASIC is enough even if WP:GNG is not met because WP:N says a subject is notable if it meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline [...] (emphasis added). Regards So Why 13:38, 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 keep. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:30, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deadly Care (film)[edit]

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

Unremarkable movie of the week. Most references appear to be "this week on tv" type pieces. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 15:21, 23 July 2017 (UTC) World's Lamest Critic (talk) 15:21, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a high profile tv movie with a notable director David Anspaugh, a notable cast and a full soundtrack by Tangerine Dream. Was broadcast primetime in 1987 on CBS so had a large audience. Has coverage in reliable sources such as LA Times and Sun Sentinel. Atlantic306 (talk) 16:13, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the LA Times covered it in a piece called "Weekend tv" and devoted literally half a sentence to it. The Sun Sentinel piece is better, but it's standard publicity stuff for a made for tv movie of the week. Notability is not inherited. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:23, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Literal footnote in a film director's career with a paint-by-numbers 'nurse takes her patient's drugs' plot. 'Large audience' is uncited and definitely a broad statement. Nate • (chatter) 01:53, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If one actually reads WP:FILMPLOT one will learn that a plot (even brief ones) need not be cited. Bringing it up to 400 - 700 words based upon the film itself is preferable, but not a cause for deletion. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:38, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your additional sources have convinced me of a keep. Nate • (chatter) 22:19, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:52, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:52, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Worldwide releases:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep per WP:NEXIST and meeting WP:NF. A decent start class sourced article. Sun Sentinal is in-depth authored article and not "standard publicity coverage". Orlando Sentinel also gives authored coverage. Per WP:NTEMP, we do not delete because this 30-year-old topic is not longer headline news, but instead we search out the 30-year-old coverage and improve the article. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:50, 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 03:40, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:15, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources found by MichaelQSchmidt. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:41, 6 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 14:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aazhakadal[edit]

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

Argh. This is an unreferenced article with no Malayalam script edition of its name, which means that one cannot find Malayalam sources for this film. There appears to be no edition in the Malayalam Wikipedia, and as for WP:NFILM speaking about two reviews, I can find one (English language) one -- here. Delete if there is nothing else that can be recovered, if there is, then a Weak keep. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 10:25, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:51, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If your browser can render this - the translation to search for would be ആഴക്കടൽ . I tried myself with combinations including the lead actor and the year, but could not find any better sources. Jupitus Smart 09:38, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jupitus Smart: That's what it actually transliterated to when I tried, but indeed there is nothing about this film. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 09:47, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you are not adamant about deleting this article, I would suggest a very weak keep. Movies in which Kalabhavan Mani played the lead role, catered mainly to people from the lower strata of the society, and therefore do not get much coverage in mainstream media sources. If you look at his page, most of the gaps in his filmography are from movies in which he was the protagonist, as most Wikipedia editors do not care for such movies. Going by the history of the page, this seems like a good faith creation. Therefore Keeping or Deleting the page would not make much of a difference as it hardly get any hits. Jupitus Smart 10:18, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:INDAFD: Aazhakadal Shaan Kalabhavan Mani Sruthi Lakshmi ആഴക്കടൽ

Keep per sources found with expanded searches... for instance a very full review at Now Running. Time to address and improve, not delete. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:30, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @MichaelQSchmidt: That source is the one I initially linked. Did you not notice? ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 21:10, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Found it myself too, and used it to expand and cite. More to do... more to do. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:46, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:44, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:14, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- one source is insufficient for notability, and there's nothing better out there. No indications that it meets WP:NFILM. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:18, 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. Thanks to L3X1 for supplying the dynamite. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:53, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Smart Start, Inc.[edit]

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

Completing nomination on behalf of an IP editor. Their request, as posted at WT:AFD, is copied below. On the merits, I make no recommendation. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:39, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating the Smart Start page for deletion. Has had multiple issues for over two years, no ones bothered to fix, and doesn't seem to warrant a special section when Ignition Interlocks are already covered in detail. Appears to just be a free marketing page for the company itself and serves no important informational purpose on it's own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:285:203:5033:65A6:13BE:C818:D892 (talk) 04:19, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:37, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:37, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:37, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no notability asserted and the content seems only to be here to describe the product:

If you fail a test within the last 4 months of your sentence (Wa State Law) an automatic extension of 4 months is added to the original one year requirement.

K.e.coffman (talk) 21:32, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 15:06, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Rhadow (talk) 11:32, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, the Gnews just brings up a load of press releases which do not count as RS. However, this seems to be that type of product which everyone has yet no one talks about. Wikipedia writes what other people write about it. Therefore over the next day (it's late) I will remove everything promo-y and unverifiable from the article, to get it down to the stub that this requires. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 00:59, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also to allow L3X1 to try and fix the problems mentioned
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 19:02, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have applied the tactical nukes. I added a few lines regarding an ongoing legal action against the Minnesota DPS. I have noticed that when people mention "DUI Interlock device" (Oh, search for Smart Start interlock, it brings up more sources than Smart Start, Inc.) they tend to specifically mean SS. I found a few passing mentions on interlock devices, both of which refer to Smart Start. 1, 2, The Boston Globe, while not mention SS by name, includes a picture and caption of the product/company at top, and so does the Review Journal. I think I have found more real sources to add to the article. If consensus is still not notable enough, even for a stub, then I ask that it be redirected to Ignition Interlock Device w/o deletion, because notability may be confirmed in the future as more states adopt laws and the lawsuit in Minnesota plays out. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 22:11, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Found more articles mentioning it: [29], [30], [31], Wisconsin adopts laws and has picture, Washington Post has a different picture and caption for SS, Alabama, someone is Ashboro removed the device and was reported to the Police. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 22:56, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Mention of the company, Washington Times has that image at the top (they have another article from 8 months prior re: IID, but no mention of SS except that picture), longer mention of company and product. TLDR I believe that Smart Start, Inc. is notable under the GNG to have an article for itself and that the IP nom's issues have been dealt with properly. I believe that the stub which I have cut it down to satisfies policy about not attempting to promote the product or giving undue weight. The sources shown here prove notability, but I don't see how they can be added to the article except as pile-on refs. In the case that this is not acceptable I suggest a merge or redirect as described above. pinging participants Rhadow, K.e.coffman. Ultraexactzz as well because they are neutrally present .Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 00:18, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Every day I learn more about the press and human nature. (1) No publicity is bad publicity. A PROD will get someone to rewrite an article that has lain fallow for two years. (2) There are a lot of noteworthy people and products out there that stay under the press radar. (3) When the Fourth Amendment is involved, it's a huge deal. I would change my vote if I could. BTW, the company is not Smart Start Inc., despite the URL. It is Smart Start LLC, owned by Seven Inc. [32] Rhadow (talk) 00:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to change your recommendation, if you like. I'd suggest striking your bold Delete, above, and making a new bold "Keep" down here. That lets the closing admin know which direction your opinion went when it changed. Thought, honestly, most admins reading your comment would understand where you're coming from, and would judge consensus accordingly. Remember, it's a debate not a vote. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:39, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article seems to be much improved, thanks to L3X1's work. I would be cautious not to make the article just about the litigation in Minnesota (as opposed to the product itself), since legal cases can be notable on their own merits if they go far enough. But this is a very good start. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:39, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The article has received significant copy editing after the previous relisting above occurred.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:00, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If we're gonna have Intoxalock we should keep Smart Start Rhadow (talk) 18:18, 6 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 13:27, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mehwish Siddique[edit]

