Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 13

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 12 December	14 December >

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. J04n(talk page) 14:19, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delhi Public School, Korba[edit]

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

No third party sources found. Fails Wikipedia generally notability guidelines. -- HindWiki^Connect 23:39, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- HindWiki^Connect 23:40, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 10:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of 3rd party sources showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:23, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete - as nothing in my searches. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 19:27, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I only found this ref as a third-party source. It mentions students in "class IX" - so if I'm understanding the British system correctly, Year Ten is the beginning of secondary school. So I believe Wikipedia:Notability (high schools) does not apply. Mention on Delhi Public School Society should do, unless more third-party sources are revealed. = paul2520 (talk) 18:10, 19 December 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. Adotchar, please note that AfD is not the right venue to propose a merge. You can use the talk page and the {{merge}} template for that. – Joe (talk) 23:22, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1980 Stock Car Brasil season[edit]

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

Propose merging into Stock Car Brasil, which has a section for the 1980s. The subject is not notable enough to have an article for every season. _{Adotchar| reply here} 23:16, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 23:21, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 23:21, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Nominating an article for deletion a mere two hours after its creation does not give the page creator much time to work on it. . - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:14, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is proposing a deletion to merge it. The same creator also made a 1979 Stock Car Brasil season page. I propose merging it all together into the Stock Car Brasil page, as having an article for every year is excessive, and I do not think they would individually meet notability. _{Adotchar| reply here} 12:10, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I missed that originally, sorry; but in that case, why did you nominate it for deletion and not merger? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:18, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Motorsport has been notified of this discussion. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:14, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Drivers of each Season, who only participated, and not won are indeed Irrelevant --92.76.86.106 (talk) 18:48, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Simply not the case. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:19, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom (and I would have suggested SK except for the above) until an appropriate level of content for WP:SPINOUTs can be accumulated. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:19, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm sorry but we talking about one of the main motorsport leagues in the country that have been running since 1979 and you want to delete it because it isn't good enough for your liking. I am going to say this give it a couple of weeks and if it hasn't improve then maybe merge it but for now I am going to put it as a Weak Keep Matt294069 is coming 11:10, 17 December 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. J04n(talk page) 14:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Insignia[edit]

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

WP:DICDEF. The short non-dicdef paragraph about legal restrictions is general to the point of uselessness, and unverifiable - it is sourced to a primary source, one US law against the misuse of US federal insignia, which does not support the content. Sandstein 22:21, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 23:16, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 23:16, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There's a perfectly good page at Wiktionary.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 02:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move Insignia (disambiguation) over this It's a dicdef and duplicative. Nate • (chatter) 02:22, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as duplicate. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:56, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A Wikipedia article could be developed on the topic (history, current, etc.) - at present this is a WP:DICTDEF fail.Icewhiz (talk) 06:44, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:DICTDEF. Kierzek (talk) 18:46, 15 December 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. I've decided to take this to DRV. (non-admin closure) ToThAc (talk) 15:47, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of postal codes in Canada[edit]

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

This article isn't even an article; it's just a templated list. Besides, it's already covered in Postal codes in Canada, so I don't think it's necessary. ToThAc (talk) 20:37, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per consensus a week ago. Seriously? -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:51, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, the keep arguments are unconvincing. Why would we keep a short list if it's already covered in the parent article? ToThAc (talk) 22:14, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For navigation to the sublists. Someone searching "List of postal codes in Canada" is going to want a list, so we shouldn't force them to load everything we have on Canadian postal codes and make it harder to find what they're looking for. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:19, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - all information is already included in postal codes in Canada. If that article didn't exist, I'd say this one should stay and be expanded. If that article didn't already include all of the information on this page, I'd suggest merging this one into that one. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is an extraordinary disservice to readers to publish a manually maintained copy of a government database. This article can NEVER be up to date. Therefore, it will always be wrong. What value does it deliver to a WP reader that a trip to Canada Post cannot? Absolute nothing. Rhadow (talk) 22:21, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

one. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect- to Postal codes in Canada (which is what I meant to say in the first discussion as an alternative to deletions). Although I am surprised we're bringing it up again so soon.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:22, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 23:12, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 23:15, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to postal codes in Canada. At this time this page is entirely redundant. This serves as a list of lists and the article contains the same list of lists. But a trout to both HindWIKI, for a non-admin close of a potentially controversial discussion last time around, and ToThAc, who should've just taken it to DRV or asked HindWIKI to undo the close rather than renominate. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:12, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete All the reasons given for deletion are utterly valid (I have to deal with US zip codes at work, and it's even worse than that: the published databases are always full of errors on top of everything else people say), and the main article is never going to include this list for the same reasons, so why redirect them to an article which isn't going to provide what the redirect promises? Mangoe (talk) 00:30, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Close as Keep per Tavix's arguments on the previous AFD, which closed a week ago. Way to soon for this to be re-nominated. If there are issues with the closure, Deletion Review is thataway.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 03:35, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do that, and this closure will be going straight to DRV. The last discussion, well, it was hardly a discussion at all, and the reason for discussion being brought up now was not discussed then. We're not a bureaucracy, and an article is not protected from examination because the discussion last time around went awry. Mangoe (talk) 10:46, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Vulcan. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:28, 14 December 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) 16:54, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Giuseppe Visciano[edit]

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

Unable to find sufficient references for this page to meet GNG nor do I believe his career achievements meet MUSICBIO. J04n(talk page) 19:24, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 19:25, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 19:26, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 19:27, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not even come close to meeting notability requirements for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:03, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. He's not particularly famous even within the minimal techno scene, and there just aren't any good sources available to source this article. The link to the interview with him is hosted on his own YouTube channel – the original host Minimal Magazine TV was a web channel which has folded. Richard3120 (talk) 17:05, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:03, 20 December 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. J04n(talk page) 14:17, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Finding Faith in Christ[edit]

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

I do not see any basis for notability here. DGG ( talk ) 19:16, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: nothing on the page suggests it meets NFILM and after searching for additional sources could find nothing to meet GNG. J04n(talk page) 19:31, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 19:32, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 19:32, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons given above. Shelbystripes (talk) 05:18, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete', I searched, could not find sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:03, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note article's original title was Finding Faith in Christ (2013 film), a title tht could be redirected to filmmaker T. C. Christensen, if sufficient sources could be found.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:06, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Natureium (talk) 23:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Complications: A Surgeon's Notes on an Imperfect Science[edit]

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

I don't think this book passes WP:NBOOK. It would have passed criteria #2, but it was only nominated for an award. Regardless, the entire article is just a plot summary. Natureium (talk) 19:16, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 23:10, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 23:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:11, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This book made a major impact and passes criteria #1. A quick look gives reviews in the Guardian, The New York Times, and The New England Jourjnal of Medicine, as well as 700 citations in Google Scholar. This is a student editing project and they may not understand that we don't want a "plot summary' for a non-fiction book, rather a description of the book and its impact. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily passes WP:NBOOK #1 (reviews), as verified by the links in the article and given above by StarryGrandma. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:53, 20 December 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) -- HindWiki^Connect 13:53, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Movement for Change (Greece)[edit]

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

Blatant crystallballing, sorry but if the party is being founded in 2018 then it has not been founded, and a lot may happen to stop it happening. Slatersteven (talk) 18:51, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It essentially exists already (Greek media seems to now refer to Fofi Gennimata as Movement for Change leader rather than PASOK leader, for example), albeit as a grouping of parties. To be factually precise, it hasn't yet been founded as a single political party yet. Perhaps the article should be amended to mention that it is currently an alliance rather than a party?--Autospark (talk) 19:09, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but I am not sure that anything less then burning and starting from scratch is going to work. As you seem to have figured out, it is all a bit confused as to what this is.Slatersteven (talk) 19:15, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Articles on proposed parties are frequent in en.Wiki. In this case, the party's foundation is certain, thus it is good to have a Wiki article on the issue covering the party's background and foundation. The party boasts even a leadership already! --Checco (talk) 21:50, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 23:08, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 23:08, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 23:09, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Because the sourcing seems to be there. Kathimerini, the center-left naitonal paper is all over it, even in the English edition (the paper that comes folded inside the NYTimes Internatinoal edition when you're in Greece, even though not every article in Kathimerini gets translated into English, typical article: Center-left reveals members of top decision-making body, they are covering it like a regular - if new - political party. As is Hurriyet, the Turkish equivalent of th eNew York Times and Kathimerini (folded into your Intl NYTimes when you're in Istanbul) Greeks await Erdoğan’s visit with fingers crossed. text: "The new united socialist-leftist coalition under the name “Movement for Change” has already climbed to the third place in opinion polls with an upward trend with the main opposition party of New Democracy remaining at the top of the list. So, Erdoğan's presence in Athens may have an impact on domestic ...". Come election day, our readers will expect this party to have a page. If it fizzles, we can always move it to a list of defunct parties.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:07, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Checco. Mélencron (talk) 22:17, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per Checco. Impru20 (talk) 22:58, 16 December 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. J04n(talk page) 14:36, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shafiq Shaharudin[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:43, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:43, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:43, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:43, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments @Sir Sputnik: I would assume that considering Malaysia – Malaysia Super League is on the fully pro list that we have, that he passes WP:NFOOTY. Did you review the leagues list? Govvy (talk) 18:51, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NFOOTY requires footballer must have actually played (i.e. appeared in a match) in a fully professional league. Shaharudin may be signed to a MSL club, but since yet to actually play, he does not meet WP:NFOOTY. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:55, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:39, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
additional Comments I had another good look through the players article and, I actually think he will eventually pass WP:NFOOTY, when you have an article like 1, that. It does make you think, I also just realised, at first I thought he was already in the top flight league, but it was the second div and I got a bit confused. I am sure he will be playing for Kelantan and then probably the countries national team. At the moment he fails NFooty, but I don't think that will be for long. There is more on the web, a google search shows some interesting articles towards GNG. I think this article at the moment should be in someone's sandbox. Govvy (talk) 10:45, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (for now) - clear WP:TOOSOON, the article fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Sure he probably will play professionally in the near future but that is WP:CBALL at the moment and the article can easily be recreated if this AFD is closed delete. Inter&anthro (talk) 04:23, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for footballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:17, 16 December 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 merge to Reliance Industries. – Joe (talk) 23:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Reliance scams[edit]

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

Reason: I believe that this page violates a series of WP policies such as content forking and the inability to create a neutral point of view. This was nominated for PROD and CSD before but a thorough discussion is required, hence this AfD. The page has been created to disparage the subject by quoting news sources that have speculative data. WP:CRITS essentially recommends that such pages that are "dedicated to negative criticism of a topic is usually discouraged" and I think these are valid reasons to discuss its existence.

Request a fellow user to please complete the AfD process. 2405:204:A8:6E73:CD9F:5090:40C2:251D (talk) 12:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Completing nomination on behalf of IP, requested at WT:AFD. I have not looked at this closely enough to form an opinion at this time. --Finngall ^talk 17:53, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 17:54, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 17:55, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge -- The scams list is atrociously assembled. A proper rewrite would shorten it. The core Reliance article isn't so long to preclude combination of the scams article. That would allow some context, which is missing. Rhadow (talk) 18:19, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - By way of disclosure, I declined the earlier PROD for procedural reasons, and recommended that it should go to AfD for proper discussion. That being said, I think merging the useful content into the main Reliance Industries page would be a good outcome.PohranicniStraze (talk) 19:21, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Rhadow --Rusf10 (talk) 22:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 23:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 23:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 23:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect – Thank you for starting the discussion, Finngall. I thought I’d follow up to my original comments here. While merging would have been ideal to any list that’s written so haphazardly and without context, I think the primary sentiment and/or the intention of the article is the problem and remains one where a neutral point of view would not be straightforward to produce even if we were to selectively edit it. The issue, as the way I look at it, is not only the existence of a separate page but the content and the theme themselves. Adding the content in the original subject page would not solve the problem of content forking and NPOV, as I had mentioned originally. As we all know that WP:CRITS discourages (though not explicitly forbids) content that is only intended to negatively promote a subject, I strongly believe that deletion (or redirection) is a valid option. Having said that, it is not entirely responsible of us to altogether ignore these sources where the data has been extracted from. Since the original page already has a section, it would make more sense for us editors to go through that section as well and do the needful. Alternatively, I believe the use of words like “scams” and “controversies” is generally frowned upon on WP and something that we should avoid however the discussion ends. That’s all. 2405:204:11B:A590:3CBA:D227:5D45:79CA (talk) 12:11, 15 December 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. J04n(talk page) 14:37, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Bolick[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBASKETBALL. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:56, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability requirements for sportspeople.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete also fails WP:GNG. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:01, 20 December 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. J04n(talk page) 14:37, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peddada Jagadeeswara Rao[edit]

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

Tagged for lack of independent sources and failure to demonstrate WP:PROF; no evidence anyone is interested in fixing those things. Guy (Help!) 16:25, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:12, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:12, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:12, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: this is an impressive curriculum vitae, nothing more. Quis separabit? 19:55, 18 December 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:03, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Intervention within El Salvador's Civil War[edit]

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

WP:ESSAYish WP:POVFORK of Salvadoran Civil War. The lead places responsibility for 750,000 lives at the hands of the US whereas casualty estimates for the entire conflict are 70-80k. Icewhiz (talk) 16:15, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This makes me think this is some kind of school assignment. The originator was editing almost only Central American pages (not a problem in itself) and hasn't edited since last April. The editor's sandbox includes chat with a professor.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 17:24, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, seems it was part of Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/College of Wooster/Latin America and the United States (Spring 2017).Icewhiz (talk) 06:30, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable event for having stand alone separate page. Lorstaking (talk) 11:23, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First, there are entire academic works and many news articles written specifically about US involvement in El Salvador (some of which are cited in this article). This broad coverage qualifies the topic as separately notable by the general notability guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia. Second, this is a valid article fork. The guideline on appropriate content forks permits "spinoff articles" to improve readability--a common practice. This article is similar in spirit to other spinoff articles about one state's involvement in conflicts such as United States in World War I, France in the American Revolutionary War, History of the United Kingdom during the First World War, etc. Finally, I agree with the nominator that there are non-neutral statements; however, there is a lot of good material here that should be improved rather than wholesale deleted. Malinaccier (talk) 03:24, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that this could be a valid topic. I do not see much of anything salvageable from the ESSAY/POVFORK that is here beyond the title - a case of WP:TNT is in order.Icewhiz (talk) 05:04, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of El Salvador-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:40, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:40, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not because of notability (it clearly meets notability guidelines) but per Icewhiz's reasoning of the need for WP:TNT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ifnord (talk • contribs) 03:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Would some sort of selective merge and/or redirect be valid? I'm not sure how much of this material is already in the main article. ansh 666 07:41, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ansh666: The main article does cover US involvement and aid. If any merging is done here - it would have to be extremely selective with extensive balancing. The article here is essentially an ESSAY/book-report of a few very polemic sources on the matter. There are also quite far out claims - e.g. However, Carter's involvement in Latin American issues were not popular with the general public, and helped secure his opponent's win, Ronald Reagan, in the following presidential election. (if US involvement in El Salvador or Latin American were an election issue in 1980.... It is news for United States presidential election, 1980 (which doesn't even mention either) - and Reagan wasn't a shrinking violet in terms of intervention - before or after his election... This article really is a POV mess. If someone takes this up for serious editing- the US role in El Salvador could probably be expanded, but I don't think this article does much in helping with that beyond providing a source list/summary of the far left view of the matter.Icewhiz (talk) 07:56, 21 December 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. ansh 666 07:42, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rohit Raut[edit]

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

Appears to fail notability requirements. Most of the article is regarding a 2008 children's special he was on, though he did not win. No other evidence of notability. Only album is a little champs compilation album. Appears to be a promo piece. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 15:46, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 22:56, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 22:57, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 22:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 22:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Even if you discount the topic of little champ, let us understand that he is currently a play back singer which is enough to make him notable. Kautuk1 (talk) 09:47, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough coverage to show notability. Being a play back singer does not automatically grant someone notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:02, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage to pass WP:GNG and didn't pass any point of WP:NACTOR. He is one-time finalist in not much notable TV show and he didnt win. Even the winner Kartiki Gaikwad didn't have article talk less of those who didn't win. Just being playback singer without independent sources confirming and reporting so is another to reason to delete. We don't keep article of all playback singers in the world just because they exist. –Ammarpad (talk) 15:18, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ammarpad. I might have added WP:TOOSOON but his break was in 2009 and I don't see much after that. Ifnord (talk) 03:47, 21 December 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. ansh 666 07:43, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Selective file dumper[edit]

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

Unsourced article, nn sofware fails WP:NSOFTWARE and WP:GNG Rusf10 (talk) 15:46, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Other than "it exists" I can't find any reliable sources that give it notability. - Pmedema (talk) 16:39, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 22:54, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Likely self-promotion (article creator Nannibas is very close to the name of one of the authors, Nanni Bassetti) and no evidence of qualifying for WP:GNG or WP:NSOFT. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:12, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Pmedema. WP:INDISCRIMINATE as well. Ifnord (talk) 03:51, 21 December 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. specific gravity and API gravity have been added to Gravity (disambiguation). -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:01, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gravity (chemistry)[edit]

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

Fails to cite any sources and is covered by specific gravity and API gravity EvilxFish (talk) 15:18, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 22:53, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Negligible content. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:57, 13 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Could this be deleted and specific gravity and maybe API gravity be added to Gravity (disambiguation), or is that contra policy? You don't normally differentiate by partial names but can do on alternative names. The disambiguation page currently links to Gravity (alcoholic beverage) and Gravity (chemistry) among other entries, but not to specific gravity. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:48, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not really a useful term for a redirect with the chemistry parenthetical. For the separate issue of adding specific gravity and API to the gravity disambig mentioned by Colapeninsula, that could be added at Gravity_(disambiguation)#Science_and_technology (doesn't need AfD comments for that). Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and improve existing disambiguation page as above. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:45, 19 December 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. J04n(talk page) 14:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sathya Murthi[edit]

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

Non-notable actor who fails WP:NACTOR and WP:CREATIVE. The article subject has so far only starred in one film (which he also produced), with him being slated to appear in a second film in 2018. This also qualifies this article for failing WP:TOOSOON, as the article subject has not yet been shown to have had a significant impact on the movie industry as either an actor or a producer. SamHolt6 (talk) 15:21, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 22:49, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 22:50, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 22:50, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman in the film industry.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:04, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TOOSOON with only one starring role and producer credit for a released film Atlantic306 (talk) 14:10, 17 December 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:03, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Abbondanza[edit]

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

This has superficial referenciness but the refs don't stack up. The few that are not associated witht he subject or data supplied y him (e.g. Who's Who) do not support the bold claims made in the article. Guy (Help!) 15:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:29, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:29, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable medical doctor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:41, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This page has been left in a poor state for a while, and that's partially my fault, since I created it first. There were some issues, which hopefully have now been addressed; here's a brief summary of the improvements I've made:

- I added a cached copy of Abbondanza's entry on Marquis Who's Who, which clearly reflects his notability. Unfortunately I wasn't able to find a cached copy of his other entry on Who's Who in Italy;

- I removed the dead links;

- I removed any reference to Abbondanza's website or network of microsurgery studios, I don't know who added them but I agree they were not appropriate;

- I've added a review study, published by the International Journal of Keratoconus and Ectatic Corneal Diseases, which states he is the inventor of the MARK technique;

- I've added a PubMed-indexed publication relating to his MARK + Cross-linking combined procedure (Rome's Protocol).