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

Promotional stuff. Non-notable biography. Fails WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST. Greenbörg (talk) 09:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:48, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:48, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete while she host a show on TV but no independent coverage in RS so fails WP:JOURNALIST. --Saqib (talk) 05:17, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:45, 6 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 13:27, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adipati Koesmadji[edit]

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

NN, lacks references, possibly promotional Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 10:10, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:33, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:33, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability guidelines for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:11, 7 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 under WP:A3. (non-admin closure) MassiveYR ♠ 11:00, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would like pages of information on vitamins to help with people getting off opiaiods and are going clean and need help to get clean[edit]

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

Really should be speedy deleted but doesn't fit any of the criteria. WP:NOTADVICE DrStrauss talk 10:05, 6 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. Consensus is that a category is more appropriate in this instance. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:16, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of 2004 Songs[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a directory for all the songs produced in 2004 (which the article is not even close to). See WP:NOTDIR. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 14:06, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: more suitable for a category and Category:2004 songs already exists. DrStrauss talk 14:11, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 14:46, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 14:46, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the following reasons:

This qualifies for an article per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:2004 songs
This is a work in progress, per the article's Revision history. The article creator has been expanding the article after the nomination for deletion. The nomination states "which the article is not even close to", but it takes time and effort to populate articles. The article would benefit from expansion, which takes time.
The list is comprised of notable, blue-linked songs that have articles on Wikipedia.
Please do not bite the newcomers – The article was created on 13:49, 29 July 2017‎ and nominated for deletion 17 minutes later 14:06, 29 July 2017.

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:06, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:32, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Most of this is covered here. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:13, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. Ajf773 (talk) 20:22, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. Define notable (to some it means front page news in the NYT, others it means a track on their favourite album). In the UK there are probably 5000 new songs actually released per week (albums, singles, download only). They are notable because issue can be established! That excludes those songs on amateur sites which could be referenced. In other words, songs by year has the potential to be larger than the rest of WP, or in simple terms, just too big to be of any use to anybody. There are many songs/singles lists by year, by country, by chart and if the creator of this article can find a section of missing lists then great, let's add it. As for the creator of this article, please see Wikipedia:Your first article and go from there, better luck next time and happy editing. --Richhoncho (talk) 07:56, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Northamerica1000 as satisfying WP:LISTPURP and WP:NOTDUP. Contra the nomination, NOTDIR itself notes that Wikipedia keeps "index[es] or director[ies] of its own content." And it is standard practice to limit lists of X, where not every X that exists is notable, only to the Xs that are notable. "Notable" means "has or should have an article" per WP:N, nothing more. So the nominator and Richhoncho's fear about this including all the 2004 songs that exist or were produced is unfounded. When the list is expanded with valid article entries to the point where it gets too big for one page, it can be split into sublists. postdlf (talk) 17:15, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 2004_in_music#Popular_songs. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 06:12, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:37, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the article title is ambiguous anyway ("list of 2004 songs"), but then has a prose title saying "notable", yet no given justification is offered as to why those mentioned are indeed notable. Not only that, but there is considerably more information for the casual reader on this article as previously mentioned. The article respective of this AfD in my view has no value. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:03, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- "Notable" is intended there to limit this to songs that have articles. This is already discussed above, and is completely standard to do. postdlf (talk) 02:06, 7 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:28, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kakkazhom puthukkulangara bhagavathi temple[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a notable temple; no significant coverage for it appears to exist. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:31, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:31, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:31, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:31, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I can't find any evidence online that it even exists. Even if everything were sourceable, none of the information given in any way proves this temple is notable as I see it. Bearian (talk) 20:24, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Minor temple to a local deity sourced only to Google maps. --Auric talk 13:34, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:V Quinton Feldberg (talk) 01:22, 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. Sandstein 07:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Railway and tramway terminology in Europe[edit]

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

Contested PROD with quite a lengthy rationale which can be found on its Talk page. My concerns when the tag was added remain, though. This is an indiscriminate and uncited list with some unusual choices of language (particularly, although the article creator addresses this, the inclusion of US English in an article about Europe). The rationale as provided makes the comment that there may not be a source along these lines, which further raises my concerns regarding this being potentially original research and/or a synthesis of data beyond what should be included. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:42, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator called the article an "indiscriminate list of terms", which I disagree with. The article in its current form contains tables of terms in select languages relevant to different distinct types/variations of railway vehicles or railway service (in a broad sense, see cable car). Probably this is one of the rare articles on Wikipedia that is not about a topic in itself, but serves a meta-role, I specifically intended it to be a multilingual complement to articles such as Passenger rail terminology, with a wider scope, including freight service. Talking about notability in both cases is futile, because such articles aren't covering a singular encyclopedic topic per se, railway/tramway terminology, especially on how they relate to each other in different languages is not the usual kind of coherent topic that most articles on Wikipedia deal with. I have checked the glossary articles which I have linked in Railway and tramway terminology in Europe, and while most of the terms are sourced to some kind of reliable source, unfortunately not all are, of these, pretty much all are wikilinks to their respective articles.

It's one thing to find a source to support the description of a term in a language, it's another thing to support that indeed, term A is term B in another language, but not term C in English, as commonly believed. As explained on the talk page, my intention was to ease the railway/tramway terminology confusion which is most evident by the frequent mix up between motor coach (rail), railmotor, railcar and multiple unit. This is because the US railway terminology and the rules of otherwise similar phrases diverged significantly from the European (British and/or UIC) terminology. An outlook on how these terms correspond to each other would help both the accuracy of Wikipedia articles and the understanding of railways/tramways in the general populace. The languages represented were based on my rough ideas on which countries had contributed to the specific concepts the most in the era of railway electrification and the expansion of city tramway systems in the late 19th, early 20th century. Therefore the languages represented are pretty much ad hoc, but these choices seemed reasonable while keeping table width in mind.

I fully understand that this kind of article might not be sourced in a way that other articles are, but I welcome any suggestions on how to do so. Alternatively, instead of deleting the article, I would suggest making it either an appendix in Wiktionary or a project page to aid editors involved in railway articles. Of course, the best would be if the article could be in article space much like Passenger rail terminology. I hope that my concern is clear and a solution for the concern will be offered. --Rev L. Snowfox (talk) 11:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Indiscriminate" may have been a less than helpful term on my part, and if so I apologise. The point that I was making through using that word was that the selection of languages (not so much the terminology itself) was more arbitrary than appeared clear. While you've addressed this in part on the article's Talk page with the explanation that these are the languages of countries where the technology was in significant use, it still reads as being more arbitrary than that. English, German, French and Italian are all major languages even now, but the inclusion of Polish and Hungarian is less immediately clear, as the former was a language spoken within 3 larger empires and - depending on your exact timeframe - various smaller states at the time, and the latter was the language of what was essentially a sub-national unit of one of those larger empires. There's also the inclusion of US English, which again you address in part in your rationale, but which really doesn't have much to do with European terminology for anything at all. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:53, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:53, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:53, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:53, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, tentatively. I appreciate the collegial tone so far of discussion here. It's not my area at all, but I kind of like the tables in this article. Given the existence of similar articles mentioned in its "See also" section (Glossary of rail transport terms, Glossary of United Kingdom railway terms, Glossary of North American railway terms, Glossary of Australian railway terms, Glossary of New Zealand railway terms and Passenger rail terminology), I don't see how this one article can be singled out for elimination. Perhaps there is a big editorial question about treatment of railway terminology in Wikipedia which could be addressed by some big RFC discussion, leading to a big consolidation or to splitting out many new country- or continent- or empire-specific articles. But I think that this AFD is not that big discussion. --do ncr am 20:10, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that additional commentary about the article's purpose exists at Talk:Railway and tramway terminology in Europe.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:03, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a translation service. Should we have lists of every conceivable topic translated into a random selection of other languages? If not, why should we have this list? What is special about railways that we need an article giving terms in Italian but not Norwegian? Regarding the British and American English terms, these are not sourced, and perhaps the reason for this is that many of them cannot be. The idea for example that "cable car" is American usage and "aerial tramway" British is not supported by any references. A bit of digging will reveal that an aerial tramway is a certain subset of cable car systems. For many terms there may not even be a definitive American vs British usage. I contend it's not possible to construct a definitive table either for US/British usages or other languages, so the article should be deleted. --Pontificalibus (talk) 12:42, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I already voted "Keep" above, but redirection to, say, Glossary of rail transport terms is a better alternative than outright deletion. This is a perfectly legitimate attempt to create encyclopedic knowledge. You disagree that it succeeded, okay, that's your point of view. --do ncr am 15:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:23, 6 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 14:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

World Zoroastrian News Network[edit]

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

I agree with the WP:A7 tag. This appears to a WordPress blog, and to fail the tests for inclusion for web content.
I looked for plausible articles to redirect this to, including considering writing an article its founder, but again could not find anything that would indicate his notability. However:

This article has existed on the English language Wikipedia since 2008, and I think its deletion would be better evidenced by a deletion discussion than simply by an automated edit summary by the deleting administrator.
There may also be alternatives to this article's speedy deletion that I don't know about, and other editors may be able to identify.

For those reasons, I have started this WP:AFD. Shirt58 (talk) 08:58, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:03, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:03, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable website. I note the site appears not to have been updated since 2009.--Pontificalibus (talk) 13:50, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion either way... and I was the one who created this article. Or, I should say, established its own place on Wikipedia. Or, to be much more accurate, resolved a piggybacking situation. Here's the deal: In 2008, while reading an article for a Green Bay, Wisconsin radio station which had the WZNN call sign at that time, I discovered that someone (and I don't even remember who it was anymore) added, alongside the previously existing info on the radio station, a separate and unrelated subsection about a website named the "World Zoroastrian News Network," saying that "WZNN also means..." this out-of-the-way website about a mystic religion. I didn't object to the inclusion of religious information on Wikipedia so much as I did to someone paying no mind to Wikipedia article etiquette (i.e. adding totally unrelated information to an existing article instead of giving said unrelated information its own article). So that's the reason I moved information on "World Zoroastrian News Network" to its own separate article — this article — and added top-of-article redirect guidance to the WZNN article ("for the website concerning Zoroastrianism, see..."). Outside of its creation, the only other update I've made to this article was one in 2010 regarding the redirecting of "WZNN" to this article after the Green Bay radio station changed its call sign away from WZNN (it's now WKRU). I wash my hands of this article, with all due respect to anyone practicing the religion in question (which I don't even know a hill of beans about). If this article is ultimately kept or deleted, it won't matter to me either way. Darrel M (talk) 16:28, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable web site. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 03:34, 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 13:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Morpheus Data[edit]

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

Unremarkable small company. Likely fails WP:NCORP. Edwardx (talk) 11:10, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:29, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:30, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:30, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TheMagnificentist 08:33, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are some references from Irish Tech News but nothing significant to establish notability. Everything else I found was either an unreliable source, brief mention, or press release. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:11, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG, no RS, only press releases. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 03:33, 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. WP:NOQUORUM. Minimal participation. Soft delete. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:57, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PulpWork Press[edit]

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

Not a notable publishing company. The article cites routine coverage and passing mentions, and a search for sources returns the same. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:33, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 14:34, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:28, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TheMagnificentist 08:32, 6 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:19, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Selma Prodanović[edit]

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

Advertorially slanted WP:BLP of an entrepreneur, which cites no reliable source coverage about her at all -- the only "referencing" here is a primary source linkfarm of external links for her own companies and professional affiliations. As always, Wikipedia is not a free LinkedIn alternative on which people get to post versions of their own résumés -- it's an encyclopedia, on which inclusion depends on being the subject of reliable source coverage in media. And while there is a more neutral version in the history before it got advertorialized, it was referenced exclusively to primary sources and WordPress blogs and so simply reverting the advertorialism isn't the key to a keep here. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can write and source it properly, but this as written isn't acceptable. Bearcat (talk) 15:22, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:17, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:17, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:55, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:55, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TheMagnificentist 08:27, 6 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:18, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Levine[edit]

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

Run-of-the mill businessperson. Nothing in the article amounts to much. Fails WP:GNG. Can find nothing of substance about him. Some/most are vanity awards. Created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 17:23, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:35, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TheMagnificentist 08:27, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The awards he's allegedly received are not major awards. Also, he fails my standards for lawyers. This might be an attempt to use us as a free web host. We are a charity and have the fiduciary duty to use it for educational purposes, not as free marketing for lawyers. Bearian (talk) 20:22, 8 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. Per WP:NOQUORUM. Soft delete. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LED Eco Lights[edit]

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

Lighting company of doubtful notability. Created by a SPA, who has only worked on this and its product Goodlight. Plenty of advertising in the article, few references, and no independent in-depth coverage found. Awards looks to be all or mostly vanity awards. Edwardx (talk) 20:32, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:46, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:46, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:46, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TheMagnificentist 08:24, 6 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. Per WP:NOQUORUM. Soft delete. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:10, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lipin raj[edit]

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

Article doesn't assert notability per GNG or NAUTHOR. I cannot find sources which give him significant coverage other than the Times of India reference and the article is generally incoherent. DrStrauss talk 21:32, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:15, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:15, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TheMagnificentist 08:22, 6 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 01:35, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Longridge Gooch[edit]

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

Unless Resident Engineer is a more significant post than it sounds, I don't see anything more than an unnotable railway employee who fails WP:BIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:06, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, rather obviously 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 08:15, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:04, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:04, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:04, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His diaries are kept at the National Archives (1) and there are sufficient articles addressing him in detail to satisfy WP:BIO e.g. 2, 3, 4. An obituary found here was also published in several reliable sources.--Pontificalibus (talk) 14:04, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We're not talking about a train driver or track maintenance worker. The resident engineer of a British railway was a very senior position, a company employee with wide remit (as opposed to a consulting engineer who would be hired in for one task or group of tasks) reporting either to the Chief General Manager or directly to the Board of Directors; he was a professional civil engineer responsible for all fixed structures from track to buildings. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:06, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination. It appears an RE is a significant post after all. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:54, 7 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 under WP:G11. (non-admin closure) MassiveYR ♠ 13:08, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Innocent[edit]

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

Article doesn't meet WP:BIO. Also, the person who created the page is a SPA [33] -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 07:23, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 08:28, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:10, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:10, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A single purpose IP who has WP:COI keeps adding unsourced promotional material that keeps getting reverted. Also made a post in Help desk complaining about activity in the article and confessed to Innocent being a client of the IP. Also a SPA Max556 who post promo material that is reverted. Mostly IPs that contribute (with promo stuff). ArcticDragonfly (talk) 11:42, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deleted, thanks to the promotional history from start to finish, and I've blocked the IP who made the complaint (which is what brought me here in the first place) with a firm statement that their promotional activities are what brought this on. Nyttend (talk) 11:55, 6 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 13:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tanwir Phool[edit]

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

Seems to be self-promotional stuff. No coverage in WP:RS. No source mentions him as notable in name-check (1). Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG too. Greenbörg (talk) 08:21, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 08:59, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 08:59, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete i believe he fails to meet WP's notability criteria because I couldn't find anything in RS. this bio claims he received a few awards including one by President of Pakistan but couldn't verify it. --Saqib (talk) 09:19, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:04, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails the GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 03:29, 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 no consensus. Every comment here (except the point of information from Shawn in Montreal) fails WP:ATA. No consensus to do anything. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:44, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vacaville Transportation Center[edit]