The page is now improved, with no dead links, no reference to his medical business and with new, PubMed-based references. As per his notability, lastly, that is intuitively covered by his entry in Marquis Who's Who in the World and by the fact that he's often on national news (refs. no. 16 and 17, though there are many others). Hopefully these improvements (mentioned in the talk page as well) are enough to keep the page, since it now provides clear and evidence-based information of a notable surgeon. Thanks, Manabeast333 (talk) 12:19, 17 December 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Manabeast333 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

Delete Not seeing significant coverage in indepedent sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:23, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The Who's Who references are no indication of notability; anyone can nominate themselves and offer to buy a book containing their biography to ensure said biography is included. Ifnord (talk) 04:02, 21 December 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. The delete arguments show a clearer policy based examination of the sources by well established clueful user. A metoo keep without any explanation of what policy basis they found helpful adds very little to the keep side Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:06, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mini asymmetric radial keratotomy[edit]

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

This article describes a form of surgery reportedly invented by an Italian eye surgeon, and referenced only to his work, self-sourced directory entries and commercial sites linked to him, plus one paper in German whose inclusion looks rather a lot like WP:SYN given that it doesn't appear to use the actual term. Guy (Help!) 15:09, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:18, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

leaning delete Got some GScholar hits but the cite count is very low. It appears to be something that was tried for a bit but didn't catch on. Mangoe (talk) 18:56, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and add a redirect to Radial keratotomy Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:49, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted more primary sources. The review added is to a non pubmed indexed source. Still delete and redirect. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:51, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The page has been left in its poor state for a while, and that's partially my fault, since I first created it. Some of the points that have been discussed are true, though some are not, so I've improved the page accordingly. Here's a brief summary:

- the technique is known to have been invented by Abbondanza, I've added a review article, published by the International Journal of Keratoconus and Ectatic Corneal Diseases, which mentions it;

- the two Who's Who pages are now off, but here's the archived version of Marquis Who's Who. Nevertheless, I've removed both;

- Also, speaking of citations of GScholar, you will find that all in all there are about 30 of them, so not too few in reality;

- I've added two more references, both very recent and both from PubMed-indexed journals, concerning the validity of Minimally invasive asymmetric RK for the treatment of KC. You might note that only one derives from a study signed by Abbondanza. Also, the fact that they are from 2017 shows that, despite its relative rarity, it is still performed and cited;

- I've mentioned (and referenced) circular keratotomy and astigmatic keratotomy as other incisional procedures used to treat keratoconus. They're quite rare, too, due to the fact that they address specific and non-generic situations. Also, it gives a bit of relevant context;

- I've removed other references that were not strictly relevant.

The page is now improved, without non-relevant references and with new, very recent, PubMed-based ones. I invite you to re-read it and possibly change your mind in order to keep it, since it now provides useful and evidence-based information. Thanks, Manabeast333 (talk) 11:36, 14 December 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Manabeast333 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. — Manabeast333 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep As above EvilxFish (talk) 11:50, 16 December 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. J04n(talk page) 14:39, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Long face syndrome[edit]

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

This article had four sources. One was spamming a predatory open access journal, two were self-published pages on dentists' websites, the final one is no longer available and would not in and of itself establish notability anyway. This looks like a WP:NEO. Guy (Help!) 15:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. —Syrenka V (talk) 22:36, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:09, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep GScholar shows a reasonable set of hits about this which appear to be in the principal American orthodontics journal, back in the 1970s at least; however, the second GBooks hit begins, "Actually, the very description of long-face syndrome is controversial, commonly involving increased anterior total and lower face height across ages, with vertical maxillary excess in adults." It appears to be a real thing, but it's unclear to me whether anything the article says represents the state-of-the-art. Mangoe (talk) 18:49, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's not a good article; it's certainly not WP:NEO, and it's a shame the NOM hadn't taken the trouble to spend a few minutes on Google. (Do please read WP:BEFORE). There are serious sources going back to 1976 which clearly refer to it as a genuine syndrome, so I believe it meets WP:N. See here and also this literature review. I ~~will add them~~ have added them to the article, and have reworded its contents. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:18, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on sourcing: Unfortunately I have had to remove the following literature-review reference from the article; its publisher, MedCrave, is predatory:

"Long Face Syndrome: A Literature Review" (PDF). medcraveonline.com. Journal of Dental Health, Oral Disorders & Therapy. Retrieved 14 December 2017. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)

See the following for information on the predatory character of MedCrave:

Beall's List (archived 2017-10-16)
TheScientist (archived 2017-06-10)
Snopes (archived 2017-12-17)

The nominator was likewise correct in removing the following source (present shortly before nomination) from the article on the ground that its publisher, Jaypee Journals, is predatory:

Sanjeev, Datana; Jaideep Sengupta; Vineet Sharma; Suresh Merion; CK Thapliyal (2007). "Combined orthodontic and surgical approach for correction of long face syndrome: a case report". Jios.

The predatory character of Jaypee Journals can be confirmed from Beall's List (above). Neither of these references should be added back to the article.

Despite the above, enough sourcing is available to to justify a keep. The other four journal sources currently cited in the article are all legitimate. I was able to fix the URL link for Carano et al 2005; it was a matter of replacing codes of the form "%nn" with the characters they stand for (brackets, parentheses, colon, semicolon). I will try to add more sources; the above is just cleanup before starting work on expanding the article.

—Syrenka V (talk) 03:46, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:Snowball. No compliance with WP:Before. I've added references and text. WP:Not paper. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:55, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your argument about the publisher ignores both who the authors are and the substance of their paper. Essentially, it is an Argument ad hominem and only partially relevant. I put it back. In any event, it is merely corroborative of the ~~nine~~ ~~thirteen~~ ~~seventeen~~ nineteen other sources that are now in the article. This argument is about WP:GNG and WP:Notability, not about the validity of the medical/dental terminology. Deleting one source out of 18 20 will not refloat this Titanic. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:11, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per 7+6.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:50, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep.~~ Snowball Keep. If this isn't a WP:SNOWBALL keep, it's at least close; I agree with others above that the nominator's WP:BEFORE was deficient. I continue to agree with the nominator about unacceptability of anything published by predatory publishers as sources in a medical article—see the guideline WP:MEDRS, which has a section specifically about predatory publishers—but there are enough good secondary sources by mainstream publishers (Springer, LWW, Elsevier, etc.) that removal of all sources from predatory publishers would, if anything, merely further reinforce the impression of a well-sourced article on a notable topic.

—Syrenka V (talk) 23:48, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is indeed looking more and more like a WP:SNOWBALL keep. I agree with 7&6=thirteen that there are too many good sources there for deletion to appear as a realistic possibility again, even after applying the standards of WP:MEDRS with full rigor. I suggest that the nominator withdraw the nomination, and instead pursue improvement of the article through normal editing and talk-page discussion.

—Syrenka V (talk) 06:22, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep per common sense, multiple reliable sources, snow, Christmas, and such. Nice work, 7&6=thirteen. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:37, 19 December 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 Camila (album). J04n(talk page) 14:40, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll Never Be The Same[edit]

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

Per WP:NSONG and WP:PROMO.

(From WP:NSONG): Notability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album.

The sources I was able to find reference a song that has magically been released 2 days into the future...seems more like a promotional push than a subject that has notability outside of release promos and future album review articles. Delete and move info to Camila's bio. Comatmebro (talk) 00:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 00:44, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 00:44, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 00:45, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 00:45, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 00:45, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect at worst. It's WP:TOOSOON now, but it's a plausible search term, and despite it not being my thing, this artist is rather popular at the moment, and will almost certainly chart. It'll really just come down to whether or not someone bothers to write an actual article or not. Sergecross73 msg me 03:01, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect the title to the singer. It's plausible search term but it is not notable on its own. Very likely to be searched since its not even releaed in full yet and the singer is popular–Ammarpad (talk) 05:10, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on hold as information on the subject should release tomorrow. Then we'll see if it's worth deleting. ToThAc (talk) 14:21, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that much of a leap of faith violate's WP:CRYSTAL, especially when, again, no one has bothered to actually write an article on this, so no information would be lost if a redirect to the album was created, and a single sentence was added to the album page. Sergecross73 msg me 17:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ToThAc: Per policy, Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. So how can we wait for scoop?. That's against policy. –Ammarpad (talk) 18:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:45, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:TOOSOON. Song may become notable in the future, but as of now is not.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:49, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even now the song has some sources, just not enough for standalone page. That's why it should be redirected per WP:ATD-R and it may well have to be created in the long run. But I agree with your WP:TOOSOON. –Ammarpad (talk) 01:59, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Camila (album) for now, and if it gets a full release or charts in future it can be recreated as its own article again. The song is a promotional track for the album, so it makes sense to redirect to the album it comes from. Richard3120 (talk) 16:43, 13 December 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) -- HindWiki^Connect 02:39, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

International Federation of Interior Architects/Designers[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. Still could not find independent reliable sources establishing notability. Last AfD was closed as no consensus. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep And I will reiterate my vote from the previous discussion. In my opinion the organisation passes WP:GNG. There is plenty of coverage, but often only the abbreviation IFI is mentioned. Danmuz (talk) 09:10, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and I hope the same nominator doesn't continue to renominate it every 6-7 weeks. Organisation of international scope that has been active for over 50 years. Multiple reliable independent sources already found (despite most coverage likely to be pre-internet) and used in the article. Sionk (talk) 18:59, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see no evidence that it is the predominant organization in the field. DGG ( talk ) 03:30, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: Which organisation is then? Sam Sailor 09:36, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:39, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Judging from the sources – I have added between 15 and 20 secondary sources, most of them book citations – the organisation more than meets GNG/NORG. IFI is the singular international federating body for organisations in its field, interior architecture / interior design, having among their member organisations ~30 national associations^Link including e.g. American Society of Interior Designers. We usually wait at least two months before renominating a "no consensus" close, cf. WP:RENOM. Sam Sailor 15:42, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Passes the WP:GNG and WP:ORG. For some odd reason first nomination ended in no consensus. This one should end in a clear keep. gidonb (talk) 03:25, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yikes! I see that this was nominated 2 months ago. Nominating articles so frequently is not a good idea. At all! gidonb (talk) 22:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The search string ""International Federation of Interior Architects" in Google Scholar finds 150+ articles. E.g. The International Federation of Interior Architects/Designers(IFI), the international body for interior design, struggles to give a clear identity to the profession and continues to debate the industry’s disciplinary definitions and directions.[1]. Took 5 seconds to find. FHHedlund (talk) 18:23, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep What changed between the last time you nominated it and now? This gives the appearance of forum shopping. —cnzx 00:49, 21 December 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. J04n(talk page) 14:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Captain401[edit]

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

An directory-like page on an unremarkable tech startup. Significant RS coverage to meet WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH not found. Article is cited to passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP sources. Created by Special:Contributions/Spbm with few other contributions outside this topic. The company has raised $3.5M in funding, which strongly suggests its WP:TOOSOON for an encyclopedia entry. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Covered in both the Wall Street journal and TechCrunch. Fulfills requirements of GNG. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 14:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Pretty much all the sources in the article, and a lot of the sources available, are about seed funding, which is pretty routine coverage, and is remarkable precisely because they're a startup with no corporate history, market share, etc. But Wikipedia is not the place to cover exciting new possibilities in venture capitalism. Most of the rest of the hits I'm seeing are absolutely the worst kind of inane name dropping, passing mention, link farming, promotionalism... using junk like Think long and hard about exactly what you need to stay motivated to stuff in an image, name and a link to your website in a completely inane filler article ([2], [3], [4], [5]). It might be notable in the future, but I'm not seeing very much to suggest there's enough depth of coverage to think it's notable now. GMG ^talk 17:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:36, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it has received little coverage for the funding only, otherwise non-notable and suspicious article creation. D4iNa4 (talk) 18:23, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A young company that hasn't yet achieved anything of note. Raising a seed round is insufficient for notability, and it's the only thing that has received some (limited) coverage. Fails WP:NCORP, WP:GNG. Rentier (talk) 14:04, 20 December 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:07, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson Silverio[edit]

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

Non-notable minor league baseball player. Played for only three years in low-level minor leagues. Served as a bullpen catcher for the Mets in 2004, which is not covered in WP:BASE/N. Also fails WP:GNG. Penale52 (talk) 00:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:59, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some sources list him as bullpen catcher in 2003 and a coach in 2004; if the latter is true, he'd be a keep as per BASE/N. He was also listed as a coach for the D.R. in the WBC and he's had executive positions in the D.R. winter league. Not much on Google for him, though, at least not after a quick search. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 06:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source that says he was an official Mets coach in '04? He's not listed with their coaches on Retrosheet for that year.Penale52 (talk) 17:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Coach for Major League baseball team satisfies notability. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 14:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of sources to pass the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:25, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
According to 2004 New York Mets season, Rick Waits was the Mets' bullpen coach that year. According to that MLB.com site, he was only bullpen coach in 2003. This says Silverio was a bullpen catcher and this says he was bullpen coach. There's a WP:V problem here. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:49, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:35, 13 December 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. J04n(talk page) 14:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Synoptic table of the principal old world prehistoric cultures[edit]

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

In short: this article is original research by synthesis and I do not believe it can be brought into line with our core content policies.

There's a decades worth of more specific shortcomings pointed out on the talk page. Doug Weller summed it up well in 2009: a "slightly mad table of inaccurate and seemingly randomly chosen historical events". There are no sources that support the selection of items or the format they are presented in here. It might seem uncontroversial to simply compile the dates of archaeological cultures/periods in different regions, but it isn't for several reasons. For one, its format invokes a theory of (pre)history (i.e. it is a sequence of discrete 'cultures') that is decidedly fringe in current scholarship. Additionally, neither the definition of archaeological cultures, nor their periodisation, nor assigning them dates, are straightforward facts. They are all subject to scholarly debate and revision as new research is conducted, yet this table cuts through all of that and presents these details unambiguously, which is not consistent with a neutral point of view. Finally, the sheer ambition inherent in the title (a "synoptic" table representing millions of years of history across half the globe) makes verifying each element of the table a huge task; in its current form almost none of them are referenced, and it is full of factual errors.

I do think this is an interesting exercise in "big history", but Wikipedia is not the place for it. – Joe (talk) 14:34, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 14:35, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 14:35, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Joe puts this very well. There are some subjects that simply can't be covered this way and this violates a number of polices, not least NPOV. There are many disputes in this area and even more uncertainties and this ignores them all. Doug Weller talk 14:53, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would agree with all comments above. As an archaeologist this table makes me cringe, and I don't see how incremental fixes/additions are going to solve the major issues raised by Joe Roe. Ninafundisha (talk) 15:18, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I could see how creating a list with a clear ordering criteria (e.g. by mean start date of given culture) could fly. Sampling at a random 1000 year (10,000, 100k, etc) point and making a determination for a given region at that date - is questionable.Icewhiz (talk) 15:35, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The selection of info for this article is completely indiscriminate. Or, in short, 'huh?' !dave 10:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A horrible mix of original research and synthesis that is too reliant on subjective curation. Fraenir (talk) 15:24, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Violations of WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 that GNG is not met, which NSPORTS dictates must happen for standalone articles. ansh 666 07:50, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

D. de Silva[edit]

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

Fails GNG, relies on routine statistical coverage in Cricinfo and CricketArchive. Per this RfC, SSGs like WP:CRIN do not supersede the GNG. Dee 03 14:25, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:52, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:52, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:52, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A single database source to support a (presumably) BLP is insufficient. The original data gatherer could not be bothered to write down the person's first name. How can we support an encyclopedia article based on that? Rhadow (talk) 14:58, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The "single-source" nonsense is easily solved by anyone who knows the first thing about cricket. Bobo . 15:33, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and that should especially ring true for BLPs (also presuming). Editors may say he passes the criteria for cricket but nothing trumps GNG. If anyone can find significant coverage anywhere (I couldn't) then I will happily change my !vote.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:47, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Bare statistics inflated to prose do not make for an encyclopedia article. It's been shown that this kind of minimal "coverage" isn't sufficient for the biography of a presumably living person. There's not enough information here to even determine this person's full name, and the one source in the article has been shown to be sometimes unreliable. The cricket wikiproject's rules do not supersede project-wide requirements for substantial sourcing. Reyk _YO! 22:05, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can find nothing to show notability for this person beyond their one appearance in a cricket match. The source provided is a database entry rather than a substantive source and tells us that a match that he played in took place, his surname and initial. We don't have a forename, date of birth or even which hand he batted with for example - in those circumstances (and after careful searching for sources) I don't believe that we'll be in a position to verify anything about the person beyond what we currently have at any point in the foreseeable future. If we can't add substantive sources then there's a clear failure of the GNG and several RfC (such as this one) have made it clear that sports notability criteria only provide a presumption of notability if there is a hope that the GNG will ever be met. The close of the recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D. Kodikara certainly seems to support such a position as well. In addition this is (probably) a BLP. In these circumstances I'm even more wary about keeping the article without sourcing beyond minimally detailed database entries.

For the sake of clarity, I would opt for the same outcome if this were a player from an anglophone country with the same circumstances.