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

Non-notable bus station. Anmccaff (talk) 06:41, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:46, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:02, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - NN location. reddogsix (talk) 14:34, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep there are lots of articles for bus stations.Busguy9 (talk) 21:37, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Busguy9, that in and of itself won't do it. See WP:OTHERSTUFF. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:54, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If it cant be kept redirect to Vacaville#Transportation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Busguy9 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Not worth a page at all. 47.208.20.130 (talk) 22:36, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to indicate notability al all. MB 23:08, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wait I motion that the article gets more time to grow, I recently found out a half dozen reliable sources for the bus station, just take a look at the similar Fairfield Transportation Center to see how it can be a nice articleBusguy9 (talk) 01:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment12 sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Busguy9 (talk • contribs) 01:50, 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. Sandstein 07:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HR 8938 Cephei[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I'm left wondering why this article was created. The song never charted, the "source" is a site where you can simply listen to the track, and a search brings up nothing in terms of reliable sourcing. Total failure for WP:GNG and WP:NSONG. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:38, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS - I almost want to WP:TROUT the editors who voted at the previous AfD, except it was five years ago. Using blogs as a "keep" rationale? That is a little worrisome.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:42, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:48, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:35, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no encyclopedically relevant content and no sources. Appears to have been created for promotional purposes. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:26, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? I clicked on this thinking it would be about some astronomical phenominon, based on the title. It's about a song? Oh, I see, it's about a song named after an astronomical phenominon :-) But, huh, wait, it's only claim to fame is that it was uploaded to Soundcloud? Delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:54, 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. Consensus is that this lacks notability per WP:GNG (coverage in third-party sources). Sandstein 07:31, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Model US Gov[edit]

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

See Wikipedia is not a how-to guide and other parts of What Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is not intended to publicize any particular Reddits unless they have achieved third-party notability, which is not indicated here. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:23, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Page is written in a completely encyclopedic manner and is not a how to guide. I have made the page because of its notability in relation to the Model United Nations and Model Congress. User:TJjeremiah (talk) 02:48, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Encyclopedic" here on Wikipedia means that an article summarizes what independent, reliable sources say about the topic, TJjeremiah This article does not cite any sources independent of Reddit, and I was not able to find any such sources. The topic is not notable unless these sources can be provided. The comparisons to Model United Nations and Model Congress are not valid since those programs have received coverage in reliable, independent sources for decades. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:13, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO, even if sourcing were provided to show this is notable, it would not meet our standards of inclusion in the current format. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:11, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per others. Also though I am skeptical of notability based on reference list currently. Zell Faze (talk) 16:48, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this subject definitely does not have enough coverage from third-parties to warrant its own article. While some subreddits do deserve their own articles due to their notability (like r/The_Donald and r/science, for example), I don't believe that this group of reddit communities is notable enough. Name goes here (talk | contribs) 18:00, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as at least two people who have participated in this simulation have gone on to run for positions at the local and/or state level, providing the simulation with notability at least in those circles. Also, it seems as though this article is not a how-to guide, making the WP:NOTHOWTO link above misplaced. ArchieSmith (talk) 18:27, 9 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 07:36, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Promethean Planet[edit]

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

Found in the underlinked backlog. Despite the exciting sci-fi name, the article subject makes educational software.The article cites only a press release and the company's own website as sources. WP:BEFORE unearths no useful results. A Train^talk 22:26, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:19, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:19, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:CORPDEPTH, this subject matter does not appear to be notable enough for its own article. Name goes here (talk | contribs) 16:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:18, 6 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 Sri Lanka at the 2011 South Asian Winter Games. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:22, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anita Rollin[edit]

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

Non-notable athlete. Only claim to fame is a medal at a minor event. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:03, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 14:29, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 14:29, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:41, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sri Lanka at the 2011 South Asian Winter Games per WP:ATD-R. Should have been done by the nominator per WP:BEFORE. Regards So Why 08:52, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arguably that article is not notable as well. It could be merged with the main article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:49, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:12, 6 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 given the low participation and a single WP:PERNOM comment. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:17, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Conn[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

non-notable individual, Google search turns up this article and a few other people with the same name. Jon Kolbert (talk) 18:39, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:51, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:51, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:51, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per the nomination. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 01:35, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:07, 6 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, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jus Addiss[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable actor. Has ~~practically~~ no credits (see Profile); notable only as partner of Hayden Rorke, and that does not confer notability. Quis separabit? 05:14, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:40, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:40, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:40, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:41, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG, only mentions. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 03:23, 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Hanoune[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No indication of notability. Also, see Fitzcarmalan's prior nomination. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:11, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A well known activist as well as a human rights lawyer , he is very known to the people ot the egyptian revolution and he is a well known writer as well, plz see references above.[34][35] Ne.pas12 (talk) 05:38, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources written by the subject do not establish notability. You need to demonstrate in-depth coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:44, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:49, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:49, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:49, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 13:02, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Nom states, and this [36] gNews search shows, notable not supported by sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:08, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Note that, from the guidelines "Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools have historically been kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists." Astrid.Didier (talk) 01:44, 8 August 2017 (UTC) — Astrid.Didier (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Fails WP:NBIO. This is not a secondary school or college/university, so WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is irrelevant. GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 16:37, 9 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. Hut 8.5 20:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Miguel Tudela[edit]

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

"...but did not compete due to the boycott". So, according to that statement and the accompanying source, he was not an Olympian. The subject needs to demonstrate he meets WP:GNG but passing mentions and listings are not enough. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:00, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:10, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's true he didn't compete at the Olympics, but he did qualify for them. The boycott was certainly out of his control. In addition, he won 3 U.S. championships, was a runner-up once, and won a medal at the Pan Am games. I would say he qualifies as a notable athlete. Papaursa (talk) 22:51, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He did not compete in the olympics, and it is competition there that gives default notability. Nothing else shows notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that his success at the quadrennial Pan-Am Games and qualifying for the Olympics (plus multiple national titles) is significant enough to show notability. In addition, I have added some sources to the article (from Black Belt magazine and the L.A. Times) that should help meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 01:02, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Medalling at the Pan-Am games shows notability. He makes WP:MANOTE.PRehse (talk) 06:32, 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 04:58, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He meets our notability guideline for martial artists as a repeated medalist/champion at the national and international level. He qualified for the U.S. Olympic Judo Team, won a U.S. military title, won national championships three times and won a medal at the Pan American Games. He was a dominant figure in his sport for at least five years, and it is not his fault that the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan prevented him from competing in Moscow in 1980. He and his wife, also a judo champion, were the subjects of a lengthy Los Angeles Times article. The encyclopedia is better off with this article than without it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:30, 6 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) Lourdes 12:15, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vignan's Institute Of Information Technology[edit]

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

Not notable private educational organisation Arthistorian1977 (talk) 04:56, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:59, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:59, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a degree-awarding institution per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:18, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and classifies as Speedy, given there's no policy-based criteria on this; sources are clear on WP:V and that's all needed for confirmation as facts. SwisterTwister talk 04:11, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG and WP:V. Quinton Feldberg (talk) 01:29, 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. Many of the comments below are made by single purpose accounts (likely sockpuppets), but nevertheless there is no consensus to delete the article. There may also be significant third-party sources in Italian. Malinaccier (talk) 17:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paolo Cavallone[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:COMPOSER none of the sources in the external links section are sufficient to prove notability. A search on the web turns up a lot of hits for a radio presenter but little or nothing for this artist. A search for "Paolo Cavallone composer" turns up very little of interest. Domdeparis (talk) 14:10, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:49, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:49, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:49, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: even if he were to pass notability, the article is almost entirely copied from the "short biography" section on Cavallone's own website, and therefore breaks Wikipedia's copyright regulations: http://www.paolocavallone.com/curriculum.htm. Richard3120 (talk) 16:38, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the claimed copyvio consists of various proper names and standard phrases. The curriculum on the website and the article are actually different. The notability as a composer can also easily pass:

- Here is a recent monographic concert at the Italian institute of culture in Paris http://www.iicparigi.esteri.it/iic_parigi/fr/gli_eventi/calendario/roberto-fabbriciani-interprete.html played by Roberto Fabbriciani (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbass_flute), - And another recent concert in St. Etienne, France on February 2017 played by the Ensemble EOC http://www.eoc.fr/sites/eoc/uploads/plaquette_public_def.pdf . - Here is an interview of him for the italian national television Rai: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=559xOOdSiFY for having composed the soundtrack for the movie "La città incantata". Notes, bibliography, and discography have just been added. I really don't understand why this article should be deleted according to these new updates. --Guidolegnaioli (talk) 09:15, 25 July 2017 (UTC)— Guidolegnaioli (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:55, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you can read in the article's bibliography the composer is well considered and known all over the world. His compositions alhave been played in New Zealand, France, Brazil, Italy... i can list each concert with links to prove them . --Guidolegnaioli (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:07, 1 August 2017 (UTC) i Think that Paolo Cavallone should be on Wikipedia, the link are very clear and prove notability. I found also a Fan Page web site: www.fanclubpaolocavallone.org, I heard several times his music on italian national radio RADIO RAI (programs dedicated to him).Gian Marco Mar (talk) 21:35, 4 August 2017 (UTC)— Gian Marco Mar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:38, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article about Cavallone seems well done and it certainly proves notability. The links are also very helpful to understand the importance of Cavallone's work. It is not clear why multiple issues related to additional citations are indicated. There is no doubt that he shoud be part of Wikipedia.Skoufaki (talk) 11:39, 9 August 2017 (UTC)— Skoufaki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

It seems everything fine in this article. Cavallone is well-known. No doubt he should be on Wikipedia. The links are just fine.Spcheah (talk) 12:03, 9 August 2017 (UTC)— Spcheah (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

It is not clear why the article has been relisted. Cavallone should be on Wikipedia.Jordanoil (talk) 18:55, 9 August 2017 (UTC)— Jordanoil (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

A great composer whit this references he should be on wiki. The links listed are very helpful. Notability passed.108.48.35.242 (talk) 14:08, 10 August 2017 (UTC)— 108.48.35.242 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment the large number of SPA and probable sock puppet users !voting keep should be noted. Domdeparis (talk) 16:35, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - while I agree with Domdeparis that just about every other "keep" comment here is WP:ILIKEIT, a news search does return a number of hits that could be used to salvage the article, though they're in Italian. I have trimmed a load of POV out of the article, which helps. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:43, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 12:13, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blackmores[edit]

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

Does not satisfy corporate notability. References in article are not independent. Google search finds the usual vanity hits but no independent references. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:24, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert I am creating the Blackmores article as a stub for our Wikipedia editing club to work on tomorrow 7 Aug, hence the lack of sources and content. However I will search now for more legitimate sources now to maintain the article til then. JacintaJS (talk) 04:46, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:58, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:58, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Blackmores is a large and long-standing company, which is regularly in the news due in part to its controversial business model (eg, aggressively marketing 'complementary medicines'). Google searching 'Blackmores Australia' produces lots of non-promotional references in reliable sources. Searching 'Blackmores Australia scandal' also produces lots of decidedly non-promotional news stories. I'd suggest that this nomination be either withdrawn or speedy closed. Nick-D (talk) 06:25, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Nick-D; plenty of coverage both positive and negative about this company given their often controversial marketing strategies. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:51, 6 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]

User:Nick-D Considering I don't plan on adding more to this article til our group meets tomorrow, should I move it to draft space? JacintaJS (talk) 07:01, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a fine start to the article, and should remain where it is Nick-D (talk) 07:02, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nick-D Thanks for the advice JacintaJS (talk) 07:09, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GNG and WP:ORG, plenty of sources out there in googleland (should be able to make a snowman out of this afd:)), note that article afdd only 1 hour after creation, a bit of WP:BEFORE would have been nice, that said, JacintaJS, suggest a Template:Under construction be added to any other articles you create for the Wikipedia editing club with maybe a note on the talkpage. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:57, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I support the Template:Under construction and talkpage suggestion. User talk:Robert McClenon also suggested I start the article in draft space first, which makes sense too (hindsight being 20/20). Cheers everyone, I am still learning the ropes. JacintaJS (talk) 08:13, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of main stream media reliable secondary source material for solid WP:NEXIST. And, a lot of it not positive too (which will need to end up in the article for balance). Aoziwe (talk) 13:20, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets both WP:GNG and WP:NCORP easily. The article is obviously underdeveloped, but the topic is undoubtedly notable. -- Whats new?^(talk) 08:26, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article is underclaiming. This is an internationally known major brand. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:26, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep easily meets WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Quinton Feldberg (talk) 00:43, 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:22, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

San Marino–United States relations[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. there really isn't anything to these relations except diplomatic recognition. Even the USA with the most number of foreign ambassadors does not post a resident ambassador to San Marino. LibStar (talk) 13:49, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:09, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:09, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The NYT blogpost actually gives quite a bit of background on the relationship during the US Civil War that could be added to the article. As San Marino is a full UN member state (they've even stood for the Security Council in a year when Italy was hot favourite - I'd love to know the story behind that!), you'd think that there would be close votes when the US needs their support, but I just can't find a second source and so the article won't meet WP:GNG, I think. There's no equivalent in Italian, so presumably no sources there either. Matt's talk 22:46, 28 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 16:19, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:28, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Diplomatic relationships between recognised countries are always notable. Anoptimistix Let's Talk 03:21, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:15, 6 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 Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:26, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Slaughter Creek (film)[edit]

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

Completely unremarkable horror film. One of a network of articles created and maintained by User:Neptune's Trident as part of a long running campaign to promote J. C. Macek. Macek produced Cargo (2017 film). Actor Jose Rosete appears in Cargo. This article exists only to make Rosete's article look better, which in turn makes Cargo look better by having another "notable" actor. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 04:06, 6 August 2017 (UTC) World's Lamest Critic (talk) 04:06, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:40, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:29, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

African American Girls and School Discipline[edit]

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

Article creator contested PROD. CU evidence suggests that this is a poorly implemented school project. It is a POV essay that is excluded from Wikipedia as original research and an essay per WP:NOT. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:05, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could plausibly become a potential candidate for an article, but there's nothing remotely salvageable with what's there. Joefromrandb (talk) 09:22, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsalvageable POV essay. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:04, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsalvageable was the word I had in mind as well. E Eng 16:29, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Wikipedia is not the place to write school essays. Original research, non-neutral point of view. —C.Fred (talk) 01:10, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TonyBallioni (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 21:22, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as WP:OR. DrStrauss talk 09:44, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. A well-written, cogent article on Racial disparities in school discipline would certainly be notable (it currently redirects to School-to-prison pipeline but could be spun off eventually) — there are sources for such an article, e.g., here, here — but this new article is in such a terrible state that it can't remain as is. Neutrality^talk 01:11, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ESSAY, WP:OR, and WP:TNT. Quinton Feldberg (talk) 00:47, 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. Hut 8.5 20:46, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Ward (musician)[edit]