If we had other details (forename, date of birth etc...) and/or the player could be shown to have played in other cricket matches (i.e. of a non-first-class status) then I could be persuaded that there is a fair chance that sources might exist. I would have no prejudice against the re-establishment of the article if such sources can be shown to exist. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:45, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete It is high time that we revised the notability guidelines for cricket players, and put it above a single game apperance. We do not create articles on every academic who is granted tenure, and that is a process that involves many more steps of widely recognized scholarship than appering in one match.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:55, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NCRIC, which is the relevant sector-specific guideline for notability (WP:CRIN has it in more detail). Inline citations now provided. Johnlp (talk) 12:07, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - I request to keep this article but it has to be improved. Cricinfo and CricketArchive are most important websites as a part of WikiProject Cricket. No one cannot state a normative statement that Cricinfo and CricketArchive are unreliable sources. Abishe (talk) 19:16, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Abishe -- Cricket Archive solicits scorecards from its subscribers [6]. That doesn't sound like a reliable source of data, particularly on living persons.Rhadow (talk) 20:27, 19 December 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. ansh 666 07:50, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kabir Iyengar[edit]

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

Vanity article about barely notable "youtube star". There are hardly any WP:RS available, except for ones about a particular video.-- BukitBintang8888 (talk) 14:10, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:51, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:51, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are people who have been viewed over a billion times who are not notable enough for Wikipedia articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:36, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Redirect as a one-line entry to Bobby Shmurda. His only source of minimal notability was a 10-minute flash-in-the-pan proposal video based on Shmurda's song so there in no evidence of any independent notability. The amount of coverage of that (e.g., MTV, Buzzfeed, Spin, Deadspin), however, is enough to justify some coverage. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:06, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is no notability here. Dead links, twitter as a source, and buzzfeed.com. A 10 minute youtube video does not pass WP:BLP1E and there is nothing to merge. Otr500 (talk) 06:27, 21 December 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. J04n(talk page) 14:43, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Comadena[edit]

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

Non-notable sportsperson. Fails WP:GNG. Bullpen catchers aren't coaches covered by WP:BASE/N per WP:BASEBALL consensus. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that Comadena, as a bullpen catcher, is not automatically considered notable. However, given that there are a number of sources out there about him (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8) --- of which at least sources 3 and 8 are profiles or reports in notable sources, this combined with his association with the team may have him considered notable enough for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Even if not in his own article, he would seem to warrant more than a simple name listing on the Pirates' roster. Editosaurus (talk) 15:15, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are some sources, more than the other Pirates bullpen catcher, but how many of these are good quality sources that count to notability? The Pantagraph and Houston Chronicle are, but one of those is Purdue's website, another is a collegiate summer league website, and another is to Blogspot. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails the notability guidelines for baseball so we should delete.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:02, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^{Babymissfortune} 05:45, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just say this: just because being a bullpen catcher does not make one automatically notable does not mean that being one makes one automatically non-notable. Editosaurus (talk) 20:32, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:40, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete He doesn't meet the notability guidelines for baseball players and I don't believe he has the significant independent coverage needed to meet the GNG. Most of the sites are just statistics or blogs.Sandals1 (talk) 19:06, 18 December 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. J04n(talk page) 14:45, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Frieden[edit]

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

At the very least we should delete most of the content in this article due to it not being backed with sources. A biography on Wikipedia is supposed to be a summary of what reliable third-party sources have said about a person and not what they have written about themselves. If we delete the content here not backed by reliable third-party sources then we get 0 sentences. I searched around - this person has published articles and been an expert commentator in their own field. I do not see publications which already present this person's biography.

One claim to notability is that this person might pass WP:NACADEMIC #5 for holding a named chair. However, I cannot find any information about the "Pioneers Chair in Telecommunications" on the Penn State website or anywhere else. Thoughts from others? Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:05, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 22:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 22:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He does pass WP:PROF#C5. It's the "Cable TV Pioneers Chair in Telecommunications Studies" held in 1999 by E. Stratford Smith [7] and since around 2004? by Frieden? His CV says since 1992 but I think that's actually the date he joined PSU, not the date of his named chair. And there's plenty of in-depth material about him published by his employer [8] [9] [10] [11] to use to fill out the article (it wouldn't be independent enough to count for GNG notability but we're using WP:PROF not GNG here). —David Eppstein (talk) 17:11, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:43, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- meets WP:PROF#C5; appears to be a noted expert in the field. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:09, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:39, 13 December 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:08, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SDIG Sumith Edirisinghe[edit]

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

The article was previously considered at an AfD - Sumith Edirisinghe whereby it was deleted. This is just a re-creation of that deleted article with a series of passing mentions of the individual under a slightly different name. The subject of the article is merely a senior police officer. There is nothing contained in the article that establishes the subject's notability - fails WP:ANYBIO. The references only provide a mention of the subject - merely establishing that he exists. Whilst there are a series of related readings none of them provide any significant coverage as required under WP:GNG, they are simply a series of passing mentions - nothing more. The rank of SDIG is not an automatically notable position & there is no other evidence of notability provided. Dan arndt (talk) 13:37, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 13:40, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 13:40, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 13:40, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As I stated before, a DIGP is in chance of the policing of a province, with a population of over 1 million to about 5 million people. Any police officer in the UK or USA with this much responsibility would be a clear keep. And per WP:SOLDIER we keep all military general officers; this police rank is equivalent. I don't know why we're discriminating against police officers. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:38, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as indicated in previous AfDs - arguments for or against WP:Soldier are irrelevant because there is absolutely no "automatic inclusion clause but all articles are to depend on "significant coverage in independent, secondary sources". This applies to Wikipedia:ANYBIO and WP:BASIC, that states, "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." This is supported by the policy Wikipedia:Verifiability and the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. This article is lacking on all counts. Dan arndt (talk) 00:32, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article lacks sufficient sources to show notability. The claim that "any police officer in the USA with this much responsibility would be a clear keep" is discredited by the fact that we lack an article on Kristy Etue, the head of theMichigan State Police, Michigan having just under 10 million residents.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:07, 15 December 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. ansh 666 07:51, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Winnie Couture[edit]

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

Spam article written as an advertisement, which does not belong on Wikipedia per WP:NOTADVERTISING. The notability is borderline at best with most of the sources failing WP:SPIP. Rentier (talk) 19:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:01, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:02, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:02, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep advertising/promo alone is not an issue for AfD per WP:ATD, easily passes WP:NCORP from a search for sources [12][13]. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 07:56, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ATD states that "an article on a notable topic severely fails the verifiability or neutral point of view policies, it may be reduced to a stub, or completely deleted by consensus at WP:AfD". It's up to the participants of this AfD to decide whether the encyclopedia is well served by retaining this promotional piece inserted by an SPA so well-versed in wiki-markup. Rentier (talk) 14:41, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NOTADVERTISING. Not enough independent references to justify notability Wikilover2604 (talk) 00:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article can be deleted on the basis of WP:NOTADVERTISING. My thoughts exactly on the vagueness of the notability here for this article. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 10:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:34, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability, they are either simple name-checks in an article (fails WP:CORPDEPTH) or they're company produced announcements/material. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- the sources offered above fail WP:CORPDEPTH being passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. The copy is mostly advert, as in:

"Winnie Couture has been featured in publications such as, Modern Brides, Modern Luxury, Brides, The Knot and InStyle Weddings!" Etc.

If such content is removed, there won't be much left, and Wikipedia specifically discourages directory-like listings. The company exists, but have not achieved anything significant just yet. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:38, 20 December 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 List of Major League Lacrosse awards. Content can be merged wherever it's needed from history, of course providing attribution. ansh 666 07:52, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Major League Lacrosse Weekly Awards[edit]

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

Not notable. Only source is MLL press releases. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 06:02, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:10, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep~~ the article only covers 2001-2003, a WP:TNT deletion might be reasonable. A merge to a different sub-page of Major League Lacrosse would also be reasonable. I see a few (semi-trivial) mentions in lacrosse-specific press [14], [15] but no good coverage. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:46, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- List of Major League Lacrosse awards is a newly-created merge/redirect target. I'll say Redirect because I don't think the existing comment (which is 10+ years out of date) should be copied over. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:18, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:05, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:31, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into specific Major League Lacrosse seasons as needed. I don't think this should be an article on its own, but it'd certainly pick up those articles and there is precedent in other leagues. South Nashua (talk) 13:57, 13 December 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. ansh 666 07:52, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vilislav[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Promotional article for an artist that doesn't fit the notability criteria. He doesn't have released albums or any charting singles, neither any major concert appearances within the country. Local media barely talks about him. I've took a look at page author's contributions and he didn't edited any other pages. Also his username look rather suspicious - Antonov.bookings. St0n3 BG (talk) 08:57, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 10:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 10:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I do not read Bulgarian so I am unsure if the inclined citations are third party sources. Hence, I can't justify the notability of the article. Even without any officially released songs and albums, participation in major concerts or award acceptance, if there is substantial media coverage from third party sources, it'll be worthy of an article. However, there are some weasel words and promotional content in the article which might just be fine after clean-ups. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 10:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ernestchuajiasheng: Like I mentioned, local media barely talks about him. If you write his name in Bulgarian "Вилислав" in Google News you will get the idea. St0n3 BG (talk) 11:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ernestchuajiasheng: Oh yeah, sure. That's why he and Ustata represented their last project in 3 of the 4 National TV chanels. Your nomination (St0n3 BG) is absolutelly personal. First you have to do your research properly and then to act. Because there are articles for Vilislav in magazines, websites, news websites and so on. His last song was more than a month in a music chart. So if you say that he did nothing, your statement can't be taken as a serious one. (talk)
- @Antonov.bookings: Yes, I watch TV. I recall seeing a short interview about it in "Predi Obed" on bTV. It was like 5 minutes and mainly focused on Ustata. I wouldn't call that substantial media coverage. Also i have nothing against Vilislav. AfD is a standard procedure here. Quickfingers (talk) 19:09, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:30, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of any notability under WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:59, 20 December 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 that while the article should be cleaned up, deletion is not the right answer here. Malinaccier (talk) 00:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Untranslatability[edit]

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

This has been tagged as WP:OR for over five years, and the only "fixes" have been adding WP:REFSPAM. Guy (Help!) 13:29, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:44, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 23:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 23:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment With translation taught at many universities, there's a vast literature on translation and untranslatability[16][17][18], so the topic is potentially notable but could it be better covered under Translation? The article feels essayistic and a bit Original research (although maybe it's paraphrased from somewhere else?). But it would be a shame to lose some of the material if it could be referenced and maybe moved. I guess nobody's sufficiently bothered to improve Wikipedia articles though (including me). --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-ish? There is no deadline; deletion is not for clean up; et cetera. In principle the problems are surmountable. Furthermore, the topic is discussed in literature on translation or linguistics. But, as Colapeninsula suggests, this might be better handled in an article on translation, perhaps via selective merging. Cnilep (talk) 02:36, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google scholar returns 12,000+ hits for "untranslatability" and 10,000+ hits for both words "translatability untranslatability". Both terms are evidently widely accepted mainstream concepts in the scientific community. There is a lot interesting stuff in the article, most of it is clearly written by knowledgeable subject matter contributors. Very little contested material, two instances, small-stuff. OK, maybe some clean-up is needed, but why resort to wholesale deletion? FHHedlund (talk) 18:08, 20 December 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 merge to Sriracha (2013 film). ansh 666 07:53, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Griffin Hammond[edit]

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

This page was initially nominated for speedy deletion per WP:A7: this was contested after the addition of a red-linked film he'd made, supported by a reference to his own website. I don't find any significant, independent coverage of him beyond self-published or unreliable sources such as IMDb and YouTube. Fails WP:FILMMAKER ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 12:08, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:24, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:24, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:30, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^{Babymissfortune} 11:32, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm finding whole articles about him and his 33 minite film Siracha as well shorter mentions in relation to other projects. ~~See "Griffin+hammond"&oq="Griffin+hammond"&gs_l=psy-ab.3...14142.16826.0.17072.2.2.0.0.0.0.123.238.0j2.2.0....0...1c.1j4.64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.kLKVCRFI_I8 here.~~ FloridaArmy (talk) 20:50, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @FloridaArmy: could you give the specific pages you're referring to? Your Google search link doesn't work for me, but I've done that search already. All I find are his self-published pages; Twitter, Youtube, LinkedIn, Vimeo, etc. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:54, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm.. I tried again and still couldn't get a search result link posted here in this discussion to work. If you search Griffin Hammond on Google's "News" search link you get results including a lengthy LA Times article, a Slate piece, and other sources. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the sources mentioned by FloridaArmy are included in Sriracha (2013 film) which is why I !voted to merge unless better sources on Griffin Hammond himself can be found ☆ Bri (talk) 18:01, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Sriracha (2013 film) but keep if more sources on the filmmaker (see above) ☆ Bri (talk) 17:59, 20 December 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. J04n(talk page) 14:46, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Jaipur Dialogues[edit]

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

No reliable sources found. Topic is not a subject. HINDWIKI • CHAT 13:53, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WHY DO YOU THINK Swarajya (magazine) is not a reliable source? It has done a detailed coverage of this annual event, which I shall add in the edit. It is an event next in importance only to the Jaipur Literature Festival — Preceding unsigned comment added by IamIconoclast (talk • contribs) 14:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment their's no sources found, only topic is can not prove guidelines. HINDWIKI • CHAT 14:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 16:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 16:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^{Babymissfortune} 11:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to have quite substantial coverage of the conference event that includes notable figures and the launch of notable books. I didn't understand the answer on why the coverage doesn't count for notability made above. FloridaArmy (talk) 21:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:21, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Added 2 sources from DNAIndia and Yahoo news. Raymond3023 (talk) 12:51, 16 December 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 that the sources given don't pass the GNG bar. ansh 666 07:55, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Aylett[edit]

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

There are no reliable independent sources establishing the significance of this subject. Maybe it's just a crappy article, but I am not seeing WP:GNG here. Guy (Help!) 12:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:17, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets the minimum of WP:AUTHOR with multiple reviews and mentions by The Guardian, reviews of his film in The Quietus and in LA Times, and being named as an influence of Alan Moore and a music band in the New York Times. These were just the best results on the first two pages of a google news search. I'm certain other coverage is available with some effort. I also spotted some interviews that could be used to improve the article (which needs a lot of improvement). Argento Surfer (talk) 14:32, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First link: 404. Second link: Personal blog. Third link: distinctly lukewarm namecheck in a listicle ("Steve Aylett’s paean to originality is so elliptical that it’s almost a straight line. And if you think that’s a clever line, you’ll love it. I’m afraid I didn’t."). And so on. Guy (Help!) 16:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No refs in the article supporting notability, the refs mentioned above talk about some of his work but not the author and topic of this article Steve Aylett. Sure he's not unknown but I'm not seeing notability, just routine reviews. Szzuk (talk) 19:30, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per substantial coverage of him and his work in reliable independent sources as noted and linked by Argento above. FloridaArmy (talk) 20:41, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As Szzuk pointed out, none of that is actually about him. Guy (Help!) 12:30, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- WP:TOOSOON; the sources listed above are insufficient: blogs and passing mentions. Not notable as an author just yet, nor in any other capacity. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:21, 20 December 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. – Joe (talk) 20:35, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gryphon Investors[edit]

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

Only sources are press releases and listings. Fails WP:NCORP. ~~Seems to have been draftified in lieu of G11, then accepted without change at AfC~~(shouldn't have been..) Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:16, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, strike that, was changed quite a bit - but still, doesn't seem notable. I only see reprints of press releases, blogs, listings etc. Thus failing WP:CORPDEPTH and requirement for independant sources Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:18, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 13:38, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 13:38, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sources are either own information or routine press releases and do not establish notability. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:46, 14 December 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. ansh 666 07:59, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Phor Tay High School[edit]

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

Not seeing any notability outside what look like primary sources.

This is over 10 years old, and no decent sources have been added. Slatersteven (talk) 18:54, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep A long lasting school (founded 1935) serving a community is of notable interest to that community (see WP:LOCAL) and also, following a long standing consensus on schools, especially secondary/High schools, these pages are usually kept as long as they are WP:V (verifiable). I see no reason at all to remove this page and the information it contains, as it is will be of notable interest to those who either in the present or the future wish to study education in the locality, or the locality in general. If you are concerned about the quality of the page, you may leave messages on their talk page, add sources yourself or propose redirects to a locality. You can also liaise with the relevant Wikiprojects. Simply deleting a page of verifiable information on a place of local interest helps no one.Egaoblai (talk) 03:00, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- If you are interested in this article, why do you not improve it? The Banner talk 10:45, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's not how a AFD discussion works, by the same token, I might ask, "if you think the article isn't good enough, why not improve it?" However given that you think it can be improved, that would indicate that deleting it would be the wrong way to go, as deletion should only be reserved for irredeemable articles. Deleting something that can be improved wastes people's time as especially in schools, and especially with high schools, it will be created again with verifiable sources, only to be deleted by people who would rather the encyclopedia not include these essential inherently notable institutions of public life, and so the page will be re-written again, prometheus-like until one day people realise that notability is in the eye of the beholder and these AFD discussions have been a waste of everyone's time.Egaoblai (talk) 11:01, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - What makes you think that school are "inherently notable institutions"? Based on the contested essay SCHOOLOUTCOMES? But a recent RFC there said Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist.. The Banner talk 14:23, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - What makes you think that given time, schools can't be proved to be notable in their local communities? Also do you believe that all countries are inherently notable? How about all lead actors in hollywood movies? If so, why do you believe that?Egaoblai (talk) 00:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is borderline Crystal balling. We do not keep articles because they "one day might be notable". As to the rest, we are discussing this article, not any other. Now I can only assume (that like the rest of us) you have found no evidence of notability (else you would have added such sources to the article).Slatersteven (talk) 10:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not making wild predictions, but making educated assumptions about the place of schools within local communities and their resulting notability. To delete a ten year old article about a school based on your assumption that nothing notable can be found is bordering on vandalism. You are quite literally advocating for deleting knowledge because YOU don't like it. Are you involved in Education? are you involved in Malaysian education? Are you an expert in Chinese schools in Malaysia? If not, then it would be more appropriate for you to reserve your judgement to issues of verifiability rather than notability. Also, It is not my place to find information on the school, for one I do not speak Chinese and cannot search for those resources. It seems rather presumptuous to think that just because no notability in English (surprisingly enough the New York times hasn't done a piece on this school) that it doesn't exist. The thing about Wikipedia is that it's got information about everything, so I'm confused why people spend so much time trying to delete verifiable information about institutions of local interest and notability, rather than adding information about their interests. It's clear that many people here think that schools are worthy pages and notable in and of themselves, and that there has been a consensus to keep school articles, based on the idea that even if notability cannot be proved right this moment, it can be 99% of the time. Let's stop wasting time and leave these verified articles alone.Egaoblai (talk) 12:10, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No I am nominating it because in 10 years this projected notability has not materialized. And verifiability does not trump notability. Nor has anyone rejected any non English sources, they have just asked for sources that establish notability.Slatersteven (talk) 15:31, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This (in essence) is why I nominated it, Schools still have to be veritably notable. Yet in 10 years we have two primary sources.Slatersteven (talk) 10:47, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And I do not think it can be improved.Slatersteven (talk) 13:32, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - simply because there is no source independent of the subject so fails WP:GNG. Egaoblai say 'strong keep', but these types of articles generally are a way to abuse BLPs, take a look at this [19] which I found. Private schools are business ventures in South Asia or South-East Asia and we need to be strict. Störm (talk) 15:49, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

ဲJust going to further comment on why this would be wrong to delete. The school passes the verfiable test, and I really don't believe that we can't find anything notable for a school that has been around since 1935. This article should not be deleted until we get some chinese and Malaysian voices to comment.Egaoblai (talk) 11:23, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well lets see, it has been 4 days and you have not added any, so if you cannot find them why should you asume anyone else can?Slatersteven (talk) 12:08, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1. AFD is not a place to demand that others do work.
2. I do not speak Chinese or Malay and have no access to what I assume must be a plethora of resources about a school that is 80 years old.
3. Long standing consensus on schools is that they are presumed to be notable as per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES Egaoblai (talk) 06:15, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1, True, so why are you doing so?

2, Assumptions are not RS they are OR.

3, Please see WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, it does not say what you think it does.Slatersteven (talk) 10:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we base articles on sources, not the assumption that there should be sources. We lack sources and so should delete.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:45, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment just to add to my previous points, I think it would be a collosal shame to start the next wave of deletions by targeting high schools in cultures that don't have a lot of English language speakers or publications in English. Also especially to delete schools such as this one which is apparently the only buddhist high school in the country and has been there for 80 something years. Here is a relatively recent source to show notability about the school's fundraising needs: it's independent, and the school is the subject: https://www.thestar.com.my/news/community/2008/04/11/phor-tay-still-short-of-rm10mil/

... and another, on the switch to co-ed. :https://www.thestar.com.my/news/community/2008/03/02/phor-tay-to-turn-into-coed-school/ and one on the school's 75th anniversary: https://www.thestar.com.my/metro/community/2015/05/19/school-to-host-exhibition-of-private-collectors-buddhist-antiques/
There is also this document written by a retired principal, that has a detailed history of the school and contains references, although they are in Chinese, which I do not read. http://research.thanhsiang.org/sites/default/files/attachment/BE2%20Mr%20Lye%20Voon%20Seong-Buddhism%20and%20Education%20-%20The%20Phor%20%20Tay%20Experience.pdf

Chinese Language page about the school: http://www.malaysianbuddhistassociation.org/index.php/2009-04-01-01-11-38/2009-04-18-06-17-12/480-2009-10-22-06-42-51.html?start=1 Egaoblai (talk) 08:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:47, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Both the precedent and consensus are not there any more and you know that. But you are still using the classic circular reasoning of keeping because in the past a school article was kept because in the past a school article was kept because in the past a school article was kept because in the past a school article was kept because in the past a school article was kept because in the past a school article was kept etc. Do you have any arguments based on content or policy? The Banner talk 17:05, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - You seem to be misunderstanding the words precedent and consensus. Neither have been undermined by the highly controversial RfC. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:21, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Funny that only people losing out on the RFC call it highly controversial. The Banner talk 14:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^{Babymissfortune} 23:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to summarise the argument here

1. The school is a high school and there has been a general agreement that school articles are to be kept. Wikipedia does not have deadlines for completion, see WP:NORUSH, and the assumption is that schools, as they are focal points for community will in almost all cases prove to be notable, thus deleting them is a waste of time, as they will spring up again. Schools are also places of local interest, see WP:LOCAL.
2. The school easily passes WP:V and has been mentioned in local media as a subject of a report. There are also sources in Chinese.
3. Wikipedia is well known to suffer from systemic bias WP:WORLDVIEW , given that this school is in Malaysia and part of a Chinese Buddhist community, we need to be extra vigilant here. I have explained above that consulting local people or at the utmost least, people who speak chinese and can find sources is needed. If this page is deleted without that, then that action will be contributing towards furthering this bias and towards geographic imbalance, see WP:IMBALANCE.
4. Arguments for deletion essentially come down to WP:VAGUEWAVE and WP:IMPATIENT WP:OBSCURE and other unreasoned arguments.
5. When in doubt, don't delete. WP:DOUBT
6. Let's use common sense here, seeWP:COMMONSENSE, there's no WP:DEADLINE to articles and schools in the past have proven to be notable. Do we need to waste more time debating these deletions. It doesn't really serve the collection of knowledge to delete these articles.

Egaoblai (talk) 07:24, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Sorry, that consensus that you claim under point 1 is not there. It is a distant dream that schools are kept without sources to prove notability, what the believers in that "consensus" preach time and time again. The Banner talk 10:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say consensus (as that word has a specific meaning here) I said agreement, and likewise, there is no consensus that school articles should be summarily deleted either so arguing that there is a consensus to delete will not lead to a deletion based on the custom that admins have followed on Wikipedia not to delete them. I've laid out the case for keep in 6 points. If you disagree then feel free to, but being WP:IMPATIENT isn't valid as explained above.Egaoblai (talk) 12:03, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What about WP:V and WP:RS? The Banner talk 07:25, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What about them? If you have something to say, then say it. Egaoblai (talk) 09:13, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will add a cut and paste from one of the two only sources.Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this seems to be a long established school (existing since 1930s) and has a significant claim of being the only Buddhist school in Malaysia. I guess there may be sources in old newspaper archives or in history books. Schools are play a significant role in the local community. What's the harm in keeping it? I will do some research and improve the article if required. It is a pity to delete these.--DreamLinker (talk) 19:09, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could I have 7 days to improve the article please? I will be free this weekend and I can try to search for sources and work on it.--DreamLinker (talk) 19:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:25, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can we keep this focused please?Slatersteven (talk) 14:52, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and possible move to Phor Tay Institution per WP:GNG. Seriously, in the midst of all this blathering on about SCHOOLOUTCOMES, did nobody bother to conduct a Google search? Phor Tay Institution, the parent organization of this school, and the school itself, have coverage in the following: several pages in this academic book, two pages in a 1992 edition of the Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, a page in this paper produced by the Shri Lankan Ministry of Buddhasasana and Religious Affairs, this article from The Star about one of the school's exchange programs, this article from The Star about whether the school would go co-ed,this research paper on the history of the Institution's various schools published by the Than Hsiang Buddhist Research Centre, and an article (paywalled, "PENANG BANKER OPENS $300,000 BUILDING PENANG") from page 4 of the 26 April 1950 edition of Indian Daily Mail about the opening of a new building for the institution. I think this satisfies general notability. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:23, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I already found the STAR links, but the academic book is a good one too, I have added some of that to the articleand another one from Penang Monthly Journal. I'm not sure if merge is the correct thing, as the school and the institution are the same, but yeah, this AFD discussion is becoming ridiculous, and it's clear that the nominator or the deleters didn't WP:BEFORE Egaoblai (talk) 20:26, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be true, remarks from a political candidate made while canvassing is in my opinion not a reliable source conform WP:RS. The Banner talk 21:39, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this school is the only Buddist School in Malaysia and has sources and notability. angys (Talk Talk) 11:54, 20 December 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:23, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Timeless Beauty[edit]

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

This title doesn't seem to have much coverage in reliable sources, thus making it fail our general notability guidelines, which help set a standard for verifiablility. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 11:58, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom for this is a title given by a website, an obvious fancruft. Moreover, sources are pitiful and severely lacking, failing WP:GNG. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 12:16, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:21, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:22, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with the nomination. Non notable "title" awarded by a non-notable website. noq (talk) 14:14, 13 December 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. – Joe (talk) 20:33, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prosper Ellis[edit]

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

A hopelessly non-notable person from Newington College. By day, he was a public servant/surveyor with no specific position. At a recreational level, he was an administrator at some suburban golf clubs in Sydney, won a suburban competition, and remodelled some suburban courses, none of which are used for professional tournaments. ADS54 talk 11:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:01, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:05, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Columnist at The Sun-Herald a major Sydney paper and remodelled several times The Australian Golf Club a major Sydney golf Club. Castlemate (talk) 19:15, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I think there is just sufficient throughout here and in google to support WP:NEXIST to get over the WP:GNG line. (Note that "what" someone does does not have to be notable, just that they are noted in RS for doing it. If what people did had to be notable then 90% of musicians, bands, artists, authors, actors, and sportspeople, and 99.999% of celebrities (who are only famous for being famous) must also be deleted.) Aoziwe (talk) 13:14, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being a columnist for any paper is not a sign of notability. We need sources by others about the subject, and we do not have enough such to justify having an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:54, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Aoziwe's link illustrating sufficient detail of coverage in reliable sources. Would've said delete otherwise - some of that coverage/sources needs to actually make it into the article. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:56, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep per Aoziwe - really only just, but for me the column in a major paper plus a pretty wide range of mentions and coverage does the trick. Frickeg (talk) 12:13, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – There's enough reliable independent sources talking about him to pass the WP:GNG. The article could do with some work, but that's no reason to delete it. Kb.au (talk) 18:22, 20 December 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. ansh 666 07:59, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vov Dylan[edit]

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

Self-promotion article (Creating author is the subject's real name). Almost all the refs are to his own website. No demonstrated notability as a classical violinist; no university scholarships, prizes at competitions, work with notable conductors/orchestras or proper reviews. Just a populist who has made the news for breaking some gimmick records for playing very fast, similar to TV talent shows for doing unusual things. Came up accidentally because it was claimed as a Newington College old boy, so some good came out of the spam of that college in identifying other spam. ADS54 talk 11:21, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:43, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:44, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:44, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet WP:GNG or the WP:MUSICBIO guidelines. The only reliable, independent sources are about a trivial world record attempt. All other major claims are either referenced to the musician's website or not cited at all. Kb.au (talk) 01:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best WP:BLP1E for what is really only a curiosity. Otherwise WP:PROMO and WP:PRIMARY. Aoziwe (talk) 12:45, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - of all the sources in the article this is the only one that's really much of an indicator, and one isn't enough. Frickeg (talk) 11:54, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – it maybe gimmicky but subject is mentioned in reliable independent sources for his "trivial world record". He has at least two albums via Ambition Entertainment, one of which appeared on a national chart. Passes WP:MUSICBIO#1, 2 and 5. I've recently added content and refs to the article.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 12:12, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @Adsfvdf54gbb: was creating author notified of this AfD? As a courtesy, it is encouraged, so I placed a 'plate there.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 12:59, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Shaidar cuebiyar:, not sure how you can say it passes WP:MUSICBIO points 1 or 2. Even if you consider the handful of trivial stories about his violin world record "significant coverage", being the only thing he's notable for in the independent reliable sources means it still fails WP:BIO1E. The album that "charted" got to #20 on the ARIA Hitseekers chart, which is not Australia's national music chart, but rather a chart signalling the top albums or singles by artists who have not yet made the ARIA Top 50 chart. Possibly passes point 5 if you consider Ambition Entertainment as important enough and around long enough to meet the guideline, but it still feels like a grasp for notability. Of the music releases from the "roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable" that Ambition seems to have, most seem be low-key records that aren't particularly notable. While you could read this point in the MUSICBIO guideline in a way that lends notability to Vov Dylan, I think it's important to read it in line with WP:NOTINHERITED. Kb.au (talk) 18:53, 20 December 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 and move to Mowbray House. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mowbray House School[edit]

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

This article is a WP:COATRACK to increase mentions of Newington College. This is a primary school, founded by Newington associates Lancelot Bavin (currently AFD) and run with his wife and Sandy Phillips (recently deleted). It appears to effectively a small family business, which was closed when the founder got old and ill. While a few famous people passed through this school, they were there for 1-2 years when they were small children and primary school did not teach them how to become lawyers etc ADS54 talk 10:59, 13 December 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 December 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:27, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:31, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:32, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:32, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to Mowbray House. The school may not be notable, but the buildings Mowbray House and Holy Trinity Anglican Church (former school chapel) are both heritage listed. This is potentially two articles, but I suggest combine them in one article and create a redirect from Holy Trinity Anglican Church, Chatswood to Mowbray House. The history of the school can be included in the context of the historic building, including the attendance of Whitlam and Slessor. Jack N. Stock (talk) 03:05, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable on a number of levels under any title. Do not be fooled by this attack on Newington College. Many important schools were in fact privately owned and are part of the history of education in Australia. Castlemate (talk) 10:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Mowbray House. I agree with Jacknstock. The building has significant heritage notability outside its period as a school and is register listed as such. Aoziwe (talk) 12:40, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is time to put an end to the walled garden being built to increase the image of Newington College. Nothing about this school is notable, and there is no reason that we should have articles on every heritage listed building. We need to logically consider what the potential supportable scope of Wikipedia is, and no potential supportalbe scope includes keeping this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:33, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It has the highest level of heritage protection it could have, and we actively try to cover buildings with this level of heritage protection all the time. I realise that all the Newingtoncruft is annoying, but this absolutely should not get caught up in it. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:04, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The "potential supportable scope" of Wikipedia is unlimited. WP:NOTPAPER. JPL, please think before you !vote in the future, as the words you choose to describe your votes are such that make them very low-quality when it comes to considering them from a perspective of being based in policy. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:27, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, why don't we just get rid of all articles on Wikipedia! Schools? Nah, silly. Heritage buildings? Nah, silly. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move. This is the silliest of all the anti-Newington nominations as a separately notable heritage building. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:04, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move. Clearly notable, although more for the heritage listing than the school. Frickeg (talk) 11:49, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move - clearly notable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:29, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move. Clear pass of WP:GEOFEAT. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:27, 20 December 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. – Joe (talk) 20:24, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay Dey[edit]

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

A student of Newington College who was on the board of administrators of a hospital. No achievements relating to medical research or surgical techniques disclosed ADS54 talk 11:03, 13 December 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 December 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:26, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:30, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:30, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:31, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. President of a major Sydney Hospital who was awarded an CBE for his service the medicine. Let's all stop and read Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion and Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Nominator overlooks the obligation that those who wish to delete on the grounds of notability are required to have made "thorough attempts to find reliable sources" as article content does not determine notability. Secondly, the criteria for deletion is given in Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons_for deletion and says nothing about the motivation of the creator of the article; users are free to create articles relating to their special interests and this is not spamming. Castlemate (talk) 19:35, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep ~~Weak delete~~ – Fails WP:GNG. Might meet WP:ANYBIO because of potentially widely recognised contributions in medicine, but difficult to say without further reliable sources. In any case, article should be rewritten to better reflect the person's notability. Possibly move to draft-space. Kb.au (talk) 02:18, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to Weak Keep per Aozwie. My other comments still stand. Kb.au (talk) 19:17, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I think there is just sufficient throughout here for WP:NEXIST to improve the article somewhat and get over the WP:GNG line. Aoziwe (talk) 12:37, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete This is another example of the article creator spamming Wikipedia with articles on non-notable people who just happen to be an alumni of Newington College.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:40, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please could we investigate why this editor from Detriot Michigan is so insistent on deleting anyone from a school in Sydney NSW. Castlemate (talk) 08:52, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Came to the same conclusion as Aoziwe from the same search. Again, article would be much stronger if author had focused less on schoolcruft and more on ensuring some of what Aoziwe linked went into the article. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:02, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the attack on the author and an institution I have removed the content referring to the education of the subject. Maybe someone else will deal with the obvious notability of a medico at a hugely notable institution and contribute something rather than delete. Castlemate (talk) 09:08, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NOTINHERITED. A medico at a "hugely notable institution" does not equate to "obvious notability" on Wikipedia: the institution is notable, but whether he is notable depends on him. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:47, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Aoziwe. Additionally, CBE is a much more significant award than many of the others that have been cited in similar debates (MBE, etc.), and holders are usually (though not always) notable. Frickeg (talk) 11:40, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep speedy keep for this matter. She has biographical entry in Who's Who in Australia. He automatically passes WP:ANYBIO #3. The Wjo's is Who in Australia is a national academic reference and equivalent of Dictionary of National Biography. It is authoritative reference material used by academics as a resource that identifies Australia's leading individuals, and as a research tool by journalists and historian. Second, he passes WP:NACADEMIC #2 for being recipient of Commander of the Order of the British Empire, a prestigious national honor. Third, passes WP:NACADEMIC #6 for being member and letter president of major academic society. –Ammarpad (talk) 11:48, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of have to take issue with some of this. The equivalent of the Dictionary of National Biography is, fairly obviously, the Australian Dictionary of Biography; the Who's Who is more of a directory and does sometimes have non-notable people in it, although it's certainly a clue that more sources might be available. WP:NACADEMIC very clearly specifies an academic award, which the CBE absolutely is not. (There is a much stronger argument that CBE qualifies him for WP:ANYBIO #1.) Also, if you are using the British Medical Association as the "academic society" for NACADEMIC #6, it isn't one - it's a professional society. These are all sort of points arguing for notability, but they seem to have the guidelines all mixed up. Frickeg (talk) 11:29, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is great you already prefaced it with right words "irritating pedantry"... In as much as hate responding to semantics quibbles or be pedantic myself "Who's Who in Australia " is equally in par with Dictionary of National Biography irrespective of the names. And the fact they included non notable people (which you asserted without evidence) doesn't mean this one is also not notable. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:21, 20 December 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:18, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Morris (artist)[edit]

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

An autobiography of a non-notable artist that has somehow survived since 2007. There is nothing in the article that suggests the subject meets WP:NARTIST, and searches turn up no significant coverage. In its current state it also violates WP:BLP: the single reference in the article is a catalogue page on her book ([20]) and doesn't actually support any of the biographical information in the article.