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

Sounds like a good local musician, with a quote from Mick Jagger, but I can't find any sources. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:26, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:36, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:37, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Lonely Valentines have a track listed on the BBC Music website, but I can't find any evidence that Aaron Ward exists, never mind RSs. Even the unverified claims to notability here fall well short of WP:MUSICBIO (and the Jagger quotation has gone). This article has (malformed) links to Fifty Shades of Grey pages which were vandalized with references to 'Aaron Ward' by 195.59.153.248 on 19 February. I have RVed those edits; when this is deleted then related edits to Aaron Ward (disambiguation) will need to be changed too. Matt's talk 22:01, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.facebook.com/pg/TheLonelyValentinesband/about/?ref=page_internal here is a link to the bands facebook page, clearly stating all the band members, including Aaron Ward. https://twitter.com/AaronWard94 official twitter page of Aaron Ward, https://twitter.com/LoneValentine of the band. — Preceding [[Crawfordalltheway (talk) 20:39, 29 July 2017 (UTC)]] comment added by Crawfordalltheway (talk • contribs) [reply]

Comment: Crawfordalltheway, thank you for drawing our attention to these sources - they're helpful. You can read Wikipedia's policy on social media sources at WP:SOCIALMEDIA. This helps to persuade me personally that Mr Ward is a living, breathing person, but you can see that the policy says articles must not be "primarily based on such sources". Anyone can create a social media account. If the band continues to enjoy success then, then local music magazines and others will take an interest. But even then, individual band members aren't often notable enough to get pages. We're currently debating whether to delete the page of Sowon, whose group had two number one hits last year. Matt's talk 09:53, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. I can find no significant coverage by independent reliable sources. As pointed out by M.R.Forrester, there are vandalism additions of Aaron Ward' and Jamie Crawford to the Fifty Shades of Grey article. That, along with the chatty commentary about this individual's current career as a sales clerk, suggests this article is a joke page. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:53, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anoptimistix Let's Talk 03:33, 6 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. There was no endorsement of the suggestion to merge / redirect Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:23, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

VJM Media Group[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable. This company purchased the notable publication Cine Blitz from its founder and longtime publisher. VJM Media Group is itself not notable. 2014 AFD closed as No Consensus (with two deletes and one merge). MB 22:15, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:32, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:32, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - TheMagnificentist 20:09, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Most references do not mention the subject at all. Only one does peripherally. 1 - Subject is mentioned peripherally once. 2 - I only see a headline; the subject is not mentioned. 3 - Does not mention the subject. 4 - Does not mention the subject. 5 - Does not mention the subject. 6 - Does not mention the subject. Nothing demonstrates notability.--Rpclod (talk) 23:44, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing in-depth about the company. Could probably mention it in the article on Russi Karanjia but this isn't independently notable. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:25, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Russi Karanjia in lieu of deletion per CNMall41's suggestion to mention this topic there and per WP:PRESERVE. Although there is not significant coverage about the subject, there is sufficient coverage to verify the article's information, which can be mentioned in Russi Karanjia. Cunard (talk) 03:29, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anoptimistix Let's Talk 03:29, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- sources fail WP:CORPDEPTH; no need for a merge as the target article would not be improved with the addition of this content. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:53, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, sources fail WP:CORPDEPTH. Quinton Feldberg (talk) 00:50, 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 redirect to Dixon, California#Transportation. Unscintillating made the strongest argument for this, and none of the other "delete" voters objected to a redirect, which implies consensus for it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:22, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dixon Park & Ride[edit]

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

Non-notable bus station. reddogsix (talk) 03:19, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it should not be deleted and it has room to grow like Richmond Parkway Transit Center or Fairfield Transportation Center if not maybe merge into Dixon, California?Busguy9 (talk) 03:25, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why only have the bus stations in the big citiescount, small towns need to be represented too, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Busguy9 (talk • contribs) 03:48, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject is not notable enough yet to merit a Wikipedia article.TH1980 (talk) 03:51, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:41, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:41, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Literally a parking lot with a bus shelter. There's nothing further we can expand this with. Nate • (chatter) 04:48, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Theres articles for every bus stop on the L taravel line and all it is a painted yellow marker, this is an important part of the infrastructure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Busguy9 (talk • contribs) 05:05, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Then I question their inclusion here. Looking at the station, it's a shelter surrounded by parking spots; that's as non-notable as you can get outside of an average street corner with a bus stop sign. There's no other stops in Dixon. It's literally a small part of the route. Nate • (chatter) 05:12, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Every piece of asphalt doesn't deserve an article. Anmccaff (talk) 06:35, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:GNG, have been unable to find useable sources, i see that the article on Dixon, California has a sentence under Transportation, thats enough. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:00, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
An article on a car park & bus stop? Really? Delete Cabayi (talk) 07:56, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep WP:SK#1 WP:NPASR Since notability is not synonymous with a WP:DEL-REASON when the topic exists elsewhere in the encyclopedia, nominator has not made an argument for deletion, and no delete !vote has provided an alternate WP:DEL-REASON. Unscintillating (talk) 19:48, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

no. 8 of WP:DEL-REASON, does not meet WP:GNG. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:14, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but WP:DEL8 does not exist independently of WP:ATD, which is just as much a part of WP:Deletion policy as is WP:DEL8. WP:PRESERVE is also a policy. WP:REDIRECT is just as much a guideline as is WP:N. WP:INSIGNIFICANCE collects these points as quotes, including relevant quotes from WP:N. Unscintillating (talk) 01:33, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, what? i don't understand the above. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:36, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No? Ok, here is the entire text from WP:IGNORINGATD, which redirects to Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Just not notable (I've never heard of merger or redirection), and the oldid here is oldid=794585120:

Just not notable (I've never heard of merger or redirection)

Shortcut

WP:IGNORINGATD

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples:

Delete Non-notable – I don't like redirects, 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
Delete Fails N and all relevant SNG – Who cares about ATD?, 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)

The fact that a topic is not notable is not, in and of itself, valid grounds for deleting a page, its content, or its history. If merger and/or redirection is feasible in a given case, either is preferable to deletion. To validly argue for deletion, editors need to additionally advance separate arguments against both merger and redirection, on relevant grounds. (Since "merger" includes a history merge without redirection, an argument against redirection is not an argument against merger). Since any verifiable topic/content can in principle be redirected/merged to an article on a broader topic, this should be exceptionally difficult. Valid arguments against merger might be based on WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NOT or WP:BLP, in particular. (In some cases it might be a prerequisite requirement to transwiki the page first). Valid arguments against redirection must be based on the criteria specified in WP:R (that the proposed redirect is clearly positively harmful). The only valid argument for "delete and redirect" is that every revision in the page history of the page otherwise eligible for redirection in question meets the criteria for revision deletion (WP:REVDEL). See further WP:ATD.