Her book, uTshepo Mde: Tall Enough, gets more hits than Morris herself; but if we were going to base an article on those sources (personally I don't think there are enough) it should be on the book not the author. – Joe (talk) 11:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 11:12, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 11:12, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 10:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not meant to be Linkedin. That someone has managed to use it as linkedin for over a decade is quite disturbing. We are still suffering from the negative effects of uncontrolled growth in the mid-2000s.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:14, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are actually some reliable sources out there for her (example) if you do your homework. However there are not enough sources out there.104.163.155.42 (talk) 07:30, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ARTIST, fails WP:AUTHOR.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:53, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:CREATIVE, WP:SOURCES, among others. Quis separabit? 19:58, 18 December 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. – Joe (talk) 20:22, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shapes (band)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 10:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:37, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:38, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:42, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails WP:BAND. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:04, 13 December 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. – Joe (talk) 20:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Neal Capes[edit]

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

Promotional of the subject. Don't find strong sources about him that would support notability. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:39, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:27, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:27, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:27, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete articles lacks sufficient reliable sources to pass the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:48, 15 December 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) 16:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Low[edit]

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

I don't find strong sources to support the notability of this individual as a producer. Article has remained a stub for a long time. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:31, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:12, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:12, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom for the poor sources and the stubbiness of the article. The figure here doesn't need an article by its own yet. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 10:35, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an article mainly sourced to non-reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:38, 15 December 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 merge to Peter Pek. – Joe (talk) 20:19, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brand Malaysia with Peter Pek[edit]

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

Promotional of the host. Claimed to be the "only radio branding talk show in Malaysia" which isn't much of a claim. Could be merged into the host's article. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:10, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with host's article. Lengthy promotional concocted in the introduction. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 10:30, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge very selectively. Not appropriate for a separate article DGG ( talk ) 05:12, 15 December 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:12, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ng Ping Ho[edit]

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

Do not find strong sources to support the notability of this reality TV show contestant. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:21, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:48, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:48, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too stubby and insubstantial for an article on it's own. Sources are feeble too. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 10:33, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:43, 15 December 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. Split between those who feel the subject is notable (with sources provided) and those who believe it should be deleted as promotional. While the latter is of course valid, it can be fixed through editing - which I see has already begun during the AfD. ansh 666 21:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ǼLEX[edit]

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

Blatant promotional article for a non notable company failing WP:NCORP. All references provided in the article are not secondary sources, they are merely the corporation's owned websites. Celestina007 (talk) 00:54, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:00, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient coverage to pass WP:CORP. Should be probably userfied. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 11:06, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep per darreg. We do not expect the same level of coverage from a third world country as from a developed country. Ran an online check and it seems they're apparently notable. Convinced by darreg's argument, I'd now change to keep. Mahveotm (talk) 00:04, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 11:07, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 11:07, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We have a lot of spammy law firms articles, this is a good example. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete non notable organization. There is insufficient independent sources to establish notability. — Ammarpad (talk) 11:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I changed my stance. All sources of Pastorflex are indeed true and this one is even another. –Ammarpad (talk) 02:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 12:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article is about a notable Nigerian Law Firm, which is listed in notable international global law rankings including International Financial Law Review [21] and Chambers and Partners ' Chambers Global Ranking [22]. Also cases and activities of the firm have been well reported in Nigerian national dailies including The Vanguard Newspaper [23], [24], Business Day [25]and the Guardian Newspapers [26] and these are just some of the notable mentions. In this way it passes WP:CORP guidelines, which states Sources used to support a claim of notability include independent, reliable publications in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations.Pastorflex (talk) 19:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pastorflex: I note that you created the page, and have been heavily involved in editing it: in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines on managing conflicts of interest, please could you disclose whether you have a personal or professional connection with the subject of this discussion? Thanks, ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 21:12, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dom Kaos: I am not professionally or personally linked to the subject, however I have been instrumental in creating articles about Nigerian subjects and I noticed in recent times, media buzz in local Nigerian media about the firm regarding their activities and did some research, I figured that they appear to be notable and encyclopedia worthy and decided to create the article, working with another editor. Pastorflex (talk) 22:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: I must confess, I am not very familiar with notability of law firms. But going by references online, they seem to be a top law firm in Nigeria. I even think this is about the first WP article on a Nigerian law firm. If I was to start a WP contest on Nigerian law system, I will definitely consider them. Pastorflex, how aboit you create an article for its founder, Funmi Adekoya in the ongoing Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/The World Contest? She was vice president of Nigerian bar association and also a vice president and arbitrator with the international criminal court. Definitely deserves a Wp article. Can't provide links because am on a mobile device.Darreg (talk) 08:15, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Darreg: You are right on their founder, in writing the article for the firm, I noticed she has been a major player in Nigerian Law and even contested for the NBA presidency at a point, I am currently working on her article and will tag you for inputs once I am done with the draft. Thank you very much!Pastorflex (talk) 09:59, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will be more than glad to collaborate with you in the creation of Funke Adekoya article. I am basically the only Nigerian editor that have submitted articles for the contest and it will be nice to have another Wikipedian from Nigeria to the same, even if its just one article. But we must be done with the article before the end of the month because that is when the contest will end. Please add your username to the list of interested participant here. Darreg (talk) 18:58, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Darreg: thank you, I will Pastorflex (talk) 10:07, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, the secondary sources cited by the article in question possibly fail WP:VER, as they are heavily influenced by the subject law firm. Also, the article fails WP:CORPDEPTH as in-depth coverage is lacking.--SamHolt6 (talk) 07:56, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What about the national awards won? Please be informed that the way Nigerian media covers significant organizations is quite different from how it is done elsewhere. Except in cases of promotional press releases, it doesn't get better than this. This is a firm that is regarded as one of the largest in W/Africa, founded by a top 7 female lawyers in Nigeria. Not deleting this article will only motivate the creator to cover more Nigerian contents. IF this was a law firm in America, there would be thousands of coverage for it. Its just the third world factor that is making it look marginally notable. Darreg (talk) 23:51, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A quick reminder: When commenting stick to the subject at hand. Cite policies and/or guidelines when possible. And please be brief!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:56, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the "Partner focus" section could be removed or rewritten entirely - it reads very WP:Promo, but other than that the sources awards and rankings seem notable enough to pass WP:NCORP. Comatmebro (talk) 04:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I detest any form of WP:BLUDGEON is why I didn't comment earlier but let everyone speak up first. Having evaluated all rationale, I still believe it is pertinent this article is deleted and recreated at a time when it is truly notable. A Strong delete is still best applicable as we are unable to find neither WP:SIGCOV nor reliable WP:INDEPTH coverage of the alleged law firm and as so, verifiability of claims as per WP:V is made impossible and as per WP:CRYSTALBALL we editors work with reliable sources without which we simply cannot effectively do what is required of us, sentiments kept aside we know this article does not conform to the polices and rules binding all us editors irrespective of race, gender and whatnot, that it is a Nigerian article does not make it special or free of same scrunity every other article undergoes. Nigeria today is greatly improved as pertains to information technology, so the argument that reliable or significant coverage is not readily available in the article due to the fact that the law firm is in Nigeria holds no water we have no policy that gives any particular country special rights over others let us do the right thing here.Celestina007 (talk) 19:37, 29 November 2017

After you waited for all people to speak so as to detect the tilt of conclusion you still missed the shot with vague comment and conjectures. You said no reliable coverage about it, that's because you didn't do WP:BEFORE before nomintaing and still you didn't search to find ones now. See [27], [28], [29] and look inside the article. You weirdly said verifiability of claims is impossible?! Please go and tag any unsourced claim with {{citation needed}} if citation is not given you can remove the statement. You also vaguely write "as per WP:CRYSTALBALL without explaining how it applies. WP:CYRSTAL is used for yet to -occur event or anything yet-to-be created. For instance writing about FIFA World cup 2026 is WP:CRYSTAL because it is a future event so that large bulk of the article will contain speculation and thought of writers or journalist. But WP:CRYSTAL cannot apply to a firm that exists for as nearly as long as Wikipedia itself. You should re- read what guidline or policy say before qouting it out of oc context just because you crammed its shortcut. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:21, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ammarpad When i mentioned WP:CRYSTALBALL, i was refering to the unavalaibility of reliable references to substantiate certain blatant promotional peacock statements made in the article and not the existence of the law firm itself. For you to say i cram policies and/or guidelines is to say i'm a fraud & i find this quite offensive and a direct transgression of WP:NPA you should know that. let us argue polices out without getting emotional, can you please make constructive arguements without the attacks? you are more experienced than i am here so i should not be reminding you of basic things like this. Celestina007 (talk) 20:06, 11 December 2017

If there is "certain blatant promotional peacock statements made in the article" as you claimed, the right thing is to either WP:FIXIT or tag it with {{peacock}}, but not deletion. Deletion is only used as a last resort for completely unsalvageable content. Also, you cannot change the meaning of WP:CRYSTALBALL by saying that you mean something, if you want say something like 'unsourced content' you can just say it, but don't use wrong guideline and justify with that. Then, I am very mindful of my words here and averse to uncivil remarks. I didn't know how cramming shortcut is personal attack, but nonetheless, I am sorry if you assume it is. Then finally; not only you, anybody who will come to AfD and say "they waited for all people to comment before they make their own, this needs no debate, they want see the tilt of closure and pile on. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:55, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^{Babymissfortune} 03:38, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think Pastorflex has more than demonstrated notability here. There are plenty of independent refs.Egaoblai (talk) 07:05, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please @Egaoblai: fix your comment it shows all in bold. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WhoopsEgaoblai (talk) 07:47, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. , possibly speedy delete G11. Entirely promotional. This is an advertisement for the company: list of partners, list of awards, boxed highly promotional quotation, onlyconceivable content for an encyclopedia is a list of their yearly lectures, which thearticle itself says are intended to promote the firm. Notability is irrelevant in comparison with NOT PROMOTIONAL DGG ( talk ) 22:12, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:SPIP as entirely promotional - so much so that I've removed two sections listing the partners and their self-published lectures. Wikipedia is not a substitute for a corporate website or promotional brochure. The references also fail the criteria for establishing notability as they are not intellectually independent and are either self-published or published by an affiliated source, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^{(c · m)}}} 04:54, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^{(c · m)}}} 04:54, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NOTPROMO is also a valid reason to delete - and yeah it's pretty promotional. A nice quote box praising it like it's the company website. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:02, 15 December 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:GNG reads: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." The sources presented here and the article are far more than trivial mentions of the subject. Sources like this discuss his work, his influences, and what he has influenced. NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:01, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seph Lawless[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(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}}.

The previous afd in 2014 was non-consensus, but this is basically advertising for his self-published books. Everything else is simply notices, or a little PR DGG ( talk ) 19:57, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the same reasons I outlined last time. Perhaps all his exposure is because he's really good at self-promotion, I don't know. However, his work has received significant exposure via CNN Money, ABC News, Weather Channel, BBC, and Huffington Post. This is exposure few photographers receive. It may or may not be merited, and it may or may not be fair, I'm not qualified to judge. But it appears he has achieved notability one way or the other. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:21, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Based on the criteria set out in WP:CREATIVE he does not meet any of the 4 requirements of notability for a Creative Person, or the criteria generally. There is no evidence that in the professional photography community he has significant recognition or reputation. He has not won minor or major awards (let alone multiple awards). He has not developed a new technique, style or subject matter (what he does, urban_exploration photography is very commonplace and he does not do it particularly well or uniquely). He has not generated a body of work that has generated an INDEPENDENT and notable work (i.e. he has not been the subject of a tv series, no books have been written about him that he did not write himself, or the like). His work is not part of any gallery permanent collections (minor or major galleries), reached the level of "significant monument", or been the subject or part of a significant exhibition. Simply being in the news does not make one notable for the purposes of a wikipedia entry. To be notable, they must be significant and noteworthy. An example of a photographer who is significant and is included in wikipedia would be Edward_Burtynsky (major international exhibitions, groundbreaking body of work, deemed significant by his peers, series of movies made about him, etc.) Jacobssteph (talk) 01:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— Jacobssteph (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ... added at 04:20, 21 November 2017 by Softlavender

This is simply incorrect, as I think my contribution list attests to. Jacobssteph (talk) 18:53, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So let's take a look. Before this second AfD had started, Jacobssteph had made 87 edits. (There haven't been any deleted contributions, so anyone may check the veracity of what I'm about to write.) Among these, 11 were to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seph Lawless, 23 were to Seph Lawless, 19 were to Talk:Seph Lawless, and 2 others had edit summaries mentioning Seph Lawless. There were 32 others, of which several might very well have been about Seph Lawless (but I can't be bothered to check). It's obvious that the majority of Jacobssteph's edits were directly related to Seph Lawless. I think we may say that their list of contributions suggests an extraordinary level of interest in Seph Lawless. (Their very first ten edits were to the first AfD.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:42, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of the 32 edits you didn't check, 11 concern Seph Lawless: [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40]. So 66 out of his 87 edits (76% of his edits) prior to this AfD have been concerning Seph Lawless. -- Softlavender (talk) 08:06, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And I've made 19 edits to 9 other pages since then, and haven't given any thought to the subject's page since I made (another) accurately sourced edit 6 months ago. Jacobssteph (talk) 00:02, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You !voted on this AfD less than 5.5 hours after it was opened, even though you hadn't edited Wikipedia in six months. Prior to that, if we exclude your usertalk deletions, 79% (65/82) of your edits concerned Seph Lawless. Softlavender (talk) 05:14, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Jacobsteph's very first edit [41] was at the previous AfD on Seph Lawless.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:28, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems like there are more than enough sources to satisfy entry here. Not sure why this is being nominated for deletion. Nominator needs to be more clear in their reasons or retract this nomination. Simply saying "this is advertising" is not enough. They must explain how. As always, burden of proof is on the nominator to tell us why Wikipedia would be better if this article was deleted, if they cannot do that, then the result must be a keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Egaoblai (talk • contribs) 03:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Massive amounts of significant coverage in dozens of highly notable reliable sources. Meets WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST many times over. Softlavender (talk) 04:06, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:46, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:46, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question for User:Softlavender, who cites Massive amounts of significant coverage in dozens of highly notable reliable sources. I don't see this. I see minor coverage in reliable sources and quite a lot of insignificant coverage in dodgy sources. Among them, 'Piorkowski, Jeff (18 December 2014). "The Gasp Menagerie: Book Catalogs America's Horror Houses". Dread Central. Retrieved 11 January 2015.' The material is vacuous; the website pretty ignorable. I see a reference to 'Cahill, Mike (31 March 2015). "A Man Stumbled Into An Old, Broke-Down Theater - What He Found Inside Is Amazing". Retrieved 29 July 2016.' This is dead, it's not available from the Wayback Machine, and the website (viralnova.com) is as ignorable as "Dread Central". (Unsurprisingly, it invites readers to submit their stories.) There's a claim that his exhibitions include one in the "Arkansas Literary Festival 2015" for which two sources are given: this one says that he was one of eighty presenters. Could you perhaps point me (and others) to just three among the "dozens" of "highly notable reliable sources" that have "massive amounts of significant coverage"? Thanks! -- Hoary (talk) 06:27, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For an artist or photographer, articles or news stories devoted solely to their works are considered "significant coverage", no matter the amount of text in the article. Therefore this subject meets WP:GNG: "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." This subject also meets its profession-specific notability guideline, WP:ARTIST: "3. The person has created ... a ... collective body of work, that has been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Here is just some of that coverage: The Guardian, The Telegraph, The Daily News, Fast Company, ABC News, CNN Money, Slate, Fox News, Weather Channel, Vanity Fair (Italian), Business Insider, National Geographic, Vice, Amerikahaus (Germany exhibit), Complex [42], American Photo [43], International Business Times [44], CBC [45], [46], BBC [47], [48], San Francisco Chronicle [49], USA Today [50], [51], Boston Globe [52], Viceland [53]. That's just a small sampling that I was able to gather within 30 minutes (I don't want to spend all day on this), and there is a lot more available. Softlavender (talk) 08:53, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right, let's take them from the top. The Guardian, good; The Telegraph, reliable source but not much there; The Daily News, good; Fast Company, good; [technical factors made the ABC News page too annoying; I didn't persist in attempting to get anything from it]; CNN Money, good; Slate, good; [I don't bother with Fox News]; Weather Channel, good; um, OK, enough. But there does seem to be quite a bit of junk in this article, too. DGG, you have said that "this is basically advertising for his self-published books. Everything else is simply notices, or a little PR". Do you still claim this? -- Hoary (talk) 09:49, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the case that "For an artist or photographer, articles or news stories devoted solely to their works are considered "significant coverage", no matter the amount of text in the article. " It has to be substantial coverage, and very much depends on not just the amount, but the nature ofwhat is said--it is not the reproduction of their work, but the critical commentary on it that matters. ` DGG ( talk ) 10:04, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to which guideline? And I've just provided 26 examples of significant coverage in reliable notable national and international sources, which I was able to gather in less than 15 minutes. That is just a fraction of the amount of RS significant national and international coverage on this person. Softlavender (talk) 10:15, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How many of those articles are about the subject himself, and not about the death of retail (or some other such topic) of which he is just one commentator (Guardian)? Being asked for comment on a topic is not the same as being the subject of the article. The list needs culling.Jacobssteph (talk) 21:00, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, your ... 's, Softlavender, removed the essential components of the wiki requirements. "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant body of work, and that the work must be subject to independent periodical articles or reviews. None of this is the case with the subject. The work is in no way significant, ground breaking, unique, or demonstrating a technique or subject matter that hadn't been covered before, or covered in this way. It is as generic as it comes these days. The significant component is more important than the coverage component (in fact is a precursor to it), because as the qualifications are written for Creative Professionals, an insignificant body of work that gets an inordinate amount of attention would not be deemed (in an of itself) to be wiki worthy... the media attention is supplementary ("In addition..."). Again, it not the "media attention" that is required to be significant. OK one last edit. Since SoftLavender asked "which guideline" (and Hoary asked about this as well) , I would say its the GNG provides that "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability". In my opinion the coverage has been trivial, even if the source is notable. I agree with DGG's assertion that the coverage is not substantial in the nature of that coverage. Simply posting a bunch of links isn't sufficient to establish notability. Jacobssteph (talk) 00:24, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"But there does seem to be quite a bit of junk in this article". See WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, WP:NEGLECT, and WP:NOIMPROVEMENT. -- Softlavender (talk) 10:15, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried on two occasions recently to remove junk from this article to help us see the meat that was on the bone, but my edits were reverted. -Lopifalko (talk) 10:45, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You made a massive 2,805-byte removal of cited text [54] which was fully reverted by 78.26; you later made a similar 1,800-byte removal of cited text and I restored the relevant non-trivial portions of that. Softlavender (talk) 10:54, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it had citations, did not make it worthwhile information. -Lopifalko (talk) 11:30, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel that way, then discuss on Talk and get consensus for the specific changes you want; an admin and another experienced editor reverted you, so the place to gain consensus would be the talk page. Softlavender (talk) 11:37, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's middle ground here. I had to fully revert Lopifalko because he removed a lot of material, some of which I felt was very important regarding his notability. They were then more selective in removal, much of which I agree with. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:38, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:19, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here are over three dozen links of usable, significant coverage in a variety of reliable sources, including international sources. There is at least twice as much as this available, but I didn't list everything, so this is just a sample. It also includes biographical information, etc.