Posted by Unscintillating (talk) 17:39, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is in no way, shape or form a case of WP:SKCRIT #1. Though briefly, the nominator makes a nomination statement that's policy-based. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"No way, shape, or form" is not a technical statement. And no, the nominator has not attempted to turn the notability issue into an argument for deletion. See WP:IGNORINGATD. Unscintillating (talk) 01:33, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dixon, California's transportation section. 47.208.20.130 (talk) 22:33, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet GNG.MB 23:36, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, missing WP:RS. Quinton Feldberg (talk) 00:54, 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. Nobody seems to want to talk about this, even after two relists, so calling it WP:SOFTDELETE -- RoySmith (talk) 23:42, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gateway House: Indian Council on Global Relations[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. could not find any substantial third party coverage. The declared connected editor has just been adding primary sources and the article just seems an advert. LibStar (talk) 10:13, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:26, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will have a look at this article to see if I can find sources from newspapers. This is a fairly new think tank. As of now, I have removed some parts of the article as it seems to be copy pasted from the website.--DreamLinker (talk) 21:26, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:01, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did see a couple of possible third-party sources in the Google hits, not sure if they are enough to establish notability.PohranicniStraze (talk) 02:56, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- "Moving Forward EU-India Relations" - Gateway House is credited as one of the leaders of this study project sponsored by the EU.
- The Remarkable Rise of India's Think Tanks Brief but prominent mentions in an article on Global Government Forum - not sure if they count as a reliable source.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No votes we're casted, please join the discussing to achieve WP:Consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anoptimistix Let's Talk 03:07, 6 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:29, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aderemi Adegbite[edit]

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

Promotional article about a subject who fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. I could only find passing mentions on primary sources. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 00:34, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 00:34, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 00:35, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable writer and photographer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:12, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Thought it might pass GNG but they are passing mentions. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 01:43, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anoptimistix Let's Talk 03:04, 6 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 13:23, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Eric Bryan[edit]

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

As interesting as his Hansard contribution was, his political notability (at least the kind that warrants an article) is insufficient, his sporting career even more so. I'm sure he'll achieve great things in the future, but for now, I'm casting a vote for deletion. Another point to consider is that the language is highly promotional and likely written by someone close to the subject. I'm not an expert in the various Wiki abbreviations that editors summon in these deletion nominations, but I'm fairly sure this article crosses boundaries. Curlymanjaro (talk) 02:04, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only notable bit is about "pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis" which is sufficiently addressed in other articles. cagliost (talk) 12:44, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:38, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:38, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:42, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Hansard Record which is publicly visible on the BBC. Removed language seemingly copied off a biography page. Belief it shouldn't be deleted but instead edited and improved instead. It is of sufficient notability - using the longest word in British Parliamentary history and yet to be confirmed as an International Parliamentary record. Time will be able to confirm this. His volleyball has reached international level seemingly (with caps cited) which also represents notability. I have concern over the tone although I believe this could be changed. I'd suggest another older editor - someone with greater expereince than the creator - review changes over the wording of the article. The idea is notable, just not necessarily the backstory (which I have tried my best to remove). HansardRec (talk) 23:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As has already been mentioned, I believe the use of one word at a youth hearing doesn't warrant an entire encyclopedia article; it's a point of interest that can be sufficiently documented on the Hansard and Jacob Rees-Mogg pages respectively. As for the international volleyball, if the subject were playing as a professional sportsman in competitions notable in their own right, then their would be sufficient grounds for a Michael Bryan article. Perhaps I'm wrong, and I'm infinitely apologetic if I am, your temporary account and username don't lend themselves well to impartiality. I'm still convinced of deletion. Curlymanjaro (talk) 23:44, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails the GNG.L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 03:20, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:30, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

White Coat Admissions Strategists[edit]

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

Minimal coverage. Not notable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:58, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep International coverage in the first two months of operation satisfies me. Rhadow (talk) 10:05, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdraw my Keep I rewrote the article. Yeh I know now, one article outside the campus isn't enough. It's an interesting concept though, instead of having former admissions officers give advice, they will employ med students who just got into school -- as if they don't have enough studying to do. And there are some other interesting tidbits I found for my (short-lived) revision. Bye Rhadow (talk) 20:37, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: lack of WP:SIGCOV leads to failure of WP:NORG. DrStrauss talk 19:22, 29 July 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( 01:50, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No more COI One thing is for sure, no word from the original article remains, except the name of the outfit and its founders.. Rhadow (talk) 01:58, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- lacks notability, per available sources. Few consulting services are notable, and 3-person ones do not meet the mark, for sure. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:07, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Three-person startups are rarely notable by WP standards. The press coverage offered doesn't show why this is extraordinary. ☆ Bri (talk) 06:56, 6 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. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:46, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AMAC Accessibility[edit]

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

no evidence for notability-- for earlier versions, see [37]. once the promotionalism has been removed, there's nothing left. DGG ( talk ) 02:03, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per DGG's rationale. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:33, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:50, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:53, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:42, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- small company ("AMAC recently expanded to 50 employees and has a growing international clientele") and no indications of notability or significance. Article is advertorially toned and appears to exist to promote the business. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:34, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per source searches, does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:06, 5 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( 01:49, 6 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. No consensus to delete, but most agree that cleanup is strongly needed. Sandstein 07:17, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Family tree of Confucius in the main line of descent[edit]

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

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#Wikipedia is not a genealogical dictionary - Prisencolin (talk) 00:53, 29 July 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 July 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:10, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a perfectly good encyclopedia entry. genealogy is not dictionary related. If you think it is like a dictionary entry it could be because it is basically a list stub. rather than deleting it, it could be linked to the actual people mentioned in it, most of which are notable (in China). A Guy into Books (talk) 15:01, 29 July 2017 (UTC) Im going to expand on this in light of the person below complaining about the fact this is about China. The fact that some people cant read the sources which are Chinese is exactly why this article should be here for people who cant read Chinese and who wouldn't otherwise know the information presented in this article. this article is similar to others like Genealogy of the British royal family or Genealogy of the Rothschild family etc. it could be improved, to be more like House of Tudor or House of Stuart. A Guy into Books (talk) 19:32, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:37, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:37, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:37, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is cruft. The references are mostly in Chinese; many are trivial or are links to the Chinese wikipedia and have no weight at all; some are biographies from sources that I can't determine the reliability of. There are enough gaps in the descent (that have no WikiLinks/sources) that I see no reason to keep this article. A specific list of notable people claiming direct descent from Confucius might be notable, but this page doesn't have sourcing/data to allow for creation of that. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:54, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak k~~ Keep. This is a terrible article, but it could be turned into a good one. At the moment, it is too focused on genealogical information and undoubtedly fails WP:NOT. However, if you read the relevant section of the Confucius article, you will see multiple RSs making clear that Confucius' family line is notable (not merely that his descendants are notable, but the actual family tree is notable) and discussed in multiple RSs (as per WP:GNG). I remember seeing coverage of the publication of the last edition of the genealogy on a CCTV national news bulletin. There's also a RS suggesting that a Republic of China (Taiwan) sinecure follows this family tree. All the information is verifiable (and pace Power~enwiki, we don't require sources to be in English).