Sample coverage

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

http://www.slate.com/blogs/behold/2014/06/22/seph_lawless_photographs_abandoned_malls_in_his_book_black_friday.html
http://www.slate.com/blogs/behold/2015/07/04/seph_lawless_photographs_abandoned_theme_parks_in_his_book_bizarro_photos.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/35863563/the-dead-water-parks-at-the-heart-of-disney-world-florida
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2014/jun/19/-sp-death-of-the-american-shopping-mall
https://www.americanphotomag.com/interview-seph-lawless-black-friday#page-14
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/creepy-photos-abandoned-shopping-malls-highlight-reveal-hard-times-article-1.1773948
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/news-life/donald-trumps-america-abandoned-shopping-mall-photos-tell-a-story/news-story/379ea2b7780ffffbe805c2e4b7418825
http://www.news.com.au/travel/world-travel/north-america/eerie-photos-reveal-abandoned-america-left-behind-and-forgotten/news-story/9eda8eff3016a5add39b04436554a03e
http://www.cleveland.com/entertainment/index.ssf/2017/10/cleveland_photographer_seph_la.html
http://www.cleveland.com/entertainment/index.ssf/2016/05/seph_lawless_abandoned_building.html
https://www.clevescene.com/cleveland/the-art-of-the-autopsy-photographer-seph-lawless-spends-his-days-documenting-decaying-ruins/Content?oid=3625444
http://www.cleveland.com/beachwood/index.ssf/2014/12/photo_exhibit.html
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/seph-lawless-high-river-photograph-creepiest-neighbourhood-1.4121316
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/americas-most-toxic-place-ghost-town-surrounded-by-mountains-hazardous-waste-1547387
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2601695/Mall-rats-desert-sinking-ship-Deserted-shopping-centers-beacon-American-Dream-abandoned.html
https://www.rts.ch/info/culture/arts-visuels/8625416-l-artiste-seph-lawless-immortalise-les-centres-commerciaux-desaffectes.html
https://www.digitalrev.com/article/the-invisible-photographer
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17567505.2016.1252490 "This work is exemplified by Seph Lawless' photographic documentation of abandoned shopping malls." [55]
http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-guide/m18mtvtue-20161229-gtjeqw.html
https://weather.com/travel/news/ruins-rust-belt-abandoned-buildings-photos-seph-lawless-20140206
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/local/cleveland/2015/03/27/seph-lawless-variety-theater-ohio-city/70576226/
https://www.boston.com/news/untagged/2015/09/06/why-are-old-green-line-trolleys-wasting-away-in-rural-pennsylvania
http://www.sfgate.com/technology/businessinsider/article/This-abandoned-Disney-water-park-has-been-rotting-11146774.php
https://www.vanityfair.it/news/societ%C3%A0/14/07/08/centro-commerciale-seph-lawless
http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/photos/abandoned-amusement-parks-seph-lawless-31840347/image-31841293
http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/16/news/dead-mall-photos-seph-lawless/index.html
http://money.cnn.com/2014/06/30/news/economy/dead-malls/index.html
http://money.cnn.com/video/news/2014/06/30/dead-malls-lawless.cnnmoney/index.html
http://cnnespanol.cnn.com/2015/06/25/escenas-de-parques-de-diversiones-abandonados/
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-1101721
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/brick-and-mortar-stores-seek-new-ways-to-survive-changing-retail-landscape/
http://www.slate.com/blogs/behold/2014/10/31/seph_lawless_photographs_american_haunted_houses_in_his_book_13_an_american.html
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/theater-arts/haunting-images-vacant-houses-give-chills-article-1.2406934
http://video.foxnews.com/v/5660600423001/?#sp=show-clips
https://gizmodo.com/nascars-original-racetrack-is-an-abandoned-ruin-today-1693112811
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/brick-and-mortar-stores-seek-new-ways-to-survive-changing-retail-landscape/
https://petapixel.com/2015/08/28/photos-of-new-orleans-ruins-on-the-10th-anniversary-of-hurricane-katrina/
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/gallery/2015/jul/30/abandoned-new-orleans-hurricane-katrina-in-pictures
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2016/11/23/photojournalist-sees-abandoned-malls-as-art-rather-than-run-down-spaces/
http://www.businessinsider.com/photos-of-dead-shopping-malls-2014-7

-- Softlavender (talk) 04:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The majority of the media coverage is about the places the subject photographed, not the subject himself. At best he warrants a mention on Urban Exploration and Dead Mall. Not to mention that the subject paid to have this page created in the first place. Hardwired 05:06, 28 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hardwired50 (talk • contribs) — Hardwired50 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Hardwired50 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.

Wow, yes. Before this AfD started, User:Hardwired50 had made 1 edit to Seph Lawless, 7 to Talk:Seph Lawless, 1 to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seph Lawless, and just 8 others. Their very first edit was to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seph Lawless. But a particularly fascinating edit is this one, in which User:Hardwired50 removes a message on User talk:FrankMiller99 that had been posted by User:FrankMiller99, of all people, a message that basically told User:Jacobssteph to take a break from their Seph Lawless obsession and came with the summary "Hardwire50 and JacobSteph may be the same person vandalizing wiki pages". Well, Hardwired50, let me assume that you are not Jacobsteph. Thus we have two independent people who according to one metric (number of edits) find Seph Lawless of more concern than everything else in the universe added together. This makes me think that Seph Lawless might, in some way that I can't imagine, be a truly remarkable, indeed encyclopedia-worthy person. -- Hoary (talk) 08:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:22, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of the fact that he easily satisfies WP:GNG. If one goes by WP:ARTIST, this page is a bit problematic (e.g. self-published items) but that does to matter as GNG is massively and easily met by RS. The fact that he does not look like a traditional famous artist does not matter here, as he's plainly notable by published sources. 198.58.171.47 (talk) 06:25, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of WP:ARTIST, he satisfies that many times over as well: "3. The person has created ... a ... collective body of work, that has been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." -- Softlavender (talk) 07:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a couple of RS to the article. They were easy to find. This Global News article covering both his photographs and quoting the artist several times seems like a great source on a notable artist. I am really not sure what all the hullabaloo is about here. Basic GNG is clearly satisfied.198.58.171.47 (talk) 07:17, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boy, oh, boy is this one tough. I love the photos, but, as is clear from this page, from the article's talk page, and from the previous AfD, Lawless is not a randomly chosen pseudonym. He, or whoever works for him, has no scruples about knowingly breaking rules, using Wikipedia for undisclosed self-promo, creating sockpuppets, and using unreliable sources to inflate the page. Moreover, he cannot take advice. I might find it possible to iVote to keep if one of the many editors who have contributed to this oversourced puffery would cut it down to size, remove all of the unreliable sources and PROMO, and undertake to keep it that way.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say that the moral character of an article subject is relevant for deletion discussions.198.58.171.47 (talk) 01:47, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that User:Hardwired50, User:JacobSteph and IP 198.58.171.47 anr all infrequent editors who focus on editing Seph Lawless.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:31, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now why would you say that? Anyone who bothers to look at my contribs will see your statement is wildly incorrect. I contribute to many and varied articles. My point was that the morality of the article subject isn't relevant in a deletion discussion. I was not challenging your character as an editor.198.58.171.47 (talk) 15:37, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your first edit was 9 November. I should have said recent. It is unusual to have an IP make so many edits so fast, and in areas like AfD, and with such fluency in Wikispeak. And, yes, it is problematic to have editors who ignore our rules, my concern is with the behavior. You may well be a poor but honest farm boy, but surely you understand that the density of IP, sock and meat puppet edits on the Lawless page - and at this AfD - is problematic. It makes me suspicious. You would, by the way, be taken more seriously if you christened yourself.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:58, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've been tracking the Seph Lawless article and the users who edit it, its talkpage, and its AfDs since January 2015, and this Canadian IP is an unrelated anomaly, especially since this AfD was not filed until 20 November. I don't know if the IP is someone who edits via IPs that change every so often (the most likely scenario), or if they are someone logged out (unlikely and WP:ABF), but they appear sane, uninvolved, and wiki-knowledgeable. Remember WP:IPs are human too and deserve just as much respect unless it's otherwise obvious. Softlavender (talk) 01:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's the IP here. (I took a plane today and have a new IP and location.) Kudos to the editor above for treating IPs with respect. My apologies too, as I had not really bothered to read about the many "IP, sock and meat puppet edits". I tend to think that stuff does not really matter once the article is back under control of the good editors. It's like what they say about sausages: you do not want to see how they are made. When I looked for sources via Google news, many good Canadian news sources came up. I've seen other articles pass AfD with only three or four good sources. This one has many multiples of that.174.119.49.210 (talk) 04:32, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Our of sheer curiosity, how many sock/meatpuppets have there been?E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

3 or 4 so far by my count., E.M.Gregory Jacobssteph (talk) 21:02, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete unless WP:HEYMANN: Article and its history of PROMO is so egregious that I would be willing to change to keep on condition that the PROMO is removed and the article tightened so that the text covers only notable aspects of topic that are reliably sourced; preferably 2 secondary WP:RS for each statement. This is, for me, a highly unusual iVote. In general, I am tolerant of articles written to promote careers and similar, as long as the sources exist. Here, however, the manipulation of Wikipedia is so egregious and longstanding despite warnings on talk page, and at this and previous AfD that I think it is time to crack down.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is odd that there are no sources showing art critics or historians discussing him within the long tradition of the painting and photography of ruins. It is also odd with his photo appearing everywhere that he is not notable enough for his real name to have been reliably published. Or his hometown, high school and education. This lack shows that he's not all that notable. More to the point, I cleaned up some of the text because since his name is also unknown the Cleveland childhood and auto factory worker father must be regarded as unsubstantiated assertions by Lawless and , if used, framed by text along the lines of "according to Lawless" until this sort of biographical info is published by independent, reliable sources. Details about his personal life need to be stated "according to Lawless" until this sort of info can be reliably sourced. Nevertheless, We can Keep the article not because, as I mentioned above, I had seen his work in a magazine and liked it, but because there is WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:23, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SIGCIV of someone whose accomplshments indicate lack of ntability is normally the result of promotionalism . Fortunately, GNG does no guarantee an article. DGG ( talk ) 23:33, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I'm split on this one. The third-party coverage received for his work is undeniable, but there's hardly anything in the article about the subject himself and whatever there is comes off as promotional. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 23:37, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This second nomination surprised me. There seemed to be a (rather understandable) lack of "AGF", combined with an objection to what strikes me as unobjectionable. DGG added that what's required "has to be substantial coverage, and very much depends on not just the amount, but the nature ofwhat is said--it is not the reproduction of their work, but the critical commentary on it that matters." Strictly, he's right. Also, [some] OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid defence. But if we call "crap" what doesn't meet these standards, then what do we do upon realizing that GIGABYTESOFOTHERCRAPEXISTS? It's not epidemic; it's endemic. I've perpetrated a lot of it myself. (And I'd be amazed if DGG hasn't done so in his time.) ¶ Props to DGG for not kowtowing to orthodoxy, because here's what he says on his user page (with my numbering added): "[...] Therefore I judge which way to argue [a question of notability] by my own judgment about whether it is appropriate for Wikipedia to have an article, using rational criteria as / (1) real world importance / (2) principal national organization of its type / (3) highest level award / (4) market share / (5) size / (6) historical significance / (7) promotional or encyclopedic intent of the article". ¶ Let's look through these, one by one. (1) real world importance minimal (and ditto for most of what I write up) / (2) principal national organization of its type seemingly irrelevant here / (3) highest level award no, nothing like it (and here's where this article differs from those that I perpetrate: "my" biographees usually have some non-trivial awards or something comparable) / (4) market share I'm not qualified to judge; but I suspect it's relatively high. I don't think that anybody has yet argued (in this AfD or its predecessor) that he's much less prominent in his genre than are various other people. / (5) size Seemingly irrelevant here. / (6) historical significance I have no particular reason to think that there'll be any, but this would be true of a number of the people I write up. Anyway, all we can do is guess; we can't yet judge / (7) promotional or encyclopedic intent of the article At times, it has seemed very promotional. But now, thanks to recent good work by Softlavender, E.M.Gregory and Lopifalko, it does not look promotional and indeed looks encyclopedic. (Yes, some of the sources that it cites are dodgy; but FFS the question is of whether the article should exist, not whether it should be "featured".) ¶ Another question might be: If our biographee's encyclopedia-worthiness is (or fails to be) that of a photographer, then how does he score on the conventional criteria for contemporary photographers? These are: noteworthy exhibitions, noteworthy photobooks, and noteworthy prizes. I don't see these. (The fact that his photobooks are self-published and lack ISBNs doesn't worry me. The same can be said for Rob Hornstra's. But Hornstra's get serious discussion/appreciation; Lawless's don't.) But when I look at the amount of coverage he's got, I have to concede that the conventional criteria shouldn't be boneheadedly insisted on. ¶ His work is discussed (if not all that deeply); people might already want to look him up. The article isn't at all bad. If it's later subjected to more boosterism, then this can be dealt with. And therefore keep. -- Hoary (talk) 01:19, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I want to thank Hoary for his analysis, which does fairly represent the way I think about accepting articles. I might very well agree with his conclusion, if I thought we had any likelihood of success in keeping promotionalism out of articles. We have no good way of enforcing content standards within an article--the only effective quality control point is right here. If having cleaned it, we let it into WP, the subject or his agents will presumably continue to reinsert promotional material. Our best guard against that is not to accept borderline notable articles in fields liable to promotion, so we can at least have so hope of policing the ones that are really important.

But this is a balancing test, and a matter of judgment. Such are the criteria I use, or the criteria I think everybody may individually uses, or the way they individually choose to interpret substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources. This is not a purely objective matter of analysis, and there is no one right decision. DGG ( talk ) 05:29, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LOL I was just pinged by sockpuppet User:Jacobssteph with the comment above. I suppose it's his way of letting us all know that wherever the "3 or 4" - by his estimate - sockpuppets who have padded this page with PROMO for years came from, they are still around and proud of their work. I will repeat here my comment on the article's talk page: This discussion and page are so strange that I am actually wondering if Wikipedia is being deliberately played in some bizarre work of performance art.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:48, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently that is a common feeling for those involved in this subject matter. See this link.104.163.154.101 (talk) 06:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^{Babymissfortune} 11:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very Weak Keep This article is in need of a serious make over. -The Gnome (talk) 06:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"very serious makeover" = "need to be fundamentally rewritten" which is the criterion for when promotionalism is bad enough for G11 speedy. DGG ( talk ) 15:42, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It has never been eligible for G11, and over the three-week course of this AfD it has been greatly re-worked and re-written, as noted by Hoary in his !vote above [56]. -- Softlavender (talk) 00:26, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think DGG is saying it is eligible for G11, I think he is pointing it would be eligible for G11 if the closing decision was solely based on this particular keep !vote. Apologies, DGG, if I've misinterpreted or mis-ascribed your intent. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:34, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

yes, you have it right, but in more detail: in the state it was in on Nov 20,when I listed it for AfD, I think it might have been auitable for G11. But it would not have been right to nominate it for speedy when it had been previous kept at the first AfD. (not actually prohibited, but in my view not a good idea, because someone would probably have removed the speedy deletion tag, and speedy is for use only when everyone who understands WP would agree.) At this point, I don't think it's a G11, but I do think it is promotional enough for deletion in spite of the subsequent improvements, because notability is still borderline as well--I think we should delete in such circumstances. DGG ( talk ) 04:18, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't eligible for G11 when this AfD was opened [57]. Also, back in 2015 the original AfD nominator (after removing 62% of the article's text and 53% of its citations), tagged it for G11 [58] but it was immediately declined by Cryptic [59]. Your statement that notability is borderline is belied by 176,000 Google web hits (including numerous non-English venues), 1,260 Google News results (including non-English venues), and a substantial mention in an academic journal as exemplifying his field of urban exploration in North America. -- Softlavender (talk) 21:16, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"substantial mention" is not "substantial coverage", and counting Google and Google news results is the worst way possible to judge notability . You have to look at the small percentage that are actually about him. As for GNews, it's curious how they all read about the same way. The coverage is just what I said at the beginning, advertising for hisself-published books. DGG ( talk ) 01:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He has had substantial coverage in dozens and dozens of reliable sources, including numerous non-English sources, and those dozens and dozens of items in reliable sources that I refer to are indeed about him and his work, not advertising for his books. Softlavender (talk) 01:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:57, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it's the notorious IP here. I think this could be closed now, as a) there is a decent consensus with only the nominator and one editor against, b) it has been open for three weeks and c) the discussion is deteriorating rather than getting better.104.163.155.42 (talk) 04:23, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Request to the admin who eventually closes this: Unless you close this as "no consensus", please give your reasoning for closing it the way you do. (After all, this is not a matter of number of votes.) Thank you for your trouble. -- Hoary (talk) 08:41, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: Every single !vote thus far, except for two bad-faith SPAs, has been Keep. That's 8 keep !votes thus far (including two administrators), and 2 SPA/canvassed delete !votes. Softlavender (talk) 09:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioning a somewhat similar page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elissa Sursara (2nd nomination), which closed as Delete. It was similar in being edited be a series of sockpuppets, and in being about an individual who self-fabricates a biography and self-promotes.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:23, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not a good reference for this discussion. The cited article had nine weak references: see the cache in Google. This one has dozens of strong references.104.163.155.42 (talk) 19:56, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The similarity lies in the problem of keeping articles heavily edited by sockpuppets a problem enanced in these two cases by the fact that much of the publicity is based on claims made by page subject, that cannot be verified, and that, in both cases,may be self-aggrandizing fabulism. We cannot, for example, verify that Lawless' father was an auto-worker, although the claim is a major underpinning element of his notability as a photographer, I mean by that, the press likes the idea of covering a scion of the vanishing working class who takes photos of industrial decline. But the entire bio could be a hoax. Imposters are a problem.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:40, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Infamous IP again. Not to put it too finely, and with respect: you're just making shit up as a distraction form the obvious facts. I see also from your recent history at ANI that you have been cautioned not to bludgeon, and specifically at AfD. It would appear you are ignoring that caution. Nothing against you as an editor, but frankly what you are writing above is of no help to the discussion. It's gaslighting, perhaps. 104.163.153.162 (talk) 00:52, 18 December 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. ansh 666 08:02, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ashraf Abdelwahab[edit]

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

Mid-level manager, not likely notable under WP:NBIO. Apparently the work of one SPA. ☆ Bri (talk) 09:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTCV, etc. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:52, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia is not Linkedin. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 13:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Everyone, This person was the head of a ministry. Not a mid level manager. According to all the references I added to the proposal of deletion discussion. I assume that there were not many accounts modifying this article because the person is currently out of office. If it is not important to document any information about people who managed or worked in governments during transition periods (after January 25th revolution) because not many people modified the article then feel free to delete it. However, I have checked the facts in this article and they were correct. This man was in charge of the Ministry of State for Administrative Development under Essam Sharaf's and Kamal Elganz2ouri's cabinets from March 2011 till August 2012. Cecs2010 (talk) 17:14, 28 November 2017 (UTC) — Cecs2010 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

He was interim head of a state ministry, whose actual Minister of State may not be notable. See Minister of State#Minor government ranks ☆ Bri (talk) 19:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bri, there was no actual minister of state during the one and a half year transition period. He was the head of the ministry of state for administrative development. I respectfully disagree with the notion that his position was considered a minor rank. If you feel that the article is not worth being on Wikipedia then feel free to delete it. Cecs2010 (talk) 19:57, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The burden is on someone who believes this should be considered a notable sub-cabinet position per WP:POLOUTCOMES. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:28, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bri, I have checked the link you provided and it says that Assistant Secretaries (Deputy Minsters) which are of a lesser rank than Acting Ministers/Ministers are usually considered notable. Therefore, I still did not get why this person is all of a sudden considered a Mid-Level manager. I have made my point clear and I do not have anything more to add to this conversation.Cecs2010 (talk) 00:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As would be expected whenever someone has the title of acting something-or-other. The guideline on undersecretaries would apply to the actual officeholder, not the acting one IMO. Notwithstanding, there is an additional caveat there that they may need to be independently notable. But you are right, we should hear from others. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:07, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One last thing Bri, the individual in this article was a Deputy Minister for 4 years before becoming an Acting Minister for 1.5 years. So he was not an Acting Minister for all of his time as a senior government official. According to the link you sent, Deputy Ministers, as well as assistant secretaries, are considered 'usually notable'. He headed the Ministry of State for Administrative development during one of Egypt's most turbulent times (the transition after the January 25th revolution). I only hope that we preserve some of that history. I believe that the article needs major adjustments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cecs2010 (talk • contribs) 04:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC) Cecs2010 (talk) 04:53, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have been saying that I was not going to add anything else but I thought to point out one last note so I apologize for that. Most people who know this person speak Arabic and those of whom who speak English will not probably know that this conversation is taking place. I have joined Wikipedia about a month ago wanting to contribute to Middle Eastern topics but what I am seeing here seems to me that we are having a popularity contest on facts.Cecs2010 (talk) 19:51, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 06:28, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 06:28, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 06:28, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^{Babymissfortune} 11:30, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the lack of notability and significant coverage as the minister of state. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 17:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This person was covered extensively in the Egyptian/Arabic speaking media during his tenure at the Ministry of State. The Ministry of State for administrative development was in charge of coordinating the first parliamentary elections after the January 25th revolution. His name is mentioned in Dr. Essam Sharaf's cabinet members of the Wikipedia Arabic article that covers Essam Sharaf's cabinet. Here is a link to the Sharaf cabinet English article that includes Ashraf Abdelwahab as a member of Sharaf's cabinet: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharaf_Cabinet

And here is the Arabic version of the Sharaf cabinet article that includes Ashraf Abdelwahab as a member of Essam Sharaf's cabinet: https://ar.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/حكومة_عصام_شرف 24.123.237.82 (talk) 15:11, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Add these onto the article page then. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 13:13, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. Will do that shortly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cecs2010 (talk • contribs) 15:04, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Actually, no. WP:CIRCULAR referencing doesn't make a difference in a notability debate and will be removed. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:12, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This person is notable in Egypt and not in other regions like North America because they have not served in a position outside of Egypt. I could add so many Arabic news articles to the page if that is allowed. As well as interviews with major news outlets like Aljazeera and other news outlets. Here is a link to the Ministry of State's youtube page that shows some of Ashraf Abdelwahab's interviews with major news outlets in the region: http://viyoutube.com/channel/UC1LkIgnH14NkGXtahlyQb2w/%D9%88%D8%B2%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%A9%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AF%D9%88%D9%84%D8%A9%20%D9%84%D9%84%D8%AA%D9%86%D9%85%D9%8A%D8%A9%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A5%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A9 Cecs2010 (talk) 15:34, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does a person speaking in their official capacity for a gov't agency become notable? Sounds like WP:INHERITED unless the coverage is about the person. Note this line of reasoning was followed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shahid Saleem Baig (Shahid Saleem Baig) ☆ Bri (talk) 16:06, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are so many Arabic news articles covering Ashraf Abdelwahab's decisions and their effect on millions of government employees in Egypt right after the January 25th revolution. I have not seen documentaries talking about him personally or detailing his life as he is not considered a celebrity. I feel measuring notability here is subjective for the most part as different people have different ways for measuring notability. I think that being a government-appointed cabinet official is sufficient to be included in Wikipedia for documenting history. There are some city-level government officials in the US that are notable in their city but not notable in the united states. We should not broadly conclude that if a person is not notable in the US-Canada then they would not be notable in their region. Finally, Shahid Saleem Baig was not a cabinet official or head of a government agency or ministry. He was " Deputy Inspector General of Prisons". While Ashraf Abdelwahab was a cabinet appointed official in Essam Sharaf's cabinet and that is documented in multiple wiki pages in addition to external links and references.Cecs2010 (talk) 17:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: For all the reasons I have mentioned above and because Ashraf Abdelwahab was a cabinet member in Essam Sharaf's cabinet as documented in two wiki pages and external links and references. I think that we should not compare Ashraf Abdelwahab's article to Shahid Saleem Baig's article as Shahid Saleem Baig was " Deputy Inspector General of Prisons". While Ashraf Abdelwahab was a cabinet appointed official (head of a ministry) in Essam Sharaf's cabinet and that is documented in multiple wiki pages in addition to external links and references.Cecs2010 (talk) 17:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people), "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject." to show some of the significant coverage in Multiple published secondary sources, I have included here some of the articles published in the Egyptian media about Ashraf AbdelWahab and Essam Sharaf. These articles are in Arabic but please feel free to use google translate to translate each page if needed: https://www.elwatannews.com/news/details/806565

http://gate.ahram.org.eg/News/53108.aspx (Ahram is a major news paper in Egypt)

https://www.elwatannews.com/news/details/806565

http://www.shorouknews.com/news/view.aspx?cdate=15062012&id=e891c97a-5f97-4601-81c4-2c9420530943

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=encP3_fMl50&list=UU1LkIgnH14NkGXtahlyQb2w&index=18 (Egyptian TV)

http://www.youm7.com/story/2011/8/8/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AA%D9%86%D9%85%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A5%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D8%AA%D8%B7%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A8-%D8%A8%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%B4%D8%A7%D8%B1%D9%83%D8%A9-%D9%81%D9%89-%D9%88%D8%B6%D8%B9-%D8%AA%D8%B4%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%B9-%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%AA%D8%A8%D8%B9%D8%A7%D8%AF-%D9%82%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%88%D8%B7%D9%86%D9%89/470118

http://nnewsn.com/2014/02/who-is-dr-ashraf-abdel-wahab-minister-of-industrys-new-biography-and-information-wikipedia.html

https://hrdiscussion.com/hr31595.html

If you open any of these pages using a chrome browser, you will be asked if you would like to translate the page. Click translate and you will get to see how Ashraf Abdelwahab was covered in the media.

I could add five times more articles if needed. Cecs2010 (talk) 17:47, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One of Ashraf Abdelwahab's interviews with Aljazeera: http://viyoutube.com/video/HG7-owK2jvY/%D8%AC2%20-%20%D9%84%D9%82%D8%A7%D8%A1%20%D8%AF.%D8%A3%D8%B4%D8%B1%D9%81%20%D8%B9%D8%A8%D8%AF%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%88%D9%87%D8%A7%D8%A8%20%D8%A8%D9%82%D9%86%D8%A7%D8%A9%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AC%D8%B2%D9%8A%D8%B1%D8%A9%20%202%D8%A3%D9%83%D8%AA%D9%88%D8%A8%D8%B1%202011.flv Cecs2010 (talk) 16:09, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will add more multiple independent coverages of Ashraf Abdelwahab in English:

The following link is of a UNODC (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime) talking about the Ministry of State for Administrative Development and UNODC's efforts to strengthen Egypt's current reporting and complaints mechanisms against corrupt acts. (Article in English). They refer to Dr. Ashraf Abdelwahab as the Minister of State for Administrative development: https://www.unodc.org/middleeastandnorthafrica/en/web-stories/strengthening-egypts-complaint-mechanisms-against-corruption.html

United Nations Development Program's piece about officials from Tunisia, Egypt and Libya Discussing International Standards for Election Management where they cite Dr. Ashraf Abdelwahab's work.

http://www.eg.undp.org/content/egypt/en/home/presscenter/pressreleases/officials-from-tunisia--egypt-and-libya-discuss-international-st.html

Study of Dr. Abdelwahab's work published in the proceedings of the European Conference on E-Government. The publication was authored by Dr. Abdelwahab and MSAD officials: https://books.google.com/books?id=cIkxJXGyhv8C&pg=PA213&lpg=PA213&dq=Ashraf+Abdelwahab+Egyptian+Minister+of+state&source=bl&ots=RgX6ZLipBO&sig=D74woObgouzJsOuk8w8JdtscWWI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwitppDUqIPYAhVJ0oMKHZBCAcgQ6AEIcTAP#v=onepage&q=Ashraf%20Abdelwahab%20Egyptian%20Minister%20of%20state&f=false

The Citizenship Initiative Press conference (UNDP sponsored event):

https://uprdoc.ohchr.org/uprweb/downloadfile.aspx?filename=1236&file=Annexe1

The document includes how the press conference was covered in the Egyptian media. The document is on a United Nations affiliated server. Cecs2010 (talk) 01:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. sufficiently important in his own government. DGG ( talk ) 03:14, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:56, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^{(c · m)}}} 06:12, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After adding all the credible references and external links above, I was wondering if anyone who were not for keeping the article above have changed their opinion. I have added many credible resources that were not present at the beginning of the conversation.Cecs2010 (talk) 18:05, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if the discussion will be relisted for a third time or a more experienced Wikipedian will close the conversation and finalise a decision soon? I think that we should not keep the nomination for deletion box on this article for too long as it may discourage the page's editors.Cecs2010 (talk) 20:09, 20 December 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 The Crüxshadows. J04n(talk page) 14:52, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fortress in Flames[edit]

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

I found this review but that hardly meets WP:GNG. This can't really be merged since the article in unsourced so I brought it here. Deletion or redirect are both satisfying outcomes to me. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:23, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:27, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Crüxshadows which mentions this album already. There is the review from Brutal Resonance, which I don't know much about as to whether it constitutes a reliable source but even if it is notable one source is not enough. But I can't see any other reviews in reliable sources (there are some blogs and user generated). --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:06, 14 December 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. J04n(talk page) 14:53, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Bartholomew (American chess player)[edit]

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

Ranked outside of the top 1500 chess players in the world (#1762). Outside top 100 players in US. No in depth coverage. Fails notability standards. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 05:21, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:10, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This looks like fairly in-depth coverage to me; a whole article on his Chessable start-up of which he is a co-founder. He appears to have a highly visible online presence, being something of a chess YouTube star [60]. Also there is no doubt he is a very strong player - is in fact just outside the top 50 in the US if you exclude inactive players.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:45, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems to meet WP:N given the amount of external coverage of him and his startup. -208.81.148.195 (talk) 22:48, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The coverage here in Star Tribune is actually far from mere mention. Also the sources given above and the ones already in the article will surely make him pass WP:GNG, and his low rating cannot determine his notability as some people may have better rating but little coverage and vice versa. –Ammarpad (talk)

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

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

The result was redirect to TNT (band)#Band members. Sandstein 13:36, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Baol Bardot Bulsara[edit]

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

Poorly-sourced BLP about a singer who has just been recruited by a band. Doesn't appear to have done much else. A redirect was reverted, and maintenance tags added to the article are continually removed without addressing the concerns. I don't see how a standalone article is justified here. Michig (talk) 19:40, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:03, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:03, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to TNT (band)#Band members: there simply aren't enough Google hits for him to pass WP:MUSICBIO as an individual, and notability is not inherited. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 20:22, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:16, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to TNT (band)#Band members: not independently notable and a stand-alone article is not required. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:42, 20 December 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. I feel there is consensus that this individual isn't notable on her own, but I'd have no concerns about restoring to user/draft space if someone wishes to write an article about the parents and their arrest. ansh 666 08:05, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Chang[edit]

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

Chang's parents were arrested in China. Every source relates to their arrest. Chang is not notable outside her incidental involvement with that incident. A clear case of WP:BLP1E (and WP:COATRACK since this article seems to be about the parent's case). World's Lamest Critic (talk) 21:12, 6 December 2017 (UTC) World's Lamest Critic (talk) 21:12, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. The parents' case might be notable, but that doesn't make her notable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I created this article, after she sat down and had a long interview with Rosemary Barton on the CBC's Power and Politics, in May. Barton interviewed Chang after other news agencies reported on her most recent trip to Ottawa to meet with senior politicians. power~enwiki wrote "The parents' case might be notable, but that doesn't make her notable." Being related to high-profile prisoners does not make Chang notable, because notability is not inherited. What makes this young woman notable is that the press coverage of her attempts to lobby the Trudeau government, on her parent's behalf, measures up to the criteria of GNG.
Ms Chang made new visits to Ottawa just recently, and the CBC broadcast a new sound-bite of her just last night. Geo Swan (talk) 21:43, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment just within the last two days both the Vancouver Sun and CTV News explicitly mentioned Ms Chang in the headlines of articles that profiled her. Geo Swan (talk) 22:06, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
1. Richmond woman with parents jailed in China urges Canada to halt trade talks
2. B.C. woman urges Trudeau to help free parents detained in China

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In June The Globe and Mail reported:

"Their daughter, Amy Chang, who has been on a vigil in Ottawa hoping to meet Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, had an hour long-meeting with Ms. Freeland on Thursday."

Foreign Affairs Minister Freeland is a senior minister. An hour? That is a very long meeting. She could have had a five minute meeting scheduled, shake hands, "very sorry; doing everything we can; we'll keep you posted; goodbye" An hour meeting strongly implies Ms Chang's concerns were taken very seriously. She already met Parliamentary Secretaries, and the leaders of our two opposition parties. Ms Chang's efforts to lobby on her parent's behalf have been very effective. They have been followed by the press in detail well above that required for her to measure up to GNG. Geo Swan (talk) 22:57, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Following are additional articles that explicitly mention Ms Chang in the article title. The nomination incorrectly claims that "Every source relates" to the parent's arrest, and that Ms Chang's involvement has been "incidental".
Clearly, if her involvement had truly been incidental, and she had received only passing mention in articles about her parents, then no article would be explicitly referring to her in the article title. Geo Swan (talk) 23:32, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daughter of Canadians detained in China ‘hopeful’ for meeting with PM
Daughter of B.C. wine merchants facing Chinese trial makes plea to Trudeau
Daughter of winery owners jailed in China seeking Trudeau's help
Daughter of B.C. winery owner jailed in China seeking Ottawa's help
Richmond winemaker faces closed-door trial in China; daughter urges Trudeau to intervene

Perhaps we have different understandings of what "incidental" means. These headlines aren't because she is of interest, but because she is the daughter of the jailed couple. She is only being interviewed because she is related to them and acting as a spokesperson for them. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 23:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as apparently my earlier statement wasn't sufficient. The only coverage presented by anyone is of her acting as an advocate for her parents who have been detained in China. An article on the event of her parents' detention would be a reasonable topic for an article based on those stories. An article on Amy Chang is not reasonable; this is an obvious case of WP:BLP1E. I find none of Geo Swan's arguments here or on my talk page to be convincing. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:41, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- First, thanks for returning here to try to clarify your position.
- As to your feeling Amy Chang coverage of Ms Chang is an instance of BLP1e... Can I remind you of the three criteria that section says all have to be met for an individual to be considered a BLP1e? I don't believe any of the criteria are met:

blp1e says	my comments
If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.	In May Chang met with the leaders of both opposition parties. I don't know where you life, but that is a big deal. In May Chang met with several Parliamentary Secretaries. Every senior minister has another MP who serves as their Parliamentary Secretary. So, while not as significant as meeting with the actual minister, this is significant. In June Chang met with Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland. Foreign Minister is one of the most senior positions in the Cabinet. And Freeland spend a full hour with her. In November new clips of Chang appeared on the nightly news. Among other things those clips said Chang was still trying to meet with Prime Minister Trudeau. In my opinion these are best regarded as separate events.
If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual.	As above those were all significant events, that earned Chang brand new coverage. So I don't see how she can be described as a "low-profile individual.
If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented.	Hasn't Chang's role in these events been well documented? I'd appreciate an explanation as to why PEW does not recognize meetings with a senior Minster and the Leader of the Opposition should not be described as "substantial".