IIRC my old paper Longman Encyclopedia had appendices, such as a list of UN member states and a list of English/British kings and queens. Once upon a time, we used to allow subpages of main articles, and this is the kind of topic that would have fitted well as a subpage of the Confucius article. Since WP doesn't have appendices or subpages (see WP:SPINOFF), then we should probably keep this for the stand-alone article that it could become. EDIT: Changed !vote, see comment below. Matt's talk 12:17, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is indeed terrible. It would possibly be more suited for the Chinese Wikipedia where the sources can be verified and validated or deleted. It is going to be almost impossible for the English Wikipedia to do anything with this except throw up our hands.Wjhonson (talk) 17:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject itself is notable, as already pointed above. It can be seen as a family tree of a Chinese nobility member. We already have a lots of family trees of the nobility, and this is more important than the most of the family trees from here. Again as above "we don't require sources to be in English" and another aspect is that it is difficult to find in english the informations already provided. That's why I consider that the article shouldn't be deleted, but improved.
Regarding the WP:NOT we have hundreds (maybe more) ahnentafeln and family trees scattered across articles and even a WikiProject. That is a outdated rule that should be abolished.
Update: At most we could merge it with the Descendants section of "Confucius" article --Daduxing (talk) 10:01, 4 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( 01:45, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am not sure this is a well named article, and it seems to combine many things at once, but the fact that there are living people who have standing because of their direct descent from Confucius, and we have an article on one, justifies this very large chart. Sources do not have to be in English. The English-language Wikipedia is not meant to be focused on topics sourced to English sources, or of interest to English speakers. It is only meant to be written in English. This article is, so that requirement is fulfilled. This may seem overly long to westerners who think it grand that they can trace their ancestry back before the year 1600, and none of whome can trace their ancestry before AD 400 reliably, by for the Chinese things are different, and this is a perfectly legitimate chart.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:34, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTGENEALOGY - "Genealogical entries. Family histories should be presented only where appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic". There is no topic here, just a genealogy.
Extra Comment This family tree is in itself a topic, its like saying the lineage of the British royal family is a topic, it has in itself intrinsic encyclopedia value since without this there is no context to the current descendants. This article also gives context to the (many) notable people it links too. This article would never be deleted from the Chinese Wikipedia and I see no reason other than lack of understanding of the subject why anyone would want it removed. A Guy into Books (talk) 09:22, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Fmaily tree can be a topic, but is only notable as a topic if the tree itself (not the family) has received significant coverage. Nothing in the article indicates this is the case - it is just a bare tree. Agricolae (talk) 01:30, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

it has significant coverage in china. A Guy into Books (talk) 14:51, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is certainly the heart of the issue, and I agree that nothing in the article indicates that the family tree is notable. However, the notability is clear from the citations in Confucius and it's easy for find more significant coverage in RSs. A BBC News report uses the words "Confucian family tree" in the headline . A Xinhua report last year was headlined "Korean Confucius descendants trace back to ancestor of family tree". A 2009 New York Times report tries to answer the question "Just how did a gentle scholar who is said to have had only three children come to preside over the world’s largest documented family tree?" That's significant coverage in multiple RSs - and there would be much more in Chinese languages (and perhaps Korean too, going by the Xinhua article). Matt's talk 15:02, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agree with above editors characterising this article as terrible, but I can attest that the family tree of Confucius is in se notable. I've removed the legendary line of descent from the Shang kings through the dukes of Song, which accords with our Chinese article on this topic. Of course Confucius's lineage traditionally is traced to legendary figures but we don't need to be so credulous of traditional sources. (As an aside, I would characterise our Confucius article as pretty credulous.)

The section List of prominent members of the family not shown on the tree is a place of horror. There were literally cites to facebook in there, and for some descendants it seems like earlier editors threw each and every mention they could find into a footnote rather than discerning between sources and depth of coverage.

Disagree that we on enwiki can do naught but "throw up our hands", but I agree that checking those 130 sources or whatever is going to be a serious pain in the ass. Looking through the actual historical references (listed under References) might actually be worse, since they're only narrowed down by chapter, but I do have access to almost all of those sources.

I think the article coverage should focus more on the compilation, retention, and signifigance of the tree itself and the social capital that comes from being in the main line of descent from Confucius. The prominent members section should be pruned and the article reorganised, but we have space for this topic in our encyclopaedia. Snuge purveyor (talk) 03:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I !voted delete earlier, but I also support a consensus rename to any title starting "List of". As an editing opinion, the "Family Tree" section should be removed, but that's not a topic for AfD. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:23, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a big deal in China. And in terms of it's total length, it is quite remarkable anywhere. Wikipedia is full of information about the genealogies of European identities who are not particularly notable. So why is this different ? Nobody is forcing you to read it. There are thousands of entries about fourth-rate football players who will be forgotten in a few years, but if they are not inaccurate, and people have gone to the trouble to write them, and the only "cost" is a few kilobytes on the server, then why go picking arguments about other peoples' interests ? That's my view.Lathamibird (talk) 06:14, 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 speedy delete. G5 —SpacemanSpiff 02:37, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

White Hill Music (record label)[edit]

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

Existing sources don't show enough for notability. Two have a bare mention at most and the other feels strongly like a press release, not a good, independent source. Google search didn't highlight anything. Article previously had sources not even related to subject, just something that would turn up in a google search and never verified. Feels like the article was created by a paid contributor. Ravensfire (talk) 01:02, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

-White Hill Music is a most popular Punjabi language production company.i added some references for notably if this Article not following Wikipedia politics then you can delete it. (H-DHAMI (talk) 01:08, 6 August 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 01:27, 6 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. If anyone wants it userfied or drafted with AfC headers, let me know. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chute Gerdeman[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:NCORP. Only employs 75 people. Run-of-the-mill company. Edwardx (talk) 00:35, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:48, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:48, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources fail WP:CORPDEPTH, inclusion of such an article with limited notability does not further the goals of the encyclopedia.--SamHolt6 (talk) 06:08, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:23, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate Article contains multiple sources and company works with national brands. If this article does not currently meet notability guidelines, I would like to move it to draftspace and continue working on it. DarkerBlue599 (talk) 13:35, 10 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. bd2412 T 03:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Gerzof Richard[edit]

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

NOT a professor - can find nothing to support this. Fails WP:NACADEMIC. Just a run-of-the-mill businessman. Edwardx (talk) 00:11, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:04, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:06, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:19, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - On the other hand, he does seem to be a professor. See this. I might clean it up to remove promotional info, and when I do that, it should be good to go. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 18:38, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems to pass our general notability guidelines. Also, the article is neutral, after I removed some promotional stuff. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 18:41, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Little evidence of notability. Just PR puff. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:04, 10 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. I see nothing here that would pass WP:PROF. As for GNG, as claimed above: where are the in-depth reliably published independent sources about Richard? The WSJ one is the only one that looks sufficiently reliable and high-profile (the rest are spammy looking websites and business press release aggregators); I don't have subscription access, but the first paragraph that I can see is not promising (it is about corporate sponsorship of classes in general, not about Richard himself, even if he teaches one of those classes) and even if it were to contain enough in-depth content about Richard, it's only one. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:32, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails the GNG.L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 01:41, 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Skurt (company)[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:NCORP. Edwardx (talk) 00:06, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:06, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:21, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:21, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete This was founded in 2015. It is a startup, that for Wikipedia fails the concept of WP:SUSTAINED. Unscintillating (talk) 00:36, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage such as this does not establish Notability ground for Wikipedia. It is typical startup with standard press coverage. “Our customers don’t consider us as an alternative to car rental companies; they use us as a replacement for car ownership,” said Josh Mangel, 23, one of Skurt’s founders.Light2021 (talk) 04:30, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the three minutes you invested in this analysis and text preparation, how much time could you have spent comparing with other startups or to define the concept of a "typical" startup? And what defines "standard press coverage" in techcrunch businessinsider and nytimes articles about a startup with product in two cities in California and one in Florida? This passes WP:GNG without looking beyond the article for sources. Unscintillating (talk) 00:03, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the three minutes you invested in this text preparation, how much time could you have spent comparing with other startups or to define the concept of a "typical" startup? Please contribute constructively in AfDs instead of just turning it into a forum. LibStar (talk) 14:54, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see no more understanding of what constitutes a "typical" startup or "standard press coverage" in this post than that shown by Light2021. Just looking at LibStar's claim that I spent "three minutes" on the previous post doesn't match my contribution history, which provides that 44 minutes elapsed, prior to the post LibStar is attempting to mock. My comments are on-topic and relevant to the strength of argument and to the discussion at hand. The closer should discount Light2021's !vote. Unscintillating (talk) 15:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 01:37, 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.