PEW, perhaps implied by your comment is the idea that any relative would lobby for a beloved relative, imprisoned in a foreign land -- so her efforts can't be significant. Chang is far from the only Canadian to have a beloved relative imprisoned under questionable circumstances. No one has started articles on those other individuals because their lobbying efforts were much less effective than Chang's, and they did not receive significant, on-going press coverage.
I followed fellow wikipedian Joshua Boyle's kidnapping and captivity, since it was first reported in 2012. No one considered starting articles on his relatives. Their lobbying efforts were not effective enough to merit the same kind of coverage as Chang's. Heck, their lobbying efforts were so ineffective that the article on Boyle wasn't started for four years.
If I have understood your position, I think you are looking at the wrong thing. Every captive with people who love them is likely to have them try to support them. That doesn't make Chang significant. What has made Chang's efforts significant, notable, when Boyle's relatives weren't, was that her efforts were successful in ways Boyle's relatives' efforts weren't. The measure of how successful those efforts were is that she received a level of coverage, ongoing coverage, Boyle's relatives did not receive. Geo Swan (talk) 03:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:13, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

_Speedy Delete- no notability. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 16:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Abduction (or arrest?) of John Chang and Allison Lu. (Is that an allowable vote? It's been a while. If not, I guess my money's on Delete.) I feel like this BLP1E issue could go either way. Is she famous because of one event since the only reason she seems to do press is to talk about the abduction of her parents? Or is she independently notable because she, herself, goes around giving interviews about the event that are themselves (at least arguably) notable? To me, it's more like the first than the second. She wouldn't be famous if it weren't for her parents and the press coverage just all seems to flow out of the original event. I'd slightly reorganize the article, move it to something like the title I suggested, and use a redirect. YMMV. AgnosticAphid talk 01:02, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Agnosticaphid, you wrote: "(1) Is she famous because of one event since the only reason she seems to do press is to talk about the abduction of her parents? (2) Or is she independently notable because she, herself, goes around giving interviews about the event that are themselves (at least arguably) notable?"
1. Fame is not the same as wikipedia notability. We rely on the judgement of professional reporters, professional journalists, professional editors, as to what is notable. I think the wikipedia's rules are pretty clear, our notability decisions should not be based on the judgement of whether wikipedia contributors think an individual should receive press coverage, but rather on whether she actually received meaningful press coverage.
2. Amy Chang didn't just sit down for inteviews with journalists, she was able to have long, substantive meetings with Leader of the Opposition, and the Foreign Affairs Minister. Her Chrystia Freeland lasted an hour. None of the relatives of former wikipedian Joshua Boyle, who was a captive of the Taliban for five years, were able to meet with the Foreign Affairs Minister, or with any MP. Journalists want to interview her because her efforts to meet with and lobby the Government have proven so remarkably effective.
  Note, when journalists have interviewed Chang they haven't confined themselves to her efforts to lobby the government. They also asked her to describe her experiences leaving China. Chang was in China herself, when her parents were arrested, in Shanghai. An uncle phoned her, informed her of their arrest, and advised her to go immediately to the airport, and get the next flight out of China. In the three CBC interviews I listened to she described her fear that her plane might be ordered to return to China, so she too could be arrested, and she didn't feel safe until she landed in Canada. That's clearly about her, not her parents.
3. WRT your suggestion that the article on Amy Chang be renamed something like Arrest and conviction of John Chang and Allison Liu... Prior to his arrest John Chang had already been part of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's entourage on multiple trade expeditions to China, and he had allowed his business's Beijing offices to be repurposed and host Canadian athletes, during the Beijing Olympics. Although we didn't have an article about him, prior to his arrest, he was arguably notable, prior to his arrest. Add the notability factors, prior to his arrest, to the notability of his surprise arrest, show trial, and health concerns in detention, is there any doubt he merits his own standalone article? The Harper connection and Olympic connection don't belong in an article on the arrest and conviction. Geo Swan (talk) 13:12, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the sources employed in the article arise out of (or establish) this woman's independent notability as a topic. The issue being covered by those sources is clearly the arrest of her parents; this seems like a pretty clear (if not necessarily intentional) WP:COATRACK to discuss the issue of the arrest and detention of her parents--which incident may or may not qualify for its own article--I lean towards the presumption that it probably does, but can't say for certain on those sources reviewed for the purposes of this discussion. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:49, 19 December 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 13:34, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Labor Finders[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:CORPDEPTH due to lack of substantial independent coverage. The sources appear to be limited to directory listings, routine announcements and interviews by the company's staff. Rentier (talk) 22:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I see the Reuters source (11) and Wall Street Journal source (10), are non-local and represent good third-party coverage. There are over 200 franchise locations used heavily in the construction industry, so it’s not like this is a mom and pop shop; it’s a huge national enterprise/franchise. Other sources are in-depth if local (1, 13). Seems notable to me, though you are correct that some sources are less assertiv in terms of quantifying notability. Very visible American company. Constructo (talk) 23:29, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1, 11 and 13 are not intellectually independent from the company and therefore fail WP:ORGIND. That leaves 10 which alone is insufficient to satisfy WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. The reference numbers are based on version 814107987. Rentier (talk) 20:04, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rentier: Can you elaborate on "not intellectually independent"? Usually we give Reuters a whole lot of RS weight, why not here? ☆ Bri (talk) 21:12, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri: I was referring to the fact that the article is an interview (which leaves at most a four-sentence introduction of independent coverage) and a result of the company's PR effort. As their PR manager states on Linkedin: I have had PR / media placements in some of the following media outlets: New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The NY Daily News, REUTERS [61]. Rentier (talk) 21:37, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow. I didn't expect that ☆ Bri (talk) 21:40, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 23:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 23:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:10, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nominator. Insufficient sources that are not interviews or paid advertorial. Wikipedia is not a venue for another paid-for media placement. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:06, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Fails WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH: online.wsj.com is not about the company but about tips for financial planning, and Reuters is an interview:

"Reuters.com spoke with President and CEO Jeffrey Burnett about the company’s outlook for industrial staffing in the recessionary economy." Etc.

Such sources are not suitable for establishing notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:51, 20 December 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 13:33, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Francis Paterno[edit]

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

lacks notability, fails WP:POLITICIAN, only source I can find on him is obituary. Rusf10 (talk) 03:09, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:29, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:30, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:30, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not at all enough sources to show notability. I want to commend the nominator for doing a great job at identifying the many non-notable New Jersey politicians we have articles on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:09, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert:Thanks for your support. I can't believe how many of these type of articles exist. I think both what Wikipedia includes and what it does not include makes it a great encyclopedia. I won't mention any names, but there is one editor here who is throwing a temper tantrum right now (attacking me, says I should be banned) because of some of my nominations. He seems to think that every person (not just politicians) in the state of New Jersey must have an article.--Rusf10 (talk) 06:44, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources aren't as scant as presented - these are available - [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] (Note that this Charles Paterno is not the Paterno of Paterno castle from NY). However a locally elected politician (which is what a mayor of a town of 7,000 is) needs to show significant coverage - which I do not think is the case here.Icewhiz (talk) 09:33, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A borough with a population of just 7K is nowhere near large enough to hand all of its past mayors an automatic inclusion freebie just for existing, but this doesn't cite anywhere near enough reliable source coverage about him to deem him more notable than the norm. Bearcat (talk) 21:29, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This text lacks a lot of information and many facts are not verified. Also, it needs more citations to make it good. ^^VeryExultantCow^^ (talk) 21:36, 14 December 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 13:33, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Triodent[edit]

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

advertising, and lack of notability ,since the references are press releases and very specialized awards DGG ( talk ) 22:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. Advertorial which fails GNG and SIGCOV. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:06, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:33, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam and due to lack of notability. Fails GNG, SIGCOV and CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:48, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as thoroughly promotional and thus excluded from Wikipedia by the WP:NOTADVERTISING policy. Rentier (talk) 10:38, 20 December 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 13:33, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anindya Chatterjee (director)[edit]

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

Film director with one feature film to his credit, Jhumura, which may just pass WP:NFILM, but I fail to find sources that make him pass WP:BASIC or the SSG WP:FILMMAKER. This BLP has a prior history of deletion under the titles NINDYA CHATTERJEE JHUMURA, speedy deleted 2016-05-04 (quite certainly not a dupe of Anindya Chatterjee) and Anindya Chatterjee(Jhumura2015), speedy deleted 2016-05-08, as well as 1 deletion under BLPPROD with the current title. Be aware of User:Anindya Chatterjee (Jhumura), User talk:Anindya Chatterjee (Jhumura), and User talk:Jhumurafilm that suggest promotion. I will tag these for speedy when this discussion is being closed - unless a closing admin takes care of it. Sam Sailor 22:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 22:37, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 22:37, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass WP:FILMMAKER at this time with only one released feature film Atlantic306 (talk) 17:08, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:33, 13 December 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. The sources put forward by User:The C of E have been convincingly rebutted. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:14, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maeve Liston[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to be notable per any of the Rugby sub-notability guidelines as there's no evidence she's ever played for Bristol Ladies (and playing for them may not be notable in itself, as they don't appear to be a professional side even after September 2017). Regardless of that, doesn't pass GNG, all the references are trivial. Black Kite (talk) 22:16, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the sources do cover GNG. There is more than sufficient non-trivial sources about her. Indeed sources 1, 7 and 11 are all about her. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:29, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. None of those sources even remotely approach GNG. #1 is a two-line sporting report saying she'll play this weekend. #7 is an interview with a student website at the university she's a student at. #11 actually backs up her non-notability, being a computer generated page saying that she's never played for that side. WP:GNG requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". I am astounded that a competent editor is even claiming this. Black Kite (talk) 17:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing approaching passing the GNG. Even if there was, for someone notable for being a rugby player and nothing else, the controlling standard is the notability guidelines for Rugby players which are even more clearly not met.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:26, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:32, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I won't base my rationale on GNG because Black Kite has already sufficiently explained why the subject fails it in their nom statement and further comment. I checked Liston against the notability guidelines for rugby players: sorry but she falls short of every point listed.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:NSPORT per above. -Zanhe (talk) 21:19, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Störm (talk) 07:52, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Awami Awaz[edit]

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

Search turns up nothing. This is one of many dummy publications in Pakistan. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 10:57, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep According to Dawn, it is one of the few major Sindhi newspapers in Pakistan. Mar4d (talk) 14:06, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but Dawn never said that it is 'major'? There are dozens Sindhi newspapers which Dawn lists which only verify the subject per WP:V. We need more coverage for stand-alone article per [68]. Störm (talk) 07:37, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, publication with decades of history, had a circulation of 191,800 in 1992 ([69], p. 668). The argument "Search turns up nothing" cannot be a true statement by any means. --Soman (talk) 20:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This only verifies per WP:V. We can't write without original research. I said nothing because they are trivial mentions so we need coverage in order to have stand-alone article per [70]. Störm (talk) 07:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ATD is to redirect to List of Sindhi newspapers and all similar publications. Störm (talk) 07:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we don't delete things because they are "dummy" the same way e don't delete BLP because the person is criminal. We document what exist in reliable sources, so "true" or non dummy (whatever) may not have an article on WP while dummy may have. Beside the above given sources there are more independent analysis of this paper in "JPRS Report: Near East & South Asia, Issue 93034" and the book titled "The press under siege" Zamir Niazi, Karachi Press Club, 1992 - Press – this one is also another sources and this paper is having over 100K circulation per day, the article is in shoddy state and require urgent improvement but stubs are not deleted or redirected because they are stub once they are notable. –Ammarpad (talk) 01:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A quick reminder: When commenting please stick to the subject at hand. Cite policies and/or guidelines when possible. And please be brief!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^{Babymissfortune} 11:29, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:29, 13 December 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. – Joe (talk) 20:17, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clips4Sale[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Some passing mentions in articles about amateur porn, but no indepth coverage of the company/website. Kleuske (talk) 10:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as site passes WP:NWEB. Site is mentioned in many WP:RS sources as oldest and major in its field like by Billboard, by TorontoSun, by The Sun I know its tabloid, by Hollywood Reporter and others. It is expected that there will sources (Fetish magazines) enough for full fledge article. No need to pass WP:CORPDEPTH when it is a website. Störm (talk) 10:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the time being as the subject at hand here may and could have the potential to expand further. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 17:30, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep rated just above 1500 in Alexa rank and more sources given above by Storm, this is clearly not vanity website. And websites are not bound by WP:CORPDEPTH that's for companies not websites. It does meet WP:NWEB guideline because of this coverage [71], in magazine, [72], in HW reporter [73]. These sources and the one I added below (with many from others here), they definitely established WP:GNG, as it is widely recognized by independent sources –Ammarpad (talk) 17:40, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- sources offered above are not convincing. For example, the extent of Toronto Sun coverage is this:

"According to The Guardian, commercial porn site Clips4Sale offered 100 different fetish categories in 2005. By 2015 the same site offers an eye-popping 946 different kinks."

Such passing and trivial mentions do not meet the requirements of WP:CORPDEPTH / WP:WEBCRIT, so it's a "delete" for me. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:33, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great irony in the quote you used since it points to an extensive coverage by the Guardian of the site. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:01, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Irony indeed, but we should WP:AGF, he didn't access the article. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:48, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the Guardian article, and it's not convincing for notability of the site. The article analyses the clips on the site, but not the site itself. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- as per above, it is very popular. Also do we have some type of standards for notability of websites?--Rusf10 (talk) 03:34, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rusf10: Yes, guideline WP:NWEB. –Ammarpad (talk)

Delete Another website, another business, no big deal. People visit the website and like their content, it's not our value here. Hey you, yeah you! (talk) 21:38, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I failed to understand what you mean by this? Störm (talk) 06:26, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I endorsed this question by Störm and I think WP:ITSCRUFT apply here –Ammarpad (talk) 06:39, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment More coverage apart from the ones I already gave above; [74] and [75], another from Mel magazine [76]. –Ammarpad (talk) 02:19, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply The first one looks like a blog. Why do you think that it is a reliable source, Ammarpad? The second Billboard source is a passing mention and nowhere near significant coverage. The third one from Mel magazine is not really in depth, but is perhaps a bit better than the first two. Is Mel really a reliable source? I am unconvinced. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: I agree some are not indepth coverage but this is not peculiar to this article. And some indeed have content beyond mere mention. Also I didn't support keeping because of my sources alone, two users have already provided more sources and reason above, I took that into consideration too. For Melmag source, I can't say it is RS directly, but also cannot say it is not. From its content, I believe it's not joke magazine, and it can be removed any time it is proved unreliable/unnecessary. In addition, it is not yet used to support any exceptional claim that may urgently require multiple RS or removal. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:12, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails the criteria for establishing notability, the references provided fail WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:09, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- IMHO, this is not company and not organization. Both of your cited guidelines don't apply. It seems you're obsessed with these shortcuts. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the sources found on Google News (Can't provide individual cites because of laptop issues) - There seems to be some evidence of notability and so by a bare inch I would say it meets GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 17:00, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this and ManyVids (and any others in the same field of clip-selling) into a single article on the field. I don't think these are individually notable, but I think the field of business is, and that these are prominent examples within the field. bd2412 T 03:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment with lack of convincing delete rationale, I still think this should be kept. Described by the UK's Guardian as

"..one of the leading commercial porn sites on the web."
Related coverage of above in Spanish
Also this. The last one is not deep coverage, but the sum of the above sources, Guardian's coverage and the sources present in the article are enough to show meeting WP:GNG and WP:NWEB.–Ammarpad (talk) 01:27, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Reviewing the Guardian and Mel Magazine articles in addition to AVN [77] plus several mentions in through sources found in Google News plus the mention in Porn Studies[78]. Yeah, this passes WP:NWEB and WP:GNG. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:20, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like a advirtisememt. Fail to covegege WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH. — Masum Ibn Musa ^Conversation 11:09, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the only coverage of substance in the article is the Guardian and the AVN interview of the founder, using only his first name. If this were truly a leading site, you'd expect to see more. The other articles are just passing mentions. Fails WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:58, 20 December 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:40, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Racin and Rockin[edit]

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

Poorly sourced article about an event with no strong claim of notability per WP:NEVENT, and with significant advertorial overtones to the writing ("Off the track and after the race, the Basement Dawgs took to the stage to provide the live music while track owner Paul Zimmerman manned the BBQ.") This is referenced almost entirely to primary sources, with the exception of a single piece of media coverage, and it's so poorly maintained that the 2008 edition is still described as the "upcoming" one. Simply being able to verify that a thing existed, however, is not enough to get it a Wikipedia article -- it needs to have significantly more reliable source coverage about it than this before it can be considered notable. Bearcat (talk) 18:41, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:EVENT ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 20:36, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:47, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:47, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A quick reminder: When commenting please stick to the subject at hand. Cite policies and/or guidelines when possible. And for the love of G--, be brief!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:15, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^{Babymissfortune} 03:36, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:25, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom; WP:NEVENT is not met. I found [79] to show that it continued past 2007, but no significant coverage. The article and its sources are summarized accurately by Bearcat. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:27, 13 December 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. No prejudice against a redirect to the parent company. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:00, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PTron[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, sources cited are distinctly sub-par. Kleuske (talk) 12:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I removed the bad sources, and I don't see anything else wrong with the article. EMachine03 (talk) 13:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 18:55, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 18:55, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:15, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non notable corp. - Mar11 (talk) 18:12, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep- References found on the web passes it GNG. The current version of the article seems okay. - Mar11 (talk) 18:15, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see quality references, some press releases and their reprints. WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES spam. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:05, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:23, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- fails WP:CORPDEPTH; Wikipedia is not a directory of nn brands. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:36, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Palred Technologies of which this is a brand. The superficial coverage is in the context of this corporation's business results. Sandstein 13:32, 20 December 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 10:37, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rheena Villamor[edit]

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

Contested PROD (no reason given). An unsourced article of a not well-known reporter who fails WP:GNG. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:05, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:05, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:05, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:05, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a living person, the article once tagged cannot be kept unless reliable sources are produced.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:55, 15 December 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 10:32, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Other Side of the Coin[edit]

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

No references since 2006, and none found. Multiple other albums or books by the same name; Ace Frehley, Julian Gill, Robert Howard. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:52, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:10, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a single source employed in the article, nor any other reason to believe this article even begins to pass muster for album notability. Nor for that matter is there even any content to this "article" beyond the band, track list and purported label. Wikipedia is WP:Not a directory to list the tracks of every album of every band ever. Further, Ann Beretta suffers from the same defects as this article (no references, virtually no detail and certainly no indication of notability as understood under our policies; it's probably worth someone nominating that article as well. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:54, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom (I can't find any reliable sources either). No indication this meets the GNG-- Visviva (talk) 03:20, 19 December 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 10:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Children of Eve[edit]

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

Contested PROD (no reason given). Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. The most we have is a bit of local coverage. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:36, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:05, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:05, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. J947 Public (talk) 02:23, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing here passes WP:NMUSIC (I'm hard-pressed, in fact, to identify anything here that even tries to), and there's nowhere near enough reliable source coverage about them being shown to get over WP:GNG in lieu. Bearcat (talk) 04:46, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I mean the story's kind of cute when you piece it together from the microscopic amount of content here and the four sources, all brief pieces from a pair of local papers. Favourite local band decides to make "controversial" move and leave Newfoundland for the big city (well...Halifax) and a shot at the big scene. Some time later, they beat out four other groups at a "battle of the bands" style competition (incidentally, I have to assume Scott Pilgrim was involved in all of this at some point), earning them an opportunity to open for KISS at an upcoming performance. Personally, I'm riveted: did they ever open for KISS? Or did they incur the ire of Gene Simmons somehow? What aren't you telling us, local alternative newspapers The Scope and The Coast? What happened at that show?

Um, but burning curiosity aside...I see no indication that this group qualifies under any provision of WP:NMUSIC and I don't see substantial or sustained enough coverage in sources to sustain WP:GNG, so I have to say that, barring some substantial development or new source, this looks like an inevitable delete. Snow ^{let's rap} 09:29, 19 December 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 10:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Social optimization[edit]

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

Non-notable social sciences concept. Term was claimed to have been coined by Heidi Forbes Öste per her blog, and listed references are exclusively her own work. Article creator is Hcfoste, who is the sole source of substantial material on the subject and whose sole purpose here appears to be the care and feeding of this one article. --Finngall ^talk 00:19, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- but not for the reasons the nominator says ... well not exactly. Everything Finngall says is true. Moreover, in twenty seconds I found a different usage [80] from 1969. It will take more effort to rewrite this article than to write a new one from scratch. Rhadow (talk) 00:44, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 01:27, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Wikipedia:No original research It utterly fails WP:GNG, and if we ignore all sources written by the promoter of this term (and the single purpose account creator who I assume is one and the same) this is an completely unreferenced article. No coverage in independant third party sources, and all Google searches for '"social optimization" -Öste' seem to relate to social media optimization. Clearly not the same topic, so no redirect is needed. Snow delete, really.Nick Moyes (talk) 00:31, 15 December 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